Saturday, January 17, 2015

Longevity in Selected Ancestry and Inlaws of Eleanor of Montfort


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

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

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


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

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


Summing up (both charts):

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


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

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


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

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

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

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Et pourquoi pas leur adversaires les frères de Vergier:

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


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

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

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

  • Jean Cathelineau avait épousé en 1756, à l’âge de 20 ans, Perrine Hudon

    • Jean, né en 1756, avait 36 ans en mars 1793
    • Jacques, né en 1759, avait 34 ans au moment de l’insurrection. Il a 18 ans lorsqu’il épouse, en 1777, Louise Godin, alors âgée de 25 ans. Onze enfants naîtront de cette union.
    • Marie Jeanne, surnommé « Jeannic », née en 1761, avait 31 ans. Elle épousa Jean Mousseau, tisserand de Montrevault, dans cette ville en 1797.
    • Pierre Joseph, né en 1767, avait 25 ans en mars 1793.
    • Joseph, né en 1772, avait 21 ans en 1793 ... guillotiné le 27 mars 1793.


  • Enfants de Jacques et de Louise ayant survécu:

    • Marie, née en 1781 - mourut à Saint-Laurent-du-Mottay en 1860.
    • Louise Perrine, née en 1783, épousa à Montrevault, en 1810, Louis Bouhier. Elle mourut à La Boissière-du-Doré en 1872.
    • Jacques Joseph, né en 1787 ... exécuté le 27 mai 1832.
    • Rose Marie, née en 1788, épousa à Montrevault, en 1813, René Jean Esseul. Elle mourut à Andrezé en 1873.
    • Jeanne, née en 1791, épousa à La Jubaudière, en 1811, Pierre Lunel, un valeureux combattant vendéen qui n’avait que 14 ans quand il rallia l’insurrection. ... Dernier enfant vivant de Jacques Cathelineau, Jeanne s’éteignit près d’un demi-siècle plus tard, en 1875.


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Sunday, January 11, 2015

Différence entre deux chapitres 28

Fin de l'évangile selon St Matthieu, derniers versets du chapitre 28
 
Latin [18] Et accedens Jesus locutus est eis, dicens: Data est mihi omnis potestas in caelo et in terra: [19] euntes ergo docete omnes gentes: baptizantes eos in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti: [20] docentes eos servare omnia quaecumque mandavi vobis: et ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus, usque ad consummationem saeculi.

Anglais [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Français 18 Et Jésus s'approchant leur parla ainsi : " Toute puissance m'a été donnée dans le ciel et sur la terre. 19 Allez donc, enseignez toutes les nations, les baptisant au nom du Père, du Fils et du Saint-Esprit, 20 leur apprenant à observer tout ce que je vous ai commandé. Et moi, je suis avec vous toujours jusqu'à la fin du monde. "

Grec 17 καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν προσεκύνησαν, οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν. 18 καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ [τῆς] γῆς. 19 πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, 20 διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν· καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος.

Début et milieu du chapitre 28 en Deutéronome (versets 1 et 15)
 
Anglais [1] Now if thou wilt hear the voice of the Lord thy God, to do and keep all his commandments, which I command thee this day, the Lord thy God will make thee higher than all the nations that are on the earth.

[15] But if thou wilt not hear the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep and to do all his commandments and ceremonies, which I command thee this day, all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee.

Latin [1] Si autem audieris vocem Domini Dei tui, ut facias atque custodias omnia mandata ejus, quae ego praecipio tibi hodie, faciet te Dominus Deus tuus excelsiorem cunctis gentibus, quae versantur in terra.

[15] Quod si audire nolueris vocem Domini Dei tui, ut custodias, et facias omnia mandata ejus et caeremonias, quas ego praecipio tibi hodie, venient super te omnes maledictiones istae, et apprehendent te.

Français 1 Si tu obéis exactement à la voix de Yahweh, ton Dieu, en observant et en mettant en pratique tous ses commandements que je te prescris aujourd'hui, Yahweh, ton Dieu, te donnera la supériorité sur toutes les nations de la terre.

15 Mais si tu n'obéis pas à la voix de Yahweh, ton Dieu, pour observer et mettre en pratique tous ses commandements et toutes ses lois que je te prescris aujourd'hui, voici toutes les malédictions qui viendront sur toi et t'atteindront:

Grec, LXX Καὶ ἔσται ὡς ἂν διαβῆτε τὸν Ιορδάνην εἰς τὴν γῆν, ἣν κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν δίδωσιν ὑμῖν, ἐὰν ἀκοῇ εἰσακούσητε τῆς φωνῆς κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν φυλάσσειν καὶ ποιεῖν πάσας τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ, ἃς ἐγὼ ἐντέλλομαί σοι σήμερον, καὶ δώσει σε κύριος ὁ θεός σου ὑπεράνω πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν τῆς γῆς,

Καὶ ἔσται ἐὰν μὴ εἰσακούσῃς τῆς φωνῆς κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ σου φυλάσσειν καὶ ποιεῖν πάσας τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ, ὅσας ἐγὼ ἐντέλλομαί σοι σήμερον, καὶ ἐλεύσονται ἐπὶ σὲ πᾶσαι αἱ κατάραι αὗται καὶ καταλήμψονταί σε.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comme dit, elle n'est pas conditionelle.

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

Friday, January 9, 2015

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


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

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


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

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

EraLife expectancy at birth (years)Life expectancy at older age
Upper Paleolithic32This is the earliest time period of fully modern (both anatomically and behaviorally) humans. Based on the data from recent hunter-gatherer populations, it is estimated that at age 15, life expectancy was an additional 39 years (total age 54).
source aDeevey, Edward S. (1960). "The Human Population". Scientific American.
source bHillard Kaplan, Kim Hill, Jane Lancaster, and A. Magdalena Hurtado (2000). "A Theory of Human Life History Evolution: Diet, Intelligence and Longevity". Evolutionary Anthropology 9 (4): 156–185. doi:10.1002/1520-6505(2000)9:4<156::AID-EVAN5>3.0.CO;2-7. Retrieved September 12, 2010.
linklink to source b
linkother link to source b
Neolithic20
sourceGalor, Oded & Moav, Omer (2007). "The Neolithic Revolution and Contemporary Variations in Life Expectancy". Brown University Working Paper. Retrieved September 12, 2010.
linkhere
Bronze Age and Iron Age26
linkhere
Classical Greece28
sourceMortality". Britannica.com. Retrieved November 4, 2010.
linkhere(100 of 159 words preview, Classical Greece not yet mentioned)
Classical Rome20–30At age 10, life expectancy was an additional 35 to 37 years (total age 45 to 47).
sourceFrier, Bruce W. (2001). "More is worse: some observations on the population of the Roman empire". In Scheidel, Walter. Debating Roman Demography. Leiden: Brill. pp. 144–145. ISBN 9789004115255.
linkhere
Pre-Columbian North America25–30 (correct to "probably between 25 - 35")
sourcePre-European Exploration, Prehistory through 1540". Encyclopediaofarkansas.net. October 5, 2010. Retrieved November 4, 2010.
linkhere
Medieval Islamic Caliphate35+
sourceConrad, Lawrence I. (2006). The Western Medical Tradition. Cambridge University Press. p. 137. ISBN 0-521-47564-3.
Medieval Britain30At age 21, life expectancy was an additional 43 years (total age 64).
source"Time traveller's guide to Medieval Britain". Channel4.com. Retrieved November 4, 2010.
linklink no longer directs to programme
source"A millennium of health improvement". BBC News. December 27, 1998. Retrieved November 4, 2010.
linkhere
source"Expectations of Life" by H.O. Lancaster (page 8)
linkhere
Early Modern Britain25–40
linkhere
Early 20th Century31
source"PowerPoint Presentation" (PDF). Retrieved November 4, 2010.
linkhere
sourceOur Special Place in History
linkshould have been here (not found either on link or by search function)
2010 world average67.2
sourceCIA—The World Factbook—Rank Order—Life expectancy at birth
linkhere




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

TimeNumber of males observedLife expectancy at 21
1200-13007 43.14 (age 64)
1300-1400 924.44 (age 45)*
1400-1500 2348.11 (age 69)
1500-1550 52 50.27 (age 71)
1550-1600 10047.25 (age 68)
1600-1650192 42.95 (age 64)
1650-1700 346 41.40 (age 62)
1700-1745 81243.13 (age 64)


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Citing in its turn for that one nearly verbatim:

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


I’ll cite the more detailed latter link:

Life Expectancy before the Industrial Revolution

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

Then he links to this:

Baths in the Middle Ages

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Thursday, January 8, 2015

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


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

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


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


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

Here is what Haydock has to say about the verses:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lacking in bronze age.

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

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

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

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

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

  • "life was miserable back then : people died around 35" (so if you share ideas with back then you risk bringing back times when people die around 35 OR so their ideas which you share reflect the technological ignorance which did not allow people to live longer)

  • "life was miserable back then : people died around 35" (so they searched for comfort even clinging to a straw, and the ideas they recorded either in OT or in Scholastics and other medievals are the false comforts they took to, which we don't need because our life is supposedly so much brighter)

  • "people died around 35 back then : so old men were rare" (so young men were overly attached to authority of the few old men that were around and these were insufficient to give people back then a mature reflection over things).


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, December 27, 2014

To give you an idea of Wylie's proceedings ...

1) History Forger James Aitken Wylie, 2) To give you an idea of Wylie's proceedings ...

Selected quotes of section titles and - in chapter 5 - actual text with my comments.

The History of Protestantism

by 'James Aitken Wylie'

Book 1 — Progress From the First to the Fourteenth Century


In other words, the 23 latter of the 24 books deal with 14th C onward. Even we Catholics usually don't dispute there is a Protestant continuity of some slight coherence from Lollards and Waldensians on.

Chapter 1 — Protestantism

Protestantism — The Seed of Arts, Letters, Free States, etc. — Its History a Grand Drama — Its Origin — Outside Humanity — A Great Creative Power — Protestantism Revived Christianity.

Chapter 2 — Declension of the early Christian Church

Early Triumphs of the Truth — Causes — The Fourth Century — Early Simplicity lost — The Church remodeled on the Pattern of the Empire — Disputes regarding Easter-day — Descent of the Gothic Nations — Introduction of Pagan Rites into the Church — Acceleration of Corruption — Inability of the World all at once to receive the Gospel in its greatness.

Chapter 3 — Development of the Papacy from the times of Constantine to those of Hildebrand

Imperial Edicts — Prestige of Rome — Fall of the Western Empire — The Papacy seeks and finds a New Basis of Power — Christ's Vicar — Conversion of Gothic Nations — Pepin and Charlemagne — The Lombards and the Saracens — Forgeries and False Decretals — Election of the Roman Pontiff.

Chapter 4 — Development of the Papacy from Gregory vii to Boniface viii

The Wax of Investitures — Gregory VII. and Henry IV. — The Miter Triumphs over the Empire — Noon of the Papacy under Innocent III. — Continued to Boniface VIII. — First and Last Estate of the Roman Pastors Contrasted — Seven Centuries of Continuous Success — Interpreted by Some as a Proof that the Papacy is Divine — Reasons explaining this Marvelous Success — Eclipsed by the Gospel's Progress


In other words, though this Protestant does not doubt Primitive Christianity was Protestantism, he can see no moment of any clear break of apostasy founding the Catholic Church, just a gradual decline.

Now, if Christianity were the work of man, a gradual decline would be pretty foreseeable. Even inevitable.

Look at the next shopping mall, and ask yourself if Greek and Gothic architecture have not declined.

Listen to the next hit, and ask yourself if Baroque and Classical Music have not declined.

So, to sum his position as given so far up:

  • Rome started pretty close to the Gospel and fell away from it;
  • The success of Christian mission at least appears to be a success, in the West of Rome;
  • But it was really a success of the Gospel (which Rome never openly attacked except according to Protestant anachronistic interpretations, but on the contrary purported and was by most seen as serving);
  • Wherefore this has nothing to prove Rome did not really fall away.


But where were the Protestants? If these were the Gospel, that is?

Chapter 5 — Mediaeval Protestant Witnesses

Ambrose of Milan — His Diocese — His Theology — Rufinus, Presbyter of Aquileia — Laurentius of Milan — The Bishops of the Grisons — Churches of Lombardy in Seventh and Eighth Centuries — Claude in the Ninth Century — His Labors — Outline of his Theology — His Doctrine of the Eucharist — His Battle against Images — His Views on the Roman Primacy — Proof thence arising — Councils in France approve his Views — Question of the Services of the Roman Church to the Western Nations.


OK, Ambrose of Milan a Prot? And I'm a baboon, next, why not?

The apostasy was not universal. At no time did God leave His ancient Gospel without witnesses.


That is, supposing there was an apostasy at all, a fair deduction of Matthew 28:18-20, isn't it? A Catholic calling Vatican II or even Pius XII apostasy can point to opponents keeping Catholicism alive despite, while detecting, and to non-adherents in worst aspects, keeping Catholicism alive despite, while neglecting. How many people who were even gushy on obeying Wojtyla as John Paul II have not, nevertheless, neglected the fact he was evolutionist and stayed themselves creationists, for one?

Well, we also know the Church is visible. God did not light a lamp to put it under a bushel. God did not found a city on a mountain so as to hide it better. In order to find it through history, we should not need to gloss over several centuries of a region summed up in a few names, and first name disputed if it belongs to our idea of the Church and last name very unknown and links between them very tenuous both as to doctrine - see previous article - and as to linking persons between the one's named.

Ambrose, who died A.D. 397, was Bishop of Milan for twenty-three years.


Saint Ambrose, otherwise we agree.

His theology, and that of his diocese, was in no essential respects different from that which Protestants hold at this day.


That we Catholics dispute.

The Bible alone was his rule of faith; Christ alone was the foundation of the Church; the justification of the sinner and the remission of sins were not of human merit, but by the expiatory sacrifice of the Cross;


Trentine Catholicism definitely underlines the latter part, which is why going to Confession is a sacrament and not a "pious work" like giving alms.

As to Bible alone, for rule of faith, any expressions he may have used that the Protestant twist in that sense were not meant to exclude tradition or magisterium. Similarily, as to Christ alone as foundation of Church, he never can have meant to say that St Peter was not at least his representative.

Btw, I'd like to see the exact words.

The wrongness of Wylie's analysis as to "figurative presence" hardly allows me to take just HIS word for this being the case with St Ambrose's faith.

there were but two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper,


There were two or three Sacraments on which St Ambrose treated in De Mysteriis (Confirmation too, perhaps?). Ordination would have been so well known even by then that neophytes had no need to be told of it on the rim of the baptismal font. He had been a catechumen, he had been elected bishop, he had been baptised, confirmed, ordained priest and consecrated bishop on the same day.

Talking of marriage might have been inappropriate if he hoped some neophytes would choose virginity. Talking of extreme unction was hardly very pressing if all neophytes for whom he held the speech were young and healthy.

and in the latter Christ was held to be present only figuratively.


No, precisely wrong, in the Mannah, in the Desert, Christ was present under OT only figuratively, but in the Eucharist He is Really There, which is why NT is far more excellent than OT, see chapter 8 quoted in my previous article.

Such is a summary of the faith professed and taught by the chief bishop of the north of Italy in the end of the fourth century.


Such is a wrongful summary of it.

Now, here Wylie makes a pretty important admission, which is damning for his case:

It must be acknowledged that these men, despite their great talents and their ardent piety, had not entirely escaped the degeneracy of their age. The light that was in them was partly mixed with darkness. Even the great Ambrose was touched with a veneration for relics, and a weakness for other superstitious of his times.


Is venerating relics an act of Apostasy or not?

If it is, Ambrose of Milan was on this admission an apostate. If it is not, why excuse it in St Ambrose just so as to condemn it in others, as if it were if not totally apostatic at least highly suspect?

Obviously, Wylie wants to have it both ways. If Cardinal Beaton (who was killed by a Calvinist after burning some on the stake) venerated relics, this is proof he was an Apostate and that it was the true Christian faith he was persecuting. But if St Ambrose venerated relics, why let that come between Wylie and his desire to find very early Protestants AFTER Constantine?

But as regards the cardinal doctrines of salvation, the faith of these men was essentially Protestant, and stood out in bold antagonism to the leading principles of the Roman creed.


In bold antagonism? At least not at all true of St Ambrose! Especially not as regards the Roman creed of St Ambrose's own day. His disciple the Bishop of Hippo Regia was going to state "Roma loquuta est, causa finita est" in a Latin which was as posh as that of St Ambrose himself. In their day it may have given an air, not so much of me writing a Swedish grammatically of 19th C (when one ancestor of mine arrived there), but of me writing a Swedish in grammar, pronunciation, partly even word choice and phraseology mirroring the Swedish of Gustavus Adolphus in the 30 Years War, not so much of an US American boycotting Webster's spelling reform in favour of (!) British spelling, but of an English speaker trying to use the exact language of King James Version or Shakespear - with the exception that it was generally done, it was a requirement to be taken seriously as an educated man. Because one was proud of the Roman past. So were Sts Ambrose and Augustine. None of them is said to have ever opposed the Popes of their day one bit. So much for "bold antagonism" ...

Oh, I kind of get the rubber phraseology of Wylie! Not "in bold antagonism to the Roman creed" as visibly and testably there in their day, but only in bold antagonism to its "leading principles" ... as analysed by Wylie, of course.

I somehow don't think either St James (the greater or the lesser) would be very fond of Wylie bearing their name ... and I will not insult my patron St John by taking Wylie as a model. Wonder if some Catholic was thinking of him when Wylie Coyote was being invented. Oh, sorry, "Wile E. Coyote" ... and Chuck Jones was from Spokane ... well, probably just a wild association of mine, then.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St John's Day or Third Christmas Day
27-XII-2014

Friday, December 26, 2014

History Forger James Aitken Wylie

1) History Forger James Aitken Wylie, 2) To give you an idea of Wylie's proceedings ...

Wiki says:

James Aitken Wylie (1808-1890) was a Scottish historian of religion and Presbyterian minister. He was a prolific writer and is most famous for writing The History of Protestantism.


I have been reading some chapters of his book. I e of book one of his work.

His basic idea about Protestantism is that St Ambrose of Milan was a surviving real Christian despite living after Constantine, that there is a straight line from St Ambrose to Claudius of Turin, and a straight line from him to the Turin populace who protested against submission to Rome of its episcopacy, and these were then partly fleeing to Cologne and getting burnt as heretics, partly fleeing to Piedmonte and hiding in Waldensian valleys.

And from then on to Protestants.

Now, this cannot be.

Because St Ambrose was no iconoclast, unlike Claudius of Turin. Because St Ambrose believed the Real Presence, also, it might appear (and JAW absolutely thinks so) unlike Claudius of Turin. So, there is NOT a straight line from St Ambrose to Claudius of Turin.

In case anyone thinks I am making it up that St Ambrose believed the Real Presence, here is De Mysteriis chapter 8, by St Ambrose:

Chapter 8

Of the mystical feast of the altar of the Lord. Lest any should think lightly of it, St. Ambrose shows that it is of higher antiquity than the sacred rites of the Jews, since it was foreshadowed in the sacrifice of Melchisedech, and far better than the manna, as being the Body of Christ.

43. The cleansed people, rich with these adornments, hastens to the altar of Christ, saying: "I will go to the altar of God, to God Who makes glad my youth;" for having laid aside the slough of ancient error, renewed with an eagle's youth, it hastens to approach that heavenly feast. It comes, and seeing the holy altar arranged, cries out: "You have prepared a table in my sight." David introduces the people as speaking, where he says: "The Lord feeds me, and nothing shall be wanting to me, in a place of good pasture has He placed me. He has led me forth by the water of refreshment." And later: "For though I walk in the midst of the shadow of death, I will fear no evils, for You are with me. Your rod and Your staff have comforted me. You have prepared in my sight a table against them that trouble me. You have anointed my head with oil, and Your inebriating cup, how excellent it is!"

44. We must now pay attention, lest perchance any one seeing that what is visible (for things which are invisible cannot be seen nor comprehended by human eyes), should say, "God rained down manna and rained down quails upon the Jews," Exodus 16:13 but for the Church beloved of Him the things which He has prepared are those of which it is said: "That eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man, what things God has prepared for them that love Him." 1 Corinthians 2:9 So, lest any one should say this, we will take great pains to prove that the sacraments of the Church are both more ancient than those of the synagogue, and more excellent than the manna.

45. The lesson of Genesis just read shows that they are more ancient, for the synagogue took its origin from the law of Moses. But Abraham was far earlier, who, after conquering the enemy, and recovering his own nephew, as he was enjoying his victory, was met by Melchisedech, who brought forth those things which Abraham reverently received. It was not Abraham who brought them forth, but Melchisedech, who is introduced without father, without mother, having neither beginning of days, nor ending, but like the Son of God, of Whom Paul says to the Hebrews: "that He remains a priest for ever," Who in the Latin version is called King of righteousness and King of peace.

46. Do you recognize Who that is? Can a man be king of righteousness, when himself he can hardly be righteous? Can he be king of peace, when he can hardly be peaceable? He it is Who is without mother according to His Godhead, for He was begotten of God the Father, of one substance with the Father; without a father according to His Incarnation, for He was born of a Virgin; having neither beginning nor end, for He is the beginning and end of all things, the first and the last. The sacrament, then, which you received is the gift not of man but of God, brought forth by Him Who blessed Abraham the father of faith, whose grace and deeds we admire.

47. We have proved the sacraments of the Church to be the more ancient, now recognize that they are superior. In very truth it is a marvellous thing that God rained manna on the fathers, and fed them with daily food from heaven; so that it is said, "So man ate angels' food." But yet all those who ate that food died in the wilderness, but that food which you receive, that living Bread which came down from heaven, furnishes the substance of eternal life; and whosoever shall eat of this Bread shall never die, and it is the Body of Christ.

49. Now consider whether the bread of angels be more excellent or the Flesh of Christ, which is indeed the body of life. That manna came from heaven, this is above the heavens; that was of heaven, this is of the Lord of the heavens; that was liable to corruption, if kept a second day, this is far from all corruption, for whosoever shall taste it holily shall not be able to feel corruption. For them water flowed from the rock, for you Blood flowed from Christ; water satisfied them for a time, the Blood satiates you for eternity. The Jew drinks and thirsts again, you after drinking will be beyond the power of thirsting; that was in a shadow, this is in truth.

49. If that which you so wonder at is but shadow, how great must that be whose very shadow you wonder at. See now what happened in the case of the fathers was shadow: "They drank, it is said, of that Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were done in a figure concerning us." 1 Corinthians 10:4 You recognize now which are the more excellent, for light is better than shadow, truth than a figure, the Body of its Giver than the manna from heaven.


This is hardly presbyterian, and whether Claudius of Turin by considered the bread was a figure of the body of Christ or his words mean sth else, St Ambrose clearly does NOT mean that, since he says that the real body of Christ on which we Christians feed in the Eucharist is more excellent than the Rock and than the Mannah which were figures of it.

And since Waldensians have come to accept Presbyterian doctrine hereon, they are clearly NOT in line with St Ambrose of Milan.

Also there is no sign either that diocese of Milan (with neighbouring ones) was persecuted bloodily by Papacy between St Ambrose and Claudius of Turin, or that Claudius of Turin himself was more heavily attacked than a refutation of his errors and his writings considered erroneous (not the comment on Genesis, which is preserved) were not preserved as such, only by quotes from his opponents refuting him, or for that matter that any Waldensians were persecuted between Claudius of Turin and appearance of Waldensians and other heretics. This is a very far cry from his original claim that Protestantism is Christianity and from the claims of others it was persecuted between Constantine and earlist Waldensians identified as such as much as later. And that by Papal Rome. A very far cry indeed.

Now, was James Aitken Wylie forging history consciously or unconsciously?

I don't dare to judge, but supposing he was no liar it was at least a bit careless of him not to check the book De Mysteriis, which he wrongfully cites as proof St Ambrose knew of only two sacraments, when in reality those were the Sacraments he decided to treat in that book - because Catechumens had been held more in the dark about these two. And if he checked it, how come he missed chapter 8?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Marguérite Audoux Library, Paris
St Stephen's Day or Boxing Day
26-XII-2014

English Wiki : James Aitken Wylie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Aitken_Wylie


Newadvent site : Fathers : St Ambrose of Milan : On the Mysteries
http://newadvent.com/fathers/3405.htm