Wednesday, June 5, 2024

Tolkien n'a pas tourné de film.


Un lecteur* nous précise que lors d'une conférence à laquelle il assistait à Strasbourg en hiver 2003, une personne a demandé à Mgr Williamson ce qu'il fallait penser du film de Tolkien. Mgr Williamson en a fait un éloge très chaleureux, précisant que Tolkien était un auteur catholique. A une personne qui lui rétorquait que le film était violent, Mgr Williamson a répondu qu'il existait une bonne violence, tout en se lançant dans une comparaison entre ce qui lui semblait une bonne et une mauvaise violence, au grand ébahissement d'une grande partie de l'auditoire.


Je me demande si Mgr. Williamson avait vu le film.

Le film était de toute manière pas de Tolkien, mais de Peter Jackson.

Je ne vais pas dire qu'il était mauvais, mais il n'était pas à la hauteur du roman. Et il n'était pas si catholique que le roman.

Le passage cité vient de l'Abbé Michel Marchiset. Son but est de discréditer Mgr. Williamson, but que je ne partage pas. Mais accessoirement, il attaque aussi Tolkien.

La première chose à comprendre est, Tolkien n'a pas tourné le film. La deuxième est que, Peter Jackson n'est pas Tolkien. La troisième est, Peter Jackson pèse plus dans la violence que Tolkien. Peut-être moins dans les version extendues qui sortent en DVD, mais assez notable dans les versions accessibles en 2003. Et, version extendue ou non, les Ents sont pas, comme chez Tolkien, des géants très amis avec les arbres, ils sont des arbres. Les Ents ne prennent pas leur décision d'attaquer Saroumane en délibération de plusieurs jours, selon leur lenteur habituelle, comme chez Tolkien, ils sont "éveillés" de cette lenteur comme d'une léthargie par un coup de passion.

La discussion et le débat priment beaucoup davantage chez Tolkien, version originale, version livres.

Mais les plaintes de l'Abbé ne se limitent pas à la violence.

Cette admiration déclarée de Mgr Williamson pour Tolkien et son univers pseudo-traditionnel et supra-confessionnel


Pseudo-traditionnel, ça passe. Une ouchronie n'est pas vraiment une chose connue par la tradition. Edoras n'est pas l'Athènes de Thésée, ni Hobbitebourg la cave des cinq Pandavas. Minas Tirith n'a pas été fondée par ce Romulus dont la tradition reste dans le martyrologe pour le Jour de Noël.** Comme Tolkien joue avec la réalité tout court, il joue avec les réalités connues par tradition, et les réalités qui entourent le phénomène de la tradition.

Par contre, qu'on ne prenne pas "pseudo-traditionnel" pour "réellement moderniste" — c'est "réellement fictif" ...

Supra-confessionnel ? Non. Les gens qui adorent Sauron et Morgoth ont très nettement la mauvaise confession. Il s'agit d'un paganisme assez brutal proche de celui des Aztèques ou Canaanéens.

Par contre, c'est vrai qu'il ne se situe pas dans l'histoire comme dans la Chrétienté catholique. Vu que la situation est visiblement (pour ceux qui connaissent le panorama un peu plus large à partir de Silmarillion ou les Lettres de l'auteur) une ère pré-Chrétienne, pas idolâtre, sauf pour les Satanistes qui sont les mauvais, et un milieu d'hommes qui n'est pas (ou pas explicitement, mais probablement pas) dans la lignée conduisant entre Adam et Abraham. D'une telle époque et d'un tel endroit, même parmi les non-idolâtres, on n'attend pas des prises de position entre Catholiques et Protestants.***

Si Monsieur l'Abbé l'ignorait, la littérature anglo-saxonne (ou sa partie préservée) est entièrement chrétienne. Beowulf parle de gens qui sont païens, même s'il ne parle pas de leur idolâtrie, car l'auteur est Catholique. Il me semble que Tolkien y avait vu une vision d'un ère païenne (ignorant le vrai Dieu) mais pas idolâtre, et que Tolkien y avait vu un idéal littéraire pour ce qui est de l'exploration des vertues et vérités purement naturelles. Son ouchronie est donc également (pour les bons) pas idolâtre, un peu moins ignorant le vrai Dieu, opposé à l'idolâtrie sataniste.

apprécié des milieux ésotéristes,


Oui ... sans de vouloir trop mélanger le très grand avec le très petit, Notre Seigneur l'est aussi.

Ah, mais pas dans toutes les dimensions de Sa réalité ?

Bon, Tolkien non plus. Jean-Louis Questin (cité comme preuve par l'Abbé) ne donne pas plus le Tolkien réel, que la Grande-Loge donne l'Évangile réel. Puisque la Bible est un livre sacré pour la Grande-Loge, elle a sans doute quelque lecture de l'Évangile, juste pas la bonne.

Christian Bourgois (Antibes, 21 septembre 1933 - Paris 12e, 20 décembre 2007) est un éditeur français, fondateur de la maison d'édition du même nom.


On peut donc très bien fonder des maisons d'édition à titre privé, ce n'est pas un privilège accordé par l'état ou les universités, merci de l'avoir exprimé, ça a un rapport avec mes affaires, mais ce n'est pas là que je voulais aller.

Le truc est, Christian Bourgois n'est nullement un Catholique. Il est aussi l'éditeur français de Tolkien. Si le magazine sur Tolkien est parmi les choses qu'on m'a volées, je me rappelle une citation de Vincent Ferré. Celui-ci pourra éventuellement confirmer. Or, selon ma mémoire, Christian Bourgois a détesté la théologie, mais aimé l'histoire. Pour lui, Tolkien était tout simplement trop catholique. Pas grave, s'il avait une bonne histoire à raconter. D'où la publication de Tolkien chez Christian Bourgois. Je pense qu'il était plus réaliste sur la théologie de Tolkien que ne l'est Jean-Louis Questin.

Lewis Carroll était de confession anglicane. S'il ne vivait pas d'une manière entièrement° édifiante, il s'efforçait d'écrire d'une manière édifiante.°° Le passage que Mgr. Williamson aime citer de Lewis Carroll est un bon avertissement de ne pas être naïf, pas un encouragement à la prédation. L'Angleterre n'est pas un pays officiellement prôneur de la pédocriminalité ou qui admire celle-ci juste parce que Lewis Carroll se trouvent parmi les grands classiques, là-bas. Les visites d'un de ses princes chez Epstein ont pu avoir pas mal de sources, je ne cherche pas la première ou même la principale dans le fait qu'il a lu Lewis Carroll.

Dans un autre écrit, Virgo-Maria N° 531, pour dénoncer Mgr. Williamson, la rédaction de cette publication cite 14 fois Lewis Carroll et juste une fois Tolkien. C'est quasi une admission que l'argument contre Tolkien ("apprécié des milieux ésotéristes") est trop faible. Avec Lewis Carroll il va aussi faire la tentative de le noircir parce que apprécié par Aleister Crowley (en personne) — en apportant une preuve de la wikipédie anglophone qui n'est plus là-dessus, je ne sais pas si la citation est génuine ou si c'était un abus de rédaction effacé avec justice. Même si la citation était génuine, l'idée d'un ésotérique de faire de Lewis Carroll une autorité ésotérique ne fait pas de Lewis Carroll un ésotériste.

Si les ésotéristes sont prêts à coopter toute la réalité visible comme des preuves pour leurs idées erronées, pourquoi se priveraient-ils de coopter aussi des auteurs ? Éventuellement Aleister Crowley avec Lewis Carroll, certainement Jean-Louis Questin avec Tolkien. Entretemps, autant que l'Abbé Michel Marchiset comprend mal les ésotéristes, autant il comprend mal Tolkien, à commencer du fait qu'il a identifié l'œuvre de cet auteur avec l'œuvre cinématographique de Peter Jackson.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Boniface, évêque et martyr
5.VI.2024

In Frisia sancti Bonifatii, Episcopi Moguntini et Martyris. Hic de Anglia Romam venit, indeque a beato Gregorio Papa Secundo in Germaniam missus est ut Christi fidem illis gentibus evangelizaret, et, cum maximam ibi multitudinem, praesertim Frisonum, Christianae religioni subjugasset, Germanorum Apostolus meruit appellari; novissime in Frisia, a furentibus Gentilibus gladio peremptus, una cum Eobano Coepiscopo et quibusdam aliis servis Dei, martyrium consummavit.

PS, si je dus dire à propos l'intérêt de Tolkien que le monde anglosaxonne est chrétien, catholique, le saint du jour nous le souligne./HGL

* L’admiration de Mgr Williamson pour Tolkien, Auteur apprécié des milieux ésotéristes[1]
Virgo-Maria N° 473, Samedi 5 janvier 2008
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles_HTML/2008/001_2008/VM-2008-01-05/VM-2008-01-05-A-00-Mgr_Williamson-Tolkien.htm


** ab urbe Roma condita, anno septingentesimo quinquagesimo secundo; ce qui donne que la Rome encore royale a dû avoir tous les septs rois, série qui débute avec Romulus. Ceux qui prétendent celui uniquement fictif, parce que mythologique, donneraient à Rome juste les derniers trois rois. À commencer avec Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, dont le règne est traditionellement daté à 616–578 av.C. Et encore voudraient-ils probablement diminuer les longuers des règnes, pour avoir une Rome fondée vers 550 av.C. En fait, si les premières couches urbaines de Rome ont une datation carbonique à 550 av.C. cette datation vaut pour la plupart des années réelles entre 750 et 450. Elle tend donc à confirmer la fondation traditionnelle de Rome.

*** Tolkien comme personne les a faits. Il fustige beaucoup davantage la Réforme anglicane que les Méthodistes, pourtant il est resté catholique après la mort de sa mère, tandis qu'il dépensait pas mal de son temps avec de la famille méthodiste, entre son douxième année (l'année même de sa conversion, car il était au-dessus l'âge de la raison quand sa mère est reçue et dut donc faire sa propre conversion), et sa majorité. Plus là-dessus dans l'excellente vidéo avec Holly Oardway :

Holly Ordway: The Christian faith of JRR Tolkien
29 May 2024, Seen & Unseen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tseMM6xMHpM


° Certains diraient davantage. Si Alice Liddell l'a évité une fois qu'elle était grandie, combien est-ce par prise de conscience véritable et combien par réactions excessives de la mère ?

°° Un truc qu'il a pour combattre les tentations (qu'il l'ait suivi ou non) est "il est impossible de se dire de ne pas penser à une chose, mais il est possible de se dire de penser sur une autre chose"

Friday, May 31, 2024

Levels of Stonehenge


Stonehenge and Göbekli Tepe? · Levels of Stonehenge

I once redated Stonehenge, from the known carbon dates with my then tables. I'm remaking it with newer ones. First the wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge

I'll attach extracts of the article to the dates, so we know what's what:

Before the monument (from 8000 BC)

Archaeologists have found four, or possibly five, large Mesolithic postholes (one may have been a natural tree throw), which date to around 8000 BC, beneath the nearby old tourist car-park in use until 2013. These held pine posts around two feet six inches (0.75 m) in diameter, which were erected and eventually rotted in situ. ...

Salisbury Plain was then still wooded, but, 4,000 years later, during the earlier Neolithic, people built a causewayed enclosure at Robin Hood's Ball, and long barrow tombs in the surrounding landscape. ...

In approximately 3500 BC, a Stonehenge Cursus was built 2,300 feet (700 m) north of the site as the first farmers began to clear the trees and develop the area. ...

Stonehenge 1 (c. 3100 BC)

The first monument consisted of a circular bank and ditch enclosure made of Late Cretaceous (Santonian Age) Seaford chalk, measuring about 360 feet (110 m) in diameter, with a large entrance to the north east and a smaller one to the south. It stood in open grassland on a slightly sloping spot. ...

Stonehenge 2 (c. 2900 BC)

The second phase of construction occurred approximately between 2900 and 2600 BC. The number of postholes dating to the early third millennium BC suggests that some form of timber structure was built within the enclosure during this period. ....
 Stonehenge 3 I (c. 2600 BC)

Archaeological excavation has indicated that around 2600 BC, the builders abandoned timber in favour of stone and dug two concentric arrays of holes (the Q and R Holes) in the centre of the site ...

Stonehenge 3 II (2600 BC to 2400 BC)

During the next major phase of activity, 30 enormous Oligocene–Miocene sarsen stones (shown grey on the plan) were brought to the site. They came from a quarry around 16 miles (26 km) north of Stonehenge, in West Woods, Wiltshire.[37] The stones were dressed and fashioned with mortise and tenon joints before 30 sarsens were erected as a 108-foot (33 m) diameter circle of standing stones, with a ring of 30 lintel stones resting on top. ...

Stonehenge 3 III (2400 BC to 2280 BC)

Later in the Bronze Age, although the exact details of activities during this period are still unclear, the bluestones appear to have been re-erected. They were placed within the outer sarsen circle and may have been trimmed in some way. Like the sarsens, a few have timber-working style cuts in them suggesting that, during this phase, they may have been linked with lintels and were part of a larger structure.

Stonehenge 3 IV (2280 BC to 1930 BC)

This phase saw further rearrangement of the bluestones. They were arranged in a circle between the two rings of sarsens and in an oval at the centre of the inner ring. ...

Stonehenge 3 V (1930 BC to 1600 BC)

Soon afterwards, the northeastern section of the Phase 3 IV bluestone circle was removed, creating a horseshoe-shaped setting (the Bluestone Horseshoe) which mirrored the shape of the central sarsen Trilithons. This phase is contemporary with the Seahenge site in Norfolk.


Now for the dates, when a simple equation is given without any explanation, it is because the carbon date is already calibrated to an exact Biblical (and real) date, either as per primary nodes or by my intercalations:

"8000 BC" = 2556 BC

"4000 BC" = 2029 BC

2029
78.796 pmC
1970 + 2029 = 3999

"3500 BC" = 1935 BC

"3100 BC" = 1801 BC

"2900 BC" ~ 1740 BC

1740 BC
86.777125 pmC
1150 + 1740 = 2890 BC
 "2600 BC" = 1678 BC

"2400 BC" = 1655 BC

"2280 BC" = 1641 BC

1641 BC
92.561 pmC
640 + 1641 = 2281 BC

"1930 BC" = 1599 BC

1599 BC
96.1346 pmC
330 + 1599 = 1929 BC

"1600 BC" = 1487 BC

1487 BC
98.7395 pmC
110 + 1487 = 1597 BC


When extra explanations are given, I have been obliged to find a middle year and a middle value of the pmC between two of the items in my table. Not necessarily the unweighted medium value of the two. The already extant real dates with carbon dates are in this article, in French:

New blog on the kid : Mes plus récentes tables de carbone 14
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2024/05/mes-plus-recentes-tables-de-carbone-14.html


Hans Georg Lundahl
Cergy
Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary
31.V.2024

Festum beatae Mariae Virginis Reginae.

Saturday, May 25, 2024

Language Emergence — How Does it Work?


I do not mean how it worked at Babel. That was a miracle. The wedding at Cana is not a manual of how wine is commonly made, because Jesus was not making wine the common way, but the miraculous way. Same goes for the emergence of new languages at Babel. A linguist who is an atheist will argue that never happened, because that's not how new languages emerge. Precisely like a winegrower and winemaker who's an atheist could pretend Cana is a myth, invented by people who have no idea how wine is made. A kind of pious equivalent to the city bumpkin who thinks milk is pressed from some fruit like a juice ...

I also do not mean how it worked when the first man had the first language. That was an equally miraculous and equally quick speeding up of language acquisition.

I mean how it works when something like "French emerged after the Roman Empire split up" happens. Or Latin emerged in the Roman Kingdom or the Republic.

Basically every child alive is learning the language that his parents spoke. For basically every child, this is noticeably different, though intercomprehensible, with the language his dead grea-great-grandparents spoke, if grammophone or written records allow comparison. For basically every child, it would no longer be fully intercomprehensible with the spoken language 400 years earlier. It could still be intercomprehensible on a written level, like when older Swedish "thola" is "tåla" in modern Swedish, which has lost the thorn sound and changed the spelling accordingly in 1700. Probably at that distance, the rhythm and how words are ending and beginning would be the worst problem after a time machine journey. It would very clearly be NOT intercomprehensible 800 years back. Even written forms would be hard to pick out what was happening good deal of the time.

This is known as "language evolution" or "language change" or "language change" and no one disputes this process exists. Not anyone I know. Some people claim their own language (like Greek) is miraculously exempt from this, or that meticulous transmission of what one has learned will halt the process, so, for some reason Homer spoke sth like "mini aïdhe thya" and felt obliged to write this as "μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ" (the ee sound written as eta, iota, epsilon and iota, and if you count yod, even as epsilon in hiatus) so that it is a preposterous misunderstanding of Greek to suppose he pronounced it more like "menin aeide thea" — but even those guys will usually admit it happens in other languages.

This is part of the process of language emergence, but only part of it. If a specific population in either Tuscany or Hungaria had started out 2000 years ago or more, even 3000 years ago, speaking Etruscan, never writing it down, and had come today to speak something like Hungarian, also never writing it down, this language evolution would not have led to the emergence of a new language. It would be new to the time machine, but not to anyone involved, since no one would have had the older language to compare it to.

Never mind if Alinei was right that Etruscan was Old Hungarian, I happen to think he was.

When writing exists, this is different. One way of a language emerging is obviously it's being written down.

Two scenarios are possible, to begin with.

A) Writing in the language is fairly sporadic, works of canonic importance are mainly another language, so, the spelling keeps up with the changes in pronunciation, just as much as grammar and word choice of the writing are pretty faithfully rendered by the written texts. This was the case with lots of West European languages in the later centuries of the Middle Ages, the canonic language, so to speak was Latin. Meanwhile, German, French, joined a bit later by English, could change, at least as fast as chanceries found convenient. You might want to be able to read a legal text from 100 years ago, or you might want not to be able to do so ... in fact, the documents from 1300 are a bit different from those in 1200.
B) You write a language with a history. Classical and religious canonic works are written or translated to it. This means, correct usage might get widened, but not get forgotten just because speech changes. This was the case with Latin in 500 — 650 AD. "Gregory wrote in Late Latin, which frequently departed from classical usage in both syntax and spelling, although with relatively few changes in inflection." Frequent departures from Classical usage doesn't mean establishment of a definite new usage.

In the first case, you can say that a new language has emerged when the one able to read a recent text is not generally able to read an old one. In the second case, you can wonder whether a new language can be claimed to have emerged when the departures from older usage become so frequent that it's obvious the speakers are not quite speaking the old language any more.

Or you can say, the new language actually emerges when the newer speech gets a written usage of its own.

This may come after some quirks, either after a pause with little or no writing (like English and Romanian emerge after Anglo-Saxon and Latin had already been dead as written languages for some time, and both emerge after having a period been the lower class language looking up to a foreign one, French and Bulgarian). Or. Especially if we go to scenario B. By the very specific process I have called language divorce. How French, Spanish, Italian emerged from Latin, when an ambition arose to keep Latin much purer than of recent, at least in some contexts. After about 100 years or less, the educated speaker of the people's language is no longer identic to the speaker of Latin, and instead of tweaking Latin to the differences in popular oral usage, has a new grammar surrounding it. That's the period between Alcuin's arrival in Tours in 800 and the subsequent reboot of Latin into a foreign and fully Classical language, apparent by 813, and the song of Saint Eulalia, and it is also the period between the Council of Burgos (1080, I think) and the Cantar del Mio Cid.

There are linguists in Germany educated to deny this as a valid mode for language emergence. They are used to the model of Old High German, Middle High German, Late Middle High German, Early Modern German, fully Modern German, where scenario A is the norm. They are right that what I called the emergence of French didn't alter anyone's French speech directly. They admit that the fact was likely to have long term effects. I insist, both because of the long term effects, and because of the difference in reading experience, that such a process actually merits to be called the emergence of French. Also, the more gradual emergence you find in between Old High German and Early Modern German only exists because Latin was this period the more official language, leaving German writing something you were free to tinker with.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Ember Saturday of Pentecost
25.V.2024

Sunday, May 19, 2024

If Joseph's Pharao was Amenhotep III, what would that do to carbon dates?


The Pharaohs of Genesis and Exodus
Joel W Seibright (Australian Catholic University Graduate Student, on Academia)
https://www.academia.edu/16803504/The_Pharaohs_of_Genesis_and_Exodus


One of the theses is, Joseph's Pharao was Amenhotep III, Joseph is recorded as Ramose.

I have no carbon date directly linked to Amenhotep III, since I don't count this quote as very reliable:

The dates of Amenhotep III's accession and the end of his reign are estimated to be 1423–1386 calBC and 1385–1348 calBC


Absolute dating of lead carbonates in ancient cosmetics by radiocarbon
Lucile Beck et al. Communications Chemistry volume 1, Article number: 34 (2018)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-018-0034-y


Wait, the lead carbonate was synthetic? Fresh charcoal was used to give lead the carbonate carbon component? OK, that changes it.

Joseph, living in 1700 BC, when his pharao presumably died, is living under a pharao whose cerussite consumption points to a carbon date of 1385–1348 BC.

1348 - 1700 = -352, when young the cerussite dated 352 years into the future ... presumably, Joel W Seibright doesn't mean this, he has more probably radically shortened the Biblical chronology between Joseph and King David, but we'll proceed as if he had more respect for the text. This would mean a carbon 14 level of 104.35 pmC in 1700 BC.

Meanwhile, as Osgood pointed out, Asason-Tamar is En-Geddi:

The Times of Abraham
By Dr A.J.M. Osgood | This article is from
Journal of Creation 2(1):77–87, April 1986
https://creation.com/the-times-of-abraham


Genesis 14 is a narrative which begins with a confederation of four Mesopotamian kings:-

  1. Amraphel, king of Shinar
  2. Arioch, king of Ellasar
  3. Chedorlaomer, king of Elam
  4. Tidal, king of Goiim (Genesis 14:1)


This would tend to put the Genesis 14 event into pre-cuneiform times, at least pre-cuneiform narratives.

As is often the case, the positive clue comes from the most insignificant portion of this passage. In Genesis 14:7 we are told that the kings of Mesapotamia attacked ‘the Amorites who dwelt in Hazezon-tamar’. Now 2 Chronicles 20:2 tells us that Hazezon-tamar is En-gedi, the oasis mentioned in Scripture a number of times on the western shore of the Dead Sea. ... Happily for us. En-gedi has been excavated.5,6 The excavations found only three major periods of settlement at En-gedi:-.

  1. The Roman period - not relevant here
  2. During the Kingdom of Israel - not relevant here
  3. During the Chalcolithic of Palestine - the largest and most prolific settlement period.


And as I know from another source, En Gedi's calcholithic has a carbon date:

Wikipedia : Nahal Mishmar hoard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahal_Mishmar_hoard


The Nahal Mishmar hoard is the hoard of archaeological artifacts found by a 1961 expedition led by Pessah Bar-Adon in a cave by Nahal Mishmar in the Judaean Desert near the Dead Sea, Israel. The collection wrapped in a straw mat found under debris in a natural crevice contained 442 objects: 429 of copper, six of hematite, one of stone, five of hippopotamus ivory, and one of elephant ivory. Carbon-14 dating of the mat suggests the date at least 3,500 BCE, i.e., it places the hoard into the Chalcolithic period. ... The objects of the hoard seem to be collected in a hurry.[1] There are several theories about the origin of the hoard. Archaeologist David Ussishkin has suggested the hoard may have been the cultic furniture of the abandoned Chalcolithic Temple of Ein Gedi about 7 miles (11 km) south from the site.[6][7] Yosef Garfinkel stated that no proof have been provided for the connection of the hoard with the temple and suggested that this was a burial of cult objects, to prevent their desecration, drawing a parallel with the find in the Nahal Hemar Cave[8] ...


I would say the hurry was from the evacuation of En Gedi. Even without this identification of the hoard ...

The Chalcolithic temple of Ein Gedi is a Ghassulian public building dating from about 3500 BCE. It lies on a scarp above the oasis of Ein Gedi, on the western shore of the Dead Sea, within modern-day Israel. Archaeologist David Ussishkin has described the site as "a monumental edifice in terms of contemporary architecture".


So, Genesis 14 is tied to the carbon date 3500 BC.

3500 - 1935 = 1565 extra years, implying a carbon level of 82.753 pmC.

1935 - 1700 = 235 years. Decay = down to 97.197 % or original content. Normal replacement = 2.803 pmC.

Part of the carbon 14 that was remaining:
82.753 pmC * 97.197 / 100 = 80.433 pmC

Actual replacement:
104.35 pmC - 80.433 pmC = 23.917 pmC

Factor of carbon 14 production:
23.917 pmC / 2.803 pmC = 8.532 times as fast


I'll skip what that kind of rate would mean between Flood and Babel (10.1 times as fast overall, though part just 3.628 times as fast and other part 20.702 times as fast), since the much lower initial values makes for more doubling (the relation between dates and carbon 14 is not to linear or geometric amounts of it, but to logarithmic ones), but this would place Djoser and Senusret III in ...

235 : 5 = 47 years. 99.433 %, remainder after,
0.567 pmC normal replacement,
0.567 pmC * 8.532 = 4.838 pmC actual replacement

1935 BC
82.753 pmC, dated 3500 BC

82.753 * 99.433 / 100 = 82.284 pmC
82.284 + 4.838 = 87.122 pmC
(and so on between remaining rungs)

1888 BC
87.122 pmC, dated 3038 BC

1841 BC
91.466 pmC, dated 2581 BC

1794 BC
95.785 pmC, dated 2154 BC

1747 BC
100.08 pmC, dated 1737 BC

1700 BC
104.35 pmC, dated 1350 BC


(1888 + 1841) / 2 = 1865 BC
(87.122 + 91.466) / 2 = 89.294 pmC
940 + 1865 = 2805 BC

(1794 + 1747 + 1747 + 1747) / 4 = 1759 BC
(95.785 + 100.08 + 100.08 + 100.08) / 4 = 99.00625 pmC
1759 + 80 = 1839 BC

So, on this view, Djoser would be placed in 1865 BC and Senusret III in 1759 BC. 106 years apart. On my view it's 1700 respectively 1588, 112 years apart. Not too big a difference. Except, I'm rearranging only Old and Middle Kingdom reigns this radically, while Joel W Seibright would be placing Senusret III's coffin 59 years prior to Amenhotep III's (or his wife's) lead carbonate make up. I'm placing Amenhotep III and Akhenaten into the Judges period. The carbon date 1348 BC would be between 1319 and 1297 BC, placing up to 270 years (as opposed to 59) from the death of Senusret III to that of Amenhotep III.

But the undergraduate is no doubt not all that interested in Biblical chronology as fact, or he would not have dreamt of placing the Pharao of the Exodus that near the fall of Troy, which is close enough to Setnakhte. He might even consider all of Genesis as mythical.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Pentecost Day
19.V.2024

Monday, May 6, 2024

Beowulf, le monstre mal compris Grendel


Les créationnistes ont raison dans l'idée que la base du poëme Beowulf est un personnage historique, et qu'il a eu des rencontre avec des monstres, pendant sa jeunesse, avant 516 (mort de son oncle Chlochilaïc), Grendel et sa mère, juste avant sa mort, bien après 516 (peut-être 536, s'il avait regné pendant 20 ans ?) avec un dragon.

Ils ont par contre assez souvent tort de prendre Grendel lui-même pour le dragon. Selon Trent Horn ça vient du livre After the Flood par Bill Cooper.

Ceux qui aimeraient nier que des dinosaures aient survécu après le Déluge, par contre, ont tort de prendre Beowulf comme un mythe./HGL

Sunday, April 21, 2024

Comment apprendre une poësie par cœur ?


Une vidéo avec Cassandre Fristot et d'autres Catholiques se trouve interrompue pour une publicité "boostez votre mental" ...

Le gérant de ce programme de "self-help" dit avoir été obligé d'apprendre une poësie par cœur et de ne pas avoir été informé par l'instituteur ou l'institutrice comment on le fait.

J'interromps la lecture de cette publicité pour me dire "mais, j'ai appris ça" ... en Autriche, l'hiver 1979 à 1980, jusqu'à Pâques, j'ai vécu chez un ami accueillant et profité d'une professeure retraitée et par rapport à moi, bénévole.

J'ai pu réciter "Wer reitet so spät durch Nacht und Wind" et "Die Bürgschaft" (ou extraits choisis) et je me souviens très bien comment on le fait.

Der Erlkönig (le roi des Aulnes) par Goethe a 8 strophes par 4 vers par strophe.

Die Bürgschaft par Schiller (titre français manque) a 20 strophes par 7 vers par strophe. Je ne suis pas sür d'avoir appris toutes les strophes.

Évidemment, on divise la poësie en strophes, on apprend une par une par cœur, et on divise chaque strophe en vers, on apprend un par un ou autant qu'on peut à la fois par cœur.

Zu Dionys, dem Tyrannen, schlich
Damon, den Dolch im Gewande:
Ihn schlugen die Häscher in Bande,
"Was wolltest du mit dem Dolche? sprich!"
Entgegnet ihm finster der Wüterich.
"Die Stadt vom Tyrannen befreien!"
"Das sollst du am Kreuze bereuen."


Je lis d'abord toute la strophe, pour avoir le rhytme. Ensuite, j'enlève les yeux du livre, je répète autant que je peux, et ensuite je regarde si j'ai bien répété, et quels mots suivent, je continue autant vite que je peux, et je répète jusqu'à connaître la strophe par cœur. Ensuite, j'enchaîne la strophe suivante.

Le processus est bien entendu identique pour apprendre des chansons, sauf que là, ce n'est pas juste le rythme, mais toute la mélodie qui aide l'apprentissage.

Autant dire que je déteste certains types de vers libres, donc sans rythme. Il paraît qu'en français, le nom "vers libre" ne veut pas tout à fait dire ça, mais il s'agit des vrais vers qui ne sont ni octosyllabes, ni alexandrines. Ça, c'est autre chose. Mais "fri vers" / "freier Vers" / "free verse" ... non, le mètre sert à quelque chose.

Notons, je ne recommande pas la méthode de Damon et Phinthias, tant que d'autres méthodes existent.

Par contre, je recommende :

Les yeux sur le livre
Zu Dionys, dem Tyrannen, schlich

Les yeux détournés
Zu Dionys, dem Tyrannen, schlich

Les yeux sur le livre
Damon, den Dolch im Gewande:

Les yeux détournés
Damon, den Dolch im Gewande:

Les yeux sur le livre
Ihn schlugen die Häscher in Bande,

Les yeux détournés
Ihn schlugen die Häscher in Bande,


C'est très peu probable que la mémoire perde une ligne de cette brièveté en juste quelques secondes.
/Hans Georg Lundahl

Sunday, April 7, 2024

Voltaire and Marx Were NOT Medieval Historians


Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Danièle Cybulskie, Historian of the Middle Ages · Voltaire and Marx Were NOT Medieval Historians · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Welsh Viking on Medieval Peasants — He's Occasionally Inaccurate or Off

There are lots of people who have their interests in destroying the reputation of the Middle Ages. Let's start with politics. By now, religious people who have this shtick mainly, mostly, perhaps except Jews and Muslims, but at least for Christians in Europe, have it via politics. If they have joined religions that encourage it, they have often done so after their school days.

First we have Enlightened Despotism, preached by Voltaire and Kant, realised by Frederick the Great, a man able to murder Germans by iniquitous warfare, because they preferred to be ruled by Maria Theresia (Silesian wars, during one of which the probably last Catholic priest was killed on European soil on orders of a Protestant King — before Revolutions and Sovietism, that is — namely Blessed Andrew Faulhaber, who refused to tell the Confession Secret of a deserter, a man who had left Frederick's robber army without joining Maria Theresias, simply not fighting either way). Frederick did not act like a Protestant fanatic who considered the Mass a blasphemy, he acted like a Silovik, considering the seal of confession and the absolution probably given to a deserter without requiring him to get back to his troops, as sabotage of the state monopoly of violence.

Then we have Marxism of the old Soviet and Social Democrat schools. I mean prior to some 70's Euro-Marxists, who actually did some real history. These latter ones, understandably, had a disgust for Frederick II that surpassed any ill feelings against the Middle Ages. They were consequently defending the Middle Ages, on many accounts (sometimes with obligate distance taking from the Inquisition, though), and in doing so they were joined by Catholics, even very conservative ones. No, I do not talk of 70's Euro-Marxists, I talk of old school Marxists. Text books of Sweden, when Olof Palme (Socialdemocrat Workers' Party, SAP*) was Minister of Ecclesiastic Affairs or of the Soviet Union, and later under Tito**, Ceaucescu, Honegger, Dubček or Husák, Władysław Gomułka, and so on.

Not all Classical liberals would agree, but some, those most promoting Industrial Capitalism were pretending the conditions prior to it were inhuman, and as the conditions under Industrial Capitalism have long been inhuman enough to fan Communist resentments, the inhumanity of the Middle Ages had to be correspondingly exaggerated, which kind of historiography was the source for Marx' own description of "Feudalism" in some*** chapter of Das Kapital. Also, not all Classical liberals would support the French Revolution, nor all French Revolutionaries Classical liberalism. The French Revolutionaries were using the same critique of the Middle Ages as Voltaire had given Frederick, and were consequently basically clamouring for a populist and non-monarchic version of Enlightened Despotism. Non-monarchic not being the most practical system of government in a land the size of France, and especially not in times of turmoil that the Revolution had usshered in (like Silesian Wars, but on a largers scale), the system was then perfected by a certain Napoleon Bonaparte.

A side remark on the latter. I do not know of any real attempt of gematrically linking Napoleon Bonaparte to 666. In War and Peace, Tolstoy° describes a character who had come to hear of a Masonic secret°° code making "l'Empereur Napoléon" into 666. Since English propaganda was out trying to present Napoleon as "the Beast" (something I know from Austrian, but not Swedish school books), if they had had a valid gematria°°° linking his name, with or without title, to 666, they would presumably have published it and it would be known.

Then we have all the religious enemies of Roman Catholicism. A Muslim is likely to say the Caliphate provided bathing and hygiene, but the Christian Medieval Kingdoms sacked that. Dissing baths is actually a phenomenon from late 1400's or early 1500's reaching to the times of George Washington. It didn't mean a lack of hygiene, but it meant a less simple and to some less accessible procedure. A Waldensian would argue the Alpine valleys of Lombardy were clean, but the Medieval cities like Turin and Nice, or at least Milan and Aix, were filthy. A Jew could claim the Jewry of Carpentras or the Ghetto of Rome was clean, while the Christian parts of these cites were filthy. Some of them might rely on Medieval Jewish descriptions, involving mentions of ritual uncleanness, and not make the distinction. And so on.

Each if these religions, and each of the political movements I described, apart from Catholic Conservatives and post-70's Euro-Marxists, would like to pretend serfs were suffering a horribly bad deal. I'll not share the two videos which were giving wildly inaccurate informations on some levels, but I'll share my objections before I dismissed them, also there under the videos.

I 1:36 You have put three dots on Scandinavia, one on Sweden, two on Norway.

It so happens, Sweden and Norway never had serfs. They had thralls fairly long (Sweden abolished thralls in 1351), who technically were slaves, but never had serfs.

I think there is some kind of incompetence in your research.

II "on top of the burden of working his own 2:46 land to feed his family serve had to spend about three days each week working on the land of his Lord"

Let's do some mathematics.

You assume, incorrectly, all of the peasant population were serfs. This is incorrect to start with, but you will not quarrel with the idea 75 % of the general population were serfs, and 95 % were some kind of farmers, including serfs.

You then pretend a serf worked 3 out of 6 work days per week on the land of his lord.

First of all, a serf has to feed himself and his family. Second, the worst possible (way beyond actual, since there were non-serf peasants) is, he also had to feed the remaining 25 %, via his lord, who gained money by selling to city dwellers, something the serf, supposedly, couldn't do.

That would make each serf feed himself and 1/3, his family and 1/3 family. Three serfs with families fed a total of four people with families, on your view.

As the serf mainly fed his family via his own work, how come he has to work half the time to feed others, when it should only be a quarter of the time? Your figures do not really add up.

Perhaps there was some socialism involved. Perhaps the landlord was reserving himself the not just right but also realistic opportunity to feed serfs when they ran out of their own supplies, so as to bind them in gratitude. But realistically, it could not be that the men who (apart from soldiers, fishermen and lumberjacks) did the hardest work were less well fed than everyone else.

That they were less well fed than the soldiers is possible, but would not normally involve starving serfs. They didn't live on Auschwitz conditions. Nor the conditions of Catholic tenants during the potato famine in Ireland. Nor the conditions of early industrial workers in Manchester who didn't need all that strength, since machines were taking over important parts of their tasks.

I call your bluff. Cite your sources!


I am not holding my breath they will do that. If they did, it is too likely it would be a 70's textbook of history, the kind of thing the historians of the last decades have tried to but largely failed to change.

Instead, I will here link to a video which actually does try to make a difference against this background of ignorance. I'm only 11:26 into it, but I already like it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Dominica in albis
7.IV.2024

Here is the video:

How Feudalism never existed: The Tyranny of a Construct | Medieval History Documentary
Viator in Terra | 21 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiA7uOqEhKo


* The Swedish abbreviation stands for "Socialdemokratiska Arbetare-Partiet."
** If I have come out as supporting his economic system, in defense of Carlos Hugo, this nowise extends to his school system.
*** No, I don't know which chapter, I am however certain, there was such a part, describing Liberalism or Capitalism as a progress from Feudalism, making things better, when arguably it instead made things worse for the farming majority of the population.
° Whose present day relative is highly scathing on French volunteers in the Ukraine or possibly future regular soldiers ("don't worry, we'll kill them all") ...
°° The Apocalypse belongs to all, and unlike dates for the second coming, pointing out present day very likely candidates of the Antichrist is specifically authorised in that book. Masons have no right to demand secrecy, and the only "code" needed is one linking the letters of the alphabet to number values, and that neither being ad hoc nor secret. Alpha, beta, gamma and aleph, beth, gimel spell 1, 2, 3. (Binary versions of) 65, 66, 67 spell out A, B, C, as 97, 98, 99 do for a, b, c. Each binary number can be respelled as a decimal number. So, Greek, Hebrew and Latin spellings are fair game, and the last of these in ASCII.
°°° Like "Ο Απόλλωνας" gives 1332 or 2*666 in a valid, simple Greek alphanumeric gematria.