Medieval and Early Modern Lifespans, Again: Berkeleys and Related

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

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

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

Sir Robert Berkeley (1584 – 5 August 1656) was an English judge and politician who sat in the House of Commons from 1621 to 1624. He suffered considerably for giving a judgement in favour of Ship Money. Rowland Berkeley (about 1548 - 11 June 1611) of Worcester and Spetchley was an English clothier and politician who sat in the House of Commons at various times between 1593 and 1611. Rowland Berkeley (1613 - 1696) of Cotheridge Worcestershire was an English politician, only son of William Berkeley (1582-1658) of Cotheridge and his wife Margaret, daughter of Thomas Chettle of Worcester.[1] Rowland's father, William, was eldest son and heir to Rowland Berkeley of Spetchley, Worcester clothier and politician. William de Berkeley, 1st Marquess of Berkeley (1426 – 14 February 1492) was an English peer, given the epithet "The Waste-All" by the family biographer and steward John Smyth of Nibley.[1] He was buried at "St. Augustine's Friars, London" according to one source,[2] but most likely in the Berkeley family foundation of St Augustine's Abbey, Bristol. James Berkeley, 1st Baron Berkeley (c. 1394 – 22 October[1] 1463), also known as "James the Just", was an English peer. Thomas de Berkeley, 5th Baron Berkeley the Magnificent (5 January 1352/53 – 13 July 1417) was an English peer. Maurice de Berkeley, 4th Baron Berkeley the Valiant (ca. 1330 – 8 June 1368) was an English peer born in Berkeley, Gloucestershire, England to Thomas de Berkeley, 3rd Baron Berkeley and Lady Margaret Mortimer. Elizabeth le Despenser (c. 1327 – 13 July 1389) was an English noblewoman. She was the youngest daughter of Hugh le Despenser the younger and his wife Eleanor de Clare.[1] Her father is famous for being the favourite of Edward II of England, and being executed as a result of his position and actions. Through her mother, Elizabeth was a great granddaughter of King Edward I of England. Thomas de Berkeley (c. 1293 or 1296 – 27 October 1361), aka Thomas the Rich, was an English baron and the custodian of Berkeley Castle. He was the son of Maurice de Berkeley, 2nd Baron Berkeley and Eve la Zouche. Margaret Mortimer, Baroness Berkeley (2 May 1304 – 5 May 1337) was the wife of Thomas de Berkeley, 3rd Baron Berkeley. She was the eldest daughter of Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, the de facto ruler of England from 1327 to 1330, and his wife Joan de Geneville, Baroness Geneville. Maurice de Berkeley, 2nd Baron Berkeley (Berkeley, Gloucestershire, April 1271 – Wallingford Castle, 31 May 1326), sometimes termed The Magnanimous, was an English baron and rebel. Roger de Mortimer, 3rd Baron Mortimer, 1st Earl of March (25 April 1287 – 29 November 1330), was an English nobleman and powerful Marcher lord who gained many estates in the Welsh Marches and Ireland following his advantageous marriage to the wealthy heiress Joan de Geneville, 2nd Baroness Geneville. Joan de Geneville, 2nd Baroness Geneville, Countess of March, Baroness Mortimer (2 February 1286 – 19 October 1356), also known as Jeanne de Joinville, was the daughter of Sir Piers de Geneville and Joan of Lusignan. Roger Mortimer, 1st Baron Mortimer, of Wigmore (1231 – 30 October 1282), was a famous and honoured knight from Wigmore Castle in Herefordshire. He was a loyal ally of King Henry III of England. He was at times an enemy, at times an ally, of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, Prince of Wales. Born in 1231, Roger was the son of Ralph de Mortimer and his Welsh wife, Princess Gwladys Ddu, daughter of Llywelyn ab Iorwerth and Joan Plantagenet, daughter of John "Lackland", King of England. Ranulph or Ralph de Mortimer (before 1198 to before 6 August 1246) was the second son of Roger de Mortimer and Isabel de Ferrers of Wigmore Castle in Herefordshire. He succeeded his elder brother before 23 November 1227 and built Cefnllys and Knucklas castles in 1240. Maud de Braose, Baroness Mortimer (1224 – shortly before 23 March 1301)[1] was a noble heiress, and one of the most important,[2] being a member of the powerful de Braose family which held many lordships and domains in the Welsh Marches. She was the wife of Roger Mortimer, 1st Baron Mortimer, a celebrated soldier and Marcher baron. Maud was born in Wales in 1224, the second eldest daughter and co-heiress of Marcher lord William de Braose and Eva Marshal. William de Braose (c. 1197 – 2 May 1230) was the son of Reginald de Braose by his first wife, Grecia Briwere. He was an ill-fated member of a powerful and long lived dynasty of Marcher Lords. Eva Marshal (1203 – 1246) was a Cambro-Norman noblewoman and the wife of the powerful Marcher lord William de Braose. She was the daughter of William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke, and the granddaughter of Strongbow and Aoife of Leinster. Reginald de Braose (died June 1228) was one of the sons of William de Braose, 4th Lord of Bramber and Matilda, also known as Maud de St. Valery and Lady de la Haie. Her other children included William and Giles. William de Braose, (or William de Briouze), 4th Lord of Bramber (1144/1153 – 9 August 1211), court favourite of King John of England, at the peak of his power, was also Lord of Gower, Abergavenny, Brecknock, Builth, Radnor, Kington, Limerick, Glamorgan, Skenfrith, Briouze in Normandy, Grosmont, and White Castle. William was the son of William de Braose, 3rd Lord of Bramber and his wife Bertha of Hereford, also known as Bertha de Pitres, (born 1130) daughter of Miles Fitz Walter, Earl of Hereford and his wife, Sibyl, daughter of Bernard de Neufmarche. From his father he inherited the Rape of Bramber, in Sussex, and through his mother he inherited a large estate in the Welsh Marches area of modern-day Monmouthshire. William de Braose, 3rd Lord of Bramber (fl. 1135–1179) was a 12th-century Marcher lord who secured a foundation for the dominant position later held by the Braose family in the Welsh Marches. In addition to the family's English holdings in Sussex and Devon, William had inherited Radnor and Builth, in Wales, from his father Philip. By his marriage he increased the Braose Welsh holdings to include Brecon and Abergavenny. Bertha of Hereford, also known as Bertha de Pitres (born c.1130), was the daughter of Miles de Gloucester, 1st Earl of Hereford, and a wealthy heiress, Sibyl de Neufmarché. She was the wife of William de Braose, 3rd Lord of Bramber to whom she brought many castles and Lordships, including Brecknock, Abergavenny, and Hay. Miles FitzWalter of Gloucester, 1st Earl of Hereford, Lord of Brecknock (died 24 December 1143) was High Sheriff of Gloucester and Constable of England. Sibyl de Neufmarché, Countess of Hereford, suo jure Lady of Brecknock (c. 1100 – after 1143), was a Cambro-Norman noblewoman, heiress to one of the most substantial fiefs in the Welsh Marches. The great-granddaughter of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, king of Wales, Sibyl was also connected to the nobility of England and Normandy. Sibyl inherited the titles and lands of her father, Bernard de Neufmarché, Lord of Brecon, after her mother, Nest ferch Osbern, had declared her brother Mahel to have been illegitimate. Most of these estates passed to Sibyl's husband, Miles de Gloucester, 1st Earl of Hereford, as her dowry. Maud de Braose, Lady of Bramber (c. 1155 – 1210) was the wife of William de Braose, 4th Lord of Bramber, a powerful Marcher baron and court favourite of King John of England. She would later incur the wrath and enmity of the King who caused her to be starved to death in the dungeon of Corfe Castle along with her eldest son. Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke (of the first creation), Lord of Leinster, Justiciar of Ireland (1130 – 20 April 1176) was an English lord notable for his leading role in the Norman invasion of Ireland. Like his father, he was also commonly known by his nickname Strongbow (Norman French: Arc-Fort). Aoife MacMurrough (c.1145–1188, Irish: Aoife Ní Diarmait), also known by later historians as Eva of Leinster, was the daughter of Dermot MacMurrough (c.1110-1171) (Irish: Diarmait Mac Murchada), King of Leinster, and his wife Mor O'Toole (c.1114-1191). Margaret Mortimer, Baroness Mortimer (née de Fiennes; after 1269 – 7 February 1333), was an English noblewoman born to William II de Fiennes, Baron Tingry and Blanche de Brienne. Her paternal grandparents were Enguerrand II de Fiennes and Isabelle de Conde. Her maternal grandparents were Jean de Brienne and Jeanne, Dame de Chateaudun. Thomas Wylde (bef.1508 - 1559) clothier of The Commandery, Worcester, England was the son of Simon Wylde of The Ford, near Dodderhill where Thomas was to acquire the manor of Impney. Samuel Fell D.D. (1584 – 1 February 1649) was an English academic and clergyman, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford[1][2] and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford during the First English Civil War.

Ladies:

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

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

Men:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Samuel Fell D.D. (1584 – 1 February 1649) was an English academic and clergyman, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford[1][2] and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford[3] during the First English Civil War. Samuel Fell was born in the parish of St Clement Danes, London, and was educated at Westminster School. Thence he proceeded as a queen's scholar to Christ Church, Oxford, matriculating 20 November 1601, and graduated B.A. 27 June 1605, M.A. 30 May 1608, B.D. 23 November 1615, and D.D. 23 June 1619. He was elected proctor in 1614, and soon after became rector of Freshwater in the Isle of Wight, and chaplain to King James I. It has been suggested that this position brought Robert Hooke to Oxford many years later, since at Freshwater Fell knew Hooke’s father.[4] In May 1619, Fell was made a canon of Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford and in 1626 Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, which he held, according to custom, with a canonry of Worcester Cathedral. These posts he held till 1637. At first his religious views were Calvinistic, but he changed his opinions and became an active ally of Archbishop William Laud. Laud promoted him, making Fell to the rector of Stow-on-the-Wold in 1637, Dean of Lichfield in January 1638, and Dean of Christ Church in June 1638.[2] Fell continued with improvements in the cathedral and college projected by his predecessor, Brian Duppa, and added the staircase leading to the hall. Active in Oxford University affairs, on 15 August 1637, Samuel Fell wrote to Laud about the excessive number of alehouses in Oxford, but on more than one occasion he was rebuked from Laud for setting his authority as head of a college in opposition to the proctors and other public officials of the university. On the outbreak of the Civil War he became a conspicuous royalist, and after serving the office of Vice-Chancellor in 1645 and 1646 was reappointed in 1647.[3] Soon after his reappointment the parliamentary visitors came to Oxford. In September, Fell was summoned before them; he declined to attend, was imprisoned, and on his release in November was deprived of all his offices in the University. He retired to the rectory of Sunningwell, near Abingdon, which he had held since 21 September 1625, and died there on 1 February 1649. He was buried in his church. Samuel Fell married Margaret, daughter of Thomas Wylde,[5] esq., of The Commandery Worcester, by whom he was the father of John Fell, Dean of Christ Church and Bishop of Oxford, and several daughters including Mary who married Thomas Willis. The Wickipeejuh : Samuel Fell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Fell

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

I remind of two things:

• i) Early Industrialism and esp. 19th C. Industrialism had not yet made the living conditions of the common man that unhealthy, it was not yet very common to spend a childhood in coalmines and then die;
  
  
• ij) and then we do not have all that much documentation on how long unknown common men lived. Saying "they lived less long" is based on some kind of prejudice. Or, perhaps, on bad memories from 19th C. Industrialism. When short lives were really the rule of the day for proletarian industrial workers, as well as for homeless.

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

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

Legendary Men vs Mythical Gods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next sentence in this chapter is appropriate:

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

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

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

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

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

In Defense of the Tom Bombadil Chapters

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

First of all, why a defense?

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

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

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

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

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

• For the only time in the novel, it shows forth a happy marriage while it is being lived.
  
  
  • Arwen and Aragorn and Sam Gamgee and Rosie Cotton come very late in the novel, and we practically see only the beginning of each marriage. Also, Sam Gamgee, though obviously happy, is as obviously happy in a humdrum way. Tom Bombadil is happy in a poetic way, a bit like the poetry of Manalive.
    
    
  • Elrond is a widower. As is Denethor.
    
    
  • Of Celeborn and Galadriel, we practically see only Galadriel, we do not see their love story.
    
    
  • Faramir and Eowyn are happy, but as with Arwen and Aragorn, as with Sam and Rosie, we see the story leading up to their marriage. Also, their happiness is a happiness involving recovery from emotional scars, not a pure happiness, like Tom and Goldberry, unclouded of any post traumatic stress whatsoever. In Tom Bombadil's adventures we see a story which involves a rather Kalevala roughness and readiness and happy-go-lucky attitude in the woeing.
  
  
  Tolkien was a man very happy to be married and to be married to the woman he had married. Of course, as they were both orphaned, there was a sense of Faramir and Eowyn too. And as he had to live through ordeals and abstain from seeing her, there was a sense of Arwen and Aragorn - or of Beren and Luthien. But the everyday happiness is, I think, best reflected in Sam's and Rosie's marriage and even more in that of Tom Bombadil and Goldberry.
  
  
• For the only time in the novel, we have a hospitality neither prompted by old acquaintance nor by involvement in the ring bearer's importance.
  
  
  • Bilbo's party? Longexpected and nearly everyone an acquaintance close or distant.
    
    
  • Farmer Maggot (whose wife also is mainly seen as hostess to the hobbits rather than as object of his romantic attentions) recalls when Frodo came sneaking as a young hobbit looking for mushrooms. He also has caught a sudden dislike for the Black Riders.
    
    
  • Butterbur's hospitality is not for free, they pay it, and it is clouded by the presence of both ring and Black Riders.
    
    
  • Elrond's hospitality is very much involved in the ring bearer's fate, even involving a conference about the ring.
    
    
  • Galadriel's hospitality ends up with concerning the ring.
    
    
  • Faramir's hospitality is really a decision related to the ring bearer, so are many hospitalities involving war parties. Or if not related to ring bearer, at least related to war.
  
  
  In the House of Tom Bombadil, the hobbits for once are received as guests after coming as strangers in need. It reminds more of the hospitality of Beorn, and some of the hospitality of Fangorn, though Fangorn ends up taking sides.
  
  Tom Bombadil is the Episode of the Phaeacians in the Odyssey transposed to Lord of the Rings.
  
  
• Since it involves the Barrow Wight, it is the first time we glimpse some of the Sauron code, in which Morgoth is claimed as returning to judge living and dead. A blasphemous claim, of course.
  
  
• Since the first encounter was after Old Man Willow, it is the one place where most clearly (as well as Caradhras and the craken type monster at the gate of Moria) we see that Tolkien is not a naive treehugger or nature worshipper. Since man fell, nature too is fallen, cannot be trusted and therefore cannot be worshipped.
  
  This aspect may have jarred with some of the Pagan and New Agey admirers of Tolkien.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note:

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

Grain Stores of Joseph

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

Here is some text**:

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

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

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

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

Comments by Bishop Challoner:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Cited from:

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

I highly endorse this however:

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

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

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

How do you pronounce Cetacean and Citation?

I pronounce them pretty differently.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Le PIE, a-t-il existé?

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

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

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

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

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

A	B	C	D	E
pateer	atta	?
pateer	-	atta
pateer	:	ateer
-	(atta)	(pateer)
-	(atta)	(ateer)
pateer	:	ateer
supó	-	?
supó	:	suó
?	-	suern
supern	:	suern
supern ADJ	-	suern
supernos
supern ADV
super
supó:super	-	-	υπο:υπερ
-	-	_	υπερ	über/öfver/upper
supó	-	suó
súb(o)	-	fo
pateer	-	ateer
pater	-	atiir

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not true.

The sentence "Myggen flyger" contains only ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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