|
Post by magusmasonica on Feb 3, 2010 10:19:48 GMT
I am writing a piece of architecture on this subject.
I am trying to go according to historical context.
Casanova Lord Byron
Now, it has been argued Ben Franklin. Granted, he had a hunger for orgies and many illegit children but I am not so sure he espoused Libertinism.
Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by letterorhalveit3 on Feb 3, 2010 15:51:59 GMT
Im not actually sure how youre defining "libertinism" within the context of the architecture youre writing, but there is always the HellFire Club of which Ben Franklin was more than an enthusiastic member.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Feb 3, 2010 15:59:31 GMT
The Hellfire Club was a front for revolutionary activity.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Feb 3, 2010 18:03:14 GMT
One could be a Libertine and a fierce revolutionary. Look at Lord Byron as a example. He is considered a revolutionary hero in Italy. In fact it is often said that had he not died prematurely he would have been made the leader of the country.
Love and Light,
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Feb 3, 2010 18:22:29 GMT
When revolutionaries become leaders of a country, they quite often stop being revolutionaries. It is accurate to call Hitler a 'revolutionary', as he turned Germany on its head. Pol Pot as well. There are revolutionaries like Gandhi, Guru Nanack, and Jesus. With revolutions, Mediocria Firma is the river to which all the water flows. The amount of Ben Franklin's involvement with the Hellfire Club is questionable, though the possibility remains. I would welcome some clear evidence in the matter. I think it is fair to call Casanova and Lord Byron libertines. In restricting oneself, it should be recognized that libertinism can be carried to the place of causing injury to others; including sexual child abuse, unmutually-agreed physical abuse of others, &c. No matter how liberal an individual wishes to be, they should not be at liberty to abuse the liberty of others. Abuse should be agreed upon.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Feb 3, 2010 19:01:33 GMT
Lord Byron and Casanova where both revolutionaries. Both where Carbonari.
Lord Byron is a very interesting figure. There is a Lord Byron society that is dedicated to preserving his work.
Also, I have read where both Mozart and Joseph Bonaparte where considered Libertines as well.
Love and Light,
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Feb 3, 2010 19:13:59 GMT
Libertines and revolutionaries are not necessarily the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Feb 3, 2010 19:33:27 GMT
Libertines and revolutionaries are not necessarily the same thing. No one said they where.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Feb 4, 2010 0:26:42 GMT
Likewise, nobody ever said it was claimed. Just a note for clarification. Libertines and revolutionaries are not necessarily the same thing. No one said they where.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Feb 4, 2010 0:43:48 GMT
Libertines and revolutionaries are not necessarily the same thing. Most definitely not: libertine LIB'ERTINE, n. [L. libertinus, from liber, free.] 1. Among the Romans, a freedman; a person manumitted or set free from legal servitude. 2. One unconfined; one free from restraint. 3. A man who lives without restraint of the animal passion; one who indulges his lust without restraint; one who leads a dissolute, licentious life; a rake; a debauchee. LIB'ERTINE, a. Licentious; dissolute; not under the restraint of law or religion; as libertine principles; a libertine life.
|
|
|
Post by AndyF on Feb 4, 2010 6:18:12 GMT
I know very little about the subject at hand, but it strikes me that libertinism would seem to contradict the lessons of the first degree. I wonder how these chaps reconciled this?
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Feb 4, 2010 6:57:32 GMT
I know very little about the subject at hand, but it strikes me that libertinism would seem to contradict the lessons of the first degree. I wonder how these chaps reconciled this? A very good question. We will probably never know the answer to. Love and Light,
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Feb 4, 2010 15:28:32 GMT
It's possible in many cases that some of these individuals were seen as libertines in the public eye or in the eye of the church, yet did not consider themselves libertines and were not seen as such by the lodge. Being a drinker or licentious is not necessarily being a libertine. When you start to cause injury to or take undue advantage others is where some take issue with being a 'libertine'. 'Libertines' that act in a way contrary to the liberties of others are not truly at liberty themselves. If you're just having fun but injuring no one, that does not qualify as being a 'libertine' in many opinions. I know very little about the subject at hand, but it strikes me that libertinism would seem to contradict the lessons of the first degree. I wonder how these chaps reconciled this?
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 5, 2010 12:26:18 GMT
It's possible in many cases that some of these individuals were seen as libertines in the public eye or in the eye of the church, yet did not consider themselves libertines and were not seen as such by the lodge. Being a drinker or licentious is not necessarily being a libertine. When you start to cause injury to or take undue advantage others is where some take issue with being a 'libertine'. 'Libertines' that act in a way contrary to the liberties of others are not truly at liberty themselves. If you're just having fun but injuring no one, that does not qualify as being a 'libertine' in many opinions. I know very little about the subject at hand, but it strikes me that libertinism would seem to contradict the lessons of the first degree. I wonder how these chaps reconciled this? www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=%27libertine%27&searchmode=nonelibertine: late 14c., "an emancipated slave," from L. libertinus "member of a class of freedmen," from libertus "one's freedmen," from liber "free" (see liberal). Sense of "freethinker" is first recorded 1560s, from Fr. libertin (1540s) originally the name given to certain Protestant sects in France and the Low Countries. Meaning "dissolute or licentious person" first recorded 1590s; the darkening of meaning being perhaps due to misunderstanding of L. libertinus in Acts vi.9.
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on Feb 8, 2010 16:58:52 GMT
The fact is, many of the things that were condemned as sins, and even punished as crimes, in the 18th Century, are now considered perfectly legal and part of the individual's civil and private life with which no-one else ought to be unduly concerned. Both Byron and Casanova were bisexual, which in their day was considered the unmentionable crime of sodomy and as such punishable by death in many States, including Britain; it therefore had to be concealed, and was concealed, wonderfully well, by being completely open about their fashionably scandalous affairs with women. In Byron's case, his suspected - and actual - incest with Caroline Lamb, though it drove him out of Britain to the Continent, proved the obfuscation of the other thing which could have had him killed.
If both men survived, and flourished, in the company of Freemasons, it hardly takes a fool like me to remind everyone that a Freemason, if nothing else, can be trusted to keep a secret.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Feb 9, 2010 18:05:11 GMT
Very good post, brother. This applies likewise to Oscar Wilde's case. If it everyone involved is of age and in consent, it is not the business of others to involve themselves in the private affairs of others; except to whisper wise counsel. The fact is, many of the things that were condemned as sins, and even punished as crimes, in the 18th Century, are now considered perfectly legal and part of the individual's civil and private life with which no-one else ought to be unduly concerned. Both Byron and Casanova were bisexual, which in their day was considered the unmentionable crime of sodomy and as such punishable by death in many States, including Britain; it therefore had to be concealed, and was concealed, wonderfully well, by being completely open about their fashionably scandalous affairs with women. In Byron's case, his suspected - and actual - incest with Caroline Lamb, though it drove him out of Britain to the Continent, proved the obfuscation of the other thing which could have had him killed. If both men survived, and flourished, in the company of Freemasons, it hardly takes a fool like me to remind everyone that a Freemason, if nothing else, can be trusted to keep a secret.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Feb 9, 2010 20:26:43 GMT
Side-note: Both Lord Byron and Casanova wrote about Libertine philosophy specifically.
Love and Light,
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on Feb 17, 2010 18:01:27 GMT
So did Sade; but Sade wasn't a Mason, and that might arguably have made all the difference.
In any case, he was evidently too busy chasing skirt (and trouser) to square the carpet.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Feb 17, 2010 20:51:47 GMT
I don't think I woud enjoy being the Candidate in his Rituals!
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on Feb 19, 2010 17:20:17 GMT
I gave such a laugh when I read that, lauderdale - such a very dirty laugh - that the other people in the Internet cafe paused over their porn and actually looked round at me ;D
|
|