Saturday, November 28, 2015

Lesseps fut aussi à La Pérouse


1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Les âges des ancêtres DU Robespierre - et d'autres! ; 2) Sur les Dévanceurs de Marie-Antoinette ; 3) Et les ancêtres du roi martyr? Regardons aussi la parité entre les sexes ... ou même le privilège féminin ; 4) musicalia : Les Musiciens ; 5) Recipes from Home and Abroad : Les artistes (peintres, graveurs ...) - avec un peu de patrons ou mécènes et d'autres connexes ; 6) New blog on the kid : Chirurgiens et surtout Sage-femmes ; 7) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : L’Académie et entourages ; 8) Et le Moyen Âge? Hormis royautés ; 9) Moyen Âge, Royautés ; 10) La Lettre A d'une Encyclopédie ; 11) Monge et Jaurès - démographie ; 12) Lesseps fut aussi à La Pérouse

Ceux qui meurent à l'expédition La Pérouse ne peuvent pas être très indicatifs en soi des expectations de vie.

Mais leurs proches, qui n'y étaient pas, parfois oui.

Paul Antoine Marie Fleuriot, vicomte de Langle, né le 1er août 1744 au château de Kerlouët à Quemper-Guézennec, Côtes-d'Armor et décédé le 11 décembre 1787, à Tutuila, Maouna (Îles Samoa),

87 - 44 = 43 ans

Il est le fils de Jean Sébastien Fleuriot, comte de Langle (1712-1781) et de Marie Jeanne de La Monneraye (1707-1796). De cette union naissent deux fils et quatre filles. Son frère aîné, Jean Charles Fleuriot, comte de Langle (1738-1809) est capitaine au Régiment Royal-Étranger de cavalerie.

81 - 12 = 69 ans
96 - 7 = 89 ans
109 - 38 = 71 ans

Certains, pourtant, sont à l'expédition La Pérouse et n'y meurent pas:

1) Jean Baptiste Barthélemy de Lesseps
Né le 27 janvier 1766 - Sète (Cette)
Décédé le 6 avril 1834 - Lisbonne, Portugal
À l'âge de 68 ans

Et de celui, j'ai recensé tellement de famille, que je compte même Fleuriot, parce que son décès jeune n'affectent plus tellement la totalité.

2) Martin de Lesseps 1730-1807
3) Anna Caizergues 1730-1823
2/3) Marié le 17 juin 1757, Carthagène, Espagne, avec Anna Caizergues 1730-1823, dont

2.1 [Barthélemy 1766-1834]*
2.2 Lise 1769-1840
2.3 Mathieu 1774-1832

4) Pierre de Lesseps 1690-1759
5) Catherine Fourcade 1690-1760
4/5) Marié le 27 janvier 1715, Bayonne (Pyrénées-Atlantiques), avec Catherine Fourcade 1690-1760, dont

4.1 Dominique 1715-1794
4.2 Pierre 1716
4.3 Marie 1717-1722
4.4 Arnaud 1719-1726
4.5 Jean-Barthélémy 1720-1795
4.6 Marcel 1720-1730
4.7 Jean-Pierre 1721-1721
4.8 Catherine 1721-1795
4.9 Gracy 1725-1791
4.10 Plaisance 1727-1735
4.11 Michel 1729-1801
4.12 = 2 [Martin 1730-1807]
4.13 Jeanne Marie 1733-1776
4.14 Etiennette 1735-1781

6) Jacques Caizergues
7) Françoise Pioch

8) Bertrand Lesseps 1649 - 1708
9) Louise Fisson 1654 - 1690
8/9) Marié le 18 avril 1675, Bayonne (Pyrénées-Atlantiques), avec Louise Fisson 1654-1690, dont

8a.1 Marie 1676-1695
8a.2 Pierre 1678-1688
8a.3 Bertrand 1679-1704/
8a.4 Jean 1682-1742
8a.5 Gracian 1683-1683
8a.6 Plaisance 1685-ca 1731
8a.7 Jean-Pierre 1687
8a.8 = 4 [Pierre de Lesseps 1690-1759]

8/b)Marié en 1690 avec Marie Dumon 1657-1729

10) Jean Fourcade 1643-1702
11) Marie du Galart 1657-1746
10/11 et avant:

Marié le 4 août 1665, Bayonne, 64, avec Jeanne de Labaig 1646, dont

10a.1 Jean-Pierre 1669-1748
10a.2 Arnaud 1673-1743

Marié le 14 juin 1688, Bayonne, Pyrénées Atlantiques, avec Marie du Galart 1657-1746, dont

10b.3 Marie 1689-1772
10b.4 = 5 [Catherine 1690-1760]

12 - 15 inconnus

16) Jehan Lesseps 1621-1677
17) Agné Proizet +1649/
16/17 et après:

Marié en 1645 avec Agné Proizet +1649/, dont

16a.1 = 8 [Bertrand 1649-1708]

Marié avec Catherine Proizet, dont

16b.2 Agné 1650-?
16b.3 Bertrand 1653-?
16b.4 Marie 1655 Mariée en 1674 avec Pierre Lacarrière
16b.5 Marie 1656-1707 Mariée en 1681 avec Pierre Duzan
16b.6 Pierre 1660-1721 Marié le 19 avril 1694, Bayonne (Pyrénées-Atlantiques), avec Jeanne de Labat +1753, dont
16b.7 Marie 1662 Mariée avec Jean Ducan

18) Pierre Fisson 1621
19) Marie Veillet ca 1625

20) Paul Fourcade +1665/
21) Jeanne de Marque ca 1610-/1665

22 - 31, je n'ai pas charché

32) Esteben Lesseps ca 1554-1648
33) Marie Gaillat
34) Bertrand Proizet
35) inconnue

36) Jean Fisson
37) Jeannette de Labaritz
38) Pierre de Veillet, sieur de l'Île du Broc ca 1575-1638
39) Jeanne de Goubert

40) Arnaut de Forcade /1637
41) Jeanne de Lafargue
42) Jean de Marque, seigneur d'Ussau
43) Jeanne de Lafargue (homonyme de 41)

44 à 63, je n'ai pas cherché

64) Bertrand Lesseps ca 1530-ca 1597
65) Marguerite Raty
64/65) Marié avec Marguerite Raty, dont

64.1 = 32 [Esteben ca 1554-1648]
64.2 Jehan +1647/ deux mariages
64.3 Augier +1652/ aussi marié

66) Pierre Gaillat
67) Jehanne Todor

Retournons à 1, Barthélémy, Marié le 16 septembre 1793, Versailles, avec 1) Rose Catherine Cécile Lucie Ruffin, dont:

1.1 Aimée 1794-? Mariée le 25 avril 1822, Lisbonne, avec Pierre Blanchet
1.2 Fortunée 1798-1845 Mariée le 10 janvier 1820, Lisbonne (Portugal), avec Charles de Lagau 1796-1870, dont Fortunée de Lagau Née entre 1822 et 1837, Mariée après 1859 avec Eugène Fouques Duparc 1811-1886, dont

1.2.1.1 Marie 1860-1926 Mariée le 23 juin 1886, Paris 8e, avec René Bosseront d'Anglade 1853-1942, dont ??
1.2.1.2 Albert 1863 marié deux fois, dont la seconde en 1900

1.3 Virginie 1801-1876
1.4 Charles 1807-?
1.5 Hortense 1809 Née le 6 avril 1809 - St-Pétersbourg (!) Mariée le 6 avril 1829 avec Antoine-Aimé Blachette 1797-1875, dont

1.5.1 Jean Baptiste Léon 1834 Marié le 12 juin 1861, Marseille, 13, avec Camille Catherine Eugénie Estrangin 1840, dont ...
1.5.2 Hortense 1836 Mariée le 7 mai 1862, Lyon (Rhône), avec Louis Jean Baptiste d'Aurelle de Paladines 1804-1877, dont ...

1.6 Céleste 1810-?
1.7 Julie 1812 Mariée avec x x
1.8 Edmond-Prosper 1815-1868 Il entra très tôt au département des Affaires étrangères. Il fut consul de France à Alep en 1848, consul général de France à Beyrouth en 1853, à Lima (Pérou) en 1859 où il mourut de la fièvre jaune en 1868.

Si Barthélémy est 1, l'est également son épouse, 1) Rose Catherine Cécile Lucie Ruffin , parents:

2) Pierre Ruffin 1742-1824
3) Françoise Stefanelli

PR, fils de:

4) Charles Thomas Antoine Ruffin ca 1697-1752/
5) Catherine Rose Vert
4/5) CTAR : Marié avec Catherine Rose Vert, dont

4.1 Joseph Ignace ca 1728-1764/ (décédé après 1764!)
4.2 François /1730-1764/ (dito)
4.3 = 2 [Pierre 1742-1824]
4.4 Angel Thomas /1747-1753 (né avant 1747, Il est décédé en mer en 1753 alors qu'il se rendait à Salonique.)
4.5 Mariette Mariée avec Jean-François Jullien

PR: Marié le 20 octobre 1773, Constantinople, paroisse Sainte-Marie Draperis, avec Françoise Stefanelli, dont

2.1 = 1 [Rose Catherine Cécile Lucie]
2.2 Thomas 1775-1825 Pour son décès et ceux de ses enfants, voir Etat-civil des Français à Constantinople (MAE, quai d'Orsay). Marié avec Euphémie Bérillon, dont

2.2.1 Marie Euphémie Célestine 1810
2.2.2 Françoise Aline 1811
2.2.3 Delphine Françoise Pierrette 1813

2.3 Françoise Jeanne Anastasie 1781

Les récensés se répartissent, sauf ceux dont l'âge au décès est inconnu en:

H :
43|| 50 53 55 56 58 |59/59| 60 61 63 67 68 ||69|| 69 70 71 72 74 |75/75| 77 78 79 79 82 ||94

F :
19|| 36 43 46 |46| 47 66 66 ||70|| 71 72 74 |75| 83 89 89 ||93

E :
0| 0 5 |7| 8 10 |10

H/F :
19|| 36 43 43 46 46 47 50 53 55 |56/58| 59 59 60 61 63 66 66 67 68 ||69/69|| 70 70 71 71 72 72 74 74 75 |75/75| 77 78 79 79 82 83 89 89 93 ||94

H/F/E :
0|| 0 5 7 8 10 10 19 36 43 43 46 |46/47| 50 53 55 56 58 59 59 60 61 63 66 ||66|| 67 68 69 69 70 70 71 71 72 72 74 |74/75| 75 75 77 78 79 79 82 83 89 89 93 ||94

Donc, minimum pour H, 43, pour femmes, 19, pour les deux 19. Maximum pour hommes 94, pour femmes 93, pour les deux 94.

Pour enfants la gamme est de décédé l'année de la naissance à 10 ans.

Médiane, pour hommes 69 ans, pour femmes 70 ans, pour les deux 69 ans, pour enfants, 7 ans, en les comptant avec les adultes, la médiane totale tombe à 66.

Quartile basse pour hommes 59 ans, pour femmes 46 ans, pour les deux ensemble entre 56 et 58 ans, et en comptant les enfants ça tombe à 46 à 47 ans.

Quartile haute pour hommes 75 ans, pour femmes 75 ans, pour les deux ensemble, 75 ans, et si on compte les enfants, ça tombe à entre 74 et 75 ans.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre-Paris X
St Sosthène**
28-XI-2015

* Je combine ici la numération de Sosa avec celle d'Aboville. 2.2 Thomas est deuxième fils (Aboville) de 2 Martin de Lesseps qui est père (Sosa-Stradonitz) de notre 1 masculin, de Barthélémy de Lesseps.

** Apud Corinthum natalis sancti Sosthenis, ex beati Pauli Apostoli discipulis; cujus mentionem facit idem Apostolus Corinthiis scribens. Ipse autem Sosthenes, ex principe Synagogae conversus ad Christum, fidei suae primordia, ante Gallionem Proconsulem acriter verberatus, praeclaro initio consecravit.

Is It Presentism to Condemn the Racialism of Woodrow Wilson?


[1) Is It Presentism to Condemn the Racialism of Woodrow Wilson?, 2) Someone Suggested, Maliciously, Lincoln was Murdered for the "Very Dark Cloud" Anti-Catholic Talk]

Actually, not.

There was an antiracialist morality around in his day too. It was Catholic.

Woodrow Wilson was culpable of:

  • Ending Austro-Hungarian Empire in favour of a Nationalism (all nationalisms were OK except the German one, and even that one obtained a united Germany, against Clémeanceau, reduced but not divided borders as per Prusso-German ones);
  • Sending Trotski to Russia where he helped to end Czarism (despite being the ally of the Czar);
  • Supporting the Anticlerical Mexican Revolution;
  • Racialism;
  • Suppressing antidraft activists;
  • Supporting Women's Suffrage;
  • Possibly the 16th Amendment should be held against him too;


... but there is a good point:

  • Fighting the Big Corporations, Anti-Trust Laws.


Would all the points where I disagree with Wilson have been points where he found support in the morality of his time?

No, they are points in which he found support in PROGRESSIVE morality of his time.

The point where they were good reactionaries (Brandeis, nominated by Wilson, was "Progressive Party" and Anti-Trust) does not mean that there were no point where they were the opposite, fiddling around with moral questions. Playing the school masters to their ancestors and to the ancestors of other people.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Sosthenes
28-XI-2015

Apud Corinthum natalis sancti Sosthenis, ex beati Pauli Apostoli discipulis; cujus mentionem facit idem Apostolus Corinthiis scribens. Ipse autem Sosthenes, ex principe Synagogae conversus ad Christum, fidei suae primordia, ante Gallionem Proconsulem acriter verberatus, praeclaro initio consecravit.

Friday, November 27, 2015

Monge et Jaurès - démographie


1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Les âges des ancêtres DU Robespierre - et d'autres! ; 2) Sur les Dévanceurs de Marie-Antoinette ; 3) Et les ancêtres du roi martyr? Regardons aussi la parité entre les sexes ... ou même le privilège féminin ; 4) musicalia : Les Musiciens ; 5) Recipes from Home and Abroad : Les artistes (peintres, graveurs ...) - avec un peu de patrons ou mécènes et d'autres connexes ; 6) New blog on the kid : Chirurgiens et surtout Sage-femmes ; 7) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : L’Académie et entourages ; 8) Et le Moyen Âge? Hormis royautés ; 9) Moyen Âge, Royautés ; 10) La Lettre A d'une Encyclopédie ; 11) Monge et Jaurès - démographie ; 12) Lesseps fut aussi à La Pérouse

Je viens de lire deux numéros de La revue française de Généalogie, dont n° 211 avril-mai 2014 pour les Jaurès et probablement le dernier numéro pour les Monge.

D'abord les Monge:

 Jacques Monge
°ca 1718 à St Jeoire
† 17-09-1755
x 1744 Jeanne Rousseaux
† 05-06-1781
Marclan (marchand? oui!) forain en 1746, puis bâtonnier de la confrérie des merciers de Beaune, puis commerce d’étoffes. Propr. Demigny – La Chapelle (terre, prés, vignes).
Trois fils, I Gaspard, II Louis, III Jean

I Gaspard Monge
° 10-03-1746 [ou 9-V-1746] à Beaune (6 rue Couverte)
† 28-07-1818
x 12-06-1777 Marie Catherine Huard
Géomètre, mathématicien, professeur, ministre, sénateur. Ami intime de Napoléon Bonaparte et Joséphine. Membre de l'expédition scientifique d'Égypte.
Trois filles, 1 Jeanne-Charlotte Émilie, 2 Louise Françoise, 3 Adélaïde.

1 Jeanne-Charlotte Émilie Monge
° 07-03-1778
† 1867
Héritière de la maison natale de Beaune.
x 12-05-1795 Nicolas Marey
° 1760
† 1818

2 Louise Françoise Monge
° 30-06-1779
† 1874
x 01-11-1797 Josèphe Eschasseriaux

3 Adélaïde Monge
° 1780 - † 1783

II Louis Monge
° 11-04-1748
† 1827
Professeur de mathématiques de 1774 à 1776. Adjoint de son frère Gaspard à l'école de Mézières-Ardennes (1780-1781). Professeur de l'école militaire de Paris de 1781 à 1786. Membre de l'expédition de La Pérouse. Propriétaire à Demigny - La Chapelle.

III Jean Monge
° 1751 à Beaune
† 1813
Professeur de mathématique, de navigation, d'hydrographie. Consul de France à la Corogne de 1792 à 1795.

Vies H 37 58 |62| 72 79
Vies F 89 95
Vie E 3
Vies H/F 37 58 62 |72| 79 89 95
Vies H/F/E 3 37 58 |62/72| 79 89 95

Mariages H 26 31 35
Mariages F 18 23
Mariages H/F 18 23 |26| 31 35
Moyenne totale 24 ans 1/2
Moyenne H 30 ans 2/3
Moyenne F 20 ans 1/2
Écarts moyen 10 ans
Écart constaté 12 ans


Et ensuite les Jaurès et les mises ensemble:

Jacques Jaurès  Flauvette Besombes
° 11-03-1639

Guillaume Jaurès
° 07-07-1681
† 03-09-1711
 Marie Ribes

 
Jean Jaurès
°08-10-1690
x 20-02-1719
† 26-07-1758
 Catherine Mijoule
°30-04-1695
† 01-10-1769

 
Guillaume Jaurès
°17-07-1730
x 27-05-1751
† 03-07-1774
 Marguerite Saussol
° 28-06-1729
† 06-03-1803

 
Jean Pierre Alexis Jaurès
° 17-07-1760
x 08-06-1779
† 06-03-1828
 Marie Guibaud
°15-12-1760
† 29-08-1831

Deux fils, I Auguste et II ...

I) Auguste Jaurès
°27-10-1781
† 17-12-1806
 Marie Claire Adélaïde Catherine Louise Got
° 03-04-1783

 
Ici j'ai interrompu le copiage, je n'ai donc pas copié les dates de vie de leur fils Jean-Louis et ?, ni de son frère le père ou grandpère du très connu Jean Jaurès.

Vies H 44 |68| 68
Vies F 71 |74| 74
Vies H/F 44 68 |68/71| 74 74

Et ensemble avec les Monge:

Vies H 37 44 58 |62/68| 68 74 79
Vies F 71 74 |74| 89 95
Vies H/F 37 44 58 |62| 68 68 ||71|| 72 74 |74| 79 89 95
Vies H/F/E 3 37 44 |58| 62 68 ||68/71|| 72 74 |74| 79 89 95

La moyenne est à 58 ou presque 59 ans, elle est baissée par la mort d'un enfant et par celui de deux hommes morts tôt.

C'est obvie que le normal pour son expectation de vie ne tenait pas ceci en compte, mais visait plutôt 71.

Mariages H 19 21 25 29
avec les Monge 19 21 25 |26| 29 31 35
Mariages F 19 22 23 24
avec les Monge 18 19 |22/23| 23 24
Mariages H/F 18 19 19 |21| 22 23 ||23|| 24 25 |26| 29 31 35 (FHFHFFFFHHHHH)


Bon, ces longueurs de vies étaient dans une France préindustrielle, au moins pour les jeunesses, parce qu'en France la Révolution Industrielle ne débute qu'avec Louis Philippe, en 1830.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre U
St Virgil de Salzbourg
27-XI-2015

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Tolkien's Scouring of the Shire (Disagreeing with Plank)


1) Suppose ONE Single work by GKC had Inspired Lord of the Rings ...?, 2) In Defense of the Tom Bombadil Chapters, 3) Tolkien's Scouring of the Shire (Disagreeing with Plank)

In a collection work called A Tolkien Compass, 1975, I met a few decent comments, but also a rather bad one by one Robert Plank.

My primary interest is not in the literary value of Tolkien's work, that is declaring it good or bad.


Those who have a real interest in literary value have so not so much in declaring a work "good" or "bad", but in elucidating what kind of good or what kind of bad.

... in the same way that, as a psychiatric social worker, I would study a client's story about himself or one of his dreams.*


That Plank is a psychiatric social worker certainly explains why his comment is bad, but does not make it good.

In reading The Lord of the Rings**, you have probably noticed that "The Scouring of the Shire" is a separate and independent episode, a unit that pretty much stands by itself. Yet it is almost impossible to read with enjoyment and understanding, either alone or with the rest of the trilogy.


No, I have NOT noticed that, especially not the part about it's being almost impossible to read with enjoyment and understanding.

If Plank is the kind of man who cannot read it with enjoyment and undestanding, so much the worse for Plank, at least as far as Tolkien criticism is concerned, and he actually here admitted that perhaps he was not understanding it correctly.

If it was near impossible to read with understanding per se, it was so to him. But if it was so to him, perhaps it was NOT near impossible per se, but only due to his incapacities as a reader of that kind of statement.

Something which may be true about his "understanding" of his "clients" as well.

It is equally important that "The Scouring of the Shire" differs from other episodes in Tolkien's work in respect to the question of fantasy versus realism. The New York Times Book Review recently carried an article on paperbacks favoured by young readers. [Enumerates: Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle, Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, Hesse's Steppenwolf, Herbert's Dune along with LotR] The reviewer describes the dreamlike quality of the works, their heros' unusual powers and the mixture of the real and the fantastic in these stories.


Confusion about genre vs ontology.

You have real vs invented (ontology). You also have within each ordinary vs. marvellous (genre). The marvellous is not obviously always invented (except on the prejudice of atheism: Gospels are marvellous enough, but we Christians will not agree with atheists they are invented). The ordinary is obviously NOT always real. Sherlock Holmes being invented is no more real than Gandalf. And Gandalf having marvellous powers is not what makes him invented, for he shares them with St Raphaël, of whom the book of Tobit has sth to say, and which happened for real.

But supposing I were wrong, supposing Gospels and Book of Tobit were invented (which I do not admit), even so, a writer who admits (on Plank's view presumably wrongly) this distinction between marvellous quality and fictive ontological status, as JRRT in fact did, would not have in general the kind of intention to be dreamlike when writing the marvellous that an atheist like Lord Dunsany or Lovecraft*** would have (there is even a short story Dreamquest of Unknown Kadath). A writer who, even if he were wrong in believing so, believed that the marvellous exists for real (and Tolkien did believe angels and demons do exist) would not be automatically off the realistic responsibilities while writing the marvellous.

Although this describes Tolkien's work in general it does not quite obviously function as a description of "The Scouring of the Shire." [LOOOOOOOOOONG enthusiasm over the fact that the chapter is "not fantasy".]


There are, in that sense, lots of other passages which, in that sense, are "not fantasy".

Everything (nearly) which goes on between Frodo, Sam and Gollum, from their meeting to the betrayal, is of extremely ordinary (critic's jargon: "realistic") quality. This is true of nearly all of Book IV. On the other hand, much of book III is equally devoid of "magic". Much, not all. The Silmarils Palantir at the end are clearly as much magic as technology. Internet? Well, how does it function without wires and connexions, just by the nature of the stones? How come it is locked to "one channel" (Sauron's)? How come Aragorn can unlock it for his purposes, not by skill as a hacker, but by strength of holy will (like an exorcist destroying the bad magic of some cursed object)?

And there are the ghosts too. Plus one could characterise ents as slightly paranormal. Burnham forest does not often take literal walks to Dunsinane.

But by and large, books III and IV are realistic fiction - and this purported expert on Tolkien criticism does not even know it. He thinks "The Scouring of the Shire" is unique in this respect.

In a geographical sense, of course, the chapter is fantasy, as much as Westmark series by Lloyd Alexander : Shire and Westmark are as hard to find on an accurate map of the world we travel in as Ruritania and Syldavia and Borduria. And harder than Narnia.°

Now of course, when I call "The Scouring of the Shire" a realistic story, I do not mean to imply that events are described exactly as they would happen in reality.


When we speak of realistic story, as opposed to documentary or docufiction, we speak of sth other than reality. We speak of a conditional, which certainly motivates the would, but while we are doing it, we are - on any rational view - out of the scope of exactitude.

A documentary can portray events exactly as they did happen in reality. A docufiction can portray events less exactly like what happened in reality - or more exactly.

But when we speak of fiction, we speak of hypothesis and therefore of non-reality and therefore of a realm from which exactitude is excluded.

However, I suspect Plank has a preconceived idea of how events happen in reality, and that his reading of the chapter reveals to him that Tolkien did not share it.

That MIGHT be the reason why he (and the kind of likes of himself he implicitly cited in my third quote - "you have probably noticed") did not find it easy to read with enjoyment and understanding in the first place.

Indeed, if he is a social worker of ANY kind (psychiatric or otherwise), he is involved in the kind of system which Tolkien describes as "gathering and sharing" and criticises as "does more gathering than sharing". Indeed, if he is a psychiatric, he lives off the "gathering" (that is, off tax money), but does no "sharing" (that is, he does not hand out money or even food stamps, he's just there to control the life of clients).

Perhaps not the best moral position from which to get the point of that chapter - unless you have the lucidity or humility (or both) to accept you are part of the butt end of a joke.°° But the passage goes on:

Tolkien gives us the essence of reality by altering many of its circumstances, especially by miniaturizing it. His story is a realistic parable of reality.


For once, I agree. I only think that is the case with lots of other passages, including frankly supernatural ones.

The political changes were not essentially constitutional changes. The laws have been perverted more than amended. The traditional offices have not been abolished, but new power is wielded by a new ruling group.


That also I agree on. While it isn't near to describing the Russian Revolution, from October 1917°°° to end of Civil War, it does describe, not miniaturised, but somewhat exaggerated, at least from Tolkien's view point, what happened in England after WW-II with Labour Party abolishing many old freedoms, but even more what had recently taken place in Eastern Europe West of Soviet Union, just after the War, in very quick successions of deft moves and sham legalities. One can argue this was also the case with Nazi Germany 1933. One can hardly argue it was what happened in Austria 1933 or in Spain 1936 - 39. Or in Portugal 1926 with Mendes Cabeçadas and Manuel de Oliveira Gomes da Costa and Salazar.

The essantial political innovation is the rise of an unprecedented police force, headed by the chief Shirriff.


This however, reminds more of the Cheka than of early stages of Italian fascism. During the Matteotti trial, Il Duce was accused of having a Cheka, and he replied he had not a Cheka, but the Soviet Union had (alas, he was going to get a secret police somewhat later, but not yet while the Matteotti case was ongoing).

Democracy has been simply defined as "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." Fascism is its antithesis. It is government of a clique, by a clique, against the people-like the government of the shire~ before the scouring.


It is a good definition, indeed, of a bad oligarchy. It is not a good description of all historical fascisms.

Communism at least starts out with a lofty ideal (whatever may become of it later) but the group that usurps power in the shire~ does not even pretend to idealism.


It pretends to efficacy, as did Communism under Five Year Plans. Communist idealism was, like Social Democratic one, an idealism of "gathering and sharing". And Saruman had given the idealist aspect of the Shire, back in his dialogue with Gandalf, when he took Gandalf captive - in a scene not without the marvellous.~~ The scene where he says Istari could rule men for their good - by their superior wisdom. Actually, it sounds a bit more like the idealism of UFO fans than the actual words of proto-Communists and proto-Socialists like Marx and Engels. However, many UFO fans now are also Communists, even look to UFO's as the salvation of Communism (which was to all purposes kind of killed in 1990), and the more humdrum idealism of "from each according to his capacities, to each according to his needs" is very closely echoed in the excuses for the "gathering and sharing" régime.

We also get Puritan meddling with private lives, actually more typical of Social Democracy in Scandinavia than of Communism in Eastern Europe.

Here Plank does us the service of quoting Farmer Cotton and admitting his summary is better than any he could provide

There wasn't no smoke left, save for the Men; and the Chief didn't hold with beer, save for his Men, and closed all the inns; and everything except rules got shorter and shorter.....


I am reminded of the fact that outlawing alcohol, sth tried in US (by Republicans) and in Scandinavia in various measures, Sweden more than Denmark, Finland more than Sweden, was commented on by Gilbert Keith Chesterton, in a novel of which the last chapter could be called "The Scouring of England" - I speak of course of "The Flying Inn". See below, Chestertonian reference, above the other notes. Actually, book II of LotR, the nine setting out from Rivendell against a much mightier Sauron, also has sth to do with this book. A small company is set against the in England omnipotent Lord Ivywood and his ally, the "adapted Muslim", Misysra Ammon. The captain, not unlike Aragorn, and having been a king of a sort until international politics ruined it, ends up facing the armies of the character Omar.

I suspect very strongly that as much as this chapter is against the cultural taste of Plank, so is the book by Chesterton. But then, what do you expect from an Ivywood or a Misysra?

Communism is based on the theory of class struggle, while fascism preaches the unity of the people, which means in practise that everybody is treated equally badly.


Funny, I find it is rather Communism and Socialism which provides the equally badly part.

Then, I disagree with the writer about Italy and am not the kind of man who identifies Nazism and Fascism. Or for that matter Military Junta of Argentina and Fascism.

Whatever the initial ideas, Communism in Soviets soon became and Communism in Eastern Europe West of Soviets from the start was very unequal, but treating everyone badly, with material but not totally freedom related benefits for those helping to enforce Communism. However, the idea of an élite is explicit in Lenin before 1917 and becomes apparent in practise in Sweden too, well before 1976 when they temporarily lost power. Next we start with a quote from the novel, by farmer Cotton, then Plank comments:

He'd funny ideas, had Pimple. Seems he wanted to own everything himself, and then order other folk about.... Folk got angry, but he had his answer. A lot of Men~~~, ruffians mostly, came with great waggons, some to carry off the goods south-away, and others to stay. And more came. And before we knew where we were, they were planted here and there all over the Shire....


And just as those who helped the Fascists and the Nazis into power saw their mistake when it was too late, so Pimple-pardon me, Lr. Lotho Sackville-Baggins-goes to his reward. He is murdered and perhaps eaten.


To me that sounds like a more accurate description of Czechoslovakia and Hungary in the years after 1945, than of Austria 1933, Spain 1936 - 39 or Portugal 1926. OK, Mendes Cabeçadas is going to oppose Salazar, but then he is a freemason. Those who did regret that Dollfuss and Franco and Salazar were in power were most usually not those who had helped them into power. Unlike those who regretted that Stalin and Lenin came to power. Or the Communists who were not Communist enough in Budapest 1956 and in Prague 1968. Or the people who were pro-Communist in 1945, but even so ended up in Communist prisons. Obviously, the cannibalist part of the charge is more typical of Orcs than of men, but might in a way stand for the evil of abortion, equally a very nasty and unnatural thing, and in fact liberalised or even enforced (as in China) by Communists. And Henry Makow describes how Freemasons, thinking they would be well treated by Communists for having helped them into power, were often the first ones to be shot.

Christine Arnothy (RIP) dans son roman autobiographique de 1955 décrit un Juif qui sort assez librement tant que Budapest est sous feu, qui se tire même bien d'un rencontre avec les Allemands, mais qui est fusillé par les Communistes, parce qu'il refuse de travailler (comme l'aurait fait un gardien à Auschwitz aussi, ça c'est génuine et n'est pas nié par les révisionnistes), et ceci, si j'ai bien compté les jours, un samedi.

Saruman bears two striking resemblances to Mussolini. Mussolini started his carreer as a local labor leader+ and became the most ruthless oppressor of the labor movement+. Saruman also is a turncoat. Secondly, just like Mussolini Saruman comes to a miserable end, utterly lacking in the theatrical glory of a Goetterdaemmerung.


I wonder if the theatrical glory of a Ride of Walkyries will not accompany the battle of Harmageddon. Now, Mussolini, while not dying a very glorious death, was nevertheless executed by those disaffected with him - those who thought he had betrayed them. Thereby in a way following his orders (after their view of the betrayal part) "if I lead you, follow me, if I command you, obey me ... if I betray you, kill me". He was a very passionate, in certain ways wayward man. Not so Saruman, who is a chilly calculator. Saruman is really closer to both Lord Ivywood and Misysra Ammon than to Mussolini. He is the personality type of a Stalin, or of the régime which ordered soldiers to stand by a nuclear bomb test in Bikini Atoll, telling them that radioactive radiation was the least they had to worry about ... in order to study the diseases caused by it. Or who accepted to test LSD on people. Mussolini was not quite that either.

As to the turncoat charge, we are not dealing with a man who promised in 1922 to keep up the often Marxist trade unions, rather he had pretty clearly shown that, though he wanted some fighting for workers' rights (something he was arguably faithful to under Salò Republic, whatever wrongs it otherwise did on instigation of German Occupany) he was not accepting to have it on the terms of the Marxist Unions.

Saruman had come to power in Isengard precisely under the pretense of fighting against Sauron, a pretense used to save his real lord at the Fall of Dol Goldur. That is really, and not just from a Marxist class war perspective, being a turn coat. And a traitor. Mussolini would have a right to turn in his grave at hearing the comparison.

I must say, this is about where I feel I have to stop reading Plank. Er, actually, not. One more.

Another reason Tolkien thinks it is easy to overthrow an oppressive government is that he overrates the impact of courage. ... Yet discussion and persuasion are the lifeblood of democracy.


But the scouring was not supposed to be "an act of democracy". It was supposed to be an act of military valour, in order to restore a situation where the republican and half democratic and half aristocratic constitution of the Shire can get back to working as it should. I cannot see why such an act would have to be democratic in the parliamentarian sense of the word.

Without courage, you do not kill dragons. Another goodie from Chesterton : "fairy tales are more real than realism, not in saying that there are monsters, but in saying they can be overcome." Cannot find the reference, any more than Chesterton could find all references.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St John of the Cross
24-XI-2015

PS, I will not spare you another Chesterton quote, from The Well and the Shallows:

But it is much more important to insist on the large human and historic matters mentioned at the beginning of this article. Dollfuss died like a loyal and courageous man, asking forgiveness for his murderers; and the souls of the just are in the hands of God, however much their enemies (with that mark of mere mud that is stamped over all they do) take a pleasure in denying them the help of their religion. But Dollfuss dead, even more than Dollfuss living, is also a symbol of something of immense moment to mankind, which is practically never mentioned by our politicians or our papers. We call it for convenience Austria; in a sense we might more truly call it Europe; but, above all (for this is the vital and quite neglected fact), it would be strictly correct and consistent with history to call it Germany. The very fact that the name of "Germany" has been taken from the Austrians and given to the Prussians sums up the tragedy of three hundred years. It was the tale of the war waged by the barbarians against the Empire; the real original German Empire. It began with the first Prussian shot in the Thirty Years' War; it ended with the shot that killed the Austrian Chancellor.

Whether we call it the Empire, or the Old Germany or the culture of the Danube, what Austria meant and means is this. That it is normal for Europeans, even for Germans, to be civilised; that it is normal for Europeans, even for Germans, to be Christians; and, we must in historic honesty add, normal for them to be Catholics. This culture always incurred the hatred of the barbarians to the north-east; and in the nineteenth century a barbarian of genius, named Bismarck, actually managed to transfer to Prussia the prestige that had always normally belonged to Austria. ...


As both Stalin, Lenin and Hitler looked back on Bismarck, I think the spirit of Bismarck in all its incarnations, rather than just either Nazi or Communist may be meant by Saruman. It also shares with Saruman the distinction of ending guilds and privileges and introducing industrialism in a rough capitalistic form./HGL

Chestertonian reference:

THE FLYING INN
BY GILBERT K. CHESTERTON
NEW YORK JOHN LANE COMPANY MCMXIV
http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/The_Flying_Inn.txt


The Flying Inn
(1914) Hardcover – June 2, 2008 (facsimile)
by G. K. Chesterton (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Flying-Inn-G-Chesterton/dp/143656350X


Or the essay The Dregs of Puritanism in Utopia of Usurers and Other Essays:

UTOPIA OF USURERS AND OTHER ESSAYS
By Gilbert Keith Chesterton
http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/2134.txt


Other reference:

Amazon : I Am Fifteen and I Do Not Want to Die: The True Story of a Young Woman's Wartime Survival
Paperback – April 1, 2010
by Christine Arnothy (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Am-Fifteen-Not-Want-Die/dp/0007328672/ref=la_B00355AUQ6_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1448380050&sr=1-1


Other notes:

* My emphasis. ** Italics in original, as per convention of italicising names of works. *** I can't recall what H. P. stands for, though it could have stood for Harry Potter, but doesn't. However, Harry Potter abbreviating as H. P. could be a reference to H. P. Lovecraft. °If you really insist on getting the joke and don't, try a map of Italy in the Roman Antiquity times. Like Punic Wars. °° I had to have the humility, when reading Silence of the Lambs, to find that the book, written just after I left secondary high school, to notice that the crook, when analysed, came forth as having a background very close to mine, before becoming the kind of monster he became. Shy with girls, enjoying to sit beside them etc. But this humility might be beyond Plank. Thus also the lucidity. °°°October Julian Calendar, though already November in the Gregorian one. A little earlier, 13th of October in Fátima in Portugal was one day before 1st October, also a Marian apparition feast, in Czarist Russia. This means that the Revolution happened during the last 13 days of Julian october which coincided withthe first 13 days of Gregorian November. ~ It is "the shire" rather than the correct "the Shire" in the text. Now twice. ~~ A mortal man would have died very soon if exposed on top of the tower, as Gandalf was. And while the dialogue lasted, Saruman was doing magic enhancement of his coat, originally white, now many coloured. ~~~ Men is capitalised in original novel, since by hobbits used as a kind of ethnonym opposed to hobbit. So is, like all usage, with one exception, in the novel Shire. + I take it we are dealing with an U. S. American. He means, I presume, labour leader. Leader is not Latin. Labor is not Old French, Anglo-Norman or English. But it is the way U. S. Americans now spell the Old French, Anglo-Norman and English word Labour, derived in its turn, not from nominative labor (that might give sth like Labre), but from the accusative laborem. Same observation for "labor movement".

Saturday, November 21, 2015

Medieval and Early Modern Lifespans, Again: Berkeleys and Related


1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : "in a time when most people died at an average age of 35" ; 2) What others have to say about Life Expectancy through history - and my take on that ; 3) Longevity in Selected Ancestry and Inlaws of Eleanor of Montfort ; 4) Tudor Times Demographical Stats ; 5) How Many Hours are we Talking About, and How Heavy? ; 6) New blog on the kid : When "Answers" Paint Middle Ages Black ; 7) Creation vs. Evolution : CMI Provided some Lifespans of the Past ; 8)Other list from CMI of lifespans ; 9) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Medieval and Early Modern Lifespans, Again: Berkeleys and Related ; 10) Story of a Cardinal's Title with Pre-Industrial Demographics

Good old wiki comes to our help again, and once again I do the collation of these article extracts. First some interesting biography. The lifeyears, divided in Men (Gentle or Otherwise - I am joking, socially speaking they were all gentlemen) and Ladies. Or rather Ladies first. And last the years of age at each death, in order of magnitude, extracting from there the statistically relevant factors of Minimum, Maximum, Median, Lower and Higher Quartiles. On at least one man, I omitted all, since it was only a floruit : not when he was born or died, only when he was a grown and active adult.

For the Male side, two men have alternative birthyears, hence lower and higher versions of the stats. Another case of alternative birthyear apparent is 5 January 1452/1453, I take it this means he was born 1453 according to our reckoning, but it counted as 1452 since not yet March 25th.


Sir Robert Berkeley (1584 – 5 August 1656) was an English judge and politician who sat in the House of Commons from 1621 to 1624. He suffered considerably for giving a judgement in favour of Ship Money.

Rowland Berkeley (about 1548 - 11 June 1611) of Worcester and Spetchley was an English clothier and politician who sat in the House of Commons at various times between 1593 and 1611.

Rowland Berkeley (1613 - 1696) of Cotheridge Worcestershire was an English politician, only son of William Berkeley (1582-1658) of Cotheridge and his wife Margaret, daughter of Thomas Chettle of Worcester.[1] Rowland's father, William, was eldest son and heir to Rowland Berkeley of Spetchley, Worcester clothier and politician.

William de Berkeley, 1st Marquess of Berkeley (1426 – 14 February 1492) was an English peer, given the epithet "The Waste-All" by the family biographer and steward John Smyth of Nibley.[1] He was buried at "St. Augustine's Friars, London" according to one source,[2] but most likely in the Berkeley family foundation of St Augustine's Abbey, Bristol.

James Berkeley, 1st Baron Berkeley (c. 1394 – 22 October[1] 1463), also known as "James the Just", was an English peer.

Thomas de Berkeley, 5th Baron Berkeley the Magnificent (5 January 1352/53 – 13 July 1417) was an English peer.

Maurice de Berkeley, 4th Baron Berkeley the Valiant (ca. 1330 – 8 June 1368) was an English peer born in Berkeley, Gloucestershire, England to Thomas de Berkeley, 3rd Baron Berkeley and Lady Margaret Mortimer.

Elizabeth le Despenser (c. 1327 – 13 July 1389) was an English noblewoman. She was the youngest daughter of Hugh le Despenser the younger and his wife Eleanor de Clare.[1] Her father is famous for being the favourite of Edward II of England, and being executed as a result of his position and actions. Through her mother, Elizabeth was a great granddaughter of King Edward I of England.

Thomas de Berkeley (c. 1293 or 1296 – 27 October 1361), aka Thomas the Rich, was an English baron and the custodian of Berkeley Castle. He was the son of Maurice de Berkeley, 2nd Baron Berkeley and Eve la Zouche.

Margaret Mortimer, Baroness Berkeley (2 May 1304 – 5 May 1337) was the wife of Thomas de Berkeley, 3rd Baron Berkeley. She was the eldest daughter of Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, the de facto ruler of England from 1327 to 1330, and his wife Joan de Geneville, Baroness Geneville.

Maurice de Berkeley, 2nd Baron Berkeley (Berkeley, Gloucestershire, April 1271 – Wallingford Castle, 31 May 1326), sometimes termed The Magnanimous, was an English baron and rebel.

Roger de Mortimer, 3rd Baron Mortimer, 1st Earl of March (25 April 1287 – 29 November 1330), was an English nobleman and powerful Marcher lord who gained many estates in the Welsh Marches and Ireland following his advantageous marriage to the wealthy heiress Joan de Geneville, 2nd Baroness Geneville.

Joan de Geneville, 2nd Baroness Geneville, Countess of March, Baroness Mortimer (2 February 1286 – 19 October 1356), also known as Jeanne de Joinville, was the daughter of Sir Piers de Geneville and Joan of Lusignan.

Roger Mortimer, 1st Baron Mortimer, of Wigmore (1231 – 30 October 1282), was a famous and honoured knight from Wigmore Castle in Herefordshire. He was a loyal ally of King Henry III of England. He was at times an enemy, at times an ally, of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, Prince of Wales. Born in 1231, Roger was the son of Ralph de Mortimer and his Welsh wife, Princess Gwladys Ddu, daughter of Llywelyn ab Iorwerth and Joan Plantagenet, daughter of John "Lackland", King of England.

Ranulph or Ralph de Mortimer (before 1198 to before 6 August 1246) was the second son of Roger de Mortimer and Isabel de Ferrers of Wigmore Castle in Herefordshire. He succeeded his elder brother before 23 November 1227 and built Cefnllys and Knucklas castles in 1240.

Maud de Braose, Baroness Mortimer (1224 – shortly before 23 March 1301)[1] was a noble heiress, and one of the most important,[2] being a member of the powerful de Braose family which held many lordships and domains in the Welsh Marches. She was the wife of Roger Mortimer, 1st Baron Mortimer, a celebrated soldier and Marcher baron. Maud was born in Wales in 1224, the second eldest daughter and co-heiress of Marcher lord William de Braose and Eva Marshal.

William de Braose (c. 1197 – 2 May 1230) was the son of Reginald de Braose by his first wife, Grecia Briwere. He was an ill-fated member of a powerful and long lived dynasty of Marcher Lords.

Eva Marshal (1203 – 1246) was a Cambro-Norman noblewoman and the wife of the powerful Marcher lord William de Braose. She was the daughter of William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke, and the granddaughter of Strongbow and Aoife of Leinster.

Reginald de Braose (died June 1228) was one of the sons of William de Braose, 4th Lord of Bramber and Matilda, also known as Maud de St. Valery and Lady de la Haie. Her other children included William and Giles.

William de Braose, (or William de Briouze), 4th Lord of Bramber (1144/1153 – 9 August 1211), court favourite of King John of England, at the peak of his power, was also Lord of Gower, Abergavenny, Brecknock, Builth, Radnor, Kington, Limerick, Glamorgan, Skenfrith, Briouze in Normandy, Grosmont, and White Castle. William was the son of William de Braose, 3rd Lord of Bramber and his wife Bertha of Hereford, also known as Bertha de Pitres, (born 1130) daughter of Miles Fitz Walter, Earl of Hereford and his wife, Sibyl, daughter of Bernard de Neufmarche. From his father he inherited the Rape of Bramber, in Sussex, and through his mother he inherited a large estate in the Welsh Marches area of modern-day Monmouthshire.

William de Braose, 3rd Lord of Bramber (fl. 1135–1179) was a 12th-century Marcher lord who secured a foundation for the dominant position later held by the Braose family in the Welsh Marches. In addition to the family's English holdings in Sussex and Devon, William had inherited Radnor and Builth, in Wales, from his father Philip. By his marriage he increased the Braose Welsh holdings to include Brecon and Abergavenny. Bertha of Hereford, also known as Bertha de Pitres (born c.1130), was the daughter of Miles de Gloucester, 1st Earl of Hereford, and a wealthy heiress, Sibyl de Neufmarché. She was the wife of William de Braose, 3rd Lord of Bramber to whom she brought many castles and Lordships, including Brecknock, Abergavenny, and Hay.

Miles FitzWalter of Gloucester, 1st Earl of Hereford, Lord of Brecknock (died 24 December 1143) was High Sheriff of Gloucester and Constable of England. Sibyl de Neufmarché, Countess of Hereford, suo jure Lady of Brecknock (c. 1100 – after 1143), was a Cambro-Norman noblewoman, heiress to one of the most substantial fiefs in the Welsh Marches. The great-granddaughter of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, king of Wales, Sibyl was also connected to the nobility of England and Normandy. Sibyl inherited the titles and lands of her father, Bernard de Neufmarché, Lord of Brecon, after her mother, Nest ferch Osbern, had declared her brother Mahel to have been illegitimate. Most of these estates passed to Sibyl's husband, Miles de Gloucester, 1st Earl of Hereford, as her dowry.

Maud de Braose, Lady of Bramber (c. 1155 – 1210) was the wife of William de Braose, 4th Lord of Bramber, a powerful Marcher baron and court favourite of King John of England. She would later incur the wrath and enmity of the King who caused her to be starved to death in the dungeon of Corfe Castle along with her eldest son.

Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke (of the first creation), Lord of Leinster, Justiciar of Ireland (1130 – 20 April 1176) was an English lord notable for his leading role in the Norman invasion of Ireland. Like his father, he was also commonly known by his nickname Strongbow (Norman French: Arc-Fort).

Aoife MacMurrough (c.1145–1188, Irish: Aoife Ní Diarmait), also known by later historians as Eva of Leinster, was the daughter of Dermot MacMurrough (c.1110-1171) (Irish: Diarmait Mac Murchada), King of Leinster, and his wife Mor O'Toole (c.1114-1191).

Margaret Mortimer, Baroness Mortimer (née de Fiennes; after 1269 – 7 February 1333), was an English noblewoman born to William II de Fiennes, Baron Tingry and Blanche de Brienne. Her paternal grandparents were Enguerrand II de Fiennes and Isabelle de Conde. Her maternal grandparents were Jean de Brienne and Jeanne, Dame de Chateaudun.

Thomas Wylde (bef.1508 - 1559) clothier of The Commandery, Worcester, England was the son of Simon Wylde of The Ford, near Dodderhill where Thomas was to acquire the manor of Impney.

Samuel Fell D.D. (1584 – 1 February 1649) was an English academic and clergyman, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford[1][2] and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford during the First English Civil War.


Ladies:

  • c.1145–1188
  • c. 1155 – 1210
  • 1203 – 1246
  • 1224 – shortly before 23 March 1301
  • after 1269 – 7 February 1333
  • 2 February 1286 – 19 October 1356
  • 2 May 1304 – 5 May 1337
  • c. 1327 – 13 July 1389


The ladies don't die out after 1389, they just go into hiding. They were more prominent in the Catholic Middle Ages than in the, in England, Protestant Early Modern Times.

Men:

  • 1130 – 20 April 1176
  • 1144/1153 – 9 August 1211
  • c. 1197 – 2 May 1230
  • before 1198 to before 6 August 1246
  • 1231 – 30 October 1282
  • April 1271 – Wallingford Castle, 31 May 1326
  • 25 April 1287 – 29 November 1330
  • c. 1293 or 1296 – 27 October 1361
  • ca. 1330 – 8 June 1368
  • 5 January 1352/53 – 13 July 1417
  • c. 1394 – 22 October[1] 1463
  • 1426 – 14 February 1492
  • bef.1508 - 1559
  • about 1548 - 11 June 1611
  • 1584 – 1 February 1649
  • 1584 – 5 August 1656
  • 1613 - 1696


Ladies: 33 | 43 43 55 | 62 63- 70 | 77

Min 33, Max 77, Med 55/62, Lower Q 43, Higher Q 63-/70

Men, Gentle or Otherwise: Min 33, Max 83, Med L V 58, Med H V 63, Lower Q 48, Higher Q L V 65, Higher Q H V 67

Lower V: 33 | 38 43 46 | 48 | 51 51+ 55 | 58 | 63 64 65- | 65 | 66 69 72 | 83

Higher V: 33 | 38 43 46 | 48 | 51 51+ 55 | 63 | 64 65- 66 | 67 | 68 69 72 | 83

Someone might say "but these are all nobility" (ok, except perhaps Samuel Fell, Doctor Divinitatis?) (btw, let's check that?) ...


Samuel Fell D.D. (1584 – 1 February 1649) was an English academic and clergyman, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford[1][2] and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford[3] during the First English Civil War.

Samuel Fell was born in the parish of St Clement Danes, London, and was educated at Westminster School. Thence he proceeded as a queen's scholar to Christ Church, Oxford, matriculating 20 November 1601, and graduated B.A. 27 June 1605, M.A. 30 May 1608, B.D. 23 November 1615, and D.D. 23 June 1619. He was elected proctor in 1614, and soon after became rector of Freshwater in the Isle of Wight, and chaplain to King James I. It has been suggested that this position brought Robert Hooke to Oxford many years later, since at Freshwater Fell knew Hooke’s father.[4]

In May 1619, Fell was made a canon of Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford and in 1626 Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, which he held, according to custom, with a canonry of Worcester Cathedral. These posts he held till 1637. At first his religious views were Calvinistic, but he changed his opinions and became an active ally of Archbishop William Laud. Laud promoted him, making Fell to the rector of Stow-on-the-Wold in 1637, Dean of Lichfield in January 1638, and Dean of Christ Church in June 1638.[2] Fell continued with improvements in the cathedral and college projected by his predecessor, Brian Duppa, and added the staircase leading to the hall.

Active in Oxford University affairs, on 15 August 1637, Samuel Fell wrote to Laud about the excessive number of alehouses in Oxford, but on more than one occasion he was rebuked from Laud for setting his authority as head of a college in opposition to the proctors and other public officials of the university. On the outbreak of the Civil War he became a conspicuous royalist, and after serving the office of Vice-Chancellor in 1645 and 1646 was reappointed in 1647.[3] Soon after his reappointment the parliamentary visitors came to Oxford. In September, Fell was summoned before them; he declined to attend, was imprisoned, and on his release in November was deprived of all his offices in the University. He retired to the rectory of Sunningwell, near Abingdon, which he had held since 21 September 1625, and died there on 1 February 1649. He was buried in his church.

Samuel Fell married Margaret, daughter of Thomas Wylde,[5] esq., of The Commandery Worcester, by whom he was the father of John Fell, Dean of Christ Church and Bishop of Oxford, and several daughters including Mary who married Thomas Willis.

The Wickipeejuh : Samuel Fell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Fell


... and after saying that add "they were all nobility, ok Fell was Anglican clergy, and thus privileged, but what about common people?"

I remind of two things:

  • i) Early Industrialism and esp. 19th C. Industrialism had not yet made the living conditions of the common man that unhealthy, it was not yet very common to spend a childhood in coalmines and then die;

  • ij) and then we do not have all that much documentation on how long unknown common men lived. Saying "they lived less long" is based on some kind of prejudice. Or, perhaps, on bad memories from 19th C. Industrialism. When short lives were really the rule of the day for proletarian industrial workers, as well as for homeless.


I have a feeling I will be saying this over and over again, with more and more statistics. And all of them pointing in one direction. People did NOT generally die at forty. They were NOT extremely lucky to be alive at 41. They were NOT rarities at 60, looked on much as we look on people of 100.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Presentation of the Mother of God,
the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the Temple
21-XI-2015

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Legendary Men vs Mythical Gods


1) Homer (again), 2) Legendary Men vs Mythical Gods

Richard L. Purtill, in chapter 1, The Dimensions of Myth, 2nd §, puts it totally backward:

"Whoever Homer was, he almost certainly believed in the Olympian gods and even in the historical existence of people named Odysseus and Achilles, Penelope and Helen."


What does "and even" mean in such a context?

Very obviously, he got the persons, in the main (very good character like perhaps Hector in Troy and more probably Eumaeus and Eurycleia on Ithaca possibly excepted, these being more like his experience of good people transposed back into what he was writing about) from the legends current in his day (or among his fellow aoidoi) which, again in the main, came from the facts.

There is a local legend in Dürnstein of how Richard Coeur de Lion, of the Plantagenet race, King of England, was kept prisoner in the castle of Dürnstein. It stresses discretely how he had brought this on himself by insulting the Austrian Duke (a Leopold, as so often with Babenberg dynasty), at the siege of St Jean d'Acre in the THird Crusade, and how therefore, when going through Austria, Rihcard tried to pass incognito but failed as having been recognised by the Squire of that Duke who had been present at the scene in St Jean d'Acre.

No historian ever, that I heard of, put in doubt that Richard Lionheart was captive in Dürnstein.

There are legends about the Hunde von Kuenring as being more brigands than vassals - and of how a Duke of Austria sent men to end their pillaging. Here doubts have been uttered aboutif they really were that bad, if the bad reports weren't a way to justify greed on part of the Duke (and since their real or perhaps supposed victims are not an ethnic group, such revisionism is not illegal in France ...) But these reservations do not touch the fact that the Aggsteiners did exist and did own a castle at Kuenring, on the Danube.

Obviously an Austrian would believe the Dürnstein or the Danube stories nearly independently of whatever religion he had (the religions most opposed to believing this not being to my mind really Austrian!). And in almost any degree of education, from cobbler to university professor.

But an Atheist, a Catholic, a Neo-Pagan who wanted to make a full length novel about any of these legends, each of them would differ as to whether chance, God and sometimes the devil, or Germanic deities or Slavic deities decided the kind of coincidences which were sometimes decisive.

And Homer who made two full length epics of his legendary or family traditional materials, inserted (perhaps from poetic tradition) Olympic gods as his version of divine Providence. An Atheist who thinks there is only chance and causality or a Catholic Christian like me will disbelieve the dialogue between Zeus and Athena on Mount Olympus. At least the Christian of us need not dispute that witchcraft in part had kept him back in part of his delays, though saying that about Calypso might be doing her natural charms (waning somewhat ten years later) an injustice and instead too much justice or more than justice to Ulysses' full intention of returning as soon as possible to Penelope - or he may not. His return is in a sense symbolical, since Penelope and Telemachus were hoping as much against hope for it and certainly against social expectations around them, as Church and Christians for that of Christ. Even an atheist need not dispute Ulysses actually returned.

The opening quote should thus have read: he knew most of his human characters had existed, probably mostly doing what legends said they had done, and probably even - here the "even" is appropriate - believed in the precise divinities to which he attributed major events beyond human control.

And why not add the many minor events we do not even really try to control, most of us, and which lead up to the major ones.

Next sentence in this chapter is appropriate:

"He presented what might have happened to these people, selecting from legends and traditions, but also using his own imagination."


However, we do not quite know there were in his day many conflicting versions to select from, aboyt many things, he probably just selected which events he thought worthy to base the epic on.

Whereon Purtill compares Homer to a modern Historical novelist. Very aptly. The religious dimension of Homer is, however, very like that of another genre, in covering the outer events, say, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom by Lawrence of Arabia : but Homer was no warrior (as far as we know) whose own autobiography was interesting enough to embody it in an impressive way : which is why he instead chose a genre closer to Historical novel than to autobiography.

Obviously this is very different from Tolkien writing about Frodo, as far as historicity of events is concerned. And of course this is on the other hand very close to Tolkien writing hints about his own (and my own) belief in Providence into his story of Frodo, insofar as he preferred to insert them in a less self centred genre than autobiography. The first chapter where I just quoted second paragraph, because I wanted to comment on the matter of principle, is that of J. R. R. Tolkien, subtitled Myth, Morality and Religion.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Elisabeth of Marburg
19-XI-2015

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

In Defense of the Tom Bombadil Chapters


1) Suppose ONE Single work by GKC had Inspired Lord of the Rings ...?, 2) In Defense of the Tom Bombadil Chapters, 3) Tolkien's Scouring of the Shire (Disagreeing with Plank)

First of all, why a defense?

I have seen one critic saying the passage was not strictly necessary, but Tolkien wanted to get sth off his chest. That criticism might have influenced the decision of Peter Jackson.

Another critic was very much anti-Tolkien and singled out the Tom Bombadil chapters as a point in his favour, or in Tolkien's disfavour, considering Tom Bombadil came off as a village idiot.

Now, a third one has said that when Tolkien's monsters and good beings are rotted in folklore, or hobbits (he did not consider the Heinzelmännchen of Cologne as hobbits, except for furry feet?), they were good, their non-human but nearly human race being so to speak a soul carried on the outside, but Shelob, the Balrog and ... among benevolent ones : Tom Bombadil ... do not convince "us".*

I will argue hat the passage was necessary, that it was a virtue of Tolkien and that Tom Bombadil is convincing.

First, the passage is necessary, if not for the mechanics of the plot, though it has its functions as bringing them from Old Forest to outskirts of Bree, and as providing for the first time a glimpse of hope about the ring (Tom Bombadil is clearly not evil, and clearly not under it either), it is necessary for a full unfolding of thematics.

  • For the only time in the novel, it shows forth a happy marriage while it is being lived.

    • Arwen and Aragorn and Sam Gamgee and Rosie Cotton come very late in the novel, and we practically see only the beginning of each marriage. Also, Sam Gamgee, though obviously happy, is as obviously happy in a humdrum way. Tom Bombadil is happy in a poetic way, a bit like the poetry of Manalive.

    • Elrond is a widower. As is Denethor.

    • Of Celeborn and Galadriel, we practically see only Galadriel, we do not see their love story.

    • Faramir and Eowyn are happy, but as with Arwen and Aragorn, as with Sam and Rosie, we see the story leading up to their marriage. Also, their happiness is a happiness involving recovery from emotional scars, not a pure happiness, like Tom and Goldberry, unclouded of any post traumatic stress whatsoever. In Tom Bombadil's adventures we see a story which involves a rather Kalevala roughness and readiness and happy-go-lucky attitude in the woeing.


    Tolkien was a man very happy to be married and to be married to the woman he had married. Of course, as they were both orphaned, there was a sense of Faramir and Eowyn too. And as he had to live through ordeals and abstain from seeing her, there was a sense of Arwen and Aragorn - or of Beren and Luthien. But the everyday happiness is, I think, best reflected in Sam's and Rosie's marriage and even more in that of Tom Bombadil and Goldberry.

  • For the only time in the novel, we have a hospitality neither prompted by old acquaintance nor by involvement in the ring bearer's importance.

    • Bilbo's party? Longexpected and nearly everyone an acquaintance close or distant.

    • Farmer Maggot (whose wife also is mainly seen as hostess to the hobbits rather than as object of his romantic attentions) recalls when Frodo came sneaking as a young hobbit looking for mushrooms. He also has caught a sudden dislike for the Black Riders.

    • Butterbur's hospitality is not for free, they pay it, and it is clouded by the presence of both ring and Black Riders.

    • Elrond's hospitality is very much involved in the ring bearer's fate, even involving a conference about the ring.

    • Galadriel's hospitality ends up with concerning the ring.

    • Faramir's hospitality is really a decision related to the ring bearer, so are many hospitalities involving war parties. Or if not related to ring bearer, at least related to war.


    In the House of Tom Bombadil, the hobbits for once are received as guests after coming as strangers in need. It reminds more of the hospitality of Beorn, and some of the hospitality of Fangorn, though Fangorn ends up taking sides.

    Tom Bombadil is the Episode of the Phaeacians in the Odyssey transposed to Lord of the Rings.

  • Since it involves the Barrow Wight, it is the first time we glimpse some of the Sauron code, in which Morgoth is claimed as returning to judge living and dead. A blasphemous claim, of course.

  • Since the first encounter was after Old Man Willow, it is the one place where most clearly (as well as Caradhras and the craken type monster at the gate of Moria) we see that Tolkien is not a naive treehugger or nature worshipper. Since man fell, nature too is fallen, cannot be trusted and therefore cannot be worshipped.

    This aspect may have jarred with some of the Pagan and New Agey admirers of Tolkien.


Painting Tom Bombadil as a singing, half buffoonish, poet rather than as an intellectual or a businessman, very much was a virtue of Tolkien. As were any of his protagonists.

The point hardly needs detailed argument, it needs pointing out. When a man is happy, he is also prone to be silly and childish. This is nothing to be ashamed of, and I cannot get the kind of mentality which is so ashamed of it that it is willing to make the kind of complaint I mentioned. It would possibly be the bad guys of ... Manalive.

And he is convincing. He is a kind of pun on the Greek word ποτις : it means both bridegroom (of Goldberry) and master (of the wood). It is eminently fitting that a man so successful as a husband should also be successful as a ... guardian angel of the forest? King of the Trees and flowers? Whatever.

It is also eminently fitting that the figure of a husband should be the figure of a father: Iarwain Ben-adar - nearly a kind of Pagan synonym of God the Father. And a kind of allusion to the golden age of Italy under Saturn (who must not be confused with the child devouring Saturn).

On this last point, if there is anything that is less fitting in this, it is wondering whether Tom and Goldberry were childless. One might piously hope that rather their children were already "flewn out of the nest and quite capable of taking care of themselves" - otherwise one would be talking about the bad Saturn, which I think Tolkien did not intend.

With these words, I think I have managed the defense. Or even gone to a counterattack. Finally, with Tom Bombadil, Tolkien created an enigma still puzzling readers about as much as ... Sunday (in The Man Who Was Thursday).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
San Andrea Avellino of
Naples
10-XI-2015

MANALIVE, by G. K. Chesterton
http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/manalive/man_toc.html


Manalive
Paperback – October 27, 2015 (first edition 1912)
by G. K. Chesterton (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Manalive-G-K-Chesterton/dp/1518800548/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1447160664&sr=8-1&keywords=manalive+g.k.+chesterton


THE MAN WHO WAS THURSDAY, A NIGHTMARE, by G. K. Chesterton
http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/1695-h.htm


Extract from an article by G.K. Chesterton concerning The Man Who was Thursday
published in the Illustrated London News, 13 June 1936 (the day before his death)
http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/thursday-after.txt


The Man Who Was Thursday
Paperback – October 14, 2011 (first edition, 1908)
by G. K. Chesterton (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Man-Who-Was-Thursday/dp/1613821298/ref=la_B000APF848_1_63?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1447161021&sr=1-63&refinements=p_82%3AB000APF848


Note:

* This third critic, now I looked it up, is Thomas J. Gasque in Modern Critical Views J. R. R. Tolkien, edited Harold Bloom. Roger Sale seems to have certain false conceptions about how "we" read him as well - unless the "we" is one excluding me.

Friday, November 6, 2015

Grain Stores of Joseph

“My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain,” Carson said. “Now all the archeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs’ graves. But, you know, it would have to be something awfully big if you stop and think about it. And I don’t think it’d just disappear over the course of time to store that much grain.”*


Here is some text**:

[41] And again Pharao said to Joseph: Behold, I have appointed thee over the whole land of Egypt. [42] And he took his ring from his own hand, and gave it into his hand: and he put upon him a robe of silk, and put a chain of gold about his neck. [43] And he made him go up into his second chariot, the crier proclaiming that all should bow their knee before him, and that they should know he was made governor over the whole land of Egypt. [44] And the king said to Joseph: I am Pharao; without thy commandment no man shall move hand or foot in all the land of Egypt. [45] And he turned his name, and called him in the Egyptian tongue, The saviour of the world. And he gave him to wife Aseneth the daughter of Putiphare priest of Heliopolis. Then Joseph went out to the land of Egypt:

[46] (Now he was thirty years old when he stood before king Pharao) and he went round all the countries of Egypt. [47] And the fruitfulness of the seven years came: and the corn being bound up into sheaves was gathered together into the barns of Egypt. [48] And all the abundance of grain was laid up in every city. [49] And there was so great abundance of wheat, that it was equal to the sand of the sea, and the plenty exceeded measure. [50] And before the famine came, Joseph had two sons born: whom Aseneth the daughter of Putiphare priest of Heliopolis bore unto him.

[51] And he called the name of the firstborn Manasses, saying: God hath made me to forget all my labours, and my father' s house. [52] And he named the second Ephraim, saying: God hath made me to grow in the land of my poverty. [53] Now when the seven years of the plenty that had been in Egypt were past: [54] The seven years of scarcity, which Joseph had foretold, began to come: and the famine prevailed in the whole world, but there was bread in all the land of Egypt. [55] And when there also they began to be famished, the people cried to Pharao for food. And he said to them: Go to Joseph: and do all that he shall say to you.

[56] And the famine increased daily in all the land: and Joseph opened all the barns, and sold to the Egyptians: for the famine had oppressed them also. [57] And all provinces came into Egypt, to buy food, and to seek some relief of their want.

Comments by Bishop Challoner:

[45] The saviour of the world: Zaphnah paaneah.

[51] Manasses: That is, oblivion, or forgetting.

[52] Ephraim: That is, fruitful, or growing.

Now, we are told barns were built. Many barns from 19th C. from Midwest are gone. They were of wood, and the text does not specify the barns were of stone.

Now, look how big a barn would be for a normal city, or how big its barns would be, for it would obviously have many silos. I think we have found many silos in the oldest layers of Jericho, but those were of stone.

A barn of wood would of course last for the seven years, and for that matter last so far into the next century that it was not torn down and used for other purposes. But would it not precisely have been torn down? If the barns were to store grain for seven years, they were about seven times greater than ordinary barns, either individually or by being seven times more numerous. But such a long starvation and bad harvest was very exceptional. After the period ended, would the extra barns not about a century later have been felt as useless?

If the barns had been still standing, supposing the pyramids had been these barns, would not forgetting about Joseph have been pretty difficult? Not impossible, one can reinterpret the past (which evolutionists are doing all the time), but forgetting would have been somewhat easier if the barns had simply been torn down and the wood reused as timber or as firewood, as like what has happened to so many barns from the 19th C. Midwest, especially where the countryside in the meanwhile has become an industrial city or a railway junction with commercial import.

Other indication, actually the first thing I noticed while looking at the text, namely these words:

and the corn being bound up into sheaves was gathered together into the barns of Egypt. [48] And all the abundance of grain was laid up in every city.

We see barns. We also see cities. Of course, the cities may not have contained the barns, since it may have been moved from barns to cities. But on the other hand, the cities may very well have contained the barns and therefore the barns be barns in cities. Obviously there are not pyramids in every ancient city of Egypt. There are not any pyramids in Assuan, as far as I recall. But if Assuan was an Egyptian city, obviously grain was even so stored in Assuan. So, grain was stored definitely elsewhere than in pyramids. At least in some cases. Therefore there must have been at least some other barns than the pyramids. And therefore, in turn, though pyramids may have been among the barns, they do not need to have been. The argument falls flat.

And there are then arguments for pyramids being tombs or near tombs for kings apart from this discussion. Therefore, even any pyramid being a barn is not on my top list of the likeliest theories.

My own theory is that the Gizeh pyramid was constructed so as to make electric power fields in order to stay the rotting of the corpse of Osiris, who may have been Nimrod. And that even so Osiris was never resurrected, technology waned on that point, and later pyramids were more simply tombs, or perhaps good luck charms near to tombs. This theory also is not my own, you go to Red Moon Rising, Gizah Discovery, Rob Skiba II for that stuff.

But if they are right or not, I think Carson is slightly off in calling them basically "barns of Egypt". There are two ways of storing seven times more grain than usual. Either build seven times bigger barns, but as many as usual. Or build seven times as many barns, but same size as usual. There is of course also a third way, namely to build seven times fewer barns, but each barn fortynine times more volumous than usual, and this seems to have been the way that occurred to Mr. Carson. Not impossible, per se, but not on my top list of most likely theories. Indeed, somewhat unlikely.

Hope the idea about seven times MORE barns might give Mr. Carson some good ideas if he should become president, or give someone else some good ideas if someone else should be president. Since Carson and Fiorina have gematria values 665 (for BENCARSON) and 667 (for CFIORINA or C. FIORINA, don't recall which), it is possible they will both in a sense be "neighbours of the beast" and in one of the cases, that might be by being elected. No doubt the US President, if NOT the Beast, will in some sense be "neighbour" with it.

Or he might prefer the spelling "neighbor", which does not change pronunciation. I am not a fan of that kind of spelling reform, but if he's an US Patriot, he has some kind of right to it, since the spelling reform of 1906 in US at least provided distinction from UK. Our own Swedish spelling reform same year did not even do that. Both Finland Swedes and Minnesota Swedes ignored it only for a while, and even when they did so, they were hardly laying the major claims to Swedishness that Sweden needed to mark itself off from. If convenience had been the issue, and "neighbor" saves a letter compared to "neighbour", why not "naber"? That kind of non-logic is a shared trait with the spelling reforms.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Leonhard of Limoges
6-XI-2015

* Cited from:

Ben Carson: Egyptian Pyramids Built For Grain Storage, Not By Aliens Or As Tombs
posted on Nov. 4, 2015, at 10:01 p.m.
by Nathan McDermott and Andrew Kaczynski
www.buzzfeed.com/natemcdermott/ben-carson-egyptian-pyramids-built-for-grain-storage-not-by


I highly endorse this however:

“…you know, it doesn’t require an alien being when God is with you.”

Applicable, obviously, to the useful grain barns. Not sure God was with pyramid builders.

** Cited from: Douay-Rheims Bible + Challoner Notes
Book Of Genesis : Chapter 41
http://drbo.org/chapter/01041.htm

How do you pronounce Cetacean and Citation?

I pronounce them pretty differently.

The animal which is called a whale, I pronounce cee-tu-CEE-un or cit-tu-CEE-an.

The act which when lacking makes wikipedians wail, I pronounce cit-TAY-shun or cie-TAY-shun.

So, it took me a while to really spot the pun.

However, here is the guy who could appreciate the pun, and who showed it:

Why Evolution is True : Wikipedia makes a biological funny
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/11/05/wikipedia-makes-a-funny/


Nota optime, that the title of the blog, as opposed to the particular post, is false./HGL

Thursday, November 5, 2015

Le PIE, a-t-il existé?


1) Logothètes à nos mesures, 2a) Le PIE, a-t-il existé?, 2b) Discussion de Proto-Langue Réelle ou Non, approfondie par référence à Ruhlen, 3) Mythologie Nordique - indo-européenne ou proche-orientale? Transmission par Odin?, 4) Corrigeant arte sur Apfel, Pomme, Mela

Terminologiquement, on parle de Sprachbund pour le cas des langues Balkaniques (qui ne sont pas le seul Sprachbund) et de Langue Mère et Langues Filles pour le cas du Latin et des langues néolatines (il y a d'autres cas que celui-ci aussi, et parfois juste une seule langue fille pour une langue mère). Je vais les expliquer tout alors.

La plupart des linguistes considèrent que les langues indo-européennes forment un réseau en deux niveaux avec une langue mère dont seraient issues une quinzaine de langues filles, elles-mêmes ayant chaqu'une plusieurs langues filles et fonctionnant comme leur langue mère. Et Troubetskoï (provoqué par la manie des Nazis d'identifier la langue mère indo-européenne avec la race nordique, dont les allemand seraient les héritiers presque aussi purs et sacrés que les suédois, mais ayant aussi des arguments) a très notablement favorisé la théorie du Sprachbund.

Moi, j'ai une autre provocation, et une autre raison supplémentaire. La provocation est que la langue PIE aurait été parlé chronologiquement avant le temps assigné en chronologie biblique au Déluge, donc, la théorie de diversification à partir d'une langue mère m'a paru suspecte comme favorisant le rejet de la Genèse, quoique d'autres créationnistes la partagent (sur CMI j'ai noté l'identification entre celle-ci et la langue de Madan, ancêtre des Mèdes, des Perses et probablement des Aryens d'Inde du Nord). Ma raison supplémentaire est que les parleurs des langues indo-européennes sont issus de divers petit-fils de Noé, donc doivent avoir commencé avec des langues différentes. Madan - en Perse et entre Mèdes - et Javan - en Grèce surtout Ionienne - ne commencent pas avec la même langue, ni entre eux, ni avec les descendants de Gomer, probable ancêtre des Gaulois.

Imaginons que cinq langues se cotoîent quelque part dans les Alpes (certains vont disparaître, certains aller vers le Sud ou le Sud-Est, d'autres vers l'Est et vers l'Ouest).

ABCDE
pateeratta?
pateer-atta
pateer:ateer
-(atta)(pateer)
-(atta)(ateer)
pateer:ateer
supó-?
supó:suó
?-suern
supern:suern
supern ADJ-suern
supernos
supern ADV
super
supó:super--υπο:υπερ
--_υπερüber/öfver/upper
supó-suó
súb(o)-fo
pateer-ateer
pater-atiir


La langue B pourrait être rhétique. Un dialecte étrusque ou apparenté, donc en fin de compte très vieux hongrois ou apparenté.

Elle n'est même pas nécessaire, pourvu que la langue C avait un atta au début (comme Hittite/Nesili, comme Gothique).

La langue A est du très vieil italique, j'étudie la variante latine. La langue C du très vieux celtique, "j'étudie" la langue irlandaise. La langue D est évidemment du Grec et la langue E du très vieux germanique. Ou même phrygien en train de devenir germanique.

Traditionellement les tenants d'une thèse sur le PIE arrangent les choses autrement. Exit langue B.

PIEACDE
pateer > pater > atiir = πατηρ > faþer > fader
s-upó > sub > swo > fo >/= υπο -?
s-upér > super - >/= υπερ ufer > uber
+ -n +-os = supernos > supernus


Ce qui à partir des résultats est parfaitement possible, mais comme processus un peu uniquement basé sur les "lois phonétiques".

On a des exemples pour les deux processus. Le Latin se diversifie vers les langues néolatines, pas uniquement, mais en grande partie, par des "lois phonétiques", c'est à dire par des modes (fashions!) de prononciation.

Et les langues Balkaniques s'unifient des origines auparavant plus diverses. Bulgare et Roumain partagent le goût du Turc pour ajouter des désinences surajoutés à des désinences. Comme, il me semble, avec l'Albanais, ces désinces surajotés sont des formes définies. Le Roumain et le Grec partagent la convergence des formes Génitif et Datif, absent du Grec Ancien, et atypique pour les langues néolatines (qui favorisent plutôt, soit convergence des cas obliques en un cas régime, soit convergence de tous les cas). Le Turc et le Roumain partagent une voyelle haute, postérieur à l'I, et quand même sans rondeur des lèvres. Le Roumain et le Grec semblent avoir les deux simplifiés leurs conjugaisons de temps en analogie avec Slave et Turc, tandis que les langues néolatines à l'Ouest compliquent plutôt leurs conjugaison temporelle. Encore pas mal de mots et des tournures de phrases partagés, dont je ne sais rien, sauf que nécessairement il doit être ainsi. Et que Grec et Turc partagent toufeki.

Donc, l'unité des langues Indo-Européennes appartenant à des familles diverses peut s'expliquer d'une manière comme de l'autre. Comme analogue, plus diversifiée encore, aux langues néolatines, ou comme analogue des langues balkaniques. Je ne sais pas si je devais dire "plus" ou "moins" unifiée. Plus unifiée que ce qui dans les langues balkaniques est attribué aux fait d'être langues balkaniques par les linguistes. Moins unifiée, pour certains des langues, que la totalité des similitudes des langues balkaniques (y compris ce qui est attribué à l'héritage commun du PIE, y compris ce qui est attribué au hazard, s'il y en a, et y compris ce qui est attribué au fait d'avoir emprunté au Turc, au Français, à l'Anglais).

Dans ce cas, les traits aujourd'hui communs à toutes ou à la plupart des langues indo-européennes peuvent avoir été originés à partir de diverses langues. Pater, mater, frater (père, mère, frère) en Latin, πατηρ μητηρ θυγατηρ (père, mère, fille) en Grec, les quatre mots en Germanique et dans les langues Slaves ommission du mot identique pour père, devraient être d'une langue racine, la même probablement qui a donné la désinence comparative -ter- comme en Latin al-ter ou en Grec ε-τερ-ος. Suesor (présent en Latin comme soror, en Gaélique comme -siur/-fiur, et en Germanique et Slavon contaminé par la désinence -ter- à moins que le T en sweosTor soit épenthétique à partir des cas obliques (sweostra, sweostrum, Génitif et Datif pluriel, par ex.), pourraient provenir d'une autre, ou de la même que celle avant, mais doit presque provenir de la même que le pronom réfléchi. Le mot pour fils présent en Grec, Slave, Balte, Germanique, mais absent en Celtique et Latin, pourrait être d'une autre langue encore. Pour les verbes, la conjugaison des temps semble avoir emprunté son modèle d'une langue sémitique, avec l'apophonie des racines, tantôt longueur, tantôt brièveté ou même absence, tantôt é, tantôt o comme qualité, selon les temps, et en parfait même selon le nombre d'un temps. La conjugaison personnelle, à part le fait qu'un parfait Grec ou un prétérit Germanique de conjugaison forte ont des vocalismes différentes, semble quasi presque calqué sur une conjugaison fenno-ugrienne. À moins que ce soit le cas inverse. Le pluriel au nominatif prende une forme à deux variantes qui semble provénir de deux langues différentes, celle qui a un -s (comparable, selon les nostratistes à un -t fenno-ugrien) et celle qui a un -i. Cest intéressant que pour la seconde personne du singulier, aussi on trouve parfois -i (Italien, mais aussi Lituanien) et parfois un -s comparé à un -t fenno-ugrien.

Il y a aussi ceci, que, si J. R. R. Tolkien a pu donner des similitudes étant le simulacre d'un scénario de langue mère partagée entre les langues filles Sindarin et Quenya, le Bon Dieu a certainement pu avoir donner encore davantage de similitudes. Le Sindarin et le Quenya n'ont en réalité pas eu des parleurs de proto-Quenya, mais un seul Tolkien derrière elles-mêmes, et certains similitudes ont pu avoir été laissé par Dieu, sans qu'elles ne remontent à une langue mère identique parlée avant la Tour de Babel. Si l'origine de ces similitudes est de toute manière pas décélable avec certitude, un tel acte par Dieu ne constitue pas une déception jouant avec une telle certitude non plus.

Mais ma théorie favorie est que l'unité provient d'un côté du phénomène de Sprachbund, d'autre côté des emprunts mutuels, de grammaire notemment (les objets pouvant été désignés en pointant un doigt, de type général ou de l'individu), en une tentative de refaire une unité comme avant Babel, mais, cette tentative fut échoué. J'avais avant considéré cette tentative liée à une religion indo-européenne commune, ayant une forme de papauté païenne, comme plus tard on en trouve entre les Baltes ayant un même Krivé avant d'être christianisés. Mais je dois admettre que la réconsidération de la religion nordique ma fait remarquer quelle est plus Proche-Orientale que indo-européenne et que les communalités manquent de manière aussi flagrante sur le plan religieux que sur le plan linguistique. Jupiter-Zeus-Tinia manque de la plupart des panthéons, le dieu de la mer s'appelle en Grec très ancien Potei Daon (il s'agit de linéar B), comme "Seigneur Dagon", celui-ci adoré aussi par Philistiens et - Canaanéens. Choses communes entre religions greque et aryenne pourraient avoir des explications analogues à ceci de Sprachbund, vu que sur Crète, la langue de linéar A (qui a été parlé par les voisins des Grecs, donc, Caphthorim voisins des fils de Javan) a été analysée comme étant un dialecte aryen, comme védique et avestique pour les langues aryennes plus à l'Est. Ou encore plus archaïque que le védique, selon l'idée que les communalités indo-européennes proviennent du PIE. Donc, l'idée du Sprachbund gagne en importance pour ce chercheur amateur.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Sts Zacharie et Élisabeth
parents de St Jean Baptiste
5-XI-2015

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

A Most Rare Thing : I Found Tolkien Wrong on Sth!

I was reading his valedictory adress. I fully share his love of sounds and sound changes, and did so since, well before knowing him, I studied the diverse forms of Johannes, including both Hans and John and wondering why Ivan has an I but not an O (and now I think that Jivan is simply the Kyiv and Lviv version of Jovan). But in his Valedictory Adress, I found him giving a justification. Note, he gave a much better one, in which he was entirely right : those who are misological in any way (including hatred of the sounds so dear to philology) ought not to take their limitations or lack of interest as the norm, or to present their limitation as a mark of a superior mind. But he also gave a short and snappy defence, which happened to be wrong.

"You must learn your letters before you can read."


Not true.

The sentence "Myggen flyger" contains only ...

M 1
Y 2
G 3
E 4
N 5
F 6
L 7
R 8

... only eight distinct letters among the Swedish total of 28/29 (v and w count as same*, "whisky" coming before "viking" in dictionaries, plus three extra beyond the English, Å, Ä, Ö), and thus I learned my first eight letters by reading my first sentence, not the other way round!

I will give a few remarks on Swedish pronunciation before going on with the story.

In German and French, you have a high, fronted and rounded vowel. Tongue like EE, lips like OO. You spell it U in French (which is the background for English U getting ee-OO as substitute for ee/oo/neither), and you spell it Ü in German (as a contraction of the Ui in for instance Duisburg = "Düsburg"). In Swedish, the short version of this sound is spelled Y. There are two long versions. What a German with a welltrained ear would consider as ÜJ and a Frenchman UY rather than as ÜH or Û, is in Swedish the long pronunciation of Y. What a German would consider as ÜU (an Austrian I knew considered it as Ü!) and a Frenchman as UOU is long "U" (as per Swedish spelling). Short Swedish U is pronounced in my dialect as short Ö before an R. "Tull" (customs or tolbooth) has the same vowel in my mouth as "mörk" (dark). Namely the vowel quality of schwa, or short version of vowel in "girl", or a vowel somewhat more open than Polish "Y". And short Ö before any other consonant, like any long Ö is like French eu/oeu or like German - Ö. In Malmö, "mördare" has same vowel as German "Mörderer", and in Stockholm and my mother's native Södertelge "mördare" (with lengthening before silent R, phonematically represented by turning the S into SH**) has more the vowel of English "murderer". And the main difference of quantity between MYGGEN and FLYGER is not a longer G, but a shorter Y in the former.

"Myggen flyger" means "the mosquitos are flying", or, using a cognate which Tolkien readers will know, "the midge are flying".

This sentence was written under the picture that was an advertisement for mosquito repellent or midge repellent. It was the first sentence that I was reading. I asked my grandfather "what does it say?" and he used the occasion to teach me a few basics of reading. Before our conversation had ended, over and over again, I had read "myggen flyger" with more relish for acquiring the skill than distaste for the infestation of a place called Midgewater - or of quite many places in Sweden too, during summer.

Actually, the other day I had found Silmarillion wrong on a point of reconstruction too. As some may know, Tolkien, though a Catholic, was an Old-Earth believer and a Heliocentric. He gave in Silmarillion a scenario which is to the mind of at least this Young Earth Creationist much more intelligent than the usual Old Earth Scenario : it has forgotten human empires and kingdoms rather than for instance humanity scrambling up from an original status of very ignorant cavemen, for one, and in ages before man arrived, the elves and the ainur even had "male and female", thus accomodating the words of Our Lord in Mark 10:6 much better than the usual Old Age scenarios. But in a sense it is of course wrong in a very humdrum way, by giving too much time to prehistory in man (since Beleriand, Númenor and Eriador are after all prehistoric, in his conception, just as are Stygia, Valusia and Cimmeria in those of another fantasy writer), but on one precise point of detail, I just found out he was morally wrong. He attributed the ice age to the evil intent of Morgoth - the name or one name in his mythos for Satan (and I am not sure that name contains no subconscious slur on Goths***!)

When going through the carbon 14 levels in atmosphere needed to accomodate a Young Earth scenario to carbon 14 levels in old organic things, like certain coal deposits or diamonds, which presumably would be from 2957 BC (year of the Flood), I noted that the rise was very steep just after the Flood. And I was given attention to fact that the kind of rise in cosmic rays that could cause that had probably been instrumental in the "Little Ice Age" (Charles X Gustav marching over a frozen Belt when invading Denmark, with cavalry, could no longer be done now). So, presumably such a very steep rise in the carbon 14 levels corresponded to a very much higher intensity of the cosmic radiation than now, or than the mean for last 2500 years (during which C14 levels are checkably fairly stable) and probably to the Ice Age too. In that case, the Ice Age must have been an act of God. Like the Flood. Now, certainly man's evils, both before Flood and just after, when a Tower was built at Babel, were such as to warrant divine punishment. But if Mahabharata is correct history (not saying it were in any way totally correct as theology, any more than conference on Olympus is, but correct history like killings outside Troy and return of Ulysses) it would seem that the Kauravas and Pandavas were heirs to the sons of Lamech and fought wars using nuclear explosions and contamination. Flood then washed down very much of it into deep sea basins, and ice age covered much of what was left. Plus hid Canadian Uranium mines from curiosity of Nimrod and other Tower builders.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Hubert
3-XI-2015

But believe me, when I find John Ronald Reuel Tolkien was wrong about anything, I think it is sensational news, usually he is quite right. Especially if making allowances for his acceptance of Evolution and Heliocentrism. Finding him wrong BOTH on what spirit caused ice age and on a minor phrase like "learning one's letters before reading", in two days on a row, that is very much on finding him wrong. It is sensational. I don't expect it to happen any time again soon.

* Back when Swedish printing varied between black letters and antiqva, those using black letters would spell the v sound W, HW initially, F finally and FW medially, while those using antiqva would spell it V, HV, F, FV.

** My lack of sleep. In "mördare" you have a D, not an S, changing pronunciation. And in "börs" where the R is replaced by pronouncing S like SH, as I wrote, the vowel is not lengthened. But the D goes from a real dental, like French or Italian D, to a retroflex like D in British English or in India with heavy Hindi accent. I was also guilty of making Ü a "contraction" rather than ligature of UI. Mea culpa.

*** The first part "Mor-" for dark is less controversial, in a Cratylus sense it is supported by MOR having senses like Deep Sea in Slavonic, fool or folly in Greek, great, big, huge (but not necessarily good) in Gaelic, delay in Latin, not to mention that Swedish MÖRK could be analysed as MOR + I-Umlaut + K-Suffix. I hope the point on the second part being a subconscious slur against Goths (perhaps those not sharing his enthusiasm for them getting under his skin at some level, perhaps an echo from the attitude of St Ambrose who thought that Gothic hairstyles was a mortal sin, a treason against both faith and prince) be not considered like Randelling.