Did JRRT believe Sigurd / Siegfried was dabbling with some Satanic stuff?

Or, at least, did the thought cross his mind?

This hero has somewhat less good press with Tolkien than with CSL. Or so it seems to me. CSL was thankful that Nazis had abandoned Siegfried for Hagen as their favourite hero - because it gave him Siegfried back.

But what about Tolkien? I read somewhere he deliberately made Aragorn an opposite of Siegfried as thoughtful, humble and never deceptive where Siegfried was carefree to some would say careless, swaggering in a sense and once a deceiver - even if for loyalty. And of course, Aragorn was loyal to one single woman, while Sigurd (and Wagner's Siegfried) having drunk a "drink of oblivion" forgot about Brunhild and immediately fell in love with Gudrun/Kriemhild*. Sigurd wanted riches and fame (and so did Siegfried of the Nibelungen Nôt) - Aragorn was content with obedience under Denethor's banners and with poverty in the inn of Prancing Pony, even once in a while - with a notable exception - letting himself be humbled by Barliman Butterbur.

But I get another clue from Bilbo and LotR about what he thought.

Smaug has a pretty unusual death for a dragon. Leviathan is described as having impenetrable scales in the book of Job. Sigurd's dragon is killed from below (like crocodiles do not have same type of scales on stomach as elsewhere) and even there only with a magic sword. Not a usual one. St George and a few others can kill dragons because they are saints. Beowulf's dragon seems to recall Sigurd's.

Smaug's death recalls, not Fafner's, but Sigurd's/Siegfried's. He was vulnerable in exactly one spot. Like Siegfried / Sigurd (South German and Norse versions agreeing completely on this one), who had bathed in the dragon's blood, but who had been sweaty after the killing and on whose back a leaf had fallen, which stuck to his back during the "blood bath" (other more literal sense than usual, which is usually no worse than taking a footbath in blood) and where his skin did not become invulnerable. Which is also the spot where Hagen / Högni (again, both versions) killed him.

Could Tolkien have been making a point that invulnerability, except for in one spot, was more fitting to a dragon than to a hero?

Other thing with Siegfried (German, not Norse version) : he has a Tarn-Kappe - a cloak which renders the wearer invisible.

Which of course recalls that Ring ... in The Hobbit, it is not yet demonic, but in the Lord of the Rings three volume novel (and not trilogy, as he insisted!) it is demonic.**

Invisibility is perhaps also more fitting for a dragon than for a hero?

And if a hero wields it ... well, Elendil fared no better with invisibility than Sigurd / Siegfried with invulnerability.

So, was Sigurd dabbling with demonic things?

One clue is - in the Norse version - his genealogy. Odin, Sige (banished for killing a serf - and then won an Empire among Huns ... unless it was Franks), Rerir (who avenged his father who had been killed by jealousy), Reris son Volsung - early orphan, married daughter of a giant, Volsung's son Sigmund (who in Beowulf poem was the dragon killer, one and only before Beowulf), who married his own sister in order to get revenge on his father's killers. Then Sigurd - another very late born son, posthumous to his father, after his incestuously engendered son Sinfjötle (same name as Fitela, and the poet may have left that piece of genealogy out) had been poisoned - by a poison who could not kill his half giant father (another kind of invulnerability which betrayed if not self then kin).***

Rob Skiba II would have said "there is something going on here" ...

Another one would be the clues in parallels of Pagan type.

I believe Hercules and Theseus existed, that the Devil was not their physical father but got some kind of moral and adoptive fathership over each (as Zeus or as Poseidon ... why would he have wasted an opportunity to enhance errors of polytheism?) - and the Pagan surroundings accepted these as "sons of gods".

In non-epic Christian sources, Sigurd / Siegfried is not mentioned. He died among Burgundians (insofar as he lived at all and insofar as his widow married Attila) - but Burgundian "secular historians" - who where were usually Christian clerics - did not mention him. One reason which is a possibility was given by Tolkien in his preface : he was a fairy-tale addition to the legend, which also telescopes diverse parts of real history. Indeed, he was a double of the real dragon killer, "his father" Sigmund. Who had no connexion to Burgundians whatsoever.

I think there is another possibility. He lived. He was careless about the means he used and was nearly as touched by the devil's power as Theseus and Hercules. By his own half conscious fault - who would take a dip into the blood of a killed dragon? If this did not damn him (but perhaps it did so too), it tripped him up very seriously, so that his life was ruined by it (Theseus and Hercules both killed own children - one through asking it as a favour of a demonic stepfather, one in a fit of madness), and he was betrayed by his wife (like Theseus as to Hippolytus' guilt, like Hercules as to the shirt of Nessus - which also involved the blood of a monster).° He died a premature death. If he was saved, or at least saved from a worse damantion than what he got (there are degrees in Hell), then it was partly because the magic betrayed him rather than made him a success.

He became a man of renoun - in popular and chivalrous or courteous lore. But in a Christian world, at least Catholic and possibly also Arian clergy (whose version if any we have not got) gave him a damnatio memoriae. Even one version among Danes or Angles (whether originally Pagan or originally Christian) made his father Sigmund the dragon killer - so as to avoid mentioning Sigurd.

I looked up the German actors of Siegfried and Brunhilde and Kriemhild. Uwe Beyer (who did Siegfried) died from heart attack during tennis at age 48. Brunhild in the German version (Nibelungen Nôt) was never wife or paramour of Siegfried,°° and Karin Dor never could make it as international actress - her third husband has died and he had Alzheimer. Maybe she was best off, of the three. Maria Marlow who played Kriemhild was also into Erotica - and then disappeared. Gunther was played by Rolf Henniger, who is a widower. Siegfried (!) Wischnewski played Hagen (another pretty diabolical character, one eyed like Antichrist, cynically obedient to orders rather than to moral law, destroys a chance of peace by killing Etzel's - Attila's - son - CSL was right he was worse as a hero than Siegfried, though he might have still been OK back when he received to young hostages escaped from Etzel's court in the Latin poem Waltharius) - he divorced and remarried. Herbert Lom (Herbert Karel Angelo Kuchacevič ze Schluderpacheru, called Herbert Lom) who played Etzel is an interesting man, he may have been the model for Christopher Lee (he was a generation earlier) - and he wrote novels about two very creepy men, Christopher Marlowe (a rival of Shakespear who wrote of Tamerlan - a man who like Attila was voluneering for the role as "God's scourge") and the inventor of the guillotine, Dr Guillotin. Skip Martin: Alberich (the dwarf of whom Siegfried gets the hoard) - was pretty ok, he was poor enough to have to live as tobacconist, he died in 1984 as if not being able to stand Newspeak and at age 56, like so middle life expectancy of a man of the Middle Ages - but like Herbert Lom he was drawn to the macabre, artistically.

When we come to other characters, the actors are different. Some of them. Dieter Eppler: Rüdiger - died at old age after a long faithful marriage. Mario Girotti: Giselher. More known as Terence Hill. Fred Williams: Gernot - no problems. Hans von Borsody: Volker von Alzey (a court poet in the poem) - unfortunately married more than once, born in Vienna, like me. Already died. Christian Rode: Dietrich von Bern (loyal to Etzel, one of the survivors who condemn Kriemhild to death) - has more recently dubbed Kojak (the former Kojak dubber having deceased). Friedrich von Ledebur: Waffenmeister Hildebrand (Dietrich's man, other survivor) had a more chaotic life, but perhaps not out of the ordinary for a nobleman and an actor. He played a South Sea Islander ... oh, wait, that may explain it : played chief harpooneer Queequeg, a South Sea cannibal chief, in the film Moby Dick (1956). "Better a sober cannibal than a drunken Christian," Herman Melville's Ishmael famously says of Queequeg in the book and the film.. He shouldn't have!

I nearly forgot the director. Harald Reinl was preparing a new film with Attila - and ended up stabbed by a wife, like Attila by Hildicho.

So, bathing in dragon's blood or wielding magical swords or invisibility gadgets are not the best ways you can live your life on earth or get to Heaven.

Even if one is not as much of a graceless bore as Mime ... (in Wagner's version).

Hans Georg Lundahl
University Library of Nanterre
Sts Marius and Martha
and sons Audifax and Abachum
19-I-2015

I used for the cast the German wikipedia here and on basically each actor enumerated:

Die Wikipädie : Die Nibelungen (1967)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Nibelungen_%281967%29

But for Friedrich von Ledebur I took the English version too.

Notes:

* In the German version Siegfried's wife is not Gudrun but Kriemhild and her mother Uote. In the Norse version it's the mother who is called Grimhild.

** I was looking up Völsunga saga and came across this : "The story of Andvaranaut is thought to have inspired J.R.R Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings." Er ... no, he went out of his way to deny it. "Both rings are round". Andvaranaut can of course have inspired the Seven rings of the dwarf lords - which Sauron produced but also took back. There Andvaranaut like the seven is a ring of riches.

*** If Siegfried lived around the time of Attila's youth, it seems Odin his ancestor either cannot have been the Odin who ruled in Uppsala around the time of Caesar, or there are ancestors missing, or Sige was called "son of Odin" in a sense like self made men were called "sons of Zeus" in cases like Minos, Rhadamantys, like ancestors of Atreus and of Priam. And I suspect a line like "Woden - Casere (Julius Caesar or just barely possibly Caesar Augustus) - Tydda - ... " means East Anglia's royalty started with a self made man too.

° Achilles' was a Centaur killer / monster killer, but he was also invulnerable, his mother may have been, not a goddess, but a witch posing as such. And if he was effeminate in one moment and perhaps even bisexual as Oscar Wilde (whose exposure to demonic powers was through freemasonry), that witch mother may have been to blame. Idolatry makes for exchanging the natural desire for perverted ones. And, yes, his invulnerability (real or supposed) betrayed him.

°° The South German story chivalrously "amends" we would say mollify the story : instead of a drink of forgetfulness to become amourously faithless to Brynhilda, before falling in love with Gudrun, he gets a love potion to fall in love with Kriemhild. Instead of betraying Brynhilda amourously, he only makes her faithless to a vow she had made insofar as she takes not the best (him) but due to his machinations the second best (Gunter, his brother in law).

Sur les Dévanceurs de Marie-Antoinette

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

J'utilise comme toujours ces derniers jours, le système de Sosa Stradonitz. Le ou la concernée est 1. Le père de n'importe qui est 2 fois autant (donc le père = 2) et la mère de n'importe qui est 2 fois autant plus un (donc la mère = 3). Et je me base sur divers wikipédistes, ici pour la plupart français ou francophones, mais aussi notemment germanophones.

• De cujus
  • 1 Marie-Antoinette d'Autriche 2 novembre 1755 à Vienne – morte le 16 octobre 1793 à Paris – décapitée, comme on le sait. Bon, il y en a eu qui le sont avant aussi, pour le Christ (et dès la Constitution Civile, c’était quelque part pour l’Église et pour le Christ qu’elle s’opposait à la Révolution). Et il y en a qui meurent décapités pour le Christ de nos jours aussi.
    
    La concernée jusqu’aux arrière-arrière-grand-parents = 31 – 1 (coïncidence de deux ancêtres en une personne, aucune personne inconnue des wikipédistes) = 30 personnes repérables. Minimum 30 ans. Quartile basse 44 ans (on verra ce que ça veut dire), médiane 59/60 (item) et quartile haute 65 (item). Maximum 81. La moyenne est de 56, presque 57 ans – comme pour la généalogie "galloise-anglaise-française" - mais plus étendue - (donnée en anglais) du Moyen Âge.
  
  
  
• Parents
  • 2 François Ier du Saint-Empire né le 8 décembre 1708 à Nancy, mort le 18 août 1765 à Innsbruck
  • 3 Marie-Thérèse d'Autriche (1717-1780) 13 mai 1717 à Vienne et morte dans la même ville le 29 novembre 1780
  
  
  
• Grand-parents
  • 4 Léopold Ier de Lorraine 11 septembre 1679 à Innsbruck - 27 mars 1729 à Lunéville
  • 5 Élisabeth-Charlotte d'Orléans née le 13 septembre 1676 à Saint-Cloud et morte le 23 décembre 1744 à Commercy
  • 6 Charles VI du Saint-Empire né le 1er octobre 1685 à Vienne - mort le 20 octobre 1740 à Vienne. Notons qu’il avait quasi « donné une provocation » aux Juifs.
  • 7 Élisabeth Christine de Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel (née le 28 août 1691 à Brunswick, morte le 21 décembre 1750 à Vienne)
  
  
  
• Arrière-grand-parents
  • 8 Charles V de Lorraine né à Vienne le 3 avril 1643, mort à Wels (Autriche) le 18 avril 1690,
  • 9 Éléonore d'Autriche (1653-1697) née le 21 mai 1653, à Ratisbonne et morte le 17 décembre 1697 à Vienne
  • 10 Philippe Ier, duc d’Orléans 1640-1701
  • 11 Charlotte de Bavière 1652-1722
  • 12 Léopold Ier du Saint-Empire 1640–1705
  • 13 Éléonore de Neubourg 1655–1720
  • 14 Louis-Rodolphe de Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel (22 juillet 1671, Wolfenbüttel – 1er mars 1735, Brunswick)
  • 15 Christine Louise d'Oettingen-Oettingen (20 mars 1671, Oettingen – 3 septembre 1747, Blankenburg)
  
  
  
• Arrière-arrière-grand-parents
  • 16 Nicolas François de Lorraine né le 6 décembre 1609, mort le 25 janvier 1670
  • 17 Claude Françoise de Lorraine (1612 † 1648)
  • 18 Ferdinand III de Habsbourg (13 juillet 1608 - 2 avril 1657)
  • 19 Éléonore de Nevers-Mantoue née le 18 novembre 1630 à Mantoue (Mantoue) et décédée le 6 décembre 1686 à Vienne (Autriche)
  • 20 Louis XIII, roi de France 1601-1643
  • 21 Anne d' Autriche, infante d'Espagne 1601-1666
  • 22 Charles-Louis de Bavière 1617-1680
  • 23 Charlotte de Hesse-Cassel 1627-1686
  • [24 = 18, il était veuf de 25 avant d’épouser 19]
  • 25 Marie-Anne d'Autriche (1606–1646)
  • 26 Philippe-Guillaume de Wittelsbach-Neubourg (* 4. Oktober 1615 in Neuburg an der Donau; † 12. September 1690 in Wien)
  • 27 Élisabeth Amélie de Hesse-Darmstadt (* 20. März 1635 in Gießen; † 4. August 1709 in Neuburg an der Donau)
  • 28 Anton Ulrich (Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel) (* 4. Oktober 1633 in Hitzacker; † 27. März 1714 in Salzdahlum bei Wolfenbüttel)
  • 29 Elisabeth Juliane von Holstein-Norburg (1634–1704)
  • 30 Albrecht Ernst I. zu Oettingen-Oettingen (1642–1683) – semble avoir été un parvenu, au moins au rang princier, et il y fut élevé à l’occasion de la Guerre de Trente Ans. Ses parents ne sont pas notés par les wikipédistes même allemands.
  • 31 Christine Friederike von Württemberg (1644–1674)
  
  
  
• Arrière-arrière-arrière-grand-parents
  
  63 – 31 = 32 dont 26 repérables, 2 inconnus, 4 coïncidences, quand une même personne est « en plusieurs postes d’ancêtre » : Minimum 22, quartile basse 41 (25% autant ou moins, 75% autant ou plus), médiane 52/56 (50% 52 ou moins, 50 % 56 ou plus), quartile haute 62 (75 % autant ou plus jeunes, 25 % autant ou plus vieux), et maximum 87. Moyenne est à 52 ans et demi. Donc six mois davantage que la génération précédente.
  
  
  • 32 François II de Lorraine né à Nancy le 27 février 1572, mort le 14 octobre 1632
  • 33 Christine de Salm, née en 1575, morte le 30 septembre 1627
  • 34 Henri II de Lorraine né à Nancy le 8 novembre 1563, mort à Nancy le 31 juillet 1624
  • 35 Marguerite de Mantoue (1591-1632)
  • 36 Ferdinand II du Saint-Empire (* 9. Juli 1578 in Graz; † 15. Februar 1637 in Wien)
  • 37 Marie-Anne de Bavière (1574–1616)
  • 38 Carlo II Gonzaga (* 1609; † 30. August 1631 in Cavriana)
  • 39 Maria Gonzaga (* 29. Juli 1609; † 14. August 1660)
  • 40 Henri IV, roi de France 1553-1610, mort assassiné par Ravaillac, comme on sait. Pour la tolérance, si on veut, mais pas exactement pour l’Église catholique.
  • 41 Marie de Médicis 1575-1642
  • 42 Philippe III, roi d’Espagne 1578-1621
  • 43 Marguerite d’Autriche 1584-1611
  • 44 Frédéric V, duc de Bavière 1596-1632
  • 45 Elizabeth Stuart 1596-1662
  • 46 Guillaume, landgrave de Hesse-Cassel 1602-1637
  • 47 Amalie von Hanau-Münzenberg 1602-1651
  • [48/49 = 36/37]
  • [50 = 42 / 51 = 43]
  • 52 Wolfgang Guillaume de Wittelsbach né le 4 novembre 1578 à Neubourg-sur-le-Danube et mort le 20 mars 1653 à Düsseldorf
  • 53 Madeleine de Bavière (1587–1628)
  • 54 Georges II de Hesse-Darmstadt (1605–1661) – notons que Hesse est le pays historique du Saint-Empire où se trouve Francfort – à l’époque je crois que c’était une enclave immédiatement sous l’Empire.
  • 55 Sophie Éléonore de Saxe (1609–1671)
  • 56 August II. (Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel) (* 10. April 1579 in Dannenberg; † 17. September 1666 in Wolfenbüttel)
  • 57 Dorothea von Anhalt-Zerbst (* 25. September 1607 in Zerbst; † 26. September 1634 in Hitzacker)
  • 58 Friedrich von Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Norburg (* 26. November 1581 in Sønderborg; † 22. Juli 1658 in Nordborg (Norburg))
  • 59 Eleonore von Anhalt-Zerbst (* 10. November 1608 in Zerbst; † 2. November 1680 in Osterholm)
  • 60 ? et 61 ? (les parents non notes du parvenu).
  • 62 Eberhard III. von Württemberg (1614–1674)
  • 63 Anna Katharina Dorothea von Salm-Kyrburg (* 27. Januar 1614 in Finstingen; † 27. Juni 1655 in Stuttgart)
  
  
  
• Arrière-arrière-arrière-arrière-grand-parents : 127 – 63 = 64 dont 42 personnes diverses connus de nom et de dates. 4 inconnus, 1 inconnue de dates, son mari estimable à 60. Les autres éliminés sont des coïncidences, quand une même personne est « en plusieurs postes d’ancêtre » : Minimum 22. Quartile basse 36 (25 % meurent 36 ou plus jeunes, 75 % 36 ou plus vieux). Médiane 50/52 (50% meurent 50 ou plus jeunes, 50 % 52 ou plus vieux). Quartile haute 67. Maximum 80. Moyenne 52 ans assez précisément.
  • 64 Charles III de Lorraine (Nancy, 18 février 1543 - Nancy, 14 mai 1608)
  • 65 Claude de France (1547-1575)
  • 66 Paul, comte de Salm, c. 1535 - c. 1595
  • 67 Marie Le Veneur ?
  • 68 = 64 et 69 = 65
  • 70 Vincent Ier de Mantoue né le 21 septembre 1562 à Mantoue et mort le 18 février 1612 à Mantoue.
  • 71 Éléonore de Médicis née 1er mars 1567 à Florence et morte le 9 septembre 1611
  • 72 Charles II d'Autriche-Styrie (1540–1590) oncle paternel de 85
  • 73 Marie-Anne de Bavière (1551–1608)
  • 74 Guillaume V de Bavière (* 29 septembre 1548 à Landshut, † 7 février 1626 à Schleissheim)
  • 75 Renée de Lorraine (1544-1602)
  • 76 Carlo I. Gonzaga (* 6. Mai 1580 in Paris; † 22. September 1637 in Mantua)
  • 77 Catherine de Lorraine (* 1585; † 18. März 1618)
  • 78 Francesco IV. Gonzaga (* 7. Mai 1586 in Mantua; † 22. Dezember 1612 ibdidem)
  • 79 Margarete von Savoyen (* 28. April 1589; † 26. Juni 1655)
  • 80 Antoine, duc de Bourbon-Vendôme 1518-1562
  • 81 Jeanne d'Albret 1529-1572 – une Catholique devenue Calviniste, son fils [40] fera, comme on sait, le chemin inverse. Comme on verra tout de suite sur 82 et 83, les parents de [41], de sa belle-fille, il s’agit de Catholiques.
  • 82 François de Médicis 1541-1587
  • 83 Jeanne d’Autriche 1547-1578 tante paternelle de 85
  • 84 Philippe II, roi d’Espagne 1527-1598
  • 85 Anne-Marie d’Autriche 1549-1580
  • [86/87 = 72/73]
  • 88 Frédéric IV, comte de Simmern 1574-1610
  • 89 Louise-Juliana d'Orange-Nassau 1576-1644
  • 90 Jacques Ier, roi d’Angleterre 1566-1625, dont la mère Marie Reine des Écossais a été décapité, comme on sait. Elle était Catholique (et ses bourreaux Protestants), lui il a été élevé contre les convictions de sa mère comme Calviniste en Écosse, il est devenu Anglican – le genre d’Anglican illogique qui n’ose ni affirmer la Présence Réelle, ni s’abstenir de recevoir la Communion à genoux. Peut-être le fait qu’il a été élevé par les ennemis acharnés de sa mère ?
  • 91 Anne de Danemark 1574-1619 Sa femme qui, en s’agenouillant devant la Communion était un peu plus logique, car élevée Luthérienne, une secte qui, en niant la Transsubstantiation au moins ne nie pas la Présence réelle.
  • 92 Maurice, landgrave de Hesse-Cassel 1572-1632
  • 93 Agnès de Solms-Laubach 1578-1602
  • 94 Philipp-Ludwig II, comte de Hanau-Münzenberg 1576-1612
  • 95 Catherine d'Orange-Nassau 1578-1648 sœur de 89
  • [96-99=72-75]
  • [100 - 103 = 84 - 87]
  • 104 Philippe Louis de Neubourg (1547-1614)
  • 105 Anne de Clèves (1552-1632)
  • [106 = 74, 107 = 75]
  • 108 Louis V de Hesse-Darmstadt (* 24. September 1577 à Darmstadt; † 27. Juli 1626 lèz Rheinfels)
  • 109 Madeleine de Brandebourg (1582–1616)
  • 110 Jean-Georges Ier de Saxe (* 5. März 1585 in Dresden; † 8. Oktober 1656 ibidem) “März” = mars, évidemment.
  • 111 Madeleine Sibylle de Prusse (* 31. Dezember 1586 in Königsberg; † 12. Februar 1659 in Dresden)
  • 112 Heinrich von Dannenberg (1533-1598)
  • 113 Ursula von Sachsen-Lauenburg (* 1552/3; † 12. Oktober 1620 in Scharnebeck)
  • 114 Rudolf von Anhalt-Zerbst (1576–1621)
  • 115 Dorothea Hedwig (1587–1609)
  • 116 Johann (Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg) (* 25. März 1545 in Hadersleben; † 9. Oktober 1622 in Glücksburg)
  • 117 Elisabeth von Braunschweig-Grubenhagen (* 1550; † 1586)
  • [118 = 114/119 = 115]
  • 120 - 123 ? Les grand-parents du prince depuis la Guerre de Trente Ans. Pas notés par les wikipédistes, même allemands. Ce qui ne veut pas dire qu’ils n’étaient même pas chevaliers, mais ils n’étaient pas princes.
  • 124 Johann Friedrich (Württemberg) (* 5. Mai 1582 in Mömpelgard; † 18. Juli 1628 auf dem Weg nach Heidenheim) “auf dem Weg nach” = sur le chemin vers
  • 125 Barbara Sophia von Brandenburg (* 16. November 1584 in Halle (Saale); † 13. Februar 1636 in Straßburg) La lettre ou plutôt ligature ß n’est pas un bêta grec, mais s’écrit aussi comme deux ss – Straßburg est donc Strassbourg.
  • 126 Johann Kasimir von Salm-Kyrburg (1577–1651)
  • 127 Dorothea zu Solms-Laubach (1579–1631)

Dans la généalogie donnée pour Éléanor de Montfort la femme de Llywelyn ap Gruffydd (Llewelyn ap Griffith)* j'ai noté une moyenne de 56 ans. Pour les derniers générations jusqu'à Marie-Antoinette, il y a 56 presque 57, mais pour les premiers deux générations notés ici, la moyenne est plus basse, 52 ou 52 et demi. Dans cette généalogie, on pourrait entrevoir un progrès - mais ce progrès est une récupération d'un bien-être avant déjà connu. Ou, à bien regarder, il s'agit d'une fluctuation, car pour les ancêtre certains d'Éléanore j'ai une moyenne de 58/59 selon les dates les plus longèves, mais de 56 selon les dates les moins longèves, 3 personnes ayant une divergence entre les dates sur 17. Pour les 19 qui avaient leur dates de naissance surtout approximées - oui, la documentation venue jusqu'à nous est meilleure dans les temps modernes que dans le Moyen Âge quand on était à peu près en train d'inventer ça - la moyenne est de 52 ans. Et la médiane pour les 36 ensemble (sur 77 personnes!) est de 56. Il y a même une correspondence entre les quartiles basses et hautes. Dans les deux cas la mortalité infantile est écartée de la statistique, puisqu'il s'agit d'ancêtres, donc ayant vécu jusqu'à l'âge de faire enfants.

On pourrait se dire "eh alors, ce sont tous des nobles, le bas peuple avait une vie moyenne plus basse" - et quand à la mortalité infantile, c'est possible : quoique, de la mortalité infantile il y en avait dans les classes privilégiées aussi. Mais possible ne veut pas dire documenté. Et ce que nous savons sur les modes de vie partagés et différents entre les classes, il me semble probable que la moyenne a pu être même plus haute pour le bas peuple - en mangeant moins de viande, moins de gras, et en vivant moins hectiquement. Mais ça, c'est de la spéculation. Par contre, c'est sûr que le fait de porter soie n'augmente pas l'expectation de vie par rapport à celui qui porte du lin ou même le chanvre sur le corps. Et largeur ou petitesse des habitations (hutte vs château - à moins que la hutte soit très mal isolée pendant des hivers durs) ne fait pas beaucoup de différence non plus. Donc on peut raisonnablement deviner que l'expectation de vie était à peu près la même pour les oubliés de l'histoire comme pour les visibles** - en Europe à cette époque préindustrielle là.***

La mortalité des femmes en ou après les couches était plus importante - comme au Moyen Âge. En revanche, il n'y avait pas d'avortements, ni même pour sauver la vie d'une femme qui risquait d'avoir un mauvais accouchement. Une femme qui mourait en donnant la vie, comme chez les Juifs aussi chez nous les Catholiques, elle comptait comme assez bien assurée de son salut éternel, quasiment comme une martyre. Mais la longévité était autrement grande pour les femmes ayant survécu aux accoucehements que pour les hommes : elles vivaient probablement une vie moins hectique que les hommes ambitieux.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre-Paris X
Sts Marius et Marthe
et leurs fils Audifax et Abachum
19-I-2015

* Longevity in Selected Ancestry and Inlaws of Eleanor of Montfort [sur ce même blog]
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2015/01/longevity-in-selected-ancestry-and.html

** Et ces généalogies sont un échantillon "pour les visibles" comme ceux-ci alors pour la population en général. Rappelons que la moyenne pour les ancêtres de Robespierre était de 60 et pour ceux de Napoléon I de 49 OU 54 selon les diverses comptes, selon ce qu'un homme est mort la même année que sa femme ou 40 ans avant - ce qui serait un peu extrême.

*** Il semble que dans notre société industrielle, les capitalistes se paient une meilleure santé, pas juste en termes de médicine, mais en termes de moins de stress, moins d'expositions nocives.

Longevity in Selected Ancestry and Inlaws of Eleanor of Montfort

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

Eleanor de Montfort - wife of Llewelyn ap Gruffydd, who was killed by the English and whose daughter was shut up in a monastery by same English invaders - I will first give her ancestry. As to numeration, I am using the Sosa-Stradonitz system. Concerned person = 1. Father of n = 2n, mother of n=2n+1. Her own life was the statistic extreme of young death, 30, while the other extreme was 80.* Now, here is the chart, never mind if some entries contain French or German or Dutch (diverse wikis have diversely good information on same subject).

• De cujus
  • 1 Eleanor de Montfort 1252 – 19 June 1282
• Parents
  • 2 Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester c. 1208 – 4 August 1265
  • 3 Eleanor of England 1215 – 13 April 1275
• Grandparents
  • 4 Simon de Montfort, 5th Earl of Leicester c.1175 – 25 June 1218
  • 5 Alix de Montmorency ? - died February 24, 1220-1221
  • 6 John of England 24 December 1166 – 19 October 1216
  • 7 Isabella of Angoulême c.1188 – 4 June 1246
• Greatgrandparents
  • 8 Simon (IV) de Montfort ? - † 1188
  • 9 Amicia de Beaumont ? - † 1215
  • 10 Bouchard V de Montmorency ? - † 1189 before Akkon
  • 11 Laurette of Hainaut ? - † 9. August 1181
  • 12 Henry II of England 5 March 1133 – 6 July 1189
  • 13 Eleanor of Aquitaine 1122 or 1124 – 1 April 1204
  • 14 Aymer Taillifer, Count of Angoulême c. 1160 – Limoges, le 16 juin 1202
  • 15 Alice of Courtenay c. 1160, morte le 12 février 1218

Let us get along with Alice of Courtenay, a bit more ancestry known than shown on previous, but a bit less well known as to years perhaps:

• De cujus
  • 1 Alice de Courtenay [1160, morte le 12 février 1218 – already counted in above list]
• Parents
  • 2 Pierre Ier de Courtenay, c. 1126, mort entre le 10 mars 1180 et le 10 avril 1183
  • 3 Élisabeth de Courtenay, c. 1127-1205
• Grandparents
  • 4 Louis VI de France 1er décembre 1081 à Paris, mort le 1er août 1137
  • 5 Adèle de Savoie c. 1100 - † 18 novembre 1154,
  • 6 Renaud de Courtenay ? - (II Croisade, contemprary to Louis VII) - died 27 September 1194
  • 7 Élisabeth Hélène (ou Eustachie) du Donjon ? - ?
• Great-grand-parents
  • 8 Philippe Ier de France né en 1052 et mort le 29 juillet 1108
  • 9 Berthe de Hollande/Frise née vers 1058 - morte le 30 juillet 1093 à Montreuil
  • 10 Humbert II de Savoie born after 1065 et mort le 14 octobre 1103
  • 11 Gisèle de Bourgogne [mariée en 1090 à Humbert II, comte de Savoie, puis vers 1105 à Rénier de Montferrat.] ([1075]-after 1133 – Her date of birth is estimated from her having given birth to five children by her second husband whom she married in [1105], and assuming that she was no more than 17 years old when she gave birth to her first child by her first husband.).
  • 12 Milo de Courtenay [? - mort après 1138/1069 - 1127]
  • 13 Ermengarde de Nevers 1058-1095 ! (3 years younger than her father acc. to those "facts")
  • 14 Frédéric du Donjon ? - ?
  • 15 ?
• Great-great-grandparents
  • 16 Henri Ier de France 4 May 1008 – 4 August 1060
  • 17 Anne de Kiev c. 1030 – 1075 (between 1024 and 1032)
  • 18 Florent Ier de Frise c. 1020; † 18. Juni 1061
  • 19 Gertrude de Saxe * c. 1035; † 4. August 1113
  • 20 Amédée II de Savoie c. 1050 – 26 janvier 1080
  • 21 Jeanne de Genève 1050 – 1095
  • 22 Guillaume Ier de Bourgogne * 1020; † 12. November 1087
  • 23 Stéphanie/Étienette [de Longwy-Metz? de Barcelone?] (née c. 1035-1045† 19. Oktober after 1088)
  • 24 Jocelin de Courtenay 1034 - ?
  • 25 Élisabeth de Montlhéry before around 1055 (her younger brother was born around 1055)
  • 26 Renaud II de Nevers né en 1055, mort le 5 août 1089 ! (3 years older than his daughter acc. to those "facts")
  • 27 Ide-Raymonde de Forez
  • 28 - 31 ?
• Great-great-great-grandparents
  • 32 Robert II de France c. 972 – 20 juillet 1031
  • 33 Constance d'Arles c. 986 à Arles – morte au château de Melun le 22 ou 25 juillet 1032
  • 34 Iaroslav le Sage (né en 978 et mort le 20 février 1054 à Vychgorod)
  • 35 Ingigerd c. 1000 - 1048 /1050 – daughter of Olof Skötkonung of Sweden, born around the time of his baptism (his baptism was to Sweden what Clovis’ was to the Franks)
  • 36 Thierry III de Frise ? - † 27. Mai 1039
  • 37 Othelindis de Nordmark ? † 9. März 1044
  • 38 Bernard II de Saxe 995 et mort en 1059
  • 39 Eilika de Schweinfurt c. 1005 - 10 december AFTER 1059
  • 40 Othon Ier de Savoie c. 1023 – 1060
  • 41 Adélaïde de Suse 1020 – 1091 (en secondes noces, veuve, ayant épousé le premier en âge de 15 ou 14)
  • 42 - 43 ?
  • 44 Renaud Ier de Bourgogne 986-1057
  • 45 Adélaïde de Normandie 1002 et morte vers 1038
  • 46 - 47 ?
  • 48 Athon/Hutton de Courtenay c. 985 – AFTER 1000
  • 49 ?
  • 50 - 51 ?
  • 52 Guillaume Ier de Nevers né vers 1029, mort le 20 juin 10981 ou en 10972 ou en 1100
  • 53 Ermengarde de Tonnerre v. 1032 - 1083
  • 54 - 63 ?

Summing up (both charts):

• Certain dates (in three cases with alternatives) : 30, 60, 50, 56, 78/80, 56, 56, 52, 43-51, 45, 67, 43-53, 46, 76, 64, 71, 71 = 58/59 longer count, 56 shorter count (17 individual persons)
• Uncertain birth dates, sometimes death dates too: c. 57 c. 43 c. 58 c. 42 c. 58 c. 56 c. 78 c. 54, c. 35, c. 63, c. 41, c. 78, c. 30, c. 59, c.48/50, c. 37, c. 36, c. 66-71, c. 51 high and low counts differing by half a year to c. 52 / c. 52 and a half (19 individual persons).
• One <38, and one >54.
• Unknown to present writer XIIII
• Unmentioned XXII
• Left aside because of obvious unsolved uncertainties III
• 77 persons, of whom 38 positively accounted for, with more or less certainty.

Now for the family she married into, Roman numerals indicating generations, and in some the middle date of three indicating accession to office of independent Prince of Wales:

• I
  • Llywelyn the Great 1173-1200-1240
• II
  • Gruffudd ap Llywelyn 1200-1244
  • Dafydd ap Llywelyn 1215-1240-1246
• III
  • Owain Goch ap Gruffudd d. 1282
  • Llywelyn ap Gruffudd 1223-1246-1282
  • Dafydd ap Gruffudd 1238-1282-1283
  • Rhodri ap Gruffudd 1230-1315
• IV a
  • Gwenllian of Wales (daughter of said Eleanor and of Llewelyn ap Gruffydd) 1282-1337
• IV b
  • Llywelyn ap Dafydd 1267-1283-1287
  • Owain ap Dafydd 1265-1287-1325
• IV c
  • Tomas ap Rhodri 1300-1325-1363
• V
  • Owain Lawgoch (ap Tomas) 1330-1378

This little selection hardly justifies a conclusion of life expectancy around 30 - at least unless you include child mortality, which these genealogies do not account for. Nevertheless, that was an estimate given in previous post on Middle Ages.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Anthony the Great
17-I-2015

* If medium is 56 or 52 and extremes are 30 and 80, we talk of a high statistic spread. Like the lengths of non-tandem standard type bikes have less statistic spread around medium than the lengths of trucks or busses. Life expectancy is a parameter that usually has a pretty great spread. And the medium for this ancestry is higher than the medium for Mali in 2014 - though that MIGHT include child mortality too.

Les âges des ancêtres DU Robespierre - et d'autres!

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

Bon, ce ne sera pas une surprise que certains des ancêtres aussi s'appellent Robespierre - père, grand-père paternel, arrière grand-père deux fois paternel. Par LE Robespierre j'entends bien-sûr celui qui fut un des pires dictateurs de la France et qui fut guillotiné.

Allons-y ... un peu de terminologie ou convention dans la généalogie d'abord. Le concerné est toujours n° 1 (dans le système utilisé couramment en France) et pour chaque personne, le père a la chiffre double de cette personne, la mère double plus un. Les parents furent donc père (2) et mère (3), les grand-parents comportent le grand-père paternel (4 = 2+2) jusqu'à la grand-mère maternelle (7 = 3+3+1), les arrière-grand-parents vont de l'arrière-grand-père deux fois paternel (8 = 4+4) jusqu'à l'arrière-grand-mère deux fois maternelle (15 = 7+7+1). C'est la numérotation de Sosa-Stradonitz

Donc, d'abord l'expectation de vie. J'exclue 1, le concerné, puisque la guillotine n'était pas une mort commune pendant l'Ancien Régime. Les ancêtres 9 et 12 manquent les dates. Pour les ancêtres 13, 14, 15, je n'ai pas eu le temps de les copier dans le bibliothèque où j'avais accès à généalogia. Sa mère (3) est morte à l'âge de 29, quand il avait 6 ans lui-même. Et sa mère à elle est morte à 82 ans. La moyenne des personnes que j'ai comptés est 60 ans.

Pour les ancêtres patrilinéaires, il s'agit des avocats, mais en autres "affluents" il y a un hôtelier et un brasseur - donc, à mon avis, un peu plus modestes que les avocats.

Les âges à la naissance de l'enfant qui compte dans cette généalogie, je les ai divisés par sexe. Comme c'est sexiste de moi ... en plus, je ne sais pas du tout combien d'autres enfants les ancêtres ont eu et quant au fait s'il y en a eu qui ont eu d'enfants avant celui dans cette généalogie, je devine que les femmes les plus âgés à ces naissances ont dû avoir d'enfants avant.

Pour les hommes, les âges vont de 26 ans pour le père jusqu'à 44 ans pour l'arrière-grand-père deux fois maternel, et le grand-père paternel de la mère il manque les dates. La moyenne est à 35.

Pour les femmes le plus bas âge est celui de la mère (23) et le plus haut est celui de la née Graux (44, aussi). La moyenne est 32 ou presque 33. Et là aussi j'ai dû omettre celle qui est inconnue des dates, 9, la mère du grand-père paternel.

Faisons un exercice pareil pour Napoléon I ... qui lui aussi avait des origines plus modestes que sa position.

• De cujus:
  • Napoléon Ier = 1 = 1769 - 1821.
• Parents:
  • Charles Bonaparte/Carlo Buonaparte = 2 = 1746 - 1785.
  • Maria Letizia Bonaparte née Ramolino = 3 = 1750 - 1836.
• Grand-parents:
  • Giuseppe Maria Buonaparte = 4 = 1713–1763.
  • Maria Saveria Paravisini = 5 = 1715–1750.
  • Giovanni Geronimo Ramolino = 6 = ?
  • Angela Maria Pietrasanta = 7 = ?
• Arrière-grands-parents:
  • Sebastiano Nicolo Buonaparte = 8 = 1683–1720/1760 (?)
  • Maria Anna Tusoli = 9 = 1690–1760
  • Giuseppe Maria Paravisini = 10 = ?
  • Anna Maria Salineri = 11 = ?
  • 12 - 15 = ?
• Arrière-arrière-grands-parents:
  • Giuseppe Maria Buonaparte = 16 = 1663 - 1703
  • Maria Colonna Bozzi = 17 = 1668–1704
  • Carlo ‚l’Alfiere‘ TUSOLI = 18 = ?
  • 19 - 31 = ?

Les âges varient entre 35, la grand-mère paternelle qui est morte la même année que naquit la mère et celle-ci, 86 ans, survécut à son fils. Pour un homme il est incertain (selon les wikipédistes) s'il est mort même année que sa femme ou 40 ans avant. Ça donne 2 valeurs alternatives pour la moyenne. 49 et demi ou presque 54. Les âges des hommes en donnant naissance à la personne dans le tableau d'ancêtres est entre 20 et 33 - moyenne 26 et demi. Et celles des femmes entre 15 et 35. En moyenne 24, presque 25 ans.

Et pourquoi pas leur adversaires les frères de Vergier:

• De cujus
  • Henri du Vergier, comte de La Rochejaquelein = 1 a = 1772 - 1794
  • Louis du Vergier de La Rochejaquelein = 1 b = 1777 - 1815
  • Auguste du Vergier de La Rochejaquelein = 1 c = 1784 - 1868
• Parents
  • 2 et 3 pas accessibles par wikipédie (et j'ai essayé plus qu'une langue!)

84 ans de vie pour celui qui ne meurt pas dans les guerres de Vendée.

L'article Stofflet est également maigre et paradoxalement aussi celui de Charette de la Contrie - il est quand même issu d'une famille nantaise célèbre avant lui!

Et d'Elbée ... même pas la wikipédie allemande, bien qu'il a eu des ancêtres en Saxonie et un souvenir que ceux-ci venaient de la France ... et de même pour Bonchamps ... Cathelineau nous donne par intermédiaire d'un site de Vendée les enfants que son père a eus.

• Jean Cathelineau avait épousé en 1756, à l’âge de 20 ans, Perrine Hudon
  
  
  • Jean, né en 1756, avait 36 ans en mars 1793
  • Jacques, né en 1759, avait 34 ans au moment de l’insurrection. Il a 18 ans lorsqu’il épouse, en 1777, Louise Godin, alors âgée de 25 ans. Onze enfants naîtront de cette union.
  • Marie Jeanne, surnommé « Jeannic », née en 1761, avait 31 ans. Elle épousa Jean Mousseau, tisserand de Montrevault, dans cette ville en 1797.
  • Pierre Joseph, né en 1767, avait 25 ans en mars 1793.
  • Joseph, né en 1772, avait 21 ans en 1793 ... guillotiné le 27 mars 1793.
  
  
  
• Enfants de Jacques et de Louise ayant survécu:
  
  
  • Marie, née en 1781 - mourut à Saint-Laurent-du-Mottay en 1860.
  • Louise Perrine, née en 1783, épousa à Montrevault, en 1810, Louis Bouhier. Elle mourut à La Boissière-du-Doré en 1872.
  • Jacques Joseph, né en 1787 ... exécuté le 27 mai 1832.
  • Rose Marie, née en 1788, épousa à Montrevault, en 1813, René Jean Esseul. Elle mourut à Andrezé en 1873.
  • Jeanne, née en 1791, épousa à La Jubaudière, en 1811, Pierre Lunel, un valeureux combattant vendéen qui n’avait que 14 ans quand il rallia l’insurrection. ... Dernier enfant vivant de Jacques Cathelineau, Jeanne s’éteignit près d’un demi-siècle plus tard, en 1875.

Les enfants de Jean et Perrine sont quasi tous guillotinés ... un meurt après une bataille, Jeannic n'est pas noté quand elle meurt ...

Pour les enfants de Jacques et Louise, donc ... sauf celui qui fut exécuté sous Louis Philippe.

Marie 79 ans, Louise Perrine 89 ans, Rose Marie 84 ans, comme aussi Jeanne. Les survivants ont longue vie. Mais sur les 11, six meurent en bas âge.

Là, il y a eu une mortalité infantile ... on espère que les enfants étaient baptisés. Celui qui meurt à l'âge de 16 jours (pas noté en haut) devrait avoir été baptisé à l'âge de 8 jours:

Jacques Joseph, né en 1787, fut leur seul fils. Un autre Jacques le précéda en 1785, mais ne vécut que seize jours.

Vendée-Chouannerie : Petite histoire de Cathelineau (1), une famille vendéenne
http://www.vendee-chouannerie.com/Petite-histoire-de-Cathelineau-1--une-famille-vendeenne_a187.html

S'il y a eu des saints dans cette famille, ça tient aussi aux enfants nés, baptisés et morts avant de pécher - ils sont très certainement au ciel. Mais on a vu, l'expectation de vie était moindre en Bretagne (mortalité infantile) ou en Corse que dans les régions plus opulents des origines de Robespierre.

Ou, pour ceux qui survivaient à l'enfance et à la Révolution, plus haute en Bretagne.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St Hilaire de Poitiers
14-I-2015

PS, si vous êtes Français, si vous connaissez votre généalogie, alors pourquoi pas vérifier quand les gens vivaient longtemps et à quels âges ils et elles ont eu leurs enfants? Pour dissiper les idées reçues au sujet./HGL

Différence entre deux chapitres 28

Fin de l'évangile selon St Matthieu, derniers versets du chapitre 28
Latin		[18] Et accedens Jesus locutus est eis, dicens: Data est mihi omnis potestas in caelo et in terra: [19] euntes ergo docete omnes gentes: baptizantes eos in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti: [20] docentes eos servare omnia quaecumque mandavi vobis: et ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus, usque ad consummationem saeculi.
Anglais		[18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
Français		18 Et Jésus s'approchant leur parla ainsi : " Toute puissance m'a été donnée dans le ciel et sur la terre. 19 Allez donc, enseignez toutes les nations, les baptisant au nom du Père, du Fils et du Saint-Esprit, 20 leur apprenant à observer tout ce que je vous ai commandé. Et moi, je suis avec vous toujours jusqu'à la fin du monde. "
Grec		17 καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν προσεκύνησαν, οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν. 18 καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ [τῆς] γῆς. 19 πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, 20 διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν· καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος.
Début et milieu du chapitre 28 en Deutéronome (versets 1 et 15)
Anglais		[1] Now if thou wilt hear the voice of the Lord thy God, to do and keep all his commandments, which I command thee this day, the Lord thy God will make thee higher than all the nations that are on the earth. [15] But if thou wilt not hear the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep and to do all his commandments and ceremonies, which I command thee this day, all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee.
Latin		[1] Si autem audieris vocem Domini Dei tui, ut facias atque custodias omnia mandata ejus, quae ego praecipio tibi hodie, faciet te Dominus Deus tuus excelsiorem cunctis gentibus, quae versantur in terra. [15] Quod si audire nolueris vocem Domini Dei tui, ut custodias, et facias omnia mandata ejus et caeremonias, quas ego praecipio tibi hodie, venient super te omnes maledictiones istae, et apprehendent te.
Français		1 Si tu obéis exactement à la voix de Yahweh, ton Dieu, en observant et en mettant en pratique tous ses commandements que je te prescris aujourd'hui, Yahweh, ton Dieu, te donnera la supériorité sur toutes les nations de la terre. 15 Mais si tu n'obéis pas à la voix de Yahweh, ton Dieu, pour observer et mettre en pratique tous ses commandements et toutes ses lois que je te prescris aujourd'hui, voici toutes les malédictions qui viendront sur toi et t'atteindront:
Grec, LXX		Καὶ ἔσται ὡς ἂν διαβῆτε τὸν Ιορδάνην εἰς τὴν γῆν, ἣν κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν δίδωσιν ὑμῖν, ἐὰν ἀκοῇ εἰσακούσητε τῆς φωνῆς κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν φυλάσσειν καὶ ποιεῖν πάσας τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ, ἃς ἐγὼ ἐντέλλομαί σοι σήμερον, καὶ δώσει σε κύριος ὁ θεός σου ὑπεράνω πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν τῆς γῆς, Καὶ ἔσται ἐὰν μὴ εἰσακούσῃς τῆς φωνῆς κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ σου φυλάσσειν καὶ ποιεῖν πάσας τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ, ὅσας ἐγὼ ἐντέλλομαί σοι σήμερον, καὶ ἐλεύσονται ἐπὶ σὲ πᾶσαι αἱ κατάραι αὗται καὶ καταλήμψονταί σε.

En Deutéronome, il y a deux conditions contraires et pour chaque cas une promesse conditionelle, qui dépend de cette condition.

La condition est dite avec un "si" et la promesse est dans le futur.

En Mathieu, il y a une série de commandes positives et un promesse.

La commande est dite en impératif et il n'y a pas de "si". Et la promesse est dite dans le présent qui s'extend jusqu'à la fin du monde.

La promesse-menace de Deutéronome 28 est double et conditionelle. La promesse de Mathieu 28 est simple, sans menace correspondante, et inconditionelle.

Ça veut dire qu'il n'y a pas de possibilité que par exemple Jésus à un moment donné cesse d'être avec son Église parce que celle-ci aurait apostasié.

Mais dans la lumière de Deutéronome, ce n'est pas possible non plus que l'Église apostasie effectivement et garde quand même la présence du Christ. Ce qu'est dit est donc que l'Alliance de Mathieu 28 est éternelle dans le sens que l'Église elle-même n'arrive pas à la rompre.

Donc, elle est toujours là, toujours en train d'obéir (plus ou moins bien, mais pas en train de faire une désobéissance collective) la commande de Jésus.

Ça porte des conséquences sur le regard que nous posons sur l'histoire de l'Église. Quelle que soit l'Église que nous considérons comme la vraie de nos jours, elle doit avoir été là tous les jours depuis le Jour de l'Ascension en original.

J'ai vu un historien de l'Église, un Calviniste écossais dire à peu près que bon, dans le Nord d'Italie nous avions St Ambroise de Milan, quelques siècles plus tard Claude de Turin, et ensuite documenté quelques siècles encore plus tard, mais au moins probablement fondés par Claude de Turin, les Vaudois. Ah non! Ça c'est chercher la vrai église comme on la cherchait en Samarie - un Élie et un Élisée, une Judith, pendant les siècles entre l'apostasie de Jéroboam et Notre Seigneur en pardonnant la Samarie à travers la femme au puit de Sichar, à travers la deuxième diocèse de l'Église universelle, celle après Jérusalem. Des siècles, juste trois personnes!

Non, on doit chercher la vraie église de la Nouvelle Alliance comme on cherche Judah à travers ces siècles. David était fidèle, Solomon ne l'était personellement pas, mais il favorisait la fidélité, Rohoboam était dur mais pas idolâtre, et ainsi il y a toujours eu un peuple de Dieu continuellement - il y a eu une période sous le mari et le fils d'Athalie qu'il devait se chacher du roi et de la reine veuve quand Athalie avait survécu à son fils - mais cette période ne durait pas des siècles, et avant et après, le peuple de Judah était ouvertement fidèle au moins quant à la confession de la vérité (quoi qu'il y en ait des coeurs durs), jusqu'à ce que vint Jésus.

Et dans cette perspective, on ne peut pas attacher Claude de Turin à St Ambroise à travers quatre siècles sans témoins de la vérité, ni les Vaudois à Claude de Turin à travers des siècles d'obscurité (3 siècles environ, au moins deux) jusqu'au temps de Pierre Waldo. Ça serait la Samarie, et on se demande où alors serait le Judah du Nouveau Testament.

Mais si on attache aux Sts Athanase et Ambroise les saints Augustin et Hilaire, à ceux-ci St Germain et St Rémi, ainsi que St Patric, et si on attache encore à St Augustin St Léon (qui avait une plus auguste église à lui, celle de Rome) et à lui St Grégoire à travers les intermédiaires à Rome, si encore à St Grégoire on attache St Augustin de Cantorbéry et à lui St Paulin (il me semble) de York, si aux Églises de la Gaule en train de devenir Francie (mais pas encore la France) et de Bretagnes parmi Saxons on attache les débuts de l'Église en Scandinavie et les environs (Hambourg, Danemark, Suède, Norvège) - et si à chaque pas on constate que ce que dit l'un soit a été dit soit au moins pas nié par le prédécesseur, alors on arrive à une histoire de l'église telle que la promesse de Mathieu 28 nous la laisse attendre.

Comme dit, elle n'est pas conditionelle.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Dimanche en l'octave de l'Épiphanie
11-I-2015

What others have to say about Life Expectancy through history - and my take on that

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

[Will start off with a look at:] Wiki: Life expectancy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

As is to be expected from such an error fraught discipline, and Wikipedia favouring the common level of culture in any field and language, with this topic as one of the worst as to English language users’ general culture, this article is not per se to be trusted.

I will return to why the following table is skewed. Meanwhile I have improved it by adding links to its sources, as taken from footnotes:

Era	Life expectancy at birth (years)	Life expectancy at older age
Upper Paleolithic	32	This is the earliest time period of fully modern (both anatomically and behaviorally) humans. Based on the data from recent hunter-gatherer populations, it is estimated that at age 15, life expectancy was an additional 39 years (total age 54).
source a	Deevey, Edward S. (1960). "The Human Population". Scientific American.
source b	Hillard Kaplan, Kim Hill, Jane Lancaster, and A. Magdalena Hurtado (2000). "A Theory of Human Life History Evolution: Diet, Intelligence and Longevity". Evolutionary Anthropology 9 (4): 156–185. doi:10.1002/1520-6505(2000)9:4<156::AID-EVAN5>3.0.CO;2-7. Retrieved September 12, 2010.
link	link to source b
link	other link to source b
Neolithic	20
source	Galor, Oded & Moav, Omer (2007). "The Neolithic Revolution and Contemporary Variations in Life Expectancy". Brown University Working Paper. Retrieved September 12, 2010.
link	here
Bronze Age and Iron Age	26
link	here
Classical Greece	28
source	Mortality". Britannica.com. Retrieved November 4, 2010.
link	here(100 of 159 words preview, Classical Greece not yet mentioned)
Classical Rome	20–30	At age 10, life expectancy was an additional 35 to 37 years (total age 45 to 47).
source	Frier, Bruce W. (2001). "More is worse: some observations on the population of the Roman empire". In Scheidel, Walter. Debating Roman Demography. Leiden: Brill. pp. 144–145. ISBN 9789004115255.
link	here
Pre-Columbian North America	25–30 (correct to "probably between 25 - 35")
source	Pre-European Exploration, Prehistory through 1540". Encyclopediaofarkansas.net. October 5, 2010. Retrieved November 4, 2010.
link	here
Medieval Islamic Caliphate	35+
source	Conrad, Lawrence I. (2006). The Western Medical Tradition. Cambridge University Press. p. 137. ISBN 0-521-47564-3.
Medieval Britain	30	At age 21, life expectancy was an additional 43 years (total age 64).
source	"Time traveller's guide to Medieval Britain". Channel4.com. Retrieved November 4, 2010.
link	link no longer directs to programme
source	"A millennium of health improvement". BBC News. December 27, 1998. Retrieved November 4, 2010.
link	here
source	"Expectations of Life" by H.O. Lancaster (page 8)
link	here
Early Modern Britain	25–40
link	here
Early 20th Century	31
source	"PowerPoint Presentation" (PDF). Retrieved November 4, 2010.
link	here
source	Our Special Place in History
link	should have been here (not found either on link or by search function)
2010 world average	67.2
source	CIA—The World Factbook—Rank Order—Life expectancy at birth
link	here

The last estimate is probably pretty correct – 67.2 years world wide in 2010. By CIA. When I look at link I get to another page of stats – for 2014, estimates. Life expectancy at birth ranges from 1 Monaco 89.57 years to 223 Chad 49.44 years. I have no means to make the medium but the median is 112 Bulgaria 74.33.

So, the “statisticians of the past” want us to believe Middle Ages were worse off than Chad today? Perhaps slightly possibly if life expectancy at birth (medium life length) is taken into account and abortions (as in the work of CIA) not counted as very short human lives.

When it comes to the past, we can evaluate each according to our principles how likely it is that a story (with claims to have happened, i. e. not an entertainment fiction) is true, what source we have, what general credibility it has, how many we have, how well secondary sources evaluated primary ones like eye-witnesses, how credibility is affected by miracles or by partiality etc.

But for a time when statistics were not made, or those that were are not preserved, we cannot reconstruct the real statistics. Besides, if they vary so much now depending on where you live, why should “bronze age” have had a uniformly low one?

And how can we guarantee the life expectancy of Amerindians in North America as observed today those with traditional lifestyles in US and Canada have not been adversely affected by oppression? And by fact most places where a palaeolothic population would move for better food when times get worse are often taken by whites. Why should Palaeolithic in Dordogne have been exactly like that for life expectancy?

The wikipedian source for Roman Empire life expectancy is a discussion from an essay by one of several demographists. One thing he claims is that Montesquieu was wrong about how populated Gaul was in Roman times – why would we trust the ideology saying Roman populations can’t have been as high as Montesquieu claimed? He would however be somewhat likelier to know whether Montesquieu underestimated his own time. He – the demographist – also claims density of population made for “higher mortality”, i. e. for lower life expectancy at birth.

But for Middle Ages we have three sources. First is now missing. Second is from a BBC article, which I find unreliable:

"Lack of sanitation meant germs that are now easily dealt with lived everywhere.

Thatch roofs were common in the countryside (where 85-90% of the population lived) and they attracted insects and rodents.

They carried bacteria, which they deposited either on the inhabitants or the food they would eat."

I have seen thatched roofs in Dragør in use, and I gather they are there in Hungary too. In countryside not so many bacteria were available to use insects and rodents as vehicles towards destruction of humans, and those that were are likely to have strengthened immunity systems (except for oldies). In cities where bacteria were more dangerous, like bubonic plague, etc. thatched roofs were not so common. Duh!

Besides, fumigation of thatched roofs was a known technique of avoiding germs.

Of course, during the bubonic plague, a village with thatch roofs would not be the safest place, once a single plague case had arrived. Whether in man or in rat or in flea. But Middle Ages were about a thousand years and plague of 1348 was about two of them.

The third source actually does admit there is a problem as to knowledge of how long people lived outside the classes in the limelight of posterity. Wikipedia reproduces its table for English aristocracy, but omits the diversity of the basis – ranging from 7 male aristocrats between 1200 and 1300 to 800 something 1700 to 1745.

Citing wiki: Life expectancy increases with age as the individual survives the higher mortality rates associated with childhood. For instance, the table above listed the life expectancy at birth in Medieval Britain at 30. Having survived until the age of 21, a male member of the English aristocracy in this period could expect to live:

Citing source, p. 8 of Expectations of Life: A Study in the Demography, Statistics, and History of World Mortality by H.O. Lancaster: http://www.amazon.fr/Expectations-Life-Demography-Statistics-Mortality/dp/038797105X (I add ages in parentheses)

Time	Number of males observed	Life expectancy at 21
1200-1300	7	43.14 (age 64)
1300-1400	9	24.44 (age 45)*
1400-1500	23	48.11 (age 69)
1500-1550	52	50.27 (age 71)
1550-1600	100	47.25 (age 68)
1600-1650	192	42.95 (age 64)
1650-1700	346	41.40 (age 62)
1700-1745	812	43.13 (age 64)

* The low figure in 1300-1400 reflects the effects of the Black Death.
From Guy.
Explanatory note: Guy (1845) gave “expectation of life at birth” as expectation of life at 25 + 25 years that is ⁰e₀ = ⁰e₂₅ + 25, which is not admissible.

Admissible or not, what Guy tried to do was to correct the skewing of medium age of death due to infant mortality. Same thing that Lancaster does by giving expected remaining years at age 21.

As you can imagine, English aristocrats of 1200 are easier to observe than English peasants back then. They were less exposed to dirt and fatiguing toil of drudgery type and more exposed to death in battle or from battle wounds or to contamination due to wide sphere of social contacts. Which of the two was worse for life expectancy? We don’t know. We do know that hereditary sovereigns excluding those dead in battle or by poisoning and excluding obviously Charles I too, have a LOWER life expectancy than English aristocrats of these times.

As to peasantry, supposing they did live shorter lives, we still need not suppose it was like between Monaco and Chad.

So, if you base any calculus about Ancient Egypt on known Pharaonic life lengths, adding that they lived materially best and therefore longest, think again. Scribes probably lived longer than Pharaos, and we don’t know how much longer they lived than peasants.

Another lesson from the table of CIA is, you can’t take the demographics of one country and apply them to another one. Supposing there was a thing like a reasonable case for Egypt having had a life expectancy at birth of 35 years. Supposing there was also a case this was contemporary to such and such a time in Israel – that would not be a reason to just transfer the numeral across the border. Some small areas can have higher life expectancy. Japan was third from top while China was #100. If Greece was only #30, this may be because Athens has a lower life expectancy than parts of countryside. Notably Crete – unless the Cretan who told me that was a liar, as a poet said and as St Paul quoted.

The first table of Wikipedia is nearly worthless, because so many of the life expectancies are just guesses that are likely to be bad. Definitely not a reason to compare Caliphate favourably with Medieval Europe, since such a portion of our intellectuals are pro-Medieval Islam and anti-Medieval Christendom. This bias is likely to have influenced the diverse round figures up or down. On top of that, Wikipedians may have chosen low estimates for Middle Ages and high ones for Caliphate.

I am not sure if Lancaster gives an overall table anywhere like this first one. But if he does, I don’t think his numbers would agree. What he does is enumerating an impressive amount of studies right from the start.

Now, here is one - outside Lancaster's book - taking on the “they died before 40 in 9 out of 10 cases”:

COMMON MYTHS ABOUT THE MIDDLE AGES
By Tim Lambert
http://www.localhistories.org/middlemyths.html

Citing in its turn for that one nearly verbatim:

A BRIEF HISTORY OF LIFE EXPECTANCY IN BRITAIN
By Tim Lambert
http://www.localhistories.org/life.html

I’ll cite the more detailed latter link:

Life Expectancy before the Industrial Revolution

We do not know exactly what average life expectancy at birth was in the past (before the 19th century we can only give rough estimates). However historians think it was about 35 years in the Middle Ages or the 16th Century. (So 50% of the people born reached that age). However that does not mean that people dropped dead when they reached 35! Average life expectancy at birth was around 35 but a great many of the people born died in childhood. We don't know exactly what percentage died but if we say about 25% of people died before they were 5 years old we are probably not wide of the mark. Perhaps as many as 40% died before they reached adulthood. However if you could survive childhood and your teenage years you had a good chance of living to your 50s or your early 60s and even in the Middle Ages in Western Europe there were some people who lived to 70 or 80.

Things improved in the 18th century in Britain. Life expectancy at birth rose to about 40 by the late 18th century. Nobody is sure why. Plague died out, which must have helped. (The last outbreak of plague in Western Europe was in Marseilles in 1720). Furthermore in the 18th century eating potatoes became common, which probably improved nutrition. Improvements in 18th century agriculture may also have helped.

Tim also takes on a myth about washing in the Middle Ages, will cite both his words on that first page and his link to specific topic:

In fact there is considerable evidence that most Medieval people tried to keep themselves clean. The evidence also suggests that most people washed and changed their clothes quite frequently. They also tried to keep their houses clean. The idea that people were filthy and stunk is a myth.

The myth may have arisen because people rarely took baths. Before the 19th century it was difficult to heat a large amount of water in one go Suppose you heated a cauldron of water and poured it into a tub. By the time you had heated a second lot of water the first lot would already be cold. The Romans solved this problem by having public baths, which could be heated from underneath.

However, after the fall of Rome it was much easier to have a strip wash. In hot weather people bathed in rivers. There is also evidence that people washed their clothes quite often.

From: COMMON MYTHS ABOUT THE MIDDLE AGES
By Tim Lambert
http://www.localhistories.org/middlemyths.html

I will highlight one source of error: Before the 19th century it was difficult to heat a large amount of water in one go Suppose you heated a cauldron of water and poured it into a tub. By the time you had heated a second lot of water the first lot would already be cold. Would depend on how large the cauldron and how narrow the tub, and how many were helping each other, wouldn't it?

Then he links to this:

Baths in the Middle Ages

In the Middle Ages there were bathhouses in many towns were people could pay to have a bath. Furthermore in Northern Europe in the Middle Ages people took sweat baths.

In the 14th century Edward III installed a bathroom in the Palace of Westminster. Other people made do with wooden tubs in their bedrooms.

Furthermore in the Middle Ages there was an important soap making industry in England (although many people made their own soap at home). In the Middle Ages people used combs and tweezers. They also used toothpicks and mouthwashes.

In the Middle Ages in monasteries streams provided clean water. Dirty water was used to clear toilets, which were in a separate room. Monks also had a room called a laver where they washed their hands before meals.

From A BRIEF HISTORY OF BATHS AND SHOWERS
By Tim Lambert
http://www.localhistories.org/washing.html

Getting back to first table, the wikipedian one: the low life expectancy at birth is given as 31 for Britain at early 20th C. And as 30 for Middle Ages … could it be the 31 years expectancy at birth was correct (source is Thomson Prentice from WHO and Britain at 1900 was well studied) but that it had been higher in the Middle Ages? But that someone’s could not buy this and set it a year lower just to show some progress.

Actually I take a look at the source for the 31 years figure:

In 1900, global average lifespan was just 31 years, and below 50 years in even the richest countries

Oh, so it was NOT Britain in 1900 which had 31 years, but world wide! Britain then would have been like Chad now.

That means the 31 years global may reflect colonialist estimates of non-colonised populations, among other sources of error.

Lesson : when using wikipedia, unless just checking something already known, check other language versions or sources or both. ALSO: when it comes to Middle Ages or other parts of the past, do not rely on statistics unless you are sure they are no constructs, it is better to rely on texts.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Sts Julian and Basilissa
9-I-2015

"in a time when most people died at an average age of 35"

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

The Old Evasive Manuever v2
tektontv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ENyalmG2A

8:23 Not to mention that the "opposition's" best case [i e off this topic, admitting Elisaeus could have been as old as 35 at the bear incident] would make Elisha an incredible 87 years old at his death ... in a time when most people died at an average age of 35

I must admit, the general topic of the tekton here is actually somewhat more interesting, namely whether the bears avenging the honour of Elisaeus in IV Kings 2, are the act of a ruthless God who can't take a minute joke about a bald head of old age or more like stopping a harassment of one prophet who is being mocked for short hair or baldness.

Here is what Haydock has to say about the verses:

Ver. 23. Bald-head. It is not known whether Eliseus was really bald, or only wore his hair short, like the priests of the Lord, and the monks at present. It may also be a term of reproach, of which the emperors Julius Cæsar, Domitian, and Otho, were very sensible. Cæsar wore a crown of laurel, and Otho a sort of false hair, to hide this deformity. (Suetonius)

Quod summum formæ decus est, periere capilli. (Petronius) (Calmet)

Ver. 24. Cursed them. This curse, which was followed by so visible a judgment of God, was not the effect of passion, or of a desire of revenging himself; but of zeal for religion, which was insulted by these boys, in the person of the prophet, and of a divine inspiration; God being determined to punish in this manner the inhabitants of Bethel, (the chief seat of the calf-worship) who had trained up their children in a prejudice against the true religion and its ministers. (Challoner) --- The boys themselves were not so little as not to be aware of the insult they were offering to a minister of the God of Juda; and probably they acted thus out of hatred to him, at the instigation of their idolatrous parents. (Sanctius) (Calmet) --- Lord. He called on him (Menochius) to revenge his own cause, (Haydock) "that the people might learn to take care of their souls, by the fear of death." (St. Augustine) (Du Hamel)

From : Haydock Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 : 4 KINGS - Chapter 2
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id901.html

Now, back to the admittedly less interesting words in a rare blooper by the sometimes rather good J. P. Holding.

However, Holding/tektontv has here affirmed a modern prejudice from the atheist community of people living in the bronze age to a medium of 35.

I have some hunch of where they get it from, and if my hunch is right, they are plain wrong.

But one thing real quick first. "Most people died at average age x" is not a correct phrase in demography. People die at an average age x (a k a life expectancy at birth), but most people die far off that average age.

Usually material about ages of death from bronze age is scarce. Except literary texts (most of which are from Holy Bible) which do not really support - those I know anyway - the idea of men usually dying at 35.

Statistics would hardly be medically detailed as in our age, since there was not a medical insurance. Plus most archives of tax collectors are gone. From the time of the War of Troy, we have tablets which are such archives - but they mention the taxes that are to be or were paid, and to what temple of what divinity, which is how we know that Poseidon was back then known as Potei-Daon - basically very clearly "lord Dagon", the Philistine "god" also of the sea, in the Philistine case more specifically of fish. Probably smallest tax paying unit was not even individual as today, but households.

Tombs with life ages inscribed, if the cemetary is anything like complete, of if skeleta are dug up and examined medically would be a pretty good indication.

For medieval cemeteries (since Middle Ages is also an age for which "death at 35" is touted), tombs are often not complete, since after some time dug up and bones placed in columbaries (a process from which a certain sense of piety may have saved the tombs of the youngest dead with the prettiest inscriptions) - it is still done today or was up till recently in some Catholic countries.

For bronze age, getting back to when Elisaeus died, tomb material from abandoned sites may be in better preservation as to original structure - but it is scarce. Very scarce.

Middle Ages again : registers from manors where many lived, or from parishes with many farms or from cities.

Lacking in bronze age.

Middle Ages again : death rolls in fraternities and guilds where one prays for the deceased on their death dates (so those died on January 8 any year would be incribed for January 8, next time someone died on January 8 the guy would be inscribed below those already there and so on - same principle as martyrology, except in martyrologies it's about patrons you pray to, in death rolls about souls possibly in purgatory that you pray for.

But would such note age, mostly? And infants dead before 7 were not put there, unbaptised were considered damned to limbo and baptised who died before 7 (or after having lived longer as Down's syndromer's "idiots" or "sillies" as they were called) were considered as guaranteed heaven anyway. Baptism opens the gate, only mortal sin can close it, and below 7 (probably) and with Downs' syndrome (very probably, at least severe cases) one hasn't enough use of freewill to commit one.

So these would not be sources for infant mortality statistics, unlike the tombs. And without infant mortality, we have no such low figure as life expectancy 35. For correcting the skewed view this can give, there is "life expectancy at 21" by Middle Ages Historians.

Can we get sth similar to death rolls for Bronze Age? Lacking in bronze age. Too.

Touting the figure medium life expectancy 35 (without taking into account it may include a higher child mortality and therefore not be a real "life expectancy" in the proper sense of the word does give people a break when it comes to denigrating whatever historical age they want to denigrate, usually either Middle Ages (and thus Catholics) or Bronze Age (and thus Christians, Jews and Muslims in general).

• "life was miserable back then : people died around 35" (so if you share ideas with back then you risk bringing back times when people die around 35 OR so their ideas which you share reflect the technological ignorance which did not allow people to live longer)
  
  
• "life was miserable back then : people died around 35" (so they searched for comfort even clinging to a straw, and the ideas they recorded either in OT or in Scholastics and other medievals are the false comforts they took to, which we don't need because our life is supposedly so much brighter)
  
  
• "people died around 35 back then : so old men were rare" (so young men were overly attached to authority of the few old men that were around and these were insufficient to give people back then a mature reflection over things).

Of course, once one realises that medium life expectancy 35 either is taken from another age and bandied about onto any age you have some grudge about or included children dying and once you had survived childhood your chances were getting about 60 or 70 (like Bible says for bronze age/iron age shift), all these implications fall to the ground.

Behind these there is another implication which is attractive to some: modern technology would be supposed to have raised normal life length from "35" to more than double - as opposed to just raising it from 65 to 75. Take into account how abortion has lowered it too. For once in a while! Aborting is a very much worse thing than seeing a child die from fever one cannot cure.

In other words, any challenge to primordial interest of maintaining technology is painted out as a threat of death at 35. Obviously not true - but it is being touted and it is being believed and it is being argued from.

So, if Elisaeus had been 87 when dying this would not have been unbelievable. People have gpone past 100 in our time and especially in Japan and Greece which were less or more recently much touched by modern technology.

I'll be back with another article about what others say about life expectancy in Middle Ages.

I will cite one source which observed English Aristocrats - who are better known than the people. If they are a fair sample, people lived long too - but Marxists will tell you they aren't, that commoners lived lots worse than aristocrats and died lots younger.

As for Bronze Age, we have more or less anyone's guess.

Except that the guess which places life expectancy for an adult to age 35 is extremely likely to be wrong. And if the reason is that one believes commoners were lots worse off, physically, then one is perhaps speculating for Marxism.

So, stating it would have been incredible if Elisaeus had died at age 87 "in a time when most people died at an average age of 35" is just lousy for someone bragging a video series called Miss Dusters (i e freely after Myth Busters).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Lucian of Beauvais
8-I-2015