Monday, October 30, 2023

Philological and Language Blogs


Apologetics Blogs · Main Blogs · Debate blogs · Philological and Language Blogs · Artsy Blogs · Autobiographical Blogs (2 from 7 are 13 +) · Small blogs

On the blogs
"filolohika"? 3,66 k · Om det är "gammelsvenska" jag skrifver? 243 · What was MSN Group Antimodernism? 862 · "Help for safeguarding messages?" 289 · Ämne: 2000 visits 196

Videtur et in finibus Persarum esse latinistas! 362 · Followers 110 · To Readers of my Susan Pevensie Chronicle (or my Essays) on How to Read my Linked Messages/Chapters 1,11 k

On getting paper published or otherwise paid
Misunderstanding Begging (Some Cultural History of, Blog Theme Obliging) and This Beggar 3,5 k · Tryckeri med dator, skrifvare, och copiator 429 · Columniste? Exploitable, alors! 229 · clarifications à propos donativo (Eng/fr) 486 · columniste? exploitable, alors? ... 310

Challenge
not responded to:

Vecka vij
Toutes les périodes / all times 8585

Ordningen här (för den som vill) 691 · Ursäkta, förlåt, förlåt ... 547 · Detta är intet vecka 6, utan vecka vij 360 · Utmaning 1, c-dag 10 okt 2011, rhetorik 293

18 october, d-dag, detta år en tisdag, arithmetik 285 · OK, b-dag, lördag 268 · En dag sen (ursäkta igen!) 266

The rest
is in each blog on the subjects

Φιλολoγικά / Philologica
Toutes les périodes / all times 395063

Sects, Historical Critical Method, Post-Confessional Christianity 13,2 k · Where Orthodox Canonists disagree with Catholic ones about Soldiers in War Communicating 3,85 k · Answering a Muslim who asked "If Jesus was [=is] GOD ..." 3,42 k · Clarification 2,49 k · The City Lights Went Out, Did They? 2,44 k

Accusative and Dative for English speakers ... 1,48 k · Answering TheOFloinn some more 1,37 k · If you read old texts - did people really do things like that back then? 1,11 k · Brenda Weltner Considers the Apocalypse Has More Story-Lines than One 837 · Et les ancêtres du roi martyr? Regardons aussi la parité entre les sexes ... ou même le privilège féminin 805

Answering GRRM on JRRT's character Aragorn 529 · St Augustine was a Geocentric ... in face of what, Mr. Sungenis? 426 · Happy Ring Day, Tolkien Lovers 376 · Speaking of right format ... 369 · Link on History of Medicine 343

Catholicism vs. Slave Hunting Pseudo-Theology 331 · The Restrainer : the Roman Emperor 331 · Refuting Vikernes on Odalism and European Religion 321 · Sorry, Duursma, but all languages have the cases of Proto-Indoeuropean, there is no primitive language ... 312 · Art of Interpretation 311

Boone and Relatives 308 · Linguistics for Romanides: Greek, Latin, Patois 285 · La Lettre A d'une Encyclopédie 283 · What's a Docent in Sweden? 118

AUF DEUTSCH (AUF ANTIMODERNISM UND SPÄTER)
Toutes les périodes / all times 55296

Aus Chromosome/Wiki/de 2,13 k · Pfirti' oder B'förd' di'? 705 · Jon Kjölstad gör sig omöjlig om Ukraina 443 (SV: Tschuldigung, die vorige war für dem schwedischen Blog 288) · Rund um Philippa von Hennegau - Heiratsalter der Frauen 432 · Antimodernism - deutsches Inhaltsverzeichnis 395

Wie gesagt, Cara al Sol war in Spanien ein gutes Lied bis 1939 386 · Euler als "Astronom" 305 · Ich schrieb den Kommentar 221 · Eine Freiheit des mittelalterlichen Leibeigenen oder nicht? 200 · Wann hat Hitler mal endlich vertiggetötet? 168

Rechtsextrem? 165 · Judenthum, Christenthum, Islam, Israel-Palästina, Deutschland 159 · Ehealter der Frauen in der Ahnentafel Marie von Badens 158 · Sinngedichte 144 · Ich lese gerade Chesterton ... und Mitteilungsblatt 140

Bayern Disneyland? 116 · Schule durch Hitlerthum and Preußenthum belagert 116 · Vergleich dreier Hauptschul-Nachrichten auf Yahoo 106 · Gott sei Dank! Der Österreicher lebt! (Link) 104

PÅ SVENSKA OG PÅ DANSK PÅ ANTIMODERNISM
Toutes les périodes / all times 75422

[...] 2,5 k · BEVAR CHRISTIANIA 1,77 k · Någon kallade Jon Emil Kjölstad falsk, nej, det är han intet. 932 · Hvad talar mot evolutionsteorin? 324 · Om antikristna akademiker... the prequel 253

Débat om LVU/skolpligt/hemskolning 236 · Débat med Patrik Lindenfors, forskare, Stockholms Universitet 156 · Div. Hukomster fra débatter på Blackmarket.dk med nyhedninger 142 · [...] 137 · Vördnad för den Heliga Jungfruns Textila Reliqvier! 130

Förfäder på 1700-talet - fyra kändisars 127 · Emma Martinovic - Breivik senior : 1-0 126 · Svar till Stephan Borgehammar! 126 · Om Carlismen på FB 119 · God Fortsättning 117

Kalenderbyte - commentar till Dick Harrisons blogg 116 · För mycket pseudo-empathie 113 · Ang. frågeställningar i ett bref af min välgörare 101

Kopiera oförändradt, sprid gratis
Toutes les périodes / all times 10071

MAJORITETSBESLUTETS PROBLEM & LÖSNING 417 · Öppet bref om ungdomars äktenskap 405 · Fjortis' Bröllop 346 · När ska' psyket släppa morsan? 345 · Skamfläck för Sudan - och för Sverige 306

Kort är vårt liv 306 · Vadhelst på denna jord du mött 280 · Vidarebefordradt - till jourhem och famille-hem! 279 · OM S:TA BIRGITTA AV VADSTENA (OCH TVÅ HELGON TILL) 162

En français sur Antimodernism
Toutes les périodes / all times 27355

Géocentrisme, ma vers. 2 (co-rédaction sur la wikipédie) 1,14 k · Justice sans religion - est-ce possible? 712 · Merci, Eric Wenzel! 601 · Commentaire de Benoît XVI 400 · Commentaire sur "Laïcité, j'écris ton nom" 347

Le temps des dinosaures, c'était quand? 287 · On peut vivre ... 227 · "Bible Science" et ses adversaires 226 · Parallaxe (co-rédaction sur la wikipédie) 220 · Trois observations sur "l'homosexualité" 215

L'argument de C. S. Lewis (résumé d'un livre) 209 · "Dans la peau d'un ..." 192 · Chants de Salon 158 · Géocentrisme, ma vers. 1 (co-rédaction sur la wikipédie) 143 · Si Dieu reprend mon âme demain 140

Réfutation de Kant 137 · Les psychologues et historiens des religions 126 · Je ne suis pas grandi dans l'église du Christ 117 · Quelque part ... 117 · "sur Antimodernism" - faute d'orthographe? 89

MSN GROUP ANTIMODERNISM IN MEMORIAM
Toutes les périodes / all times 33067

"Antigone's flaw" 617 · One group member promoted Hutchinson 539 · Sola Scriptura or Tota Scriptura? 461 · Looking for the Pope ... (bis) 452 · A Thread Where First Message was by Quarefremuntgentes 393

Commenting on de Souza's essay "De-Christianization: ..." 347 · Grandeur 291 · Wrong question 271 · Chantage pédagogique/psychiatrique 249 · Google, the hamster 217

Om antikristna akademiker... 187 · Dancing Around a Conundrum - OR Defecting from the Faith? 185 · Mémoire éternelle ... Lazare Ponticelli 180 · Seven word conquest 166 · Genesis in China 150 · Rhétorique antidroite 148

Latinitatis morphologia simplificata
Toutes les périodes / all times / per omnia tempora 18817

verba praeteriti imperfecti indicativus, futuri indicativus 3,06 k · Exercitia simplicissima de casuum et temporum utilitate 813 · Index morphologiae uerbalis 477 · Futuri et praeteriti perfecti conjunctiuus actiuus 186 · primae et quintae declinationis substantiva 177

Retro in indicem morphologiae verbalis 150 · Participia futura actiui, verba desiderativa, frequentativa et inchoativa necnon conjugationes periphrasticae 149 · Pronomina Composita 147 · Tertiae declinationis non neutra substantiva 135 · Pronomina in QU- 133

Praeteriti perfecti infinitiuus actiuus et plusquamperfecti conjunctiuus actiuus 127 · Unum sicut opponitur Nihil et Omnia, in Rebus et Personis 125 · Tertiae declinationis neutra substantiva 112 · Pronomina personalia et reflexiva, necnon possessiva 104 · imperativa, participia praesentis, gerundiva et gerundia 97

Pronomina binarii interrogationis, relativitatis, indefinitatis, vel alteritatis et c 96 · Participium praeteriti perfecti passiuus, systema perfecti passiui 92 · secundae et quartae declinationis substantiva neutra 90 · praesenti conjunctiuus 70

EN LENGUA ROMANCE EN ANTIMODERNISM Y DE MIS CAMINACIONES
Toutes les périodes / all times 99901

Chronicle of Susan Pevensie 2,95 k · Index in stephani tempier condempnationes 2,37 k · Comentario carlista sobre abortamiento (enlace) 1,93 k · Susan has a bad fright. 1,75 k · Collectio errorum in Anglia et Parisius Condempnatorum 823

Schliemann’s Dream 767 · En Respuesto a Propaganda Protestante 649 · Verdad Hispánica (enlaces, 2 videos) 565 · Citemus votum +Antonii de Castro-Mayer, Episcopi Camposini 442 · Four Bad Men Discussing Susan 388

Jack and Tollers discuss pipeweed 288 · Susana Maiolo and Sarah Silverman about the Pope 254 · Macready and Tea 239 · And His Word Went Marching On 238 · I viceré di Napoli 208

Year 10 950 ARC (After Rocket Crash) 198 · Tre temata francesi 198 · Mirabilis cosmos, mirabilior cosmou Creator 196 · [An Author's Aside] 184 · Splendour Hyaline - again 149


États-Unis
101 k + 2,84 k + 7,41 k + 12,6 k + 2,78 k + 16,8 k + 31 k + 5,64 k + 11 k = 191,07 k

Italie 31,7 k
 Russie
6,06 k + 1,07 k + 48 k + 1,32 k + 11,4 k + 3,05 k + 13,1 k + 3,88 k + 2,3 k = 90,18 k

Turkménistan 2,33 k
 
Sous-total A
191,07 k + 90,18 k + 31,7 k + 2,33 k = 315,28 k
 
Singapour
599 + 224 + 162 + 484 = 1469 = 1,47 k
2,49 k + 4,08 k + 49 k + 4,49 k + 1,47 k = 61,53 k
France
580 + 366 = 946 = 0,95 k
3,82 k + 3,5 k + 30,5 k + 5,95 k + 2,5 k + 1,35 k + 9,52 k + 0,95 k = 58,09 k
Ukraine
785 + 764 = 1549 = 1,55 k
2,07 k + 6,35 k + 2,99 k + 1,28 k + 21,5 k + 6,91 k + 1,67 k + 1,55 k = 44,32 k
Allemagne
476 + 310 + 801 = 1587 = 1,59 k
1,17 k + 3,69 k + 1,05 k + 21 k + 3,27 k + 3,13 k + 1,59 k = 34,9 k
Suède
698 + 407 + 184 + 250 + 315 = 1854 = 1,85 k
1,37 k + 2,46 k + 11,6 k + 5,36 k + 1,85 k = 22,64 k
Pays-Bas
793 + 598 + 954 + 954 = 3299 = 3,3 k
2,53 k + 1,89 k + 4,57 k + 1,27 k + 2,02 k + 3,3 k = 15,58 k
Japon
396 + 338 + 104 + 497 + 274 + 280 = 1889 = 1,89 k
5,98 k + 3,66 k + 1,89 k = 11,53 k
Israël
80 + 42 + 153 = 275 = 0,28 k
8,89 k + 0,28 k = 9,17 k
Royaume-Uni
712 + 111 + 698 + 201 + 510 + 398 + 345 = 2975 = 2,98 k
1,14 k + 3,22 k + 2,98 k = 7,34 k
 Canada
188 + 716 + 564 + 951 + 141 + 461 + 526 = 3547 = 3,55 k
1,55 k + 1,94 k + 3,55 k = 7,04 k
Roumanie
601 + 155 + 242 + 405 + 401 + 953 + 511 = 3268 = 3,27 k
2,19 k + 1,14 k + 3,27 k = 6,6 k
Chine
208 + 888 + 645 + 113 + 722 + 433 = 3009 = 3,01 k
3,35 k + 3,01 k = 6,36 k
Pologne
787 + 77 + 453 + 32 + 257 + 266 + 523 + 839 = 3234 = 3,23 k
2,15 k + 3,23 k = 5,38 k
Indonésie
344 + 267 + 357 + 248 + 373 + 349 + 327 + 445 = 2710 = 2,71 k
1,52 k + 2,71 k = 4,23 k
Inde
40 + 36 + 270 + 563 = 909 = 0,91 k
1,38 k + 0,91 k = 2,29 k

région indéterminée
931 + 438 + 974 + 209 + 373 = 2925 = 2,93 k
1,4 k + 1,31 k + 2,93 k = 5,64 k
Autre
641 + 978 = 1619 = 1,62 k
53,4 k + 11,8 k + 3,99 k + 7,24 k + 4,32 k + 3,24 k + 14,3 k + 1,62 k = 99,91 k
 
Sous-total B 61,53 k + 58,09 k + 44,32 k + 34,9 k + 22,64 k + 15,58 k + 11,53 k + 9,17 k + 7,34 k + 7,04 k + 6,6 k + 6,36 k + 5,38 k + 4,23 k + 2,29 k + 5,64 k + 99,91 k = 402,55 k
 
Émirats arabes unis
778 + 431 + 42 + 675 + 41 + 237 + 381 + 290 = 2875
Belgique
219 + 344 = 563
Autriche 263
Lettonie
46 + 45 = 91
 Turquie
636 + 321 + 44 + 391 + 255 = 1647
Corée du Sud
203 + 118 = 321
Estonie 263
Brésil 35
 
Sous-total C
2875 + 1647 + 563 + 321 + 263 + 263 + 91 + 35 = 6058 = 6,06 k

Total
315,28 k + 402,55 k + 6,06 k = 723,89 k


395063 + 55296 + 75422 + 10071 + 8585 + 27355 + 33067 + 18817 + 99901 = 723 k 577 ~ 723,89 k<

Tuesday, October 17, 2023

Can a PIE Spread with Anatolian Farmers be Defended?


Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Three Questions on PIE and Yamnaya (with one debate continued under Continued Debate with "Germanic Syntax") · Creation vs. Evolution: Is There a Correct Use of Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age? · Early human remains found to carry R1b · Would Proto-Indo-European Diverge Into Hittite, Mycenaean Greek, Indo-Aryan in The Biblical Time-Frame? · Φιλολoγικά / Philologica: Can a PIE Spread with Anatolian Farmers be Defended?

The Horse, the Wheel, and Language, by David W. Anthony, states: no.

Here are the details. Or some of them.



Figure 4.8. If Proto-Indo-European spread across Europe with the first farmers about 6500—5500 BC, it must have remained almost unchanged until about 3500 BCE, when the wheeled vehicle vocabulary appeared. This diagram illustrates a division into just three dialects in three thousand years. After Renfrew 2001.

The Horse, the Wheel, and Language
by David W. Anthony, Diagram p. 79
https://archive.org/details/horsewheelandlanguage/page/79/mode/2up


Renfrew, 2001. The Anatolian origins of Proto-Indo-European and the autochthony of the Hitties. In Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite Language Family, ed. Robert Drews, pp. 36—63. Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph 38. Washington D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man.


... The language of the original migrants to Greece cannot have remained a single language for three thousand years after its speakers were dispersed over many millions of square kilometers and several climate zones. Ethnographic or historic examples of such a large, stable language territory among tribal farmers simply do not exist.

That the speakers of Proto-Indo-European had wagons and a wagon vocabulary cannot be brought into agreement with a dispersal date as early as 6500 BCE. The wagon vocabulary is incompatible with the first-farming/language-dispersal hypothesis. Proto-Indo-European cannot have been spoken in Neolithic Greece and still have existed three thousand years later when wagons were invented. Proto-Indo-European therefore did not spread with the farming economy. Its first dispersal occurrred much later, after 4000 BCE, in a European landscape that was already densely occupied by people who probably spoke hundreds of languages.

Quote p. 81
https://archive.org/details/horsewheelandlanguage/page/81/mode/2up


Now, it should be obvious to anyone, I cannot share this criticism. Since, for me as a Creationist, 3500 BC = 1935 BC, the date of Genesis 14 (Asasonthamar mentioned as under attack, it is En-Gedi, and its Amorrhaeans seem to have evacuated temple treasures on reed mats carbon dated to 3500 BC. 6500 BC was not much further back, in fact something like 420 years earlier. Sorry, 409.

2355 B. Chr.
59.6678 pmC, so dated as 6605 B. Chr.
2332 B. Chr.
60.9109 pmC, so dated as 6432 B. Chr.

(2355 + 2332) / 2 = 2343.5 ~ 2344 BC
(59.6678 + 60.9109) / 2 = 60.28935 pmC
60.28935 pmC -> 4200 extra years
4200 + 2344 = 6544

1935 B. Chr.
82.73 pmC, so dated as 3485 B. Chr.

82.73 pmC -> 1550 extra years
1550 + 1935 = 3485

6544-3485 = 3059 years?
2344-1935 = 409 years!


So, the question for me is more like, could 2344 BC be sufficiently early in relation to known texts?

Well, the arrival of Mycenaeans "in 1650" are actually as recent as in somewhere around 1521 BC. Just before the Exodus.

2344-1521 = 823 years.

My own problem with Renfrew is therefore the opposite. 822 years is fairly little to get from PIE to Mycenaean actual Greek. That the wagon was only invented (post-Flood, it could have been a reinvention) about halfway through is no problem. Loans would have been able to go through "retroactive sound laws" by knowledge of cognates.

The main profit of Renfrew is, his theory places Indo-European, at least as in Europe and its origins on the Anatolian plateau, more into the area of where Gomer would have lived.

However, it is more like the time it could have taken to get from a Pre-Greek* non-IE language to give and take to neighbouring pre-IE languages, until they all were somewhat IE. Like both Pre-Greek and Greek would essentially be the language of Javan.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Ste Margarite-Marie Alacoque
17.X.2023

Paredii, in dioscesi Augustodunensi, sanctae Margaritae-Mariae Alacoque, quae, Ordinem Visitationis beatae Mariae Virginis professa, eximiis in devotione erga sacratissimum Cor Jesu propaganda et publico ejusdem cultu provehendo meritis excelluit; atque in sanctarum Virginum album a Benedicto Papa Decimo quinto relata fuit.

*Usual sense, not the specific in David W. Anthony as a stage of Indo-European, but the normal one in which thalassa and Korinthos are Pre-Greek words as in non-IE words. Words in Greece previous to arrival of IE Greek language. Except of course, unlike that hypothesis, this Pre-Greek would be one of the sources of IE commonalities, and therefore contain some IE words, some IE endings before the mix.

PS, if a cohesion of languages over a large area over a long time is impossible, how do you explain very far reaching trade routes of the Palaeolithic, or that the 32 Palaeolithic signs found by Genevieve von Petzinger occur over and over again from Indonesia to Altamira? That would be tens of thousands of years and even longer distances. With my time scale, this could plausibly have been the first writing system for some kind of Hebrew. You don't have any myriads of years, and the people live to 930, and are so able to conserve their language better./HGL

Thursday, October 5, 2023

Mainly Daughters of Blanche I of Navarre, Queen of Sicily


I Maria de Luna
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_de_Luna


[Impossible to get behind to Maria de Luna's mother, except she was called Brianda de Acquaviva or Brianda de Got, or Brianda d'Agoult.]

Maria de Luna (c. 1358 – 1406) was queen consort of Aragon, as the spouse of King Martin I of Aragon, from his ascension in 1396 to her death in 1406. In the early years of Martin's reign, she served as regent of Aragon while her husband tended to affairs in Sicily, a kingdom to which he also had a claim.
Maria was betrothed to Martin (future King of Aragon) as a child, and brought up at the court of Martin's mother, Queen Eleanor of Sicily. The couple married in Barcelona on 13 June 1372, and Maria became queen upon her husband's accession in 1396.

[Let's get on to Martin I's second wife, and mothers and daughters of her?]

II Margaret of Prades
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_Prades


Margaret of Prades (1388/95 – 23 July 1429) was Queen of Aragon by marriage to King Martin of Aragon.
On 17 September 1409, Margaret married Martin of Catalonia-Aragon, a second cousin of her father. The bride was about fourteen years old and the groom fifty-three. Martin had survived all his legitimate children from his first marriage with Maria de Luna and was in need of a legitimate heir of his own. On 31 March 1410, Martin I died after six months of marriage.

Wait, we wanted perhaps, not the two wives of Martin I of Aragon, but those of Martin I of Sicily ...

III Maria, Queen of Sicily
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria,_Queen_of_Sicily

IV Blanche I of Navarre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanche_I_of_Navarre


III Maria (2 July 1363 – 25 May 1401) was Queen of Sicily and Duchess of Athens and Neopatria from 1377 until her death.
In 1382 Maria was rescued by an Aragonese fleet; she was taken first to Sardinia, then, in 1384, to Aragon, where she was married to Martin the Younger, the grandson of Peter IV (1390).
[In February 1390 he married Maria of Sicily, born in 1362/1363.]

IV Blanche I (6 July 1387[1] – 1 April 1441) was Queen of Navarre from the death of her father, King Charles III, in 1425 until her own death. She had been Queen of Sicily from 1402 to 1409 by marriage to King Martin I, serving as regent of Sicily from 1404 to 1405 and from 1408 to 1415.
Blanche married firstly Martin the Younger, King of Sicily and Prince of Aragon.[2] They were married by proxy on 21 May 1402 in Catania. Blanche traveled to meet Martin, and they were married in person on 26 December 1402. The bride was about 15 years old and the groom 28.

Blanche II (Spanish: Blanca, Basque: Zuria; 9 June 1424 – 2 December 1464) was the titular Queen of Navarre between 1461 and 1464. She was the daughter of John II of Aragon and Blanche I of Navarre. She was also Princess of Asturias by marriage to Henry of Castile.
Blanche was promised to the heir of Castile in the peace treaty between Navarre and Castile in 1436. She married Henry, Prince of Asturias (later King Henry IV of Castile) in 1440. The marriage was reputedly never consummated.

Eleanor of Navarre (Basque: Leonor and Spanish: Leonor) (2 February 1426 – 12 February 1479),[1] was a Navarrese princess and monarch. She served as the regent of Navarre from 1455 to 1479, during the absence of her father, and then briefly as the queen regnant of Navarre in 1479. She was crowned on 28 January 1479 in Tudela.
She married Gaston IV, Count of Foix, in 1441.

Marie of Foix (1443–1467); married William VIII of Montferrat.[
William married firstly, on 19 January 1465, Marie de Foix (d.1467), daughter of Gaston IV, Count of Foix;[1] and secondly on 18 July 1469, Elizabetta Sforza (1456–1473),[2] daughter of Francesco I Duke of Milan and Bianca Maria Visconti;[3] and finally, on 6 January 1474, Bernarde de Brosse (d.17 February 1485).

In Lectoure on 19 August 1469, John married Joan (b. aft. 1454 - d. Pau, aft. 10 February 1476), daughter of Count Gaston IV of Foix and Queen Eleanor of Navarre, later monarch of Navarre. Pregnant at the time of her husband's death, Joan was transported to the castle of Buzet-sur-Tarn and lived still several years,[3] contrary to Père Anselme's suggestion that she was forced to drink a potion (un breuvage) which made her give birth to a stillborn child in ca. April 1473 so that the "race of the Count could be ended" (il ne restât aucun de la race du comte).[4]

Margaret of Foix (French: Marguerite de Foix; c. 1449[1]– 15 May 1486[2]) was Duchess of Brittany from 1474 to 1486 by marriage to Duke Francis II.
On 27 June 1471, at the Château de Clisson, she married Francis II, Duke of Brittany (1435–1488),[4] son of Richard of Brittany, Count of Étampes (1395–1438), and Margaret of Orléans, Countess of Vertus (1406–1466). It was Francis's second marriage, his first wife, Margaret of Brittany, having died in 1469.

Anne of Brittany (Breton: Anna; 25/26 January 1477[1] – 9 January 1514[2]) was reigning Duchess of Brittany from 1488 until her death, and Queen of France from 1491 to 1498 and from 1499 to her death. She was the only woman to have been queen consort of France twice.
Upon his death in 1488, Anne became duchess regnant of Brittany, countess of Nantes, Montfort, and Richmond, and viscountess of Limoges. She was only 11 at that time, but she was already a coveted heiress because of Brittany's strategic position. The next year, she married Maximilian I of Austria by proxy, but Charles VIII of France saw this as a threat since his realm was located between Brittany and Austria. He started a military campaign which eventually forced the duchess to renounce her marriage.
Anne eventually married Charles VIII in 1491.

Claude of France (13 October 1499 – 20 July 1524) was the ruling Duchess of Brittany from 1514 until her death in 1524 and Queen of France by marriage to King Francis I, which was also in 1514, shortly before he became king on the death of her father. She was a daughter of King Louis XII of France and his second wife, the duchess regnant Anne of Brittany.
On 9 January 1514, when her mother died, Claude became Duchess of Brittany; and four months later, on 18 May, at the age of 14, she married her cousin Francis at Saint-Germain-en-Laye.

Madeleine of Valois (10 August 1520 – 7 July 1537) was a French princess who briefly became Queen of Scotland in 1537 as the first wife of King James V.
James V continued to press Francis I for Madeleine's hand, and despite his reservations and nagging fears, Francis I reluctantly granted permission to the marriage only after Madeleine made her interest in marrying James very obvious. The court moved from Amboise to the Château de Blois, and the marriage contract was signed on 26 November 1536.[6] They were married on 1 January 1537 at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris.

Margaret of Valois, Duchess of Berry (French: Marguerite de Valois) (5 June 1523 – 15 September 1574) was Duchess of Savoy by marriage to Duke Emmanuel Philibert of Savoy. She was the daughter of King Francis I of France and Claude, Duchess of Brittany.
Shortly before her 36th birthday, a marriage was finally arranged for her by her brother King Henry II of France and her former suitor Philip II as part of the terms stipulated in the Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis which was signed by the ambassadors representing the two monarchs on 3 April 1559.[4] The husband selected for her was Philip's ally, Emmanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy, Prince of Piedmont. At the time, Margaret was described as having been a "spinster lady of excellent breeding and lively intellect".
The wedding took place in tragic circumstances. On 30 June just three days after her marriage contract had been signed, King Henry was gravely injured during a tournament celebrating the wedding of his eldest daughter Elisabeth to the recently widowed King Philip. A lance wielded by his opponent the Count of Montgomery accidentally struck his helmet at a point beneath the visor and shattered. The wooden splinters deeply penetrated his right eye and entered his brain.[5] Close to death, but still conscious, the king ordered that his sister's marriage should take place immediately, for fear that the Duke of Savoy might profit from his death and renege on the alliance.

Renée of France (25 October 1510[1] – 12 June 1574[b]), was Duchess of Ferrara from 31 October 1534 until 3 October 1559 by marriage to Ercole II d'Este, grandson of Pope Alexander VI.[2] She was the younger surviving child of Louis XII of France and the duchess regnant Anne of Brittany. In her later life, she became an important supporter of the Protestant Reformation and ally of John Calvin.
She was married in April 1528 to Ercole II, Duke of Ferrara, eldest son of Alfonso I d'Este and Lucrezia Borgia.

Anna d'Este (16 November 1531 – 17 May 1607) was an important princess with considerable influence at the court of France and a central figure in the French Wars of Religion. In her first marriage she was Duchess of Aumale, then of Guise, in her second marriage Duchess of Nemours and Genevois.
In 1548, after long and difficult negotiations, her marriage was arranged with the French prince Francis, Duke of Aumale, son of the Duke of Guise. The contract was signed in Ferrara on 28 September and the marriage was held in Saint-Germain-en-Laye near Paris on 16 December.

Catherine-Marie de Lorraine (18 July 1551 – 5 May 1596), Duchess of Montpensier, was a French princess from the house of Guise who played a leading political role in the Catholic League during the French Wars of Religion.
In 1570 she married Louis, Duke of Montpensier, of the Bourbon family.

Lucrezia d'Este (16 December 1535 – 12 February 1598) was an Italian noblewoman. By birth she was a member of the House of Este, and by marriage to Francesco Maria II della Rovere, Duke of Urbino she was Duchess consort of Urbino and Sora, and Lady consort of Pesaro, Senigallia, Fossombrone and Gubbio.
Lucrezia remained unmarried for a long time. Aged [nearly] 35, she agreed to marry the 20-year-old Francesco Maria della Rovere, Hereditary Prince of Urbino. ... On 18 February 1570 the wedding ceremony took place in Ferrara, after which the couple departed for Pesaro.

Catherine de Foix (c. 1455 – died before 1494) was a French noblewoman.
Gaston war seit 1469 in erster Ehe mit seiner Verwandten Catherine, einer Tochter des Grafen Gaston IV. von Foix und dessen Ehefrau Königin Eleonore von Navarra, verheiratet.

Anne of Foix-Candale (1484 – 26 July 1506) was Queen of Hungary and Bohemia as the third wife of King Vladislaus II.
Anne was betrothed in 1500, a marriage contract was confirmed in 1501, and she wed Vladislaus by proxy at the French court at Blois in 1502. On her way to Hungary, she was much celebrated in Venice and other parts of Italy, causing a conflict between France and Hungary over who should pay the expenses. On 29 September 1502, Anne wed Vladislaus, this time in Székesfehérvár and she was crowned Queen of Hungary there that same day.

Anna of Bohemia and Hungary (23 July 1503 – 27 January 1547),[1] sometimes known as Anna Jagellonica, was Queen of Germany, Bohemia, and Hungary and Archduchess of Austria as the wife of King Ferdinand I (later Holy Roman Emperor).
Anna married Ferdinand on 26 May 1521 in Linz, Austria.

Elizabeth of Austria (Polish: Elżbieta Habsburżanka; 9 July 1526 – 15 June 1545) was Queen of Poland by marriage. She was the eldest of fifteen children of Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor, and his wife Anne of Bohemia and Hungary.
Elizabeth and a twelve-person escort departed Vienna on 21 April 1543.[7] She was met at Olomouc by Samuel Maciejowski, Bishop of Płock and a retinue of 1,500 knights. On 5 May 1543, Elizabeth entered Kraków and met Sigismund Augustus for the first time.[7] The same day 16-year-old Elizabeth married 22-year-old Sigismund Augustus in Wawel Cathedral.

Anna of Austria (7 July 1528 – 16 October 1590), a member of the Imperial House of Habsburg, was Duchess of Bavaria from 1550 until 1579, by her marriage with Duke Albert V.
Anna finally married on 4 July 1546 in Regensburg at the age of 17, Prince Albert V, the younger brother of her first fiancé.

Maria Anna of Bavaria (German: Maria Anna von Bayern) (21 March 1551, Munich – 29 April 1608, Graz)[1] was a politically active Archduchess of Austria by her marriage to Archduke Charles II of Austria. She played an important role in the Counter-Reformation in Austria.
On 26 August 1571 in Vienna, the 20-year-old Maria Anna married her maternal uncle Charles II of Austria. The marriage was arranged to give Austria political support from Bavaria and Bavaria an agent in Vienna.

Anne of Austria (16 August 1573 – 10 February 1598) was Queen of Poland and Sweden as the first consort of King Sigismund III Vasa.
In April 1592, the betrothal was formally celebrated in the Imperial Court in Vienna; on 4 May, a proxy wedding was celebrated, after which Anna and her mother departed for the wedding in Krakow. Anne became the first wife of Sigismund of Poland on 31 May 1592.

Margaret of Austria (25 December 1584 – 3 October 1611) was Queen of Spain and Portugal by her marriage to King Philip III & II.
Margaret married Philip III of Spain, her first-cousin, once-removed, on 18 April 1599.

Anne of Austria (French: Anne d'Autriche, Spanish: Ana María Mauricia; 22 September 1601 – 20 January 1666) was an infanta of Spain who became Queen of France as the wife of King Louis XIII from their marriage in 1615 until Louis XIII died in 1643. She was also Queen of Navarre until that kingdom was annexed into the French crown in 1620.
On 18 October 1615, Louis and Anne were married by proxy in Burgos while Louis's sister, Elisabeth of France, and Anne's brother, Philip IV of Spain, were married by proxy in Bordeaux.

Maria Anna of Spain (18 August 1606 – 13 May 1646)[1] was a Holy Roman Empress and Queen of Hungary and Bohemia by her marriage to Ferdinand III, Holy Roman Emperor.[2] She acted as regent on several occasions during the absences of her husband, notably during his absence in Bohemia in 1645.
In late 1626, Maria Anna was betrothed to Ferdinand, the younger brother of her first fiancé and the new heir of Emperor Ferdinand II. He was her first cousin and was the son of her mother's brother. ...
In Vienna on 20 February 1631,[1] Maria Anna was married to King Ferdinand of Hungary-Bohemia.

Mariana or Maria Anna of Austria (Spanish: Mariana de Austria, German: Maria Anna von Österreich; 24 December 1634 – 16 May 1696) was Queen of Spain from 1649, when she married her uncle Philip IV of Spain, until his death in 1665.
On 7 October 1649, the 44-year-old Philip married his 14-year-old niece in Navalcarnero, outside Madrid; from then on, she was known by her Spanish name Mariana.

Margaret Theresa of Spain (Spanish: Margarita Teresa, German: Margarete Theresia; 12 July 1651 – 12 March 1673) was, by marriage to Leopold I, Holy Roman Empress, German Queen, Archduchess of Austria and Queen of Hungary and Bohemia. She was the daughter of King Philip IV of Spain and the elder full-sister of Charles II, the last of the Spanish Habsburgs.
The Infanta formally entered Vienna On 5 December 1666. The official marriage ceremony was celebrated seven days later. The Viennese celebrations of the imperial marriage were among the most splendid of all the Baroque era,[17] and lasted almost two years.

Maria Antonia Josepha Benedicta Rosalia Petronella of Austria[1] (18 January 1669 – 24 December 1692) was an Electress of Bavaria as the wife of Maximilian II Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria. She was the eldest daughter and only surviving child of Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I and his first wife Margaret Theresa of Spain.
Maria Antonia finally married Maximilian II, the Elector of Bavaria, on 15 July 1685 in Vienna.

Constance of Austria (German: Konstanza; Polish: Konstancja; 24 December 1588 – 10 July 1631) was Queen of Poland as the second wife of King Sigismund III Vasa and the mother of King John II Casimir.
Her older sister Anna was the first wife of King Sigismund III Vasa. After her death Constance and Sigismund were married on December 11, 1605.

Anna Catherine Constance Vasa (Polish: Anna Katarzyna Konstancja Waza; 7 August 1619 in Warsaw – 8 October 1651 in Cologne) was a Polish princess, daughter of Sigismund III Vasa, King of Sweden and Poland and his second wife Constance of Austria.
However, Anne Catherine Constance finally married Philip William, heir of the Count Palatine of Neuburg and later Elector Palatine, in Warsaw on 8 June 1642.

Maria Maddalena of Austria (German: Maria Magdalena von Österreich, Italian: Maria Maddalena d'Austria) (7 October 1589 – 1 November 1631) was Grand Duchess of Tuscany by her marriage to Cosimo II in 1609 until his death in 1621.
In 1608, the 19-year-old Maria Magdalena was married to Cosimo de' Medici, Grand Prince of Tuscany. Cosimo's father, Grand Duke Ferdinando I of Tuscany, arranged the marriage in order to assuage Spain's (where Maria Magdalena's sister was the incumbent queen) animosity towards Tuscany, which had been inflamed due to a string of Franco-Tuscan marriages.

Margherita de' Medici (31 May 1612 – 6 February 1679) was Duchess of Parma and Piacenza by her marriage to Odoardo Farnese, Duke of Parma. Margherita was regent of Piacenza in 1635, and regent of the entire duchy from 1646 until 1648 during the minority of her son.
Margherita became engaged to Odoardo Farnese, Duke of Parma in 1620. They married in 1628 when he came of age. / The marriage took place on 11 October 1628 in Florence.

Anna de' Medici (21 July 1616 – 11 September 1676) was a daughter of Cosimo II de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany and his wife Maria Maddalena of Austria. A patron of the arts, she married Ferdinand Charles, Archduke of Further Austria in 1646. They were the parents of Claudia Felicitas of Austria, Holy Roman Empress.

Claudia Felicitas of Austria (30 May 1653 – 8 April 1676) was by birth an Archduchess of Austria and by marriage Holy Roman Empress, German Queen, Archduchess consort of Austria, Queen consort of Hungary and Bohemia as the second wife of Leopold I.
The wedding was held at Graz Cathedral on 15 October 1673, and the celebrations for this event lasted two weeks.

Archduchess Maria of Austria (15 May 1531 – 11 December 1581) was the daughter of Emperor Ferdinand I from the House of Habsburg and Anna of Bohemia and Hungary.
She married William, Duke of Jülich-Cleves-Berg on 18 July 1546 as his second wife.

Duchess Marie Eleonore of Cleves (16 June 1550 – 1 June 1608) was the Duchess of Prussia by marriage to Albert Frederick, Duke of Prussia. She was the eldest child of William, Duke of Jülich-Cleves-Berg and Maria of Austria.
Albert Frederick, Duke of Prussia, the son of Albert of Prussia, was thus accepted as a suitor, despite showing mental disorders.[2] The wedding was conducted in 1573, and Marie Eleonore departed to Lutheran Prussia.

Duchess Anna of Prussia and Jülich-Cleves-Berg (3 July 1576 – 30 August 1625) was Electress consort of Brandenburg and Duchess consort of Prussia by marriage to John Sigismund, Elector of Brandenburg. She was the daughter of Albert Frederick, Duke of Prussia, and Marie Eleonore of Cleves.
Anna was married to John Sigismund on 30 October 1594.

Maria Eleonora of Brandenburg (11 November 1599 – 28 March 1655) was Queen of Sweden from 1620 to 1632 as the wife of King Gustav II Adolph (Gustavus Adolphus). She was born a German princess as the daughter of John Sigismund, Elector of Brandenburg, and Anna, Duchess of Prussia, daughter of Albert Frederick, Duke of Prussia.
On 7 October 1620, Maria Eleonora, her mother and her sister Catherine left Brandenburg.[1] Anna of Prussia provided herself with a selection of objects of value from the exchequer before she joined Maria Eleonora in Brunswick. A detachment of the Swedish fleet took the women over to Kalmar, where Gustavus Adolphus was impatiently awaiting them. The wedding took place in Stockholm on 25 November 1620

daughter: Christina
8 December 1626 Stockholm
9 April 1689 Rome
Queen of Sweden ( 6 November 1632 – 6 June 1654), never married; buried in Basilica of Saint Peter.


Catherine of Brandenburg (Königsberg, 28 May 1602 – 27 August 1649, Schöningen) was an elected Princess of Transylvania between 1629 and 1630. She was the daughter of John Sigismund, Elector of Brandenburg, and Anna of Prussia
On 2 March 1626, she married Gabriel Bethlen, prince of Transylvania.

Marie of Prussia (23 January 1579 – 21 February 1649) was a Prussian duchess by birth and Margravine of Brandenburg-Bayreuth by marriage.
On 29 April 1604, she married Margrave Christian of Brandenburg-Bayreuth (1581–1655) in Plassenburg Castle.

Anna Maria Princess of Eggenberg, née Brandenburg-Bayreuth (born 30 December 1609 in Bayreuth; died 8 May 1680 in Ödenburg) was a Margravine of Brandenburg-Bayreuth and, by marriage Johann Anton I von Eggenberg, a Fürstin (princess) of Eggenberg.
She was married according to the Roman Catholic rite into the Styrian noble family of Eggenberg on 23 October 1639 in Regensburg[1] to Prince Johann Anton I von Eggenberg, Duke of Krumau, who subsequently received the opportunity to acquire the shire of Gorizia and Gradisca along the Adriatic coast two years later from his boyhood friend, Emperor Ferdinand III.

Maria Elisabeth von Eggenberg, Fürstin of Eggenberg (1640 - 1715), Married 1656, Fürst Ferdinand Joseph, Prince of Dietrichstein (1636–1698)

Magdalene Sibylle of Brandenburg-Bayreuth (27 October 1612 - 20 March 1687) was Electress of Saxony from 1656 to 1680 as the wife of John George II.
She was married to John George, Prince Elector of Saxony, on 13 November 1638 in Dresden.

Erdmuthe Sophie (Dresden, 25 February 1644 – Schloss Bayreuth, 22 June 1670), married her cousin, Christian Ernst, Margrave of Brandenburg-Bayreuth, on 29 October 1662

Duchess Sophie of Prussia (c. 31 March 1582 – c. 24 November 1610) was a German princess of the Duchy of Prussia, a fief of Kingdom of Poland and a member of the House of Hohenzollern.
She was courted by Wilhelm Kettler, son of Gotthard Kettler of Courland and Anna of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. Their marriage contract was signed in Königsberg on 5 January 1609.

Eleanor of Prussia (German: Eleonore von Preußen; 21 August 1583 – 9 April 1607) was a princess of the Duchy of Prussia by birth and Electress of Brandenburg by marriage.
She married Joachim Frederick, Elector of Brandenburg (1546–1608), in Berlin on 2 November 1603 as his second wife.

Marie Eleonore von Brandenburg (1607-1675)[1] was a princess of Brandenburg, Countess Palatine and from 1655 to 1658, regent of Simmern.
On December 4, 1631, she married Count Palatine Ludwig Philipp von Simmern (1602–1655), a brother of the Bohemian Winter King Frederick V of the Palatinate, in Cölln.

Elizabeth Maria Charlotte (23/24 October 1638 - 10/22 May 1664), wife of George III of Brieg, had no issue
In Brzeg on 19 October 1660, George III married secondly with Elisabeth Marie Charlotte (b. Sedan, 23 October 1638 – d. Brzeg, 22 May 1664), daughter of Louis Philip, Count Palatine of Simmern-Kaiserslautern and niece of Frederick V, Elector Palatine, who was briefly King of Bohemia. The marriage was childless.

Magdalene Sibylle of Prussia (31 December 1586 – 12 February 1659) was an Electress of Saxony as the spouse of John George I, Elector of Saxony. She is a 6th times matrilineal great grandmother to Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom and the matrilineal great-great-great grandmother to Catherine the Great of Russia.
She married John George on 19 July 1607 in Torgau.

Sophia Eleonore of Saxony (23 November 1609 – 2 June 1671) was a duchess of Saxony by birth and the landgravine of Hesse-Darmstadt from 1627 to 1661 through her marriage to Landgrave George II. She was the eldest surviving child of John George I, Elector of Saxony, and Magdalene Sibylle of Prussia.
She married Landgrave Georg II of Hesse-Darmstadt on 1 April 1627 in Torgau, aged seventeen.

Sophia Eleonore of Hesse-Darmstadt (7 January 1634 in Darmstadt – 7 October 1663 in Bingenheim, now part of Echzell), was Landgravine of Hesse-Darmstadt by birth and by marriage Landgravine of Hesse-Homburg.
In Darmstadt on 21 April 1650 Sophia Eleonore married to her cousin, Landgrave William Christoph of Hesse-Homburg (1625–1681).

Landgravine Christine Wilhelmine of Hesse-Homburg (30 June 1653, in Bingenheim – 16 May 1722, in Grabow) was a German noblewoman.
On 28 May 1671 she married Frederick, Duke of Mecklenburg-Grabow, son of Adolf Frederick I, Duke of Mecklenburg and Marie Katharina of Brunswick-Dannenberg.

Sophia Louise of Mecklenburg-Schwerin (Sofie Luise; 6 May 1685 – 29 July 1735) was Queen consort in Prussia by marriage to King Frederick I of Prussia. She was famed for her beauty.
In November 1708 she became the third and last spouse of Frederick I of Prussia. The wedding took place by proxy in Mecklenburg with Minister Count August zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein acting in place of the King.

Landgravine Elisabeth Amalie of Hesse-Darmstadt (Elisabeth Amalie Magdalene; 20 March 1635 – 4 August 1709) was a German princess of Hesse-Darmstadt who became Electress Palatine as the second wife of Philip William, Elector Palatine.
On 3 September 1653 she was married at Langenschwalbach to Count palatine Philip William of Neuburg, who later became Prince-elector of the Palatinate. Her husband was some twenty years older than her and was the heir to the Electoral Palatinate, which was one of the most important states within the Holy Roman Empire. In the course of her marriage, Elisabeth Amalie was pregnant 23 times in just 24 years.

Eleonore Magdalene of Neuburg (Eleonore Magdalene Therese; 6 January 1655 – 19 January 1720) was a princess of the House of Wittelsbach who became Holy Roman Empress, German Queen, Archduchess of Austria, Queen of Hungary and Bohemia as the third and final wife of Leopold I.
The wedding took place in Passau on 14 December 1676.

Maria Anna of Austria (Maria Anna Josepha Antonia Regina; 7 September 1683 – 14 August 1754) was Queen of Portugal as the wife of King John V of Portugal.
On 27 October 1708, Maria Anna married John V, King of Portugal (1689–1750) to seal the alliance between the two countries against France and Spain during the War of Spanish Succession.

[not going beyond born 1700]

Maria Sophia Elisabeth of Neuburg (6 August 1666 – 4 August 1699) was Queen of Portugal as the wife of King Peter II from 1687 until her death in 1699.
The new queen arrived in Lisbon 12 August 1687 amid great celebration and the same day the couple was formally married by the Archbishop of Lisbon at Ribeira Palace.

Maria Anna of Neuburg (Spanish: Mariana; 28 October 1667 – 16 July 1740), was a German princess and member of the Wittelsbach family, who became Queen consort of Spain in 1689 as the second wife of Charles II, last Habsburg King of Spain.
She underwent a proxy marriage to Charles in August 1689, with their formal wedding on 14 May 1690 in San Diego, near Valladolid.

Dorothea Sophie of Neuburg (Dorothea Sophie; 5 July 1670 – 15 September 1748) was Duchess of Parma from 1695 to 1727 by marriage to Francesco, Duke of Parma. She served as Regent of the Duchy of Parma for her grandson Charles of Spain between 1731 and 1735.
On 17 September 1690, she married Odoardo Farnese, Hereditary Prince of Parma, heir to the throne of the Duchy of Parma and Piacenza.

Elisabeth Farnese (Italian: Elisabetta Farnese, Spanish: Isabel de Farnesio; 25 October 1692 – 11 July 1766) was Queen of Spain by marriage to King Philip V.
On 16 September 1714 she was married by proxy at Parma to Philip V of Spain.

[not going beyond born 1700]

Hedwig Elisabeth of Neuburg (Polish: Jadwiga Elżbieta Amalia Sobieska; 18 July 1673 – 10 August 1722) was a Polish princess by marriage to James Louis Sobieski. She was the daughter of Philip William, Duke of Neuburg and Landgravine Elisabeth Amalie of Hesse-Darmstadt.
In 1689, she was suggested to marry Prince James Louis Henry Sobieski, son of King John III Sobieski of Poland. ... The wedding took place on 8 February 1691, and the couple settled in an apartment in the Royal Palace in Warsaw - they would share their place of residence in the Kazimierzowski Palace in Warsaw during the winters, and their property in Oława in Silesia during the summers, where she stayed during the Moldau campaign.

Maria Karolina Sobieska[1] (25 November 1697 – 8 May 1740) was a Polish noblewoman, daughter of Jakub Ludwik Sobieski. Known as Marie Charlotte or only Charlotte, she was the Princess of Turenne and later Duchess of Bouillon by marriage. Charlotte was the last surviving member of the House of Sobieski.
Charlotte married Frédéric Casimir by proxy on 25 August 1723 at Neuss (modern day Germany). The couple met for the first time at Strassburg on 20 September and were married formally.

[not going beyond born 1700]

Marie Hedwig of Hesse-Darmstadt (26 November 1647 in Giessen – 19 April 1680 in Ichtershausen) was a landgravine of Hesse-Darmstadt by birth and by marriage Duchess of Saxe-Meiningen.
On 20 November 1671 at Friedenstein Castle in Gotha, she married Bernhard I, who at the time ruled Saxe-Gotha jointly with his brothers, and later became the first Duke of Saxe-Meiningen.

Duchess Marie Elisabeth of Saxony (22 November 1610 – 24 October 1684) was duchess consort of Holstein-Gottorp as the spouse of Duke Friedrich III of Holstein-Gottorp. As a widow, she became known as a patron of culture.
She was married on 21 February 1630 to Duke Friedrich III of Holstein-Gottorp and had sixteen children:

Sophie Augusta of Holstein-Gottorp (5 December 1630 in Gottorp – 12 December 1680 in Coswig) was regent of Anhalt-Zerbst in during the minority of her son from 1667 until 1674.
On 16 September 1649 in Gottorp, she married John VI, Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst. After her husband died in 1667, she became regent for her minor son Charles William, until he came of age in 1674.

Sophie Auguste of Anhalt-Zerbst (9 March 1663 – 14 September 1694), was a German noblewoman member of the House of Ascania and by marriage Duchess of Saxe-Weimar.
In Zerbst on 11 October 1685, Sophie Auguste married Johann Ernst III, Duke of Saxe-Weimar.

Magdalena Sibylle of Holstein-Gottorp (also spelled Magdalena Sibylla; 1631 at Gottorp Castle – 1719 in Güstrow) was a Duchess of Holstein-Gottorp by birth and by marriage Duchess of Mecklenburg-Güstrow. From 1654 to 1695, she was the consort of Duke Gustav Adolph of Mecklenburg-Güstrow. She is also a direct female line ancestor to Queen Victoria
On 28 December 1654, she married Gustav Adolph, the ruling Duke of Mecklenburg-Güstrow.

Marie (June 19, 1659 – 6 January 1701), married on 23 September 1684 to Duke Adolph Frederick II of Mecklenburg-Strelitz.

Duchess Gustave Caroline of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (12 July 1694 – 13 April 1748) was a daughter of Adolphus Frederick II, Duke of Mecklenburg and Princess Marie of Mecklenburg-Güstrow.
On 13 November 1714, Gustave Caroline married her cousin Christian Ludwig of Mecklenburg.

[not going beyond born 1700]

Maria Elisabeth of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp (6 June 1634, in Gottorp Castle – 17 June 1665, in Darmstadt), was by marriage landgravine of Hesse-Darmstadt
She married on 24 November 1650 at Gottorp Castle, Louis, who later became Louis VI, Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt (1630–1678), whom she had engaged on his birthday in 1649. On the occasion of the wedding, the last sword dance in Hesse was performed at a festival in Lollar.

Landgravine Magdalena Sibylla of Hesse-Darmstadt (28 April 1652 – 11 August 1712) was regent of the Duchy of Württemberg from 1677 to 1693, and was a prominent German composer of baroque hymns
On the occasion of a visit to the Württemberg crown prince William Louis she became engaged to him. They married on 6 November 1673 in Darmstadt.

Magdalena Wilhelmine of Württemberg (7 November 1677, Stuttgart – 30 October 1742, Karlsburg Castle, Durlach) was a margravine of Baden. She had a place in the regency during the minority of her grandson in 1738-42.
In order to strengthen the ties between Baden and Württemberg, she married on 27 June 1697 the Hereditary Prince of Baden and later Margrave Charles William of Baden-Durlach.

Marie Elisabeth of Hesse-Darmstadt (11 March 1656, Darmstadt – 16 August 1715, Römhild) was the only Duchess by marriage of Saxe-Römhild.
On 1 March 1676 in Darmstadt, she married Henry, Duke of Saxe-Römhild, who at the time of the marriage ruled Saxe-Gotha jointly with his six brothers. In 1680, they divided the country and Henry became the Duke of Saxe-Römhild. He had resided there since 1676, in Glücksburg Castle in Römhild. After Henry's death, a dispute erupted among his remaining brothers over the inheritance of Saxe-Römhild. This dispute was settled definitively in 1765.

Sophie Marie of Hesse-Darmstadt (7 May 1661 – 22 August 1712) was a member of the House of Hesse and by marriage Duchess of Saxe-Eisenberg.
On 9 February 1681 in Darmstadt, she married Duke Christian of Saxe-Eisenberg.

Hedwig Eleonora of Holstein-Gottorp (23 October 1636 – 24 November 1715) was Queen of Sweden from 1654 until 1660 as the wife of King Charles X Gustav. She served as regent during the minority of her son, King Charles XI, from 1660 until 1672, and during the minority of her grandson, King Charles XII, in 1697. She also represented Charles XII during his absence in the Great Northern War from 1700 until the regency of her granddaughter Ulrika Eleonora in 1713
Hedwig Eleonora was welcomed by King Charles X Gustav at Dalarö in Sweden 5 October 1654, and stayed at Karlberg Palace before her official arrival at Stockholm for the wedding 24 October.

Augusta Marie of Holstein-Gottorp (1649–1728) was a German noblewoman. She was the daughter of Frederick III, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp and Duchess Marie Elisabeth of Saxony. Through her daughter Albertine Frederica, she is a female line great-grandmother of Catherine II and great-great-grandmother of Paul I of Russia.
She married Frederick VII, Margrave of Baden-Durlach on 15 May 1670 in Husum.

Catherine (10 October 1677 – 11 August 1746), in 1701 she married the count Johann Friedrich von Leiningen-Hartenburg

Johanna Elisabeth of Baden-Durlach (3 October 1680 – 2 July 1757), was a Duchess of Württemberg by marriage.
In 1697, she was married in Baden-Wurttemberg in a double-wedding to Duke Eberhard Ludwig of Württemberg (1676–1733).

Magdalene Sibylle of Saxony (23 December 1617 – 6 January 1668), in Denmark known as Magdalena Sibylla, was the Princess of Denmark and Norway from 1634 to 1647 as the wife of Prince-Elect Christian of Denmark, and the Duchess consort of Saxe-Altenburg as the wife of Frederick Wilhelm II, Duke of Saxe-Altenburg.
She was engaged in 1633 and married on 5 October 1634 to Christian of Denmark-Norway, who had been elected Prince of Denmark (heir apparentin 1610. Denmark being an elective rather than an hereditary monarchy), whilst Norway was a hereditary monarchy, making Christian Crown Prince since his birth. The wedding took place on 5 October 1634 in Copenhagen with grand festivities.

Johanna Magdalena of Saxe-Altenburg (14 January 1656 in Altenburg – 22 January 1686 in Weißenfels) was a member of the House of Wettin. She was a Duchess of Saxe-Altenburg by birth and by marriage a Duchess of Saxe-Weissenfels-Querfurt.
She became an orphan at an early age when her parents died in 1668 and 1669. She quickly became a pawn in the hands of her family. In 1671, her uncles John George II and Maurice, in whose residences she frequently stayed, decided that for dynastic reasons, she would marry her cousin, Duke John Adolph I of Saxe-Weissenfels.
She married on 25 October 1671 in Altenburg with John Adolph I, the son of Duke Augustus of Saxe-Weissenfels from his marriage to Anna Maria of Mecklenburg-Schwerin.

Magdalene Sibylle of Saxe-Weissenfels (3 September 1673 – 28 November 1726), was a German noblewoman member of the House of Wettin (Albertine line) and by marriage Duchess of Saxe-Eisenach.
In Weissenfels on 28 July 1708, Magdalene Sibylle married John William III, Duke of Saxe-Eisenach as his third wife.

Sophia of Saxe-Weissenfels (2 August 1684, Weissenfels - 6 May 1752, near Hotzenplotz in Roßwald) was a German aristocrat and culture patron, Margravine of Brandenburg-Bayreuth by marriage to George William, Margrave of Brandenburg-Bayreuth.
In Leipzig on 16 October 1699 Sophia herself married George William, Margrave of Brandenburg-Bayreuth (1678-1726), who she had met during a visit to the Leipzig Fair earlier the same year.

Anna of Cleves (1 March 1552, Cleves – 6 October 1632, Höchstädt an der Donau) was a daughter of Duke William V of Jülich-Berg and his wife, Maria of Austria.
She married on 27 September 1574 in Neuburg with Count Palatine Philip Louis of Neuburg.

Anna of Cleves (1 March 1552, Cleves – 6 October 1632, Höchstädt an der Donau) was a daughter of Duke William V of Jülich-Berg and his wife, Maria of Austria.
She married on 27 September 1574 in Neuburg with Count Palatine Philip Louis of Neuburg.

Countess Palatine Anna Maria of Neuburg (18 August 1575, Neuburg an der Donau – 11 February 1643, Dornburg) was Countess Palatine of Neuburg and by marriage Duchess of Saxe-Weimar.
She was married on 9 September 1591 in Neuburg to Duke Frederick William I of Saxe-Weimar (1562–1602)

Anna Sophie (1598–1641)
married in Duke in 1618 Charles Frederick I of Münsterberg-Oels (1593–1647)

Dorothea (1601–1675)
married in 1633 Duke Albert IV of Saxe-Eisenach (1599–1644)

Duchess Magdalene of Jülich-Cleves-Berg (2 November 1553 – 30 August 1633) was the fifth child of Duke William "the Rich" of Jülich-Cleves-Berg and Maria of Austria, a daughter of Emperor Ferdinand I.
She married in 1579 with Count Palatine John I the Lame of Zweibrücken. Emperor Charles V had in 1546 granted the Duchy of Jülich-Cleves-Berg the right of female succession. So, when her brother, Duke John William, died in 1609 without a male heir of his own, both she and William's daughters could play a vital role in the question of who would inherit the important northwest German territory.

Magdalene's daughter Elisabeth (1581–1637) married Georg Gustav, Count Palatine of Pfalz-Veldenz.
Seine zweite Ehefrau wurde am 17. Mai 1601 in Zweibrücken Marie Elisabeth (1581–1637), Tochter des Pfalzgrafen Johann I. von Zweibrücken, mit der er folgende Kinder hatte

Anna Magdalene (1602–1630)
⚭ 1617 Herzog Heinrich Wenzel von Münsterberg (1592–1639)

Sibylle of Jülich-Cleves-Berg, Margravine of Burgau (26 August 1557 in Cleves – 1628 in Günzburg) was the daughter of Duke William the Rich[1] and his second wife, Archduchess Maria of Austria.
In 1601, Sibylle married Margrave Charles of Burgau. In 1610, the couple moved into the residence at Günzburg. Here, she entertained a feudal court, even after her husband died in 1618. She acted in particular as patron of music.

Catherine of Austria (Polish: Katarzyna Habsburżanka; Lithuanian: Kotryna Habsburgaitė; 15 September 1533 – 28 February 1572) was one of the fifteen children of Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor and Anna of Bohemia and Hungary. In 1553, she married Polish King Sigismund II Augustus and became Queen consort of Poland and Grand Duchess consort of Lithuania. Their marriage was not happy and they had no children together. After a likely miscarriage in 1554 and a bout of illness in 1558, Sigismund became increasingly distant. He tried but failed to obtain a divorce from the pope. In 1565, Catherine returned to Austria and lived in Linz until her death.

Eleanor of Austria (2 November 1534 – 5 August 1594) was Duchess of Mantua by marriage to William I, Duke of Mantua. She was the daughter of Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor and Anna of Bohemia and Hungary.
She married William I, Duke of Mantua on 26 April 1561.

Margherita Barbara Gonzaga (27 May 1564 – 6 January 1618), was an Italian noblewoman, Duchess consort of Ferrara, Modena and Reggio between 1579 and 1597 by marriage to Alfonso II d'Este, Duke of Ferrara, Modena and Reggio. She was a significant cultural patron in Ferrara and Modena.
In 1578 Duke Guglielmo Gonzaga began negotiations for a marriage between his 14-year-old daughter Margherita with the 45-year-old Alfonso II d'Este, Duke of Ferrara, Modena and Reggio.
On 24 February 1579 the marriage by proxy was celebratedin Mantua. On 27 May of the same year, accompanied by a procession led by her brother, Margherita solemnly entered Ferrara. The princess was greeted by the Duke's courtiers with lighted torches and emblems depicting a flame and the motto in Latin “Ardet aeternum” (May it burn forever), which signified the Duke's promise to his young wife to love her forever.

Saving two for the last ...

14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
12 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
16 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20
29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

20 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 23
20 20 20 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23
57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

23 24 24 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 26 26 29 30 32 34 34 37 44
23 24 24 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 26 26 29 30 32 34 34 37 43
77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96

Key positions:

14 16:16 20:20 23:23 44
12 16:16 19:19 22:23 43
01 24:25 48:49 72:73 96

Minimum, 12 to 14. Lower quartile 16. Median 19 to 20. Higher quartile 22/23 to 23. Maximum 43 to 44.

Very different from the rest. The higher ages of girls before marrying seem to have two sources:
  • difficulties in arranging marriages (a thing that maybe becomes more important in the Renaissance, perhaps not least with the Habsburgs
  • Prussia, starting with the daughters of a near madman leading to partly similar as previous, but later continued.


Here are the two last ones:

Anna Caterina Gonzaga, OSM, religious name Anna Juliana, (16 November 1566 – 3 August 1621) was an Archduchess of Austria who became a religious Sister of the Servite Order after the death of her husband, the Archduke Ferdinand II of Austria. A cause for her beatification is open but has not advanced since the 17th century.
In 1580, Ferdinand II, Archduke of Austria, lost his wife, Philippine. She was of the Welser family, who were not royalty, but only patrician of Augsburg and part of Imperial nobility (1532). Although the couple had two sons together, neither were eligible to succeed Ferdinand as archduke, except in the unlikely scenario where all legitimate male cousins were extinct. This prodded Ferdinand to seek remarriage.
Ferdinand's sister, Madeleine, suggested he consider marrying her niece Anna Caterina. On 1 January 1582 Ferdinand asked Duke William for his daughter's hand in marriage, to which William consented. Though she realized this would postpone her calling to a religious order, Anna respected her parents' wishes and voiced no objection to the marriage.
Before leaving Mantua for Innsbruck, in Austria, Anna Caterina asked that her father fulfill some requests. First was a request to release 15 prisoners in celebration of her departure. Second was a request to donate money to 15 beggars. Third was a request to provide interior furnishings at 15 churches. William agreed to each request.
On 14 May 1582, at age 15, Anna Caterina was married to Ferdinand in Innsbruck and became Archduchess of Austria.

Anna of Tyrol (4 October 1585 – 14 December 1618) was by birth an Archduchess of Austria and member of the Tyrolean branch of the House of Habsburg and by marriage Holy Roman Empress, German Queen, Queen of Bohemia and Queen of Hungary.
Anna and Matthias (at that point already King of Hungary and Bohemia) married on 4 December 1611 in Vienna at the Augustinian Church;[8] bride and groom were first cousins –Matthias' father Emperor Maximilian II was an elder brother of Anna's father, Archduke Ferdinand II. Matthias, although he was already in his fifties, hoped to sire an heir with his 26-year-old wife.

Happy for Anna Caterina Gonzaga!
Married at 15, as a Catholic, in conditions proving piety, and after widowhood became a nun.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Placidus
5.X.2023

Tuesday, October 3, 2023

Dubium 1, Response, part g, Reference to St. Thomas


Here is first the dubium:

1 Dubium about the claim that we should reinterpret Divine Revelation according to the cultural and anthropological changes in vogue.

After the statements of some Bishops, which have been neither corrected nor retracted, it is asked whether in the Church Divine Revelation should be reinterpreted according to the cultural changes of our time and according to the new anthropological vision that these changes promote; or whether Divine Revelation is binding forever, immutable and therefore not to be contradicted, according to the dictum of the Second Vatican Council, that to God who reveals is due "the obedience of faith"(Dei Verbum 5); that what is revealed for the salvation of all must remain "in their entirety, throughout the ages" and alive, and be "transmitted to all generations" (7); and that the progress of understanding does not imply any change in the truth of things and words, because faith has been "handed on … once and for all" (8), and the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but teaches only what has been handed on (10).


Here is part g of the response to that dubium:

g) It is important to emphasize that what cannot change is what has been revealed "for the salvation of all peoples" (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 7). Therefore the Church must constantly discern between that which is essential for salvation and that which is secondary or less directly related to this goal. In this regard, I would like to recall what St. Thomas Aquinas said: "the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects" (Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 94, art. 4).


Let me analyse:

i
"It is important to emphasize that what cannot change is what has been revealed "for the salvation of all peoples" (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 7)."

Sounds like, saying from the inverse side, "what has not been revealed for the salvation of all peoples" can change.

ij
"Therefore the Church must constantly discern between that which is essential for salvation and that which is secondary or less directly related to this goal."

Sounds like, saying, the Church should look for nooks and crannies of things hitherto thought essential to salvation and see if really they aren't and if therefore we could change.

iij
"In this regard, I would like to recall what St. Thomas Aquinas said: "the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects" (Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 94, art. 4)."

First, sounds like, saying that details can readily be non-salvific;
Second, after looking at the reference, it sounds a bit like saying "revelation is really a bit like the natural law" ...


This means, one should look at the reference:

Article 4. Whether the natural law is the same in all men?
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2094.htm#article4


Objection 1. It would seem that the natural law is not the same in all. For it is stated in the Decretals (Dist. i) that "the natural law is that which is contained in the Law and the Gospel." But this is not common to all men; because, as it is written (Romans 10:16), "all do not obey the gospel." Therefore the natural law is not the same in all men.

Objection 2. Further, "Things which are according to the law are said to be just," as stated in Ethic. v. But it is stated in the same book that nothing is so universally just as not to be subject to change in regard to some men. Therefore even the natural law is not the same in all men.

Objection 3. Further, as stated above (Article 2,Article 3), to the natural law belongs everything to which a man is inclined according to his nature. Now different men are naturally inclined to different things; some to the desire of pleasures, others to the desire of honors, and other men to other things. Therefore there is not one natural law for all.

On the contrary, Isidore says (Etym. v, 4): "The natural law is common to all nations."

I answer that, As stated above (Article 2,Article 3), to the natural law belongs those things to which a man is inclined naturally: and among these it is proper to man to be inclined to act according to reason. Now the process of reason is from the common to the proper, as stated in Phys. i. The speculative reason, however, is differently situated in this matter, from the practical reason. For, since the speculative reason is busied chiefly with the necessary things, which cannot be otherwise than they are, its proper conclusions, like the universal principles, contain the truth without fail. The practical reason, on the other hand, is busied with contingent matters, about which human actions are concerned: and consequently, although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects. Accordingly then in speculative matters truth is the same in all men, both as to principles and as to conclusions: although the truth is not known to all as regards the conclusions, but only as regards the principles which are called common notions. But in matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles: and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all.

It is therefore evident that, as regards the general principles whether of speculative or of practical reason, truth or rectitude is the same for all, and is equally known by all. As to the proper conclusions of the speculative reason, the truth is the same for all, but is not equally known to all: thus it is true for all that the three angles of a triangle are together equal to two right angles, although it is not known to all. But as to the proper conclusions of the practical reason, neither is the truth or rectitude the same for all, nor, where it is the same, is it equally known by all. Thus it is right and true for all to act according to reason: and from this principle it follows as a proper conclusion, that goods entrusted to another should be restored to their owner. Now this is true for the majority of cases: but it may happen in a particular case that it would be injurious, and therefore unreasonable, to restore goods held in trust; for instance, if they are claimed for the purpose of fighting against one's country. And this principle will be found to fail the more, according as we descend further into detail, e.g. if one were to say that goods held in trust should be restored with such and such a guarantee, or in such and such a way; because the greater the number of conditions added, the greater the number of ways in which the principle may fail, so that it be not right to restore or not to restore.

Consequently we must say that the natural law, as to general principles, is the same for all, both as to rectitude and as to knowledge. But as to certain matters of detail, which are conclusions, as it were, of those general principles, it is the same for all in the majority of cases, both as to rectitude and as to knowledge; and yet in some few cases it may fail, both as to rectitude, by reason of certain obstacles (just as natures subject to generation and corruption fail in some few cases on account of some obstacle), and as to knowledge, since in some the reason is perverted by passion, or evil habit, or an evil disposition of nature; thus formerly, theft, although it is expressly contrary to the natural law, was not considered wrong among the Germans, as Julius Caesar relates (De Bello Gall. vi).

Reply to Objection 1. The meaning of the sentence quoted is not that whatever is contained in the Law and the Gospel belongs to the natural law, since they contain many things that are above nature; but that whatever belongs to the natural law is fully contained in them. Wherefore Gratian, after saying that "the natural law is what is contained in the Law and the Gospel," adds at once, by way of example, "by which everyone is commanded to do to others as he would be done by."

Reply to Objection 2. The saying of the Philosopher is to be understood of things that are naturally just, not as general principles, but as conclusions drawn from them, having rectitude in the majority of cases, but failing in a few.

Reply to Objection 3. As, in man, reason rules and commands the other powers, so all the natural inclinations belonging to the other powers must needs be directed according to reason. Wherefore it is universally right for all men, that all their inclinations should be directed according to reason.


So, the part which is highlighted in part g of the response is in fact these two paragraphs from the corpus:

It is therefore evident that, as regards the general principles whether of speculative or of practical reason, truth or rectitude is the same for all, and is equally known by all. As to the proper conclusions of the speculative reason, the truth is the same for all, but is not equally known to all: thus it is true for all that the three angles of a triangle are together equal to two right angles, although it is not known to all. But as to the proper conclusions of the practical reason, neither is the truth or rectitude the same for all, nor, where it is the same, is it equally known by all. Thus it is right and true for all to act according to reason: and from this principle it follows as a proper conclusion, that goods entrusted to another should be restored to their owner. Now this is true for the majority of cases: but it may happen in a particular case that it would be injurious, and therefore unreasonable, to restore goods held in trust; for instance, if they are claimed for the purpose of fighting against one's country. And this principle will be found to fail the more, according as we descend further into detail, e.g. if one were to say that goods held in trust should be restored with such and such a guarantee, or in such and such a way; because the greater the number of conditions added, the greater the number of ways in which the principle may fail, so that it be not right to restore or not to restore.

Consequently we must say that the natural law, as to general principles, is the same for all, both as to rectitude and as to knowledge. But as to certain matters of detail, which are conclusions, as it were, of those general principles, it is the same for all in the majority of cases, both as to rectitude and as to knowledge; and yet in some few cases it may fail, both as to rectitude, by reason of certain obstacles (just as natures subject to generation and corruption fail in some few cases on account of some obstacle), and as to knowledge, since in some the reason is perverted by passion, or evil habit, or an evil disposition of nature; thus formerly, theft, although it is expressly contrary to the natural law, was not considered wrong among the Germans, as Julius Caesar relates (De Bello Gall. vi).


But this does not seem very helpful, does it?

Unless the meaning intended is, "it is right to look to the magisterium of the past, but not in all cases" ... and the more you get into detail, the less it is so. Then the reference makes pretty good sense — and Raymund Burke's urge to make a request for clarification becomes clear. Michael Lofton pretended that Burke et al. were giving follow up questions about minutiae, when in fact, the man known to some as "Pope Francis" is deftly hinting at a thing but refusing to tie himself down to it, in this part g.

Unfortunately, while the choice of reference is a very good hint at what he considers correct, namely (insofar as the reference is clarifying me, or presumably anyone else) that less important things can be reinterpreted even in contradiction to previous magisterium, and a thing previously thought important can suddenly be downgraded to less so, and therefore unexpectedly also be reinterpreted, the reference as such is not a good proof for this idea.

"But if the reference doesn't prove this idea, why conclude that this is what he hinted at?"

Well, because even failures of logic have their logic.

I will now underline two more parts of this response.

(b) Therefore, while it is true that Divine Revelation is immutable and always binding, the Church must be humble and recognize that it never exhausts its unfathomable richness and needs to grow in its understanding.
(c) Consequently, she also matures in the understanding of what she herself has affirmed in her Magisterium.


In my experience, this has by other people (decades earlier) been used as gobbledegook for "if it doesn't suit us anymore, we can change it, and if the change contradicts previous magisterium, we can pretend that the previous magisterium was so far misunderstood." Or in other words, calling out whoever confronts with Bible, Tradition or Previous Magisterium in an attitude of "how do you have infinite knowledge of all that the Church means by Her magisterium?" Because if anything can in principle be seen as an incomplete expression, misleading as it stands, and a definite number of items turn out to be so, one would have to have infinite knowledge to conclude what one was oneself referring to was not one of those cases.

But this brings us to another point. There is a difference between the Natural Law and Revelation. For application of the Natural Law, each man is ultimately responsible, and God will reward or punish him accordingly, and it does not always help to claim one was obeying, obedience is not the one and sole virtue one really is responsible for. However, for the content of the Revelation, there are officers and there are orders. And tthere is an order in how they are to be obeyed so as to avoid the thing the French army describes as "ordre, contrordre, désordre" ... The Natural law is laid down in the heart of each man individually, and remains there unless darkened. But Revelation has to be revealed by someone. I am not Moses on Mount Sinai or before the burning Bush, nor am I Thomas verifying with my fingers it is really Jesus' wounds on the cross on this living and healthy body. I get these things, and lots more too, from others. And the further back they are, the more reliable they are. Let's see this distinction both from St. Thomas here, and from the Bible.

Objection 1. It would seem that the natural law is not the same in all. For it is stated in the Decretals (Dist. i) that "the natural law is that which is contained in the Law and the Gospel." But this is not common to all men; because, as it is written (Romans 10:16), "all do not obey the gospel." Therefore the natural law is not the same in all men.

Objection 2. Further, "Things which are according to the law are said to be just," as stated in Ethic. v. But it is stated in the same book that nothing is so universally just as not to be subject to change in regard to some men. Therefore even the natural law is not the same in all men.

Reply to Objection 1. The meaning of the sentence quoted is not that whatever is contained in the Law and the Gospel belongs to the natural law, since they contain many things that are above nature; but that whatever belongs to the natural law is fully contained in them. Wherefore Gratian, after saying that "the natural law is what is contained in the Law and the Gospel," adds at once, by way of example, "by which everyone is commanded to do to others as he would be done by."

Reply to Objection 2. The saying of the Philosopher is to be understood of things that are naturally just, not as general principles, but as conclusions drawn from them, having rectitude in the majority of cases, but failing in a few.


Come to think of it, it is possible that the reference in part g of the response was to the pair 2ndum / ad 2ndum.

Which could then mean that things people try to uphold against him as "principles" are in fact "conclusions having rectitude in the majority of cases" ... as he sees it.

But the point was actually about Objection 1. From the fact that "the natural law is that which is contained in the Law and the Gospel" one cannot conclude that past expressions of the magisterium are faulty, for instance in upholding a Biblical chronology in the Christmas reading or in rejecting Heliocentrism in the Galileo case.

And Galileo brings us to a point in the response, which is very damning.

Here is Dei Verbum 7:

7. In His gracious goodness, God has seen to it that what He had revealed for the salvation of all nations would abide perpetually in its full integrity and be handed on to all generations. Therefore Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion (see 2 Cor. 1:20; 3:13; 4:6), commissioned the Apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, (1) and to impart to them heavenly gifts. This Gospel had been promised in former times through the prophets, and Christ Himself had fulfilled it and promulgated it with His lips. This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing. (2)

But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, "handing over" to them "the authority to teach in their own place."(3) This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face (see 1 John 3:2).


While a salvific purpose is given for the revelation in general, it is not stated that what doesn't immediately seem relevant for a salvific purpose does not fall under for instance perpetuation of the preaching of the apostles or under tradition or under Biblical inerrancy or under Magisterial infallibility.

Here is what the one responding makes of it:

what cannot change is what has been revealed "for the salvation of all peoples"


This reading of Dei Verbum, whether intended or not by any or some or even all (but probably not all, after all) Council Fathers, is at variance with Trent, Session IV.

Let's remind us — as there is a difference between simply "tenet" and "tenuit atque tenet" — we are not obliged to what obviously reinterprets and overthrows the obvious meaning of previous utterances from the Church.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Francis of Assisi
4.X.2023