Parutions en 1934 (selon la wikipédie)

1934 en littérature : Parutions
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/1934_en_litt%C3%A9rature#Parutions

Essais		Romans
Gaston Bachelard, Le Nouvel Esprit scientifique (avril)		Auteurs francophones
Henri Bergson, La Pensée et le Mouvant (juin)		Louis Aragon, Les Cloches de Bâle (août).
Charles de Gaulle, Vers l'armée de métier		Marcel Aymé, Les Contes du chat perché (décembre).
René Le Senne, Obstacle et valeur, Paris, F. Aubier		Jacques Chardonne, Les Destinées sentimentales.
Ruth Benedict, Patterns of Culture		Gabriel Chevallier, Clochemerle
Maud Bodkin, Archetypal Patterns of Poetry: Psychological Studies of Imagination		Daniel-Rops, Mort, où est ta victoire ?
René Martial, La Race française		Pierre Drieu la Rochelle, La Comédie de Charleroi (février).
Paul Otlet, Traité de documentation		Jacques de Fromont, Les Mutilés
France Pastorelli, Servitude et grandeur de la maladie		Jean Giono, Le Chant du monde.
Poésie		Pierre Mac Orlan, La Nuit de Zeebruges (juin)
René Char, Le Marteau sans maître.		Henry de Montherlant, Les Célibataires (juillet).
Jeunesse		Marguerite Yourcenar :
Naissance de Oui-Oui (Noddy en version originale), personnage fictif de livres pour enfants, créé par Enid Blyton et illustré par Harmsen van der Beek.		Denier du rêve.
		La mort conduit l'attelage.
		Georges Duhamel : Le Jardin des bêtes sauvages.
		Auteurs traduits
		Wacław Berent (polonais), Nurt (Tendance).
		Agatha Christie (anglaise), Le Crime de l'Orient-Express.
		William Faulkner (américain), Tandis que j’agonise.

Que m'indique ce tableau ?

1) Que les auteurs francophones d'alors étaient souvent noirs, qu'il s'agisse de Pierre Drieu la Rochelle, ou l'humour noir que me semble contenir Clochemerle. Notons, pour ce dernier, je n'ai pas encore lu davantage que la première et la dernière page, et je suis dans les jours parfois un peu noir d'humeur. Une certaine infestation peut déjà être morte, elle n'est pas forcément encore éliminée.
2) Que le nombre de parutions par an a augmenté depuis.
3) Que certains imaginent (le livre était placé dans la laverie où on savait que j'allais aller) que j'aurais besoin de transporter par ici un objet des armoiries de ce village.
4) Que le genre "essai" n'est pas inconnu.
5) Que pas mal des essais sont en France des monographies. Pour rappel, la collection de courtes essais existe aussi, et si un essayiste écrit souvent sur un thème, construire une monographie-collection n'est pas impossible.

Si je tombais sur un éditeur, déjà existant ou voulant débuter, on pourrait regler une certaine question sans de dérober les armoiries de Clochemerle, car j'aurais un peu plus vite un appart, sur le marché privé.

Voici d'ailleurs un peu d'inspiration pour les éditeurs en herbe :

Syndicat national de l'édition : Le B-A-BA du métier d’éditeur
https://www.sne.fr/le-b-a-ba/

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Jacques le Grand
25.VII.2024

Sancti Jacobi Apostoli, qui exstitit beati Joannis Evangelistae frater; et, prope festum Paschae ab Herode Agrippa decollatus, primus ex Apostolis coronam martyiii percepit. Ejus sacra ossa, ab Hierosolymis ad Hispanias hoc die translata, et in ultimis earum finibus apud Gallaeciam recondita, celeberrima illarum gentium veneratione, et frequenti Christianorum conctirsu, religionis et voti causa illuc adeuntium, pie coluntur.

I'm Not the First to Ask

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Tolk Lang QQ · Tolkienophobia · As Tolk Lang QQ Keep Dropping In · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: I'm Not the First to Ask

AI actually had an answer. This means that others have answered before I asked, and before I intend to give my own answer.

Why are so many asking whether Tolkien really created his languages?
https://poe.com/chat/3gv3kdllz7j4j7xsc4o

There are a few key reasons why people often question whether J.R.R. Tolkien truly created the languages featured in his writings:

1. Linguistic complexity: The languages Tolkien invented, such as Elvish languages like Quenya and Sindarin, are remarkably complex and sophisticated, with detailed grammatical structures, vocabularies, and writing systems. This level of linguistic complexity is impressive and leads some to doubt that a single person could have created them.
2. Resemblance to real-world languages: While Tolkien's languages are unique, they do share some similarities with natural human languages, both in terms of grammar and sound. This has led some to speculate that Tolkien may have drawn inspiration from or adapted existing languages, rather than constructing them entirely from scratch.
3. Tolkien's background: Tolkien was a philologist and professor of linguistics, and his deep knowledge and passion for languages likely contributed to the richness of his invented tongues. However, some question whether even his expertise could account for the full depth and breadth of the languages he created.
4. Lack of complete documentation: Tolkien never fully documented or published the entirety of his linguistic work, leaving some gaps and uncertainties that fuel speculation about their origins.

However, the overwhelming scholarly consensus is that Tolkien did indeed create these languages himself, drawing upon his extensive linguistic knowledge and creative talents. While he may have been influenced by or incorporated elements of real-world languages, the depth and coherence of his invented tongues are a testament to his linguistic genius and imagination.

So, what do I make of it.

1. and 3. cancel out. If Tolkien was a philologist, he was amply equipped to imitate what in real languages is a teamwork over 20—40 generations since the language was a different one. As well as features we have not spotted the origin of. A very simple case: Tolkien knew Latin, so he knew a language could have different cases. When he knew that, would he really need a team to work out the cases for Quenya? He knew French had lost cases since Latin and Welsh had lost cases since Old Brythonic, what's so mysterious about a man using that knowledge to assume Sindarin had lost cases?

"Yeah, but keeping it in the head, all of this at the same time!"

Yes, he was interested in languages. I'm not presuming you could do it. You shouldn't presume I could keep all the soccer rules in the head while watching a game of soccer (that's why I rarely do so, I think I did so exactly twice in my life, twice as often as going to horse races). I'm more impressed by the fact that Tolkien could probably have understood a rugby match and a soccer match perfectly, which probably contributes more than a little to his battle scenes!

But as watching soccer is a more common hobby than learning languages to read old literature, I am too well aware that I would make myself ridiculous with conspiracy theories of Tolkien basing all battle scenes on real soccer games or underground live role playing battles.

Obviously, the AI was not exactly able to discern whether reasons given on the internet were very intelligent.

2. is admitted, but any natural language also is a mixture of traits and vocabulary shared with different other ones.

4. is irrelevant. Suppose Tolkien had been member of a secret society, which had spoken Quenya for generations, that would explain why we have gaps in the information, but it would not explain why Tolkien was able to tinker so much with Quenya. If it had been the case, Quenya would already have been fixed, and Tolkien couldn't have tinkered with it. Here is an example from Fauskanger, between 1930's Qenya and Lord of the Rings style Quenya:

On one point only does the Qenya Lexicon provide extensive information about a grammatical feature: the formation of the past tense of verbs. In well over 300 cases the past tense is listed alongside the more basic form of the verb. We find all the types we are familiar with from later Quenya, such as past tenses formed with the ending -ne (e.g. sesta- "compare", pa.t. sestane), with nasal infixion (e.g. kap- "jump", pa.t. kampe) or by lengthening the stem-vowel and adding -e (e.g. mel- "to love", pa.t. méle; see pp. 82, 45, 60). But there is also a great number of highly exotic formations, such as the ending -ya turning into past tense -sine or -tine (e.g. mauya- "to cry", pa.t. mausine; panya- "arrange", pa.t. pantine, pp. 60, 72), or even past tenses involving internal-vowel shifts (like milk- "have, keep, possess", pa.t. malke, or tump- "build", pa.t. tampe - pp. 62, 93). The "Qenya" past tenses should be subjected to a thorough study. True, some of the information provided clearly applies to "Qenya" only, presupposing its own peculiar phonological history; for instance, vowel-shifts in the past tense occur where we have stems involving syllabic consonants - the forms milk- > malke and tump- > tampe come from stems MLKL and TMPM. Such stems are no longer possible in Tolkien's later vision of Primitive Elvish, so in later Quenya, shifts like milk- > pa.t. malke would not be possible either (there is nothing to parallel this in the Etymologies). Yet in some cases the Qenya Lexicon may provide clues to mysteries in Tolkien's later Elvish. For instance, Gilraen's Sindarin linnod in LotR Appendix A has onen for "I gave".

The Qenya Lexicon Reviewed
https://ardalambion.net/qlreview.htm

The "scholarly consensus" in this case means those who have studied Tolkien Linguistics. As amateurs or at university. It may refer to three people, Helge Fauskanger, probably best standardiser of Neo-Quenya, David Salo, dito for Sindarin, and Carl F. Hostetter, director of the Yahoo group Elflang list.

The coherence of Tolkien's languages is also a testament to two other factors.

• Having no predecessor, he did not have to dodge excellent solutions for fear of copyright strikes.
• Not being homeless, he did not get his notebooks stolen or lost.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Mary Magdalene
22.VII.2024

Questions on the Reformation

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Persecutions of Catholics by Protestants, Reformation Era · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Questions on the Reformation

I answered one on quora, was prompted to answer another one, for both I looked at "related questions" ...

What do Catholics think about Protestants?

The Catholic Church teaches that Protestantism is wrong, in each case when they actively oppose some of the anathemas of the council of Trent, and some other later or earlier definitions.

The Catholic Church also teaches that the Protestant communities born from the Reformation, or later on from this first generation of Protestant communities are lacking in Church structure, generally lack valid bishops, priests, confirmations, eucharists, absolutions and extreme unctions.

There are Catholics who agree on this Church teaching, and I do. There are Catholics who go beyond it and accuse every Protestant irrespectively of community of every error any Protestant embraced, I do not. And there are Catholics who disagree, which I also do not.

One more thing. Some of the Church teachings on my view would be targetting mainly Mainstream European Liberal Protestantism, for instance Gregory XVI saying they are not Christian. Partly because US was geographically marginal, while in any European country, Revivalism was marginal, and on top of that the Revivalism there was, Pietism, had an ugly Anti-Intellectual slant. On my view it has some significance that this was before both Asuza Street and John C Whitcomb & Henry M Morris.

What books were discarded by Catholics during the reformation process and why did Protestants not include them in their own Bible(s)?

Catholics didn't discard books, it was Protestants who discarded books, and book parts. Some discarded them from full canonicity, but included them in Bibles, some even banned them from the Bibles.

Why didn't the Catholic and Protestant churches reunite after the Protestant Reformation?

Because the Protestant Reformation was how the Protestant Churches split from the Catholic Church. In visible assymetry.

Let me clarify the last point. In 1054, Michael Caerularius and the legate of Pope St. Leo IX excommunicated each other. Both parties said they were just staying in the Church they had previously been in, and that the other party was guilty of leaving it. The symmetry is not true, one of the parties is wrong, but the assymetry was not as visible and as obvious.

In 1522, Martin Luther was excommunicated by the Pope. He did not pretend to pronounce an excommunication back. He pretended to consider the Pope as Antichrist, and this not simply for the then Pope, Leo X, but for all recent Popes, way back, as long as there were indulgences, as long as there were monastic vows, and so on.

He also pretended he had been previously wrong, by being Roman Catholic, and had "woken up" ... so Leo X, like both parties in 1054, said he was continuing the faith and Church he had been born into, and Luther did not say that. Visible assymetry. Or if he said so in a subtle way, it was by pretending there were factions agreeing with himself (on each issue? on all issues? he wasn't clear) in times where official Church teaching was "wrong" ...

Lutherans sometimes believe that Luther was pretty wrong on some, but because of this or that detail, one should still hold to Lutheranism. A more common opinion among Lutherans is wanting to stay clear of Catholic dogmatism ... avoiding a Church which doesn't encourage a totally free enquiry.

Some other types of Protestant will be more likely to shout out "unbiblical" about this or that Marian doctrine or this or that practise. That's their rationale for not becoming Catholic.*

The Catholics' rationale for not becoming Protestant (except some in the Vatican II connexion seem to have subreptitiously or not so subreptitiously embarked on that road**) is, as above, the result of the Reformation was, in the countries that went through that evil process and in the communities in other countries that resulted from it, a maimed Church with an adulterated or in some cases at best just very incomplete doctrine.

What led to the split between Protestants and Catholics? Why do some Protestants still identify as Catholics?

I would say that lots of the reasons for the split was Protestants being more woke about how to re-read things in the light of recent discoveries about Ancient Roman society.

And the reason why many Protestants at the time tried to claim the title Catholic and pretend that the actual Catholics were "Papists" was, they hoped back in the 1520's and 1530's that their discoveries would hold sway over all of the Catholic Church. They were wrong.

Was Protestantism more secular or fundamental during the time of its conception than the Catholic Church was at that time?

In the Reformation period, Protestantism prefigured modern Secularism in many ways, while the Catholic Church were more like Fundamentalists at least in so far as they believed more miraculous things and followed more rules.

Was protestantism [a] more secular movement during the time of it's conception?

Arguably, yes. As said, the Reformation was inspired by the discoveries about Ancient Rome, parts of which were about secularist views. In 1527 Gustav Wasa supported it because he wanted to secularise Church property, and in 1534, while Henry VIII didn't quite want to secularise marriage like Luther had done, in defiance of Mark 10:6, he found the Fundamentalist views on Christian marriage by Pope Clement VII a bit too irksome.

Why didn't protestants split from the Catholic church around 350 A.D. instead of 1523?

If Protestantism is what Protestants sometimes claim, a very good question.

If the original Christians were Protestants, as Protestants claim, at the time when they claim the Catholic Church departed from original Christianity, there should have been not just a verbal protest, but dissent from that apostasy, as they presume it was.

Some Protestants have pretended this actually happened, and have identified any degree of dissent from and marginality within the Catholic Church over the centuries as a continuing Protestant Church, under different names. Obviously, such a Protestantism, if it had been one, would have been more like modern Evangelicals than like the daughters of the Reformation in terms of structure, namely lacking a firm organisation and a visible undisputable continuity.

What changes in the Catholic Church prompted the Protestant Reformation?

Let's see ... excommunicating Luther? Wait, Luther was already involved.

Some Protestants have pretended to make a list of "changes" that the Catholic Church implemented over several different centuries, and at the Reformation it was time (somehow than rather than 100 years earlier or later) for faithful Christians to jump ship from this ever changing ... well, the problem is, they have a problem proving the Catholic doctrines they attack were actually changes. Their methodology is faulty. They will take "we don't think we can find it in the Bible and we don't think very early Church fathers mentioned this" (a sometimes very subjective impression) as a guarantee of "therefore, this is a new thing, a change, on part of the Catholics" ... I have lampooned their methodology in my story about the Mexican in Edinburgh. The letters the Mexican had received hadn't mentioned kilts or whisky or haggis, so, the Mexican when arriving in Edinburgh imagines his host is gradually going mad.***

When did the Catholic Church finally accept the split between Catholicism and Protestantism?

What do you mean by "finally accept the split"? If you mean accept that there are people who are outside the Catholic Church and are baptised and are heretics, and those heresies are heresies of Protestantism, as soon as the heresies were there and She excommunictated heretics or anathematised heresies.

If you mean accept the split is final, well, we haven't. We still pray for the conversion of heretics.

If you mean accept that people in some countries have a civil right to be Protestant, we consider that a question of politics, and in some countries it would very quickly have become impossible to enforce the Inquisition, chief and first of them Holy Roman Empire, also known as Germany.°

Has the Catholic Church doctrine changed over time?

Doctrines have become formal dogmas.

The Catholic Church is older than Protestantism and the oldest form of Christianity in Europe. When did the first Protestant sects start appearing like lockust?

That depends on what you count as Protestantism. Are Medieval Waldensians Protestant? Or aren't they?

Some would count them as a very different heresy (and they are closer to Evangelicals than to the Reformation, but the Evangelicals are also closer to Catholics than the Reformation is). Lewis XI of France refused to count them as heretics, contrary to the Pope finding they were so.

In the Reformation period, however, Waldensians came to join cause with Calvinists, and Hussites with Lutherans.

Hussites are closer to an actual precursor of the Reformation. Even so, not all agree on that either:

In contrast to the popular perception that Hus was a proto-Protestant, some Eastern Orthodox Christians have argued that his theology was far closer to Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Jan Hus is considered a martyr saint in some jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church.[65] The Czechoslovak Hussite Church claims to trace its origin to Hus, to be "neo-Hussite", and contains mixed Eastern Orthodox and Protestant elements. Nowadays, he is considered a saint by the orthodox churches of Greece, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, and several others.

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

Either way, he was, like the Reformers, closer to Catholicism than early Waldensians were.

What were the causes of the Protestant Reformation?

The devil, the world and the flesh. It is possible that witches managed curses to make Germany less Catholic, it is certain that the Devil is anyway prone to promote religious errors. As men are not quite as eager to take them directly from him, his helps are the world (general society in Protestant countries from Reformation on) and the flesh (Protestantism pandering to evil lusts in different key promoters of Protestantism, greed and revenge for Gustav Wasa, lust after Anne Boleyn in Henry VIII, a dissatisfaction with fasting in many (including Luther) as well as with monasteries (including Luther).

What was the Catholic Counter Reformation?

• a Catholic revival, just as Fundies have had Fundie revivals against Darwinism and Rock'n'Roll
• reforms in Church administration
• efforts on the missionary and military side to bring back populations and territories to Catholicism.

When did the Protestant Reformation end?

One could say, when the last group of people leaving the Catholic Church had become some sort of Protestants. This would be the Mennonites.

After the foundation of the Mennonites, all later Protestant groups have left only Protestant groups, and sometimes clearly for the better, like when Bertil Gärtner°° left the Swedish Church and joined the Augustana synod of Missouri, I think, which is, apart from agreeing with Catholicism on refusing female ordination, also has some Catholic and Liturgy friendly sides. It's High Church. Both I and Father Caesarius Cavallin OSB and lots of others either come from Gärtner's Free Synod or from sympathisers with it (I never personally accessed it).

After the Reformation, who burned more "heretics", the Catholics or the Protestants?

If you only count executions for the religious crime heresy and the execution method burning (often after strangulation, so it was only a dead body that was burned), there is no doubt that it's Catholics.

This doesn't by any stretch mean that Protestants didn't execute Catholics or burn heretics. Servetus was burned in Calvin's Geneva, Bartholomew Legate and Edward Wightman were burned in the England where James I had issued the King James Bible the previous year. However, they preferred executing Catholics over executing heretics. And most Catholics were executed as traitors to the King. Or, in the case of Elisabeth I, traitors to the Queen.

Cardinal David Beaton was however murdered in a kind of execution ritual, probably as persecutor of George Wishart, since after the killing, he was hanged from the castle window.

The peasants that were hung by Coligny during the Religious Wars in France were probably hung for being "rebellious peasants" (they tried to defend their church and priest) and in the case of the Pilgrimage of Grace executions and Dacke executions, the charges of peasant rebellion and treason to the king were combined (in both cases, there were churches to defend).

This is only counting actual executions. Far more recently, in Ireland, the Catholic peasants cultivated sufficient wheat to not starve to death, but their landlords refused them the wheat for survival, they wanted it for "business as usual" and told them "as per contract, your food is potatoes" (the crops of which had just failed). Lots of Anglo-Irish landlords were more than happy to see Catholics starve to death and replace them with Ulster Scots.

What will it take to get Protestants and Catholics to come together as one?

It will happen two ways.

• Protestant conversions.
• Catholic apostasies.

As said, some count Vatican II in that latter league.

Who started the Protestant Reformation?

Luther, Zwingli and Oecolampadius, unless you want to go on to kings or back to Hus.

Did any Catholics convert to Protestantism during the Reformation?

I wouldn't call it "convert" but that's where the Protestant populations come from. Gustav Wasa and Henry VIII were raised Catholics, so were all of the one's and most of the other's subjects. When they died, the populations had been wedged away from Rome.

Have Protestants been executed by Catholics?

Yes, and vice versa.

What do Catholics and Protestants have in common?

When neither is Modernist, what Lita Cosner in 2009 called "generic Christianity" (she's married since, so now she's Lita Sanders). That would include Young Earth Creationism or at a minimum the special creation of Adam before there were any other human people and within reasonable time for Genesis 3 to be transmitted from Adam to Moses.

Two last questions, I think they go together:

What are some reasons why some Protestants may not like Catholics?

Why are Protestants not Catholic?

For some the latter question is not a question of dislike, but of historical habit. This was also my case before I became a Catholic. Or Caesarius Cavallins. In some of these cases, you add a few principled objections, that are often somewhat superficial, sometimes misinformed.

When there is actual dislike, I'd count things like these as probable:

• descending from Hussites
• descending from Huguenots
• descending from Waldensians
• descending from Ulster Scots
• cultivating theological prejudice against Catholic doctrines like they (more or less) are
• inventing histories like those of Hislop or of Ruckman.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris, Georges Pompidou
IX LD after Pentecost
21.VII.2024

* Some of my answers to such points:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Matthew 6:7 and the Rosary
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2022/01/matthew-67-and-rosary.html

Great Bishop of Geneva! Jeremias 7 and 44 and the Duchess of Dorchester
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2023/06/jeremias-7-and-44-and-duchess-of.html

New blog on the kid: Refutation of Dr. Steven Nemes
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2024/07/refutation-of-dr-stephen-nemes.html

** The accusation is debated.

*** For the full story, see here:

Great Bishop of Geneva! The Mexican in Edinburgh and Church History
https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-mexican-in-edinburgh-and-church.html

The greater part is actually discussing some of the accused "changes" ...

° The Inquisition is, therefore, not a thing we regard as an outrage against human dignity, still less as a persecution of real Christians (except in miscarriages of justice, St. Joan, some would also say Savonarola), but also not as a duty, something we have a duty to bring back. Conditions vary. In Babylon, Jews couldn't stone idolaters.

°° I liked Bertil Gärtner before I heard of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Kurdish and Turkish are not similar

As Kurdish is closely related to Persian, neither is Turkish and Persian simular. But google translate has Persian only in the Arabic script, or alphabet as we said before discovering on the internet that Arabic actually has an abjad instead ... so, to get something I can (very approximately) pronounce, I took Kurdish instead of Persian.

Select a sentence in Kurdish and in Turkish, and see how similar they are!
Hevokek bi kurdî û tirkî hilbijêrin, bibînin ka çiqas dişibin hev!		Kürtçe ve Türkçe bir cümle seçin ve ne kadar benzer olduklarını görün!
Can we do it one more time?
Ma em dikarin careke din bikin?		Bir kez daha yapabilir miyiz?
But if you speak of windows, they become a bit more similar?
Lê heke hûn qala pencereyan bikin, ew hinekî dişibin hev?		Ama pencerelerden bahsederseniz, biraz daha benzer hale gelirler, öyle değil mi?
Of course, that could be an effect of loan words ...
Bê guman, ew dikare bandorek peyvên deyn be ...		Elbette bu ödünç alınan kelimelerin bir etkisi olabilir ...
You mean, apart from loan words, they are very different?
Yanî ji xeynî peyvên deynî, ew pir cuda ne?		Ödünç alınan kelimeler dışında çok farklılar mı yani?

Now, let's do it for Armenian, like Kurdish Indo-European, but not the same branch. While Armenian has its own alphabet, google translate offers a transscription along with it.

Select a sentence in Kurdish and in Turkish, and see how similar they are!
Ընտրեք նախադասություն քրդերեն և թուրքերեն և տեսեք, թե որքան նման են դրանք:		Yntrek’ nakhadasut’yun k’rderen yev t’urk’eren yev tesek’, t’e vork’an nman yen drank’:
Can we do it one more time?
Կարո՞ղ ենք դա անել ևս մեկ անգամ:		Karo?gh yenk’ da anel yevs mek angam:
But if you speak of windows, they become a bit more similar?
Բայց եթե խոսում եք պատուհանների մասին, ապա դրանք մի փոքր ավելի նման են:		Bayts’ yet’e khosum yek’ patuhanneri masin, apa drank’ mi p’vok’r aveli nman yen:
Of course, that could be an effect of loan words ...
Իհարկե, դա կարող է լինել փոխառության խոսքերի հետևանք ...		Iharke, da karogh e linel p’vokharrut’yan khosk’eri hetevank’ ...
You mean, apart from loan words, they are very different?
Այսինքն փոխառության բառերից բացի շա՞տ են տարբերվում։		Aysink’n p’vokharrut’yan barrerits’ bats’i sha?t yen tarbervum.

Well, neither is Finnish and Swedish closely related! Or German and Hungarian!

Neighbouring languages are not always similar at all, even when they have many words in common due to loans one way or both ways. And even when the culture is similar like between Swedish and Finnish or German and Hungarian, or obviously Kurdish and Turkish cultures.

If you are neither from the regions involved, nor knowledgeable about languages, you might tend to miss this.

Swedes and Finns, by the way, have cultural, but not linguistic, similarities to the Ojibwe, in ways that peoples well South of the Baltic have not. Hence, in Minnesota, you have Findians. Look it up, true story and not a bad one!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
IX LD after Pentecost
21.VII.2024

How Old Were the Fathers?

David, 32 Who was of Jesse, who was of Obed, who was of Booz, who was of Salmon, who was of Naasson, 33 Who was of Aminadab, who was of Aram, who was of Esron, who was of Phares, who was of Judas, 34 Who was of Jacob, who was of Isaac, who was of Abraham,*

1) Who was of Jesse, 2) who was of Obed, 3) who was of Booz, 4) who was of Salmon, 5)who was of Naasson, 33 6) Who was of Aminadab, 7) who was of Aram, 8) who was of Esron, 9) who was of Phares, 10) who was of Judas, 34 11) Who was of Jacob,

Roman Martyrology, chronology		Ussher chronology
Abraham born 2015 BC, David anointed 1032 BC. Isaac born 1915 BC, David anointed 1032 BC. Jacob born 1855 BC, David anointed 1032 BC. Jacob born 1855 BC, David born 1062 BC.		Jacob born 1836 BC, David anointed 1055 BC Jacob born 1836 BC, David born 1085 BC
1855 - 1062 = 793 years. 793 / 11 = 72 years per generation.		1085 - 1836 = 751 years 751 / 11 = 68 years per generation

Booz married Ruth late. Jesse had 6 sons and I don't know how many daughters before David. Phares was born after Judah had already lost two adult sons.

But even apart from that, fathers seem to have had the relevant sons rather late in life.

And Syncellus?

Abraham born 2188 BC - 160 = Jacob born 2028 BC.
David anointed 1083 BC + 30 = David born 1113 BC.

2028 - 1113 = 915 years
915 / 11 = 83 years per generation.

I think I prefer Roman Martyrology (or in this part Ussher)./HGL

* From Luke 3

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"

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

Danièle Cybulskie, Historian of the Middle Ages

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

Books — Danièle Cybulskie
https://www.danielecybulskie.com/books

Latein und Romanisch

Antworten nach Sorte: Mitterer Deutsch / Croatisch UND Latein / Französisch · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Latein und Romanisch

Zunächst, ich habe diese Theorie nicht erfunden, sondern gelesen, in einem Buch aus der 30-er bis 50-er (denke ich, warscheinlich 40-er) Jahren, welches im Klassischen Institut der Universität Lund im Keller sich befand.

Zur Illustration. Später Text, warscheinlich schon romanisch gesprochen, mit einer etwa 200 Jahre jüngere Aussprache:

Historiarum Francorum libri X
Liber II 5. De Aravatio episcopo et Chunis.
https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Historiarum_Francorum_libri_X/Liber_II#5._De_Aravatio_episcopo_et_Chunis.

Ich nehme an, 1) der Lautstand der Aussprache war zur Zeit des hl. Gregor nicht nur Proto-Romanisch, sondern wenigstens Gallo-Romanisch, und 200 Jahre später, in Tours, Langue d'oïl. 2) Im geschriebenem Latein kamen Compromissen vor, um einige lateinische Formen zu ermöglichen, aber war sonst mit der völkischen Aussprache identisch, dagegen war die Diktion und Syntax verschieden, wie auch bis vor kurzem zwischen Dhimotiki und Katharevousa, oder zwischen Ukrainisch und Kirchslavisch mit ukrainischer Aussprache.

Und, 3) diese Identität der Aussprache wird geändert, absichtlich, vom hl. Alcuin von Tours. Das "local appeal" der Aussprache wird dabei dem "international appeal" geopfert. Die lokale Sprache wird plötzlich dem Latein gegenüber eine fremde Mundart, ein Patois, die sogenannte "lingua romana rustica" des Synods von 813. Die neue Aussprache, die Alcuin als Fremdsprache erlernt hatte, ist die die wir als Mittellatein kennen, wesentlich ein Latein Italiens in England um 600 umgepflanzt, und dann als Fremdsprache vereinfacht, d. h. der Schrift noch angenähert. Daher auch die Endung -um die wie deutsch "um" lautet, statt ein -u~ im portugisischen Sinne auszumachen.

Ich gebe unter der Schrift zunächst die als schriftgemäß empfundene Aussprache, so wie ich den Sachverhalt verstehe, wie sie vor Alcuins Ankunft war, dann eine volkstümliche, wobei ich denke das zwischen den beiden, so wie auch heute zwischen Dhimotiki und Katharevousa, Zwischen-Stufen existierten. Diese Brücken der beiden Sprachebenen verschwinden dann wie auch die Identität der Aussprache, nach Alcuin. Enjoy (oder auch nicht, stehe aus, dann)!/HGL

Igitur rumor erat, Chunos in Galliis velle prorumpere.
[i:ð@r rüm@r ert, hüns e~ galy@s vel proröm~pr@]
[rüm@r ert or, els hüns vulei@n röm~pr@ a l@s galy@s.]

Erat autem tunc temporis apud Tungrus oppidum
[ert oð ton~k tem~pr@s av@ð tön~gr@s oppið]
[ert or don~k ten~s a la citeð tön~gr@s]

Aravatius eximiae sanctitatis episcopus,
[araveis@s, eksiny@ sain~teð@s evesk@v@s]
[araveis, evesk@ grande sain~teð]

qui vigiliis ac ieiuniis vacans,
[ki vely@s a djewn@s vakan~s]
[ki vakan~t e~ vely@s e djewn@s]

crebro lacrimarum imbre perfusus,
[krevr@ l@rmar em~br@ perfüs@s]
[perfüs@s pluy@ espes larm@s]

Domini misericordiam praecabatur,
[donn@ miserkord@ preyav@r]
[preyav@ miserkord@ don]

ne umquam gentem hanc incredulam sibique semper indignam in Galliis venire permitterit.
[nei ön~k@ djen~t@ an~k en~krëül@ s@vik@ e~diny@ e~ galy@s venir permetr@]
[ke n@ ön~k@ tçest@ djen~t@ e~fiel e e~diny@ s@ permet@ venir a galy@s]

Sed sentiens per spiritum,
[seð sensie~s p@r esperið]
[meis senten~t p@r esperið]

pro dilictis populi sibi hoc non fuisse concessum,
[pru d@lit@s pövl@ s@ ok no füs kontçes]
[k@ pru d@lit@s pövl@ tçest no füð kontçes]

consilium habuit expetendi urbem Romanam,
[kon~sely@ aot espeðen@ ürp ruman@]
[aot kon~sely@ espeðir la citeð ruman@]

scilicet ut, adiunctam sibi apostolicae virtutis patrocinia,
[stsilist üt adjon~t@ s@vi apostri@ vertüd@s persiny@]
[a saveir k@ s@ adjon~t@ la proteksy@ vertüð apostr@]

quae humiliter ad Domini misericordiam flagitabat, mereretur facilius obtinere.
[ke: öm~bl@t@r a donn@ miserkord@ fleyèv@, meriðr@ fatsily@s ot@ner]
[ke öm~bl@men~t fleyèv@ miserkord@ don, meris@ plüs fatsilmen~t la ot@nir]

Accedens ergo ad beati apostoli tumolum,
[aksiðes erk a beèð apostr@ töm~bl@]
[don~k @ksiðen~t a beèð töm~b@ apostr@]

depraecabatur auxilium bonitatis eius,
[dipreyav@ð@r oksely@ bon~tèð@s eys]
[dipreyèv@ð ayuð@ se@ bon~tèð]

in multa abstinentia, maximae inaedia se consumens,
[e~ mult@ ostinents@, maksim ineðy@ se ko~sumes]
[e~ mult@ ostinents@, se ko~sumen~t grand@ fèm]

ita ut bidui triduique sine ullo cibo putuque maneret,
[ið@ üð biðw@ triðwik@ se~ ul@ tsiw@ puðuk@ m@ner@]
[manyèr@ a m@ner se~ alkü~ nütremen~t e puð dows e treys djurn@s]

nec esset intervallum aliquod, in quo ab oratione cessaret.
[ney ess e~terval alk@, e~ k@ av oratsyo~ tsessar]
[e no~ seye alk@ e~terval, e~ k@ tsessast orar]

Cumque ibidem per multorum dierum spatia in tali adflictione moraretur,
[kön~k@ evið per multor djèr spatsy@ e~ tal afliksyo~ mur@reð@r]
[kom la per spatsy@ mults djurn@s mureð e~ tal afliksyo~]

fertur hoc a beato apostolo accepisse responsum:
[fert@r ok a beèð apostr@ aktsevis respon~s@]
[fert@r ke prist tsest@ respon~s@ per beèð apostr@]

'Quid me, vir sanctissime, inquietas?
[k@ mei, ber sein~tiss@m, en~kyèt@s]
[ber mult sein~t, k@ mei en~kyèt@s]

Ecce! enim apud Domini deliberationem prursus sanccitum est,
[ets! en av@ð Domn@ delivratsyo~ prurs@s sen~tsið est]
[ets! Est detsideð per delivratsyo~ Domn]

Chunos in Gallias advenire easque maxima tempestate debere depopulari.
[hü:ns e~ galy@s avenir yask@ masim@ ten~steð deveir depövlèr]
[k@ avyeny@n li hü:n e~ galy@s et k@ tsel@ deveir estr@ depövlèð@ e~ gran~d@ tem~pest@]

Nunc igitur sume consilium,
[nön~k i:ð@r süm konsely@]
[tön~k pren konsely@]

accelera velociter,
[akselèr@ b@lotstr@]
[akselèr@ rapið@]

ordena domum tuam,
[urdèn@ dom tü@]
[urdon@ tü@ meisyo~]

sepulturam conpone,
[seveltür@ kom~po~]
[kom~poz@ tü@ sevültür@]

require lentiamina munda!
[r@kyèr len~syamn@ mön~d@]
[r@kyèr len~sy@s propr@s]

Ecce! enim migraberis a corpore,
[ets! en migrèvr@s a korpr@]
[ets! tü migrèr èv@s de korps]

nec videbunt oculi tui mala,
[ney veðeyv@n oly@ tü@ mal@]
[e non veðer èv@n tü@ oly@ lu mal]

quae facturi sunt Chuni in Galliis,
[ke feytür son hü:n e~ galy@s]
[k@ feyr@ èv@n li hü:n e~ galy@s]

sicut locutus est dominus Deus noster'.
[si: luküts est domn@s djews nostr@]
[en~si: k@ don~s nostr@ djews dist]

Hoc a sancto apostolo pontifex responso suscepto,
[ok a sein~t apostr@ pon~tifis repon~s@ süstseft]
[el pontif avyen~t rets@vüð tsest@ repon~s@ del sein~t apostr@]

iter accelerat Galliasque velociter repetit,
[eð@r akselèr@ galyask@ b@lotstr@ repest]
[akselèr@ vei@ e rapið@ retchertch@ galy@s]

veniensque ad urbem Tungrorum,
[venye~sk@ að ürp tön~gror]
[e venien~t a tsiteð tön~gr@s]

quae erant necessaria sepulturae secum citius levat,
[ke ert netsessèr@ seveltür@ sey tsitsy@s lèv@]
[k@ ert netsessèr@ a seveltür@ lèv@ ko~ sey rapið@]

valedicensque clericis ac reliquis civibus urbis,
[valditse~sk@ klerts@s a relk@s tsiv@ ürv@s]
[dist val als klerks eð als altr@s tsiteðin~d]

denuntiat cum fletu et lamentatione,
[denön~ts@ ko fleð e l@mentatsyo~]
[enön~ts@ kom~ plours e l@mentatsyo~]

quia non visuri essent ultra faciem illius.
[key@ no vezür ess@n öltr@ fatsy@ ley@s]
[k@ no veðer èv@n öltr@ sü@ fats]

At ille cum heiulato magno et lacrimis prosequentes supplecabant humili praece, dicentes:
[að il ko eylèð many e larm@s prusewen~t@s supleyèv@n öm~bl@ prey, ditsents]
[meis il ko many l@mentatsyo~ a larm@s supleyèv@n öm~bl@ preyèr@, ditsents]

'Ne derelinquas nos, pater sanctae, ne obliviscaris nostri, pastor bonae!'
[nei derelink@s nu:s, pèð@r sein~t, ne uvliskèr@s nostr@, pastr@ bo~]
[no leish@ nu:s, pèð@r sein~t, no uvli@ nu:s, pastr@ bo~]

Sed cum eum fletibus revocare non possent,
[seð ko~ yo fleð@v@s revokar no~ poss@n]
[meis kan~t lu no poss@n revokar ko~ plours]

accepta benedictione cum osculis, redierunt.
[aktset@ ben~ditsyo~ ko~ oskl@s, reyèr@n]
[aktsetèr@n la ben~ditsyo~ ko~ beis@s e reyèr@n]

Hic vero ad Treiectinsem urbem accedens,
[i: ver a treyeðe~s ürp aktseðe~s]
[meis il aktseð a la tsiteð trey@]

modica pulsatus febre,
[moð@y@ pusseð@s fyèvr@]
[pusseð@ fyèvr@ p@tit@]

recessit a corpore,
[retsest a korpr@]
[retsest de korps]

ablutusque a fidelibus,
[avluðusk@ a fiðyèl@v@s]
[laveð@s per fiðyèl@s]

iuxta ipsum agerem publicum est sepultus.
[yust@ iss eir@ püvlik@ est sevülð@s]
[yust@ meðesm@ tchamp püvlik@ est sev@lið@s]

Cuius beatum corpus qualiter post multorum temporum spatia sit translatum, in libro Miraculorum scripsimus.
[kuy@s beyeð korps kèl@ð@r pos multor tempr@ spatsy@ seð traslèð, e~ livr@ mireilor eskrism@s]
[de kel el beyeð korps kom@ pos mults ten~s spatsy@ sei@ traslèð, eskrism@s e~ lu livr@ mireil@s]

The Jewish Tolkien and His Fantasy Country

OK, mostly he didn't write fantasy, he mostly did thrillers, things like Stephen King.

I've said Goldman. William Goldman.

But once, he ventured into the realm of Faërie. When he did, he was clearly as brilliant as Tolkien. The Princess Bride. Originally written for his two daughters and he wrote the screenplay himself. Perhaps it's not a coincidence that the novel came out September 1st* 1973, in Chicago, while it may already have been September 2nd in England, the day when J. R. R. Tolkien died.

I think, the connexion doesn't quite cease here. Fourteen years later, The Princess Bride became a film. Then the film smoldered under the ashes for another ten years, and became a huge hit through video, ten years after the release in theatres. That year, 1997, a certain Peter Jackson acquired the rights for doing The Lord of the Rings, and his The Fellowship of the Ring was released four years (a lustrum) after that. That is, 28 years after Tolkien died and The Princess Bride was published. Anyone noticed a similarity of appearance between Inigo Montoya and Aragorn? In the films, of course.

There are parallels too in multiple attempts at making the film, the difference being, for The Princess Bride, the masterpiece was not preceded by any ... Ralph Bakshi, for instance, not to mention even worse ones.

And there is the technique, in both there is world building. They seemingly, according to critics**, both convey that the world went on before the scenes opened and goes on after they have closed. In both there is map drawing.

But in some other fashions, The Princess Bride would be closer to a novel by Lloyd Alexander. We deal with Ruritanian fantasy, not with actual supernatural entities. Now, most Ruritanians are set in our world. Ruritania. Syldavia (and Borduria). Bretzelburg. Grand Kudpein. Vulgaria. But while Lloyd Alexander has a whole series of Ruritanias visited by Vesper Holly, he also has the Ruritanias in the Westmark trilogy, and the setting of The Marvelous Misadventures of Sebastian — Ruritanias without connexion to our geography. That is also the case with ... well, not quite ... Guilder and Florin.

It so happens, before the Netherlands switched to the Euro money, their currency was known as Guilder ... but the coins were marked with an FL, which stood for Florin. Two countries, around a marine strait, are on the map*** marked as Guilder and Florin. Shall we think Netherlands, Curaçao and Sint Maartens or Surinam? Perhaps most of all, what kind of abuse is adressed. Syldavia, Bretzelburg and Grand Kudpein (all written by French speakers) have a huge part for police brutality and dictatorship. Like Westmark and the unnamed country where Sebastian roamed. Lloyd Alexander had a French wife after all. But the purely English or American ones, by Anthony Hope, Ian Fleming, and, obviously, William Goldman, feature abuse involving the family. Anthony Hope allows a double of the King of Ruritania to stand in while he is imprisoned, to avoid usurpation. This double, Rudolf Rassendyll, turns out to be a much gentler husband than Rudolf V of Ruritania. So, in a way, Anthony Hope was making a point against toxic masculinity and abusive husbands.

Vulgaria has the child catchers. I think Ian Fleming was making a point against abortion and child protective services, especially as they targetted certain traveller populations.

Florin ... let's be clear that while Count Tyrone Rugen tortures people, it becomes easier for Prince Humperdinck° to basically force Buttercup into a marriage. Sounds a bit like psychiatry to me. Meanwhile, one hero, though not the protagonist, roughly equivalent to Athos in The Three Musketeers, has a fairly Catholic name. Inigo, son of Dominick .... a reference to the founders of Society of Jesus and Order of Preachers?

Montoya is a Basque surname. It originally comes from a hamlet near Berantevilla in Álava, in the Basque region of northern Spain. During the Reconquista, it extended southwards throughout Castille and Andalusia. The name roughly translates to mean hills and valleys. It has become more frequent among Gitanos than among the general Spanish population.

One father and son or uncle and nephew couple are Ramón and Carlos Montoya, Flamenco artists, not totally out of the way considering there are real life Humperdinck's connected to music too: Engelbert Humperdinck the composer, Engelbert Humperdinck the singer. We also have:

Gabriel Montoya (20 October 1868, in Alès – 7 October 1914, in Castres) was a French singer, chansonnier and lyricist.

Joseph Montoya is less likely, a politician ... did you know a founder of an order also existed of the name Montoya?

Laura Montoya, in full María Laura de Jesús Montoya Upegui, (26 May 1874 – 21 October 1949), religious name Laura of Saint Catherine of Siena, was a Colombian Roman Catholic religious sister and the founder of the Congregation of the Missionary Sisters of the Immaculate Virgin Mary and Saint Catherine of Siena (1914). She was well known for her work with Indigenous peoples and for acting as a strong role model for South American girls.

And, whether Flamenco artists, or gipsies or Catholics, psychiatry in Protestant countries hasn't been too gentle on them. Count Tyrone Rugen ... is he a standin for a shrink, like Baron and Baroness Bomburst for abortion and child protective services? Or was William Goldman prophetic without knowing it? There has been a murder victim Eliud Montoya, and a bandit, Diego León Montoya Sánchez, since the publication of the book. I guess I'd have to read the book first, but one thing is certain : the oppressed population of Florin is not representative of the actual Middle Ages.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Vigil of St. Mathias
24.II.2024

* On This Day: The Princess Bride Publication Date
Veronique Manfredini – September 1st, 2021
https://archive.bookstr.com/article/on-this-day-the-princess-bride-publication-date/

** For The Lord of the Rings, I'm one of those critics. As for The Princess Bride, I have neither seen the film, nor read the novel. But I have seen extracts, by youtube suggesting after I went from the theme in Jack Sparrow to one by Mark Knopfler in The Princess Bride.

*** Yes, like lots of fantasy, The Princess Bride has a map.

° The name is a Westphalian version of Huniberting ... descendant of Hunibert. Which means "bright warrior" or "bright Hun" ...