Mariés avant 16, le couple martyr et leurs ancêtres

Mariées (et mariés) à quel âge, premières noces? · Et encore, pour son mari? · Mariés avant 16, le couple martyr et leurs ancêtres

En général, le nombre total de femmes va inclure Marie Antoinette de son côté mais exclure Louis XVI du sien, et enversement pour le nombre d'hommes.

Plus qu'un homme a été marié plus qu'une fois, ce que j'ai compté. D'où 38 ancêtres et connexes y compris Marie Antoinette du côté féminin.

Femmes :

21 ancêtres (ou connexes) féminines de Marie Antoinette (et elle-même)
dont mariées avant 16
14 * 3 ou 14 * 2 + 15 * 1

17 ancêtres (ou connexes) féminines de Louis XVI
dont mariées avant 16
12 * 1 + 14 * 1 + 15 * 1 ou 12 * 1 + 14 * 2 + 15 * 1

38 ancêtres (ou connexes) féminines
3 + 3 ou 3 + 4 mariées avant 16

6/38 = 15,789 %
7/38 = 18,421 %

une mariée à 12, minimum canonique
1/38 = 2,632 %

Hommes :

15 ancêtres masculins de Marie Antoinette
dont mariés avant 16
14 * 1

16 ancêtres masculins de Louis XVI, y compris lui-même
dont mariés avant 16
15 * 4

31 ancêtres masculins
5 / 31 = 16,129 %

dont un à 14, minimum canonique
1/31 = 3,226 %

Unclarity of the French Language - Or of His Memory?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: "Martyn Iles presents Living in Babylon" · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Unclarity of the French Language - Or of His Memory?

Sometimes French is unclear.

Not all of the time, but at more than one occasion, where English isn't.

Here is Ezechiel 26:7, in English:

For thus saith the Lord God: Behold I will bring against Tyre Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon, the king of kings, from the north, with horses, and chariots, and horsemen, and companies, and much people.

Now look at this French one:

Car ainsi parle le Seigneur, l'Eternel: Voici, j'amène du septentrion contre Tyr Nebucadnetsar, roi de Babylone, le roi des rois, avec des chevaux, des chars, des cavaliers, et une grande multitude de peuples.

Now imagine a truncated memory of this:

j'amène du septentrion contre Tyr Nebucadnetsar, roi de Babylone

Or even:

j'amène du septentrion contre Tyr le roi Nebucadnetsar, de Babylone

Do you analyse it as God bringing against Tyre from the North someone who is "le roi Nebucadnetsar, de Babylone"?

Or is "le roi Nebucadnetsar" being brought "du septentrion contre Tyr ... de Babylone"?

In English, this confusion is impossible. The second would have been "from Babylon" and the former is, what we also have in the text, "of Babylon" ....

Edward Camps used this, confusing "of" with "from" (makes me wonder if he's French or has been living in France for very long) to prove that "from Babylon" is designated as "from the North" even if Babylon is actually East of Tyre, and somewhat further South. Tyre is 33°16'15" N, and Babylon is 32°32'33" N. However, the city never says that God brings Nebuchadnezzar on this occasion "from Babylon" the only direction given is "from the North" and Babylon is in the genitive of relationship : Nebuchadnezzar is king of Babylon, and Babylon is city and Empire of Nebuchadnezzar.

Edward Camps clearly admitted that when Nebuchadnezzar arrived, he actually approached Tyre precisely from the North. So, "from the North" means "from the North" - and this is relevant for another city with the same name, Nimrod's very pre-Classical Babel. Why? Because it says "they removed from the East" - and I believe "from the East" means precisely "from the East" ... This is what Edward Camps pretended to disprove by citing Ezechiel.

Most places suggested for the landing place, anything West of Nagorno-Karabakh, given this is historically Armenia (whatever the claims of recent Armenian and Turkish population), and that has never been suggested, as far as I know, going to Classical Babylon would be going TO the East, not FROM it. But even from the Westernmost place actually suggested, Mt Judi, just East of the Tigris, going to Göbekli Tepe is going FROM the East, and that is what Genesis 11 actually has.

38°55′21″E for Göbekli Tepe
42°20′39″E for Mount Judi

To Göbekli Tepe from Mount Judi actually is, precisely, from the East.

Now, the actual text in Louis Segond (I took a Protestant text, because I think Edward Camps is a Protestant), it is sufficiently long to get clearly around this unclarity.

Nebucadnetsar, roi de Babylone, le roi des rois, appears as a block, and "de Babylone" inside it, so it must be part of how Nebuchadnezzar is described, an attribute, and can't be part of how the direction is described, can't be an extra spatial adverbial of direction. But the whole verse is also further away from everyday French. This hints, in order to make French clear, making descriptions long and not totally idiomatic for everyday use, is an asset. That's possibly one complaint some have about my French. But I try to be clear, and I spend quite a lot of time reading more colloquial texts, like comic books, JW tracts (I avoid Watchtower, but sometimes enjoy Awake!), free newspapers like "20 minutes" or earlier also "CNEWS Matin" ... so my French doesn't, in my pursuit of clarity, stray too far from what French people understand without reading it twice.

Spanish also has "de" both for spatial adverb of direction meaning origin of a removal, and for prepositional periphrase of the genitive case. But Italian has "da" for "from" and "di" for "of" ... and here is the Italian text:

Perché così dice il Signore Dio: Io mando da settentrione contro Tiro Nabucodònosor, re di Babilonia, il re dei re, con cavalli, carri e cavalieri e una folla, un popolo immenso.

Got it? It's "re di Babilonia," whereas the only direction is "da settentrione" .../HGL

Réplique en un détail pour Vincent Reynouard, Madame Rouffanche

Aux contradictions s’ajoutent des impossibilités manifestes. En particulier, la fuite de Mme Rouffanche hors de l’église, en se hissant jusqu’à un vitrail puis en sautant de quatre mètres de haut sur un plan fortement incliné sans s’occasionner la moindre blessure, un exploit impossible pour une femme de 46 ans.

Dans un livre sur la survie en situations critiques, lu quand j'avais entre 7 et 25 ans, et relu, et relu, appelé en suédois "Rädda livet!" la hauteur où la survie reste possible sur terrain plutôt que dans l'eau est 10 mètres, à condition de toucher le sol incliné latéralement et non purement verticalement. Ça aide aussi qu'on se pousse vers le côté. Le sol incliné a donc aidé à sauver la femme. Pas empêché.

Pourvu, bien entendu, que le témoignage soit autrement correct.

Mais Vincent Reynouard ne vient pas d'analyser en premier le témoignage, mais les faits matériels.

Rouler latéralement correctement pour s'épargner demande bien entendu une certaine élasticité. Combien en reste à une femme de 46 est par contre variable.

En plus, je ne sais pas d'où Vincent prend "sans la moindre blessure" ...

C'est possible que les corps déchiquetés et non calcinés parlent pour la version de Vincent, mais ce n'était pas le propos ici.

Pour l'expertise, j'aimerais avoir l'avis d'un expert du sport parkour. Si l'exploit sera faisable ce ne sera peut-être pas la première fois que des révisionnistes commentent une impossibilité qui n'en est pas une. L'autre fois que j'ai commenté est la situation d'Anne Frank. C'est possible de faire de la bruit tout en censant ne pas faire de la bruit, parce qu'on peut à tout moment être trahi, si un village (ou quartier ou semblable) fait bloc de protéger un homme ou une famille cachée. Ceci peut bien entendu changer du jour à l'autre./HGL

PS Bien entendu, j'aimerais que le débat soit plus libre - pour les deux côtés et pour ceux qui se trouvent quelque part dans le milieu./HGL

Nice to Be Preferred Over Rabbi Asor

Are there Mistakes in the Geneology of Jesus?
One For Israel
https://www.oneforisrael.org/bible-based-teaching-from-israel/are-there-mistakes-in-the-geneology-of-jesus/

On page 89 of his book, rabbi Daniel Asor claims that he sent a letter to the Vatican, demanding that they solve the contradictions (as he calls them) between the genealogies of Jesus in the gospels of Matthew and Luke in the New Testament. Rabbi Asor continued to claim that Pope Benedict himself, since he was unable to provide an answer, resigned from his position as Pope.

We have no relation to the Pope, and not much sympathy for the Vatican either, or for the persecutions of our people by the Catholic Church, but we have even less patience for insanity.

I can absolutely not believe that Antipope Ratzinger was so unfamiliar with Catholic culture as to not know the Catholic answer to this one.

Did you know the nobility counts their genealogies in a number system known as Sosa-Stradonitz? It has a double name, because it was invented twice. First by Sosa, then by Stradonitz.

Stephan Kekulé von Stradonitz, who died in Berlin before the Machtübername, ninety years ago, and a few days, was concerned with helping German and other nobility to keep track of genealogies. His example involved European sovereigns, counted back from present to the "32 ancestors" (father and mother are two, grandparents four ancestors ...)

His work involved interpreting the method of Fray Jerónimo de Sosa, who, certainly also served nobles, but first of all was interested in keeping track of Our Lord's genealogy. This isn't in the wiki I consult today, but I learned of it earlier. He in turn had a predecessor not thought of, when one speaks of Sosa-Stradonitz, namely Michaël Eytzinger.

Now, whether Brother Sosa was in fact involved in the solution Catholics tend to give or not, I can't actually prove right now. I can however copy the solution with the theologians who stand behind it, from the Haydock comment on Matthew chapter 1:

Ver. 11. Josias begot[2] Jechonias, &c. The genealogy of Christ, as it appears by the 17th verse, is divided by the evangelist into thrice fourteen generations, and so it is to contain 42 persons. The first class of fourteen begins with Abraham, and ends with David. The second class begins with Solomon, and ends with Jechonias. The third class is supposed to begin with Salathiel, and to end, says S. Jerom, with our Saviour Christ. But thus we shall only find in the third class thirteen generations, and in all only forty-one, instead of forty-two. Not to mention in these short notes other interpretations, the conjecture of S. Epiphanius seems the most probable, that we are to understand two Jechonias's, the father and the son, who had the same name. So that the true reading should be, Josias begot Jechonias and his brethren, and Jechonias begot Jechonias, and Jechonias begot Salathiel. Thus Jechonias named in the 12th verse is not the same, but the son of him that was named in the 11th verse; and from Jechonias the son, begins the third class, and so Christ himself will be the last or 14th person in that last series or class. There are several difficulties about reconciling this genealogy in S. Matthew with that in S. Luke, c. iii. But without insisting on all the particulars in these short notes, I hope it may suffice to take notice, that no one can reasonably doubt but that both the evangelists copied out the genealogical tables, as they were then extant, and carefully preserved by the Jews, and especially by those families that were of the tribe of Juda, and of the family of David, of which the Messias was to be born. For if the evangelists had either falsified, or made any mistake as to these genealogies, the Jews undoubtedly would have objected this against their gospels, which they never did. Wi.

[Wi = Bishop Witham]

The difficulties here are: 1. Why does S. Matt. give the genealogy of Joseph and not of Mary? 2. How is it inferred that Jesus is descended from David and Solomon, because Joseph is the son of David? 3. How can Joseph have two men for his father, Jacob of the race of Solomon, and Heli of the race of Nathan? To the 1st it is generally answered, that it was not customary with the Jews to draw out the genealogies of women; to the 2nd, that Jesus being the son of Joseph, either by adoption, or simply as the son of Mary his wife, he entered by that circumstance into all the rights of the family of Joseph; moreover, Mary was of the same tribe and family of Joseph, and thus the heir of the branch of Solomon marrying with the heiress of the branch of Nathan, the rights of the two families united in Joseph and Mary, were transmitted through them to Jesus, their son and heir; to the 3rd, that Jacob was the father of Joseph according to nature, and Heli his father according to law; or that Joseph was the son of the latter by adoption, and of the former by nature. A.

[A = Author = Haydock]

In the transmigration,[3] or transportation to Babylon; i.e. about the time the Jews were carried away captives to Babylon. For Josias died before their transportation. See 4 K. xxiv. Wi.

[Witham, again.]

Some think we are to read: Josias begot Joakim and his brethren; and Joakim begot Joachim, or Jechonias. Jechonias was son to Joakim, and grandson to Josias. The brothers of Jechonias are not known, but those of Joakim are known. 1 Par. iii. 15, 16. Besides this reading gives the number 14. A.

[Haydock again.]

S. Jerom says that Jechonias, the son of Josias, is a different person from Jechonias who begot Salathiel, for the latter was son of the former; see Paralip. iii. where it is said that Zorobabel was son of Phadaia; but Phadaia is the same as Salatheil. E.

[E = Estius.]

Mat. Polus affirms that every one the least conversant in Jewish story, must know that several genealogies which appear to contradict each other, do not in reality. Synop. Crit. v. 4, p. 12.

And from the same comment on Luke 3:

Ver. 22. The reason why the Holy Ghost shewed himself in the shape of a dove, was because he could not be seen in the substance of his divinity. But why a dove? To express that simplicity acquired in the sacrament of baptism. Be ye simple as doves; to signify that peace bestowed by baptism, and prefigured by the olive branch which the dove carried back to the ark, a true figure of the Church, and which was the only security from the destructive deluge. S. Amb.

[Saint Ambrose.]

You will object: Christ, though he was God, would not be baptized till the age of 30, and do you order baptism to be received sooner? When you say, though he was God, you solve the difficulty. For, he stood not in need of being purified at all; of course, there could be no danger in deferring his baptism. But you will have much to answer for, if, being born in corruption, you pass out of this world without the garment of incorruption. S. Greg. Nazian. orat. 40.

[St. Gregorius of Nazianzen]

Remarks on the two Genealogies of Jesus Christ.

To make some attempt at an elucidation of the present very difficult subject of inquiry, we must carry in our minds,

1. That in the Scripture language the word begat, applies to the remote, as well as the immediate, descendant of the ancestor; so that if Marcus were the son, Titus the grandson, and Caius the great-grandson of Sempronius, it might, in the language of Scripture, be said, that Sempronius begat Caius. This accounts for the omission of several descents in S. Matthew.

2. The word begat, applies not only to the natural offspring, but to the offspring assigned to the ancestor by law.

3. If a man married the daughter and only child of another, he became in the view of the Hebrew law the son of that person, and thus was a son assigned to him by law. The two last positions shew in what sense Zorobabel was the son both of Neri and Salathiel, and Joseph the son both of Jacob and of Heli, or Joachim.

"S. Matthew, in descending from Abraham to Joseph, the spouse of the blessed Virgin, speaks of a son properly so called, and by way of generation, Abraham begot Isaac, &c. But S. Luke in ascending from Jesus to God himself, speaks of a son properly or improperly so called. On this account he make use of an indeterminate expression, in saying, the son of Joseph, who was of Heli. That S. Luke does not always speak of a son properly called, and by way of generation, appears from the first and last he names; for Jesus was only the putative son of Joseph, because Joseph was the spouse of Mary, the mother of Christ; and Adam was only the son of God by creation. This being observed, we must acknowledge in the genealogy in S. Luke, two sons improperly so called, that is, two sons-in-law, instead of sons. As among the Hebrews, the women entered not into the genealogy, when a house finished by a daughter, instead of naming the daughter in the genealogy, they named the son-in-law, who had for father-in-law the father of his wife. The two sons-in-law mentioned in S. Luke are Joseph, the son-in-law of Heli, and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri. This remarks clears up the difficulty. Joseph, the son of Jacob, in S. Mat. was the son-in-law of Heli, in S. Luke; and Salathiel, the son of Jechonias, in S. Mat. was the son-in-law of Neri, in S. Luke. Mary was the daughter of Heli, Eliacim, or Joacim, or Joachim. Joseph, the son of Jacob, and Mary, the daughter of Heli, had a common origin; both descending from Zorobabel, Joseph by Abiud the eldest, and Mary by Resa, the younger brother. Joseph descended from the royal branch of David, of which Solomon was the chief; and Mary from the other branch, of which Nathan was the chief. By Salathiel, the father of Zorobabel, and son of Jechonias, Joseph and Mary descended from Solomon, the son and heir of David. And by the wife of Salathiel, the mother of Zorobabel, and daughter of Neri, of which Neri Salathiel was the son-in-law, Joseph and Mary descended from Nathan, the other son of David, so that Joseph and Mary re-united in themselves all the blood of David. S. Mat. carries up the genealogy of Jesus to Abraham; this was the promise of the Messias, made to the Jews; S. Luke carries it up to Adam, the promise of the Messias, made to all men."

Whatever the difficulties attending the genealogies may be, it is evident that they arise from our imperfect knowledge of the laws, usages, and idiom of the Jews, from our ignorance of the true method of reconciling the seeming inconsistencies, or from some corruptions that in process of time may possibly have crept into the text. The silence of the enemies of the gospel, both heathen and Jewish, during even the first century, is itself a sufficient proof, that neither inconsistency nor corruption could be then alleged against this part of the evangelical history. If the lineal descent of Jesus from David were not indisputable, he could not possess the character essential to the Messias, nor any right to the Jewish throne. We may confidently then assert, that his regular lineal descent from David could not be disproved, since it was not even disputed at a time when alone it could have been done so successfully; and by those persons who were so deeply interested in falsifying the first Christian authorities.

Now, what was he saying about us Catholics, the writer?

not much sympathy for the Vatican either, or for the persecutions of our people by the Catholic Church,

I'm not edified by that kind of allegations, but thanks for at least preferring us over insanity - or over Rabbi Asor.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Gregory of Nazianzen !
9.V.2023

Nazianzi, in Cappadocia, natalis beati Gregorii Episcopi, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris, ob singularem divinarum rerum doctrinam cognomento Theologi; qui collapsam Constantinopoli catholicam fidem, ipsius urbis Episcopatum gerens, restituit, haeresesque insurgentes compressit.

PS - can this be taken as a hint Ratzinger was forced to abdicate before he could give Asor an answer? Since he already died, it is not easy to ask him .../HGL

John Augustine Zahm Abusing his Patron Saint

No, I don't mean John the Baptist or John the Beloved. I mean Augustine of Hippo.

I was listening to a podcast on The Church and Evolution. Distractly, but still. It's 89 on The Catholic History Trek.

I am not confident that they are right to say that to Maimonides the days in Genesis 1 could be long periods, but they were certainly wrong to suggest that Christianity came out of Maimonides' type of Judaism and that therefore Christianity from the first would have held that too. Whether or not it's even "too" ...

I then came to John Augustine Zahm (a priest) and how his book Evolution and Dogma was nearly put on the Index, except he withdrew it.

I checked his biography on wiki:

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

I found also:
J. A. Zahm (1896), Scientific theory and Catholic doctrine, Chicago: D. H. McBride & Co., OL 7187109M (Full Text)

The link in "Full Text" is to the cover of the book. Here is a specific page:

https://archive.org/details/scientifictheory00zahmuoft/page/126/mode/2up

Click to enlarge to read, I lifted up the lower part of page 126 to the top, visibly intruding on the text actually on top, so as to show I am making a shortcut:

On page 127, he speaks of seeds laying dormant for long aeons:

They lay dormant as it were, until long aeons after the creation of matter ...

Here is a quote from On the Trinity, Book III, chapter 8, quoting all of § 13 but leaving out §§14 and 15:

13. Yet it is not on this account to be thought that the matter of visible things is subservient to the bidding of those wicked angels; but rather to that of God, by whom this power is given, just so far as He, who is unchangeable, determines in His lofty and spiritual abode to give it. For water and fire and earth are subservient even to wicked men, who are condemned to the mines, in order that they may do therewith what they will, but only so far as is permitted. Nor, in truth, are those evil angels to be called creators, because by their means the magicians, withstanding the servant of God, made frogs and serpents; for it was not they who created them. But, in truth, some hidden seeds of all things that are born corporeally and visibly, are concealed in the corporeal elements of this world. For those seeds that are visible now to our eyes from fruits and living things, are quite distinct from the hidden seeds of those former seeds; from which, at the bidding of the Creator, the water produced the first swimming creatures and fowl, and the earth the first buds after their kind, and the first living creatures after their kind. For neither at that time were those seeds so drawn forth into products of their several kinds, as that the power of production was exhausted in those products; but oftentimes, suitable combinations of circumstances are wanting, whereby they may be enabled to burst forth and complete their species. For, consider, the very least shoot is a seed; for, if fitly consigned to the earth, it produces a tree. But of this shoot there is a yet more subtle seed in some grain of the same species, and this is visible even to us. But of this grain also there is further still a seed, which, although we are unable to see it with our eyes, yet we can conjecture its existence from our reason; because, except there were some such power in those elements, there would not so frequently be produced from the earth things which had not been sown there; nor yet so many animals, without any previous commixture of male and female; whether on the land, or in the water, which yet grow, and by commingling bring forth others, while themselves sprang up without any union of parents. And certainly bees do not conceive the seeds of their young by commixture, but gather them as they lie scattered over the earth with their mouth. For the Creator of these invisible seeds is the Creator of all things Himself; since whatever comes forth to our sight by being born, receives the first beginnings of its course from hidden seeds, and takes the successive increments of its proper size and its distinctive forms from these as it were original rules. As therefore we do not call parents the creators of men, nor farmers the creators of grain — although it is by the outward application of their actions that the power of God operates within for the creating these things — so it is not right to think not only the bad but even the good angels to be creators, if, through the subtlety of their perception and body, they know the seeds of things which to us are more hidden, and scatter them secretly through fit temperings of the elements, and so furnish opportunities of producing things, and of accelerating their increase. But neither do the good angels do these things, except as far as God commands, nor do the evil ones do them wrongfully, except as far as He righteously permits. For the malignity of the wicked one makes his own will wrongful; but the power to do so, he receives rightfully, whether for his own punishment, or, in the case of others, for the punishment of the wicked, or for the praise of the good.

The quote contains most of what John Augustine Zahm actually said in the quoted paragraph. But it does - let's insist on it - not contain the word "aeons" - and also, it is pretty clear that what St. Augustine is saying is God created embryonic beings, and brought embrya miraculously to fruition in fully matured examples, presumably on the creation days.

It's really dishonest to quotemine St. Augustine of Hippo to "prove" he approved of Evolution.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Joseph Workman
1.V.2023

Wrong Question Answered, Melissa

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: AiG Seem to be Wrong on How Long one's a Child · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Wrong Question Answered, Melissa

What question does this answer? This quote:

Maintaining the trend, by the end of the 19th century, the median age when women were first getting married was between 22 and 24 years old, and this tendency continued into the 1940s.

In fact, the lowest median age of first marriage since the early 1700s was had by the baby boom generation, where the age dropped to 20.5 years in 1950.

It answers the question whether the median age at first marriage was teens, and the answer was obviously no.

What was the question in the title?

WHEN DID TEEN GIRLS STOP COMMONLY GETTING MARRIED?
February 18, 2014 Melissa, Today I Found Out
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/02/teen-girls-stop-commonly-getting-married/

The question was not whether teen girls at a given point in time were getting married in over 50 % of the cases (in which case the median age would certainly be in the teens). It was whether the practise was common, or was seen as exceptional.*

Let's go to Percent Ever Married for 15–19. The decades refer to "birth cohorts"**...

Southern-born Whites, Males, the 1821 - 1830 has 3.4 % and 1871 - 1880 it is down to 2.0 %.
Let's go to Females, the 1821 - 1830 has 17.3 % and the 1871 - 1880 it is down to 16.5 %.

If 16.5 - 17.3 won't land the median age at marriage into the teens, it is also certainly not "uncommon" ....

Now, let's go to Mean Age at Marriage - it doesn't say "mean age at first marriage" even ...

Southern-born Whites, Males, those born 1821 - 1830, it's 26.4 years and those born 1871 - 1880, it's 26.3 years.
Let's go to Females, the birth cohort 1821 - 1830, it's 22.2 years, and those born 1871 - 1880, it's rising to 22.5 years.

Perhaps the reason isn't they were frowning on teen marriages, but that losing the Civil War made it less affordable to white ladies of the South?

Anyway, a teen girl married born in 1875 and married by 1890 or before 1895 was nothing exceptional, even if it was not the most common occurrence either. Melissa on Today I Found Out did a sloppy job in 2014. After all, she could have gone to Journal of Southern History in 2010, I could find it with a google on:

age at first marriage us census 19th c

But even more - simple knowledge of mathematics, statistics, would mean that "median" is not the same as "minimum" any more than the same as "maximum" ..

However, she was right to quote:

Medieval Maidens: Young Women and Gender in England, C.1270-c.1540
Kim M. Philips, Manchester University Press, 28 June 2003 - 246 pages
https://books.google.fr/books?id=mHscM7ofx_AC

It seems, while nobility married girls off at median 16 in the Middle Ages (after my own statistics) there was a sizeable portion of a non-noble sample that married between 18 and 22. Could it be, again, because the non-nobles were less readily affording marriage at 16?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Mark the Gospeller
25.IV.2023

Alexandriae natalis beati Marci Evangelistae. Hic, discipulus et interpres Apostoli Petri, rogatus Romae a fratribus scripsit Evangelium, quo assumpto, perrexit in Aegyptum, primusque Alexandriae Christum annuntians, constituit Ecclesiam; ac postea, pro fide Christi tentus, funibus vinctus et per saxa raptatus, graviter afflictus est; deinde, reclusus in carcere, primo angelica visitatione confortatus est, et demum, ipso Domino sibi apparente, ad caelestia regna vocatus, octavo Neronis anno.

ERRATUM, I seem to have mixed up table 1 and table 2. It's table 2 that is

Nuptiality Measures for the Native-Born White Population by Birth Cohort and Section of Birth

and where I found the stats I gave. Table one starts out in 1850 and is not restricted to Native White, but would include immigration from Europe, possibly also people born in Viejo Norte prior to its becoming US States.

In table 1, West–North Central Census Region starts out with 20.5 % women married 15 - 19 in 1850, but it sinks to 13 % by 1880, West–South Central Census Region has over 24 % in 1850 and 1880, somewhat below that, but above 20 % in 1860 and 1870, and Mountain and Pacific Census Regions has 32.4 % in 1860 (no stats for 1850), down to 27.5 % in 1870, and to 15.1 % in 1880. Probably the growing affluence means, it becomes harder and harder to marry young in this region./HGL

* I'll be taking my statistics from here:

The Effect of the Civil War on Southern Marriage Patterns
J South Hist. 2010 Feb; 76(1): 39–70.
J. David Hacker, Libra Hilde, and James Holland Jones
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002115/

Specifically,

Table 1, Nuptiality Measures for the White Population of the United States, 1850–1880, source: 1850–1880 IPUMS samples,

further explanation in a footnote:

Only white marriage patterns can be ascertained in the prewar period; the 1850 and 1860 censuses enumerated slaves in a separate, more limited population schedule, and because the slave schedule did not group or identify family members, it is impossible to infer marital status and estimate age at marriage. These samples are part of the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) created at the Minnesota Population Center (University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus, Minneapolis). Ruggles Steven, et al. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 3.0. Minneapolis: 2004.....

** In other words, if 17.3 % of the Southern girls' birth cohort 1821 to 1830 were married at a date before 20, this means that of 1000 girls born that decade, even counting those who died before the teens, perhaps only 950 survived to the teens, perhaps less, 173 married before age 20.

Orbite, non, rotation, oui ?

Sur Le CEP je trouve un numéro de 2011 qui contient ce passus :

Nicole Oresme (1320-1382)
Il avait discuté de la possibilité du mouvement de rotation de la terre sur elle-même qui ne posait aucun problème théologique, celle-ci restant au centre du système solaire.

Les profanes, et hélas beaucoup de scientifiques, confondent souvent dans ce débat, la rotation de la terre sur elle-même avec son déplacement orbital.[6]

[6] On peut citer l’intéressante référence que donne l’ex-rabbin Paul Drach du Zohar, IIIe partie, fol 4, col 14, sect. Vaïyikra (XIIIe siècle) dans son ouvrage De l’harmonie entre l’Eglise et la Synagogue (T1). Ce texte affirme la rotation de la terre sur elle-même et non son mouvement orbital autour du soleil, mais Paul Drach, comme tant d’autres, faisait la confusion et croyait que ce texte hébraïque était une confirmation du système de Copernic.

Le Cep n°56. 3^ème trimestre 2011,
par DE PONTCHARRA Jean (pages 25 - 27)
https://le-cep.org/archive/CEP_56.pdf

Notons, il y a des textes avec accessibilité très diverse dans ce monde. Pour la Bible en anglais, je mets "drbo.org" dans la barre d'adresse, je l'ai. Pour le livre de Jacques Arnould, que je réfute dans la série qui débute sur Jacques Arnould fait une histoire et philosophie des sciences atroces, j'ai cherché dans une boutique de livres. Pour Nicole Oresme, je cherche la wikipédie anglaise : Nicole Oresme, je trouve le titre concerné : Livre du ciel et du monde, je cherche le titre en google, le premier coup* sur google est vers une notice à BnF, le deuxième ou troisième me renseigne** que :

• Messieurs Albert D. MENUT et Alexander DENOMY
• l'ont édité avec traduction
• en 1968
• sur Wisconsin University Press
• et que la francophonie connait ceci depuis 1972.

Je ne vais pas retenir le souffle jusqu'à trouver cette publication de Wisconsin site internet, ni pour la retrouver à la Fnac. Ça serait mauvais pour la respiration. Je ne peux donc pas prétendre avoir lu le livre.

Par contre, j'ai lu un compte-rendu, probablement la première fois en ce livre ci :

Den dynamiska medeltiden - Häftad, Svenska, 2013***
Författare: Michael Nordberg
https://www.adlibris.com/se/bok/den-dynamiska-medeltiden-9789113054919

Selon ce compte rendu, Nicole Oresme aurait trouvé la rotation diurne de la terre certes possible, mais sans aucune preuve. Un philosophème à peu près égal, donc, à la théorie que l'univers est aujourd'hui la moitié exacte de la taille qu'elle avait il y a 24 heures. Impossible de réfuter, mais sans aucun fondement. Or, la wikipédie anglaise confirme cette mémoire :

From astronomical considerations, he maintained that if the Earth were moving and not the celestial spheres, all the movements that we see in the heavens that are computed by the astronomers would appear exactly the same as if the spheres were rotating around the Earth. He rejected the physical argument that if the Earth were moving the air would be left behind causing a great wind from east to west. In his view the Earth, Water, and Air would all share the same motion. [Oresme, Le Livre du ciel et du monde, pp. 521–3] |...] Nonetheless, he concluded that none of these arguments were conclusive and "everyone maintains, and I think myself, that the heavens do move and not the Earth." [Oresme, Le Livre du ciel et du monde, p. 537]

Des considérations astronomiques, il maintint que, si la terre bougeait, et non les sphères célestes, tous les mouvements que nous voyons dans le ciel que les astronomes calculent° apparaîtreraient exactement de la même manière que si les sphères feraient leur rotation autour de la Terre. Il rejeta l'argument physique que si la Terre bougeait, l'air resterait en arrière en causant un grand vent de l'est à l'ouest. À son avis, la Terre, l'Eau, l'Air partageraient le même mouvement. [Oresme, Le Livre du ciel et du monde, pp. 521–3] [...] Néanmoins, il conclua qu'aucun de ces arguments était concluant et "tout le monde maintient, et je pense moi-même, que les Cieux bougent et non pas la Terre." [Oresme, Le Livre du ciel et du monde, p. 537]

Donc, la wikipédie confirme, Jean de Pontcharra a mal compris Nicole Oresme.

Ma mémoire de Michael Nordberg dit plus précisément que, pour accepter un point de vue contreintuitif comme néanmoins vrai, il faut, non seulement des arguments qui le prouvent possible, mais des arguments positives contre le point de vue plus commun et plus intuitif. Si je vois des choses qui bougent, je vais normalement conclure qu'ils bougent. Je sais qu'en théorie je pourrais être celui qui bouge, mais je ne vais pas conclure ça quand je regarde des choses par une fenêtre de maison. Je vais uniquement conclure ça si je les regarde par une fenêtre de train. Quand je monte, je me trouve à une gare, par exemple Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof. Quand je descends, je me trouve dans une autre, par exemple Wien Westbahnhof. Ce qui argue assez fortement que le trainait bougé entre les deux gares. Et le sentiment de motion, l'Oscillation de Hunting. Et encore, pour savoir lequel point de vue est pertinent, je me base sur une connaissance des choses dont j'ai une expérience assez intime. Des gens qui marchent, des gens qui font vélo ou équitation, des voitures et bus, ça bouge. Les arbres, roches, maisons, et ainsi de suite, ça ne bouge pas. Si je vois un arbre s'approcher vite et disparaître vite, je me trouve sur un train en marche. L'arbre qui bouge plus lentement signale plutôt le départ ou l'arrivé par rapport à une gare.

Le phénomène de parallaxe (voir une chose comme bougeante, parce que c'est un-même qui bouge) est certes une explication possible d'une observation de mouvement, mais elle n'est pas en soi l'explication prioritaire. On prend d'abord les choses selon ce qui apparaît, uniquement si ça devient impossible, du point de vue contraire.

Pour un athée, que les Cieux bougentautour de la Terre est impossible. Pour un Chrétien non.

Vive, donc, Oresme ! Et selon la bonne lecture, pas celle de Pontcharra. Je préfère un évêque de Lisieux à un kabbaliste.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Jour de Pâques
9.IV.2023

* Est-ce bien le mot en français ? "First hit on google"
** Nicole Oresme, Le livre du ciel et du monde, éd. by Albert D. Menut and Alexander J. Denomy [compte-rendu]
https://www.persee.fr/doc/rhs_0151-4105_1972_num_25_3_3300
*** C'est une réédition, la première édition était en 1984.
° Ou "les astronomes computent" ?