Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence (?) of anagrams
mj...@btinternet.com
obscure) material out there!
Tony Hoskins
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
Katheryn_Swynford
coupling recently and handily dispatched by Brad Verity in Foundations?
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Your post is fascinating! Thanks so much for taking the time to post
this information on the newsgroup. Using anagrams as genealogical
evidence is definitely a creative approach to medieval research. I
believe you're onto something here.
Again, thanks for sharing this information with us.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
John Brandon wrote:
> For what it's worth ...
>
> Ethel Seaton, _Sir Richard Roos (c. 1410-1482), Lancastrian Poet_
> (London, 1961), pp. 353-55:
>
> [Richard Roos's] Legend III, 'Dido', an elaborate and ambitious
> tale, has not won ungrudging praise, chiefly because its flavour is
> medieval and non-Virgilian. It affords a very interesting and novel
> set of anagrams. Those of the introduction set the stage within the
> Chaucerian period, with John of Gaunt, Catherine Swinford, and their
> son, Henry Beaufort, the future cardinal. As the names that are
> further revealed are not familiar, this piece of secret family history
> should first be explained.
> The Elizabethan antiquary, Rice Merrick, in his _Morganiae
> Archaiographia_ of 1578 (ed. J. A. Corbett, 1887), in the course of a
> detailed pedigree of the Stradlings of St. Donat's, Glamorganshire,
> tells the following of Sir Edward Stradling, twelfth of the line, who
> was knighted in 1421-22:
>
> This Sir Edward marryed with Jane, Daughter to Henry Beauford (after
> Cardinall) begotten before he was [ ] upon Alice, one of the
> Daughters of Richard, Earle of Arundell.
>
> The Alice FitzAlan in question must have been Alice, daughter of the
> fifteenth Earl of Arundel (executed 1397), and of Elizabeth Bohun. She
> in 1392 married John Cherleton, Lord of Powys; he died in 1401 without
> children. The date of Sir Edward Stradling's marriage to Jane
> (FitzAlan) is not given; he died in 1452-3, according to his
> _Inquisitio post Mortem_.
> This odd piece of family history is supported by the anagrams of
> 'Dido'; all these names Swinford, Henry Beaufort, Alis FisAlan Arundel,
> Cherleton, Powys, Joan Stradling, recur throughout. With them at
> beginning and end is a fifteenth-century name, a lady who might well
> learn this story, and even take a hand in its later developments,
> Margaret Beaufort, nee Beauchamp, wife (c. 1442) of Joan Beaufort,
> third Duke of Somerset, nephew, like Edmund Beaufort of Mortain, of the
> Cardinal. She and her husband will recur in these anagrams. The story
> may help to explain the embittered enmity between Henry Beaufort and
> Archbishop Arundel, who was Alice's uncle. It must be remembered that
> Roos had marriage connexions on both sides: with the FitzAlan-Arundels
> through his mother, who was a first cousin of this Alice; and with the
> Beaufort-Somersets through his sister-in-law, Eleanor Beauchamp, wife
> of Edmund Beaufort.
> ----------
>
> Some of the anagrams Seaton finds are:
>
> GAV(N)T IOHAN
> CATHErIn SWInFOR(D)
> HEN_(Y) BeWForT
> (P)OW(YS)
> (M)A-(G)A-(ET) B-A(VC)HAM
> A(L)IS Ar(V)N(D)., FISALAn, CHE--TO., POWIS
> ALIAN. B-W-HAM
> ALis, JOAn ST-A.
> HeN. BeA(V)ForT
> HEN. BEWFOrT
> ALIS FIsA-AN A-UN(D)E.
> IOAN
> Al-S ArU-(DE)., POWIS
> -OAn STRA-Li-G
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
I published the following note regarding Alice Arundel's alleged affair
with Henry Beaufort in my book, Magna Carta Ancestry, published earlier
this year. I believe it gives a good summary of the current state of
affairs on this issue.
At the time I wrote the note below, the earliest known suggestion that
Alice Arundel was Joan Stradling's mother was the treatise, The Winning
of the Lordship of Glamorgan, written by Sir Edward Stradling in the
period, 1561/66.
However, if we consider the new anagram evidence supplied by John
Brandon's post, then the earliest instance of Alice Arundel being
inferred as Joan Stradling's mother would be contemporary to Joan
Stradling's own lifetime. In other words, we now have a much earlier
source which indicates that Alice Arundel was the mother of Joan
Stradling.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: Magna Carta Ancestry (2005), pg. 784.
Note: There is no contemporary evidence that Alice Arundel was either
mistress of Henry Beaufort, or that she was the mother of his
illegitimate daughter, Joan, born say 1390. What little is known of
Alice's life is that she was married sometime before 4 March 1392/3
(date of her father's will) to John Cherleton, 4th Lord Cherleton.
The earliest published instance of Alice being named as Joan
Beaufort's mother is the treatise, The Winning of the Lordship of
Glamorgan, written by Sir Edward Stradling in the period, 1561/66, in
which the author states that his forebear, an earlier Sir Edward
Stradling, "married with Jane, daughter to Henry Beauford, afterwards
Cardinal, begotten (before he was priest) upon Alice, one of the
daughters of Richard, Earl of Arundel." [Reference: Griffiths
"Rise of the Stradlings in of St. Donat's," in Conqueror &
Conquered in Medieval Wales (1994): 30]. Sir Edward Stradling, author
of the treatise, presumably based his statement on family muniments
which have not survived. Actually little is known of Alice Arundel's
life, much beyond her marriage, her death prior to 1415, and the fact
that she left no legitimate issue. Her dates of birth, marriage, and
death are all uncertain. Whatever the truth, Alice has been accepted
as the mother of Henry Beaufort's child by all early knowledgeable
authorities such as Sandford, Brooke, Foss, Le Neve, etc. A recent
attempt to debunk Alice as Joan's mother [see Foundations 1 (2004):
246-258] has alleged without foundation that Joan Beaufort was born
"no later than 1408." Actually, there is some evidence to suggest
that Joan was born much earlier than this, she likely being the same
approximate age as her husband, Sir Edward Stradling, who was born
about 1389 (aged 22 in 1411). During the time period, 1388/93, Henry
Beaufort was a student at Cambridge and Oxford Universities and not yet
in holy orders (see Emden Biog. Reg. of the Univ. of Oxford 1 (1957):
139-142). If Henry Beaufort's daughter Joan was born in that
period, it is barely possible that Joan was the daughter of Alice
Arundel. Suffice to say, further research is needed before the matter
of Joan Beaufort's maternity can be satisfactorily resolved. For the
time being, it is correct to say only that Joan Beaufort was the
daughter of Henry Beaufort, "it is said" by Alice Arundel].
WJho...@aol.com
starb...@hotmail.com writes:
<< The Alice FitzAlan in question must have been Alice, daughter of the
fifteenth Earl of Arundel (executed 1397), and of Elizabeth Bohun. She
in 1392 married John Cherleton, Lord of Powys; he died in 1401 without
children. The date of Sir Edward Stradling's marriage to Jane
(FitzAlan) is not given; he died in 1452-3, according to his
_Inquisitio post Mortem_. >>
The date of their marriage is given at
http://www.stradling.org.uk/docs/Strad_li.htm
as 1423
And Edward's death is given by www.genealogics.org as 5 May 1453
While his wife Joan is given by www.genealogics.org as 19 Oct 1479
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
<< A recent attempt to debunk Alice as Joan's mother [see Foundations 1
(2004): 246-258] has alleged without foundation that Joan Beaufort was born "no
later than 1408." Actually, there is some evidence to suggest that Joan was
born much earlier than this, she likely being the same approximate age as her
husband, Sir Edward Stradling, who was born about 1389 (aged 22 in 1411).
During the time period, 1388/93, Henry Beaufort was a student at Cambridge and
Oxford Universities and not yet in holy orders (see Emden Biog. Reg. of the Univ.
of Oxford 1 (1957): 139-142). If Henry Beaufort's daughter Joan was born in
that period, it is barely possible that Joan was the daughter of Alice
Arundel. >>
Thank you Doug for these additional details.
Leo state's that Richard Fitzalan, 10th Earl of Arundel was b 1346 and I have
that he married Elizabeth de Bohun 23 Sep 1359. I don't have further
biographical details to tell me at what point they actually lived together in order
to begin having children. But I use a rule-of-thumb to say a father should be
at least 17 at the birth of his first child. This would allow Alice to be
born as early as 1363.
Since Elizabeth de Bohun died 4 Mar 1385 (not sure if this should be 1384/5
or 1385/6) then Alice could be born as late as that date. This gives a rather
large 22 year span in which she could be born.
The Stradling website I posted just now says that Joan Beaufort was married
in 1423 although I only have a few of her children (most likely) the first only
born in 1430.
I'm sure there are more documents out there that can narrow these dates, but
I don't have them.
Just from these, we still have a very large range of years into which both
Joan and her mother could be born.
Will Johnson
John Higgins
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJho...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence (?) of
anagrams
> In a message dated 9/12/05 9:37:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> royala...@msn.com writes:
>
> << A recent attempt to debunk Alice as Joan's mother [see Foundations 1
> (2004): 246-258] has alleged without foundation that Joan Beaufort was
born "no
> later than 1408." Actually, there is some evidence to suggest that Joan
was
> born much earlier than this, she likely being the same approximate age as
her
> husband, Sir Edward Stradling, who was born about 1389 (aged 22 in 1411).
> During the time period, 1388/93, Henry Beaufort was a student at Cambridge
and
> Oxford Universities and not yet in holy orders (see Emden Biog. Reg. of
the Univ.
> of Oxford 1 (1957): 139-142). If Henry Beaufort's daughter Joan was born
in
> that period, it is barely possible that Joan was the daughter of Alice
> Arundel. >>
The "recent attempt to debunk" (a crude slamming of a well-written article)
is of course by Brad Verity, whom DR fails to acknowledge in MCA - and, more
importantly, misquotes and mischaracterizes. The article actually says:
"Chronology favors Beaufort having his affair and daughter between 1400 and
1405, probably while he was Bishop of Lincoln."
As to "some evidence to suggest that Joan was born much earlier than this,
she likely being the same approximate age as her husband", DR presents no
EVIDENCE - only the application of the famous Richardson 85-year rule which
conveniently puts Joan at the same age as his husband. So we have two
possible arguments based on chronology - how is one "without foundation"
while the other is acceptable?
If Joan Beaufort was married in ca. 1423, she would have been 30 to 35 by
DR's argument - seems a bit old for a first marriage in that time. The
1400-5 date proposed by Brad Verity would make her 18 to 23 but marrying a
somewhat older husband - not at all uncommon and chronologically more
likely.
It's interesting to see that DR devotes so much space in MCA to attempt to
support a traditionally accepted but questionable parentage for Joan
Beaufort while totally ignoring the serious doubts that have been raised
about the parentage of her supposed daughter Joan/Katherine Stradling, wife
of Maurice Dennis. A more even-handed treatment of both of these cases
would have been of more value to the readers of MCA and would have been a
useful contribution to the genealogical literature.
Brad Verity
> Does Brad's article mention Ethel Seaton's theory about the anagrams?
> He obviously knew of Seaton's book. See http://tinyurl.com/dxrty .
I discovered Seaton's book after I had written and submitted the
article, but I found nothing in it to change my opinion. Ms. Seaton
did an admirable job of straightening out the 15th-century Rooses of
Hamlake, and is well worth tracking down for anyone interested in that
family, though there are some errors. She did not do any research in
the Beaufort or Fitzalan families, but relied on the same secondary
sources that I review in my article.
If we are now going to accept 1960/61 anagrams as contemporary 15th
century genealogical evidence, let's break out the Ouija board and ask
Jane Stradling herself who her mother was. She probably has more time
to chat with us than the spirit of Cardinal Beaufort does.
Kudos to Will Johnson for starting a website on corrections to PA3.
I'll send in a correction on the Jane Stradling stuff when I have some
free time.
Cheers, -----Brad
Katheryn_Swynford
anagrams seems to suggest that anagrams were not used thusly in the
medieval period though perhaps by the Elizabethan period they might
well have been.
I think I'll pop on over to Chaucernet and ask the Chaucer scholars
about the usage, if any, of anagrams in poetry of the period.
I'll report back if I hear anything.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
For those interested in such things, I've copied below a definition of
the word "anagram" from the following website:
http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/lit_terms_A.html#anagram_anchor
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
ANAGRAM (Greek: "writing back or anew"): When the letters or syllables
in a name, word or phrase are shuffled together or jumbled to form a
new word. For instance, in Tanith Lee's short story, "Bite-Me-Not, or
Fleur De Fleu," the predatory vampire's name is Feroluce--an anagram of
his demonic predecessor, Lucifer. Similarly in the film Angelheart, the
devil travels using the anagram Louis Cipher, i.e., Lucifer as a
moniker, and in film-maker's spin-offs of Bram Stoker's Dracula,
Dracula uses the name Alucard as a disguise. Authors who love wordplay
love using anagrams. For instance, Samuel Butler's utopian satire
Erewhon is an anagram of "Nowhere." An anagram that functions by merely
writing a name backwards is known more specifically as an ananym. END
OF QUOTE.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Doing a quick google search, I've found a reference to an article on an
anagram in a medieval journal:
"The Verse Inscriptions of the Tympanum of Jaca and the PAX Anagram,"
Mediaevalia 19 (1996), 405-34.
I haven't seen the article, but its appearance in this journal suggests
that anagrams were used in the medieval period. Perhaps someone more
familiar with the history of anagrams as a literary device can
enlighten us about when anagrams came into use.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Katheryn_Swynford
Yes, I am aware that anagrams were used in the medieval period (and
even earlier than that), but my understanding is that their usage in
the medieval period was primarily religious, and followed Jewish
mystical usage starting about the 13th century IIRC.
But if/when I hear anything back from the Chaucer scholars, I'll let
everyone know.
Thanks!
mj...@btinternet.com
Shades of the Bible Code, anyone?
(And how can Louis Cypher be an anagram of Lucifer? It has no 'f' and
various extraneous letters. A witty alias perhaps - though hardly
permitting incognito travel - but not an anagram.)
Clagett, Brice
Aren't the anagrams inconsistent with Douglas Richardson's
theory that the house of Arundel had completely
abandoned the surname Fitzalan during this period?
mj...@btinternet.com
>mjcar@bt...com wrote:
>> (And how can Louis Cypher be an anagram of Lucifer? It has no 'f' and
>> various extraneous letters. A witty alias perhaps - though hardly
>> permitting incognito travel - but not an anagram.)
>Lou Cypher ...
Yup, I do get it; it's just not an anagram, viz: "a word formed from
the rearranged letters of another [word]" (Oxford). It doesn't use
the same letters, and - phonetically - nothing is rearranged. It's a
homonym, but it's not an anagram.
It is, however, interesting to note that anagrams are ancient. Perhaps
the oldest anagram of note is the alindromic Latin word square:
SATOR
AREPO
TENET
OPERA
ROTAS
ie it functions additionally as an acrostic on several levels, and
whose significance is still subject to debate; examples were found in
the ruins of Pompeii.
So, there is no question but that anagrams and acrostics are of ancient
provenance. The question is whether their use is a recognised literary
device from 15th century England. I don't know, and therefore I think
the "jury is still out" on this case, but I nevertheless find it an
intriguing hypothesis, and I am very glad you found it - and shared it.
Michael
Todd A. Farmerie
> FISALAn, CHE--TO., POWIS" and "ALIS FIsA-AN A-UN(D)E.," so maybe the
> names were still interchangeable at this period.
That, or it means that with a large enough data set and enough degrees
of freedom (in terms of acceptable variation) you can find an 'anagram'
for anything you look for.
taf
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for your good post. You've asked an excellent question.
I'm unable to comment on the matter of the alleged anagrams in Sir
Richard Roos' poetry, as I haven't seen the text in question. So, I'll
take a pass on that part of your question.
Speaking of the surname employed by the Fitz Alan family, Nicolas, the
well known antiquarian, states: "This family presents a singular
instance of adopting the name of their title as the surname of the
family, for after the marriage of John Fitz-Alan, Lord of Clun, with
Isabel, the sister and co-heir of Hugh D'Albini, Earl of Arundel, all
the descendants called themslves Arundel instead of Fitz-Alan"
[Reference: Nicolas, Testamenta Vetusta 1 (1826): 105].
My findings agree with Mr. Nicolas as to the name change from Fitz Alan
to Arundel. Available records indicate that the name change was
gradual at first, but complete about 1313.
However, this was not the only family which underwent such a name
change. The historian David Walker notes that family of the early
Earls of Hereford used the style "of Gloucester" until Miles was
created first earl of Hereford in 1141; thereafter they adopted the
style "of Hereford." [Reference: David Walker ed. "Charters of
the Earldom of Hereford, 1095-1201 in Camden Miscellany 22 (Camden
Soc. 4th Ser. 1) (1964): 1, footnote 2]. For examples of Earl Miles'
sons, Walter, Henry, and Mahel, all using the style "of Hereford,"
see Walker, ibid., 42-51. For examples of Earl Miles' daughter,
Lucy, using the style "of Hereford," see J. S. Brewer ed. Registrum
Malmesburiense (or The Register of Malmesbury Abbey) 2 (Rolls Ser. 72)
(London, 1880): 11-12, 57-58, 65-67; Walker, ibid., 74-75.
As with surname change from Fitz Alan to Arundel, there is much
confusion in modern genealogical record keeping caused by the surname
change from Gloucester to Hereford by the family of the Earls of
Hereford. For example, Leo's great website (www.genealogics.org) shows
five children of Earl Miles of Hereford with the surname "of
Gloucester," but two with the surname "of Hereford." [Reference:
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00139671&tree=LEO].
As per Mr. Walker, however, all seven children should be "of Hereford."
My findings support Mr. Walker's conclusions.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
WJho...@aol.com
farm...@interfold.com writes:
<< That, or it means that with a large enough data set and enough degrees
of freedom (in terms of acceptable variation) you can find an 'anagram'
for anything you look for.
taf >>
Toimtwaledsaedofitoavycfaafaylf
to "imt" (empty) wales "aed" (aide) of it[s] o.a. (origin of authority)
"vyc" (which) fa[ils] af[ter] "aylf" (bailiffs)
That is, you can suppress Welsh uprisings by instituting bailiffs throughout
the countryside, instead of allowing local petty princes to rule.
Frankly I'm surprised at you Todd !
Will Johnson
Peter Stewart
"John Brandon" <starb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126633981....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> I haven't seen the article, but its appearance in this journal suggests
>> that anagrams were used in the medieval period. Perhaps someone more
>> familiar with the history of anagrams as a literary device can
>> enlighten us about when anagrams came into use.
>
> word to come up with another word. It involves using the initial
> letter (sometimes the first two letters) of a line of poetry to form
> the word; also, I think, you have to adhere to the order in which the
> lines/ letters occur within the poem. Sometimes not only the initial
> letter of the line, but also the first letter after a pause in the
> line, is used.
>
> So it's not really as arbitrary as it sounds.
Quite so - Ethel Seaton established a pattern of these throughout the work
ascribed to Roos. (Some stanzas, but not those in which she claimed to find
the name "Jane Stradling", were attributed by her to Chaucer.)
However, she was wrong to call the devices "anagrams", since the letters
making up the names occur in the right order to spell them out - "anagrams"
are made up of letters rearranged, or literally written anew, whereas the
name games played in the work in question are properly called "logogriphs",
simply meaning word puzzles.
Appendix C in Seaton's book ("A Plea for the Liberty of Anagrammatizing")
touches on a controversy over this between herself and a pair of military
cyptographers who had disputed her findings in French poetry of the same
period. Seaton brushed over the issues, but elsewhere in the book she had
presented more than enough evidence to support the broad principles that she
applied.
Despite this, there is no firm support for reading genealogical evidence
into the alleged occurrences of "Jane" and/or "Stradling".
According to Seaton these are:
(a) over 20 lines separated (into 11 and 9) by 20 more that have nothing to
the purpose, (C)Hir--TO.; ST--(D)-In., F-SA-An, IOAn.
(b) over 30 lines, HEN. BEWFOrT; ALIS FISA-AN A-UN(D)E.; IOAN.
(c) over 13 lines, Al-S ArU-(DE)., POWIS; -OAn STRA-Li-G.
(d) over 21 lines, HEn-Y; A-IS FISA-An. A-UN.; JOAN, ST-AD-IN; FOrFA-T.
(e) over 18 lines, B-AUFOrT; ARUn(D). FYSA-An; (J)OAn ST-A(DL)In.
This is typical of the patterns presented in Seaton's book. The trouble is
that words have to be made up of letters: allowing for the wide spread
across the lines and even without fixed orthography and normal modern
frequencies of letters in 15th-century writing, some of these are much less
convincing than others. Poets can't work miracles of either inclusion or
avoidance, and Roos obviously struggled to concentrate his riddles or to
spell out any of the names in full.
Seaton followed Rice Merrick, so that she set out looking for the names of
Henry Beaufort, Alice Fitzalan-Arundel and Jane Stadling in conjunction.
Given that "g" and "j" are less common than other letters in her name, I
would say that (c) and (d) above are the clearest examples she found. These
still don't tell us plainly that Roos was naming Jane along with her
parents, and for all we know the actual link could have been rather social,
or conspiratorial, or perhaps something else entirely that later misled
Merrick into inventing a blood connection.
As Brad suggested, Seaton's work may be interesting but not conclusive.
Peter Stewart
Todd A. Farmerie
> It is, however, interesting to note that anagrams are ancient. Perhaps
> the oldest anagram of note is the alindromic Latin word square:
Your example reminded me of a display from the medieval period, relating
to a King of Asturias:
[non-proportional font]
TICEFSPECNCEPSFECIT
ICEFSPECNINCEPSFECI
CEFSPECNIRINCEPSFEC
EFSPECNIRPRINCEPSFE
FSPECNIRPOPRINCEPSF
SPECNIRPOLOPRINCEPS
PECNIRPOLILOPRINCEP
ECNIRPOLISILOPRINCE
PECNIRPOLILOPRINCEP
SPECNIRPOLOPRINCEPS
FSPECNIRPOPRINCEPSF
EFSPECNIRPRINCEPSFE
CEFSPECNIRINCEPSFEC
ICEFSPECNINCEPSFECI
TICEFSPECNCEPSFECIT
This begins at the center and moves toward any of the corners by any
path, reading "Silo Princeps Fecit".
taf
mj...@btinternet.com
MAR
WJho...@aol.com
p_m_s...@msn.com writes:
> deSpiTe this, theRe is no firm support for reADing geneaLogIcal evideNce
> into the alleGed occurrences of "Jane" and/or "Stradling".
S.T.R.A.D.L.I.N.G !!!
Will Johnson
mj...@btinternet.com
SONNET 2
WHen forty winters shall beseige thy brow,
And dig deep trenches in thy beauty's field,
Thy youth's proud livery, so gazed on now,
will be a tatter'd weed, of small worth held:
then being ask'd where all thy beauty lies,
where all the treasure of thy lusty days,
TO Say, within thine own deep-sunken eyes,
were an all-eating shame and thriftless praise.
How much more praise deserved thy beauty's use,
if thou couldst answer 'this fair child of mine
shall sum my count and make my old excuse,'
proving his beauty by succession thine!
this were to be new made when thou art old,
and see thy blood warm when thou feel'st it cold.
=
WhAT TosH
mj...@btinternet.com
mj...@btinternet.com
"anagrams" (though they are not anagrams) work if we could see how they
are actually presented in the texts in question.
Are they actually acrostics, or are there spaces between the "words" as
Peter Stewart suggests?
Tony Hoskins
conclusive."
If Seaton's anagram-(logogriph-) reading is sound, of course this bit
of evidence alone could never constitute in and of itself genealogical
proof. I detect though among the scoffers not so much the determination
that Seaton's read of Roos is in error as that the occasion affords said
scoffers yet another opportunity to try to quash *unprejudiced*
examination of the many facts and strong evidence of this case -
admittedly none of which in its *single elements* supports a
genealogical proof, but which if allowed to be examined impartially, in
toto, and through the proper historical methodological synthesis might
bring us closer to a clear determination.
I sincerely regret the obvious partisanship here. It is sad to witness
scholars seeming to care more about winning their points than arriving
ever more closely at the truth.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
mj...@btinternet.com
is intended.
I, for one, find Seaton's hypothesis intriguing, and am grateful (as
expressed above) to John for kindly drawing our attention to it. I am
keen to ascertain exactly what the hypothesis involves, and as part of
trying to understand that have sought to clarify some of the terms used
(and possibly mis-used by Seaton) - not because they necessarily
undermine the hypothesis, but because they obfuscate my understanding
of it.
My Shakespeare jest was, like I am sure Will's, a light-hearted jest
only, and not intended to mock. At the same time, some scepticism is
not unwarranted, given the claims made in other sources of such 'hidden
messages', hence my reference to the so-called Bible Code: a quick
google will reveal that this is a theory that the text of the Hebrew
Old Testament contains all manner of historical predictions, the
tenability of which is called into question by the sheer volume of
letters involved in the text from which more-or-less random selections
are taken. Scholarship surely includes testing hypotheses, not just
admiring them for their orginality.
I would be grateful for further details, including any input from those
with knowledge about the contemporary use (or no-use) of such literary
devices.
Cheers
Michael
Katheryn_Swynford
were roundly trounced. I received the following from a member of
Chaucernet:
=========================================
"...the contents were roundly trounced long ago because of her system
of how she found the anagrams: it was no system but a theory that bent
the facts and fluidly shifted 'method' to suit its purpose. This was a
surprise, because all her previous work was highly regarded. Only 1
poem still remains ascribed to Roos: La Belle Dame sans Mercy.
That said, there certainly were anagrams. Osbern Bokenham uses the
initials of the chapters of his Mappula Angliae to spell out his name.
A manuscript now in unknown private hands (so far as I know) that was a
prayer book "of Elizabeth of York" (which one is unknown) has an
opening dedicatory verse that spells out
E L I S A B E T H A T I M W A W
whatever that might be (Elisabeth Atimwaw, Elisabetha Timwaw,
Elisabeth at Imwaw...); this item is IMEV Supp. #735.5.
ABC poems--such as Chaucer's--might also count, here."
============================================
Hence, the good news: there is preliminary evidence to suggest that
anagrams in literature might have been used to indicated the names of
individuals in the medieval period (Bokenham was born ca. 1393).
The bad news: Seaton seems to have tarnished an otherwise distinguished
career in trying to force solutions of identity in a peom by a minor
writer, and, the worst, it turns out it probably wasn't even his poem
to begin with, hence any other Lancastrian-related 'evidence' which
Seaton may have found with respect to Roos as a writer showing his
Lancastrian connections in poetry becomes irrelevant.
Anagrams are thus clearly not of the same evidentiary caliber as ouija
boards, but probably not a genealogical solution in this particular
case.
fairt...@breathe.com
> Oxford: "tosh: n. (colloq.) rubbish, nonsense [origin unknown]"
>
Shorter Oxford suggests that it may have come from "tosher" - an unattached
or non-residential student at a university having residential colleges ca
1892
Compact Oxford gives quotes using tosh from 1892 onwards, including
1892 Oxf Univ Mag "To think what I've gone through to hear that man!
Frightful tosh it'll be too"
from 1898) "Among the recent neologisms of the cricket field is 'tosh',
which means bowling of contemptible easiness"
and Belloc in 1902 wrote "The poor public . . is driven back to toshy novels
about problems, written by cooks"
cheers
Simon
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Tony Hoskins
boards, but probably not a genealogical solution in this particular
case."
Judy, Thanks so much for the info from Chaucernet. Was really eager to
learn something of Seaton's reputation; sadly impeached, it would now
appear, though not completely discredited. It would be useful if more
opinions of her work cold be found, also discussions, examinations in
re: to the wishful-thinking factor in anagrams/logogriphs. Are they
indeed devices open-ended to too many interpretations?
Thanks again.
Tony Hoskins
fairt...@breathe.com
> I detect though among the scoffers not so much the determination
> that Seaton's read of Roos is in error as that the occasion affords said
> scoffers yet another opportunity to try to quash *unprejudiced*
> examination of the many facts and strong evidence of this case -
> admittedly none of which in its *single elements* supports a
> genealogical proof, but which if allowed to be examined impartially, in
> toto, and through the proper historical methodological synthesis might
> bring us closer to a clear determination.
>
argument is fine to start with, it often gets extended. Each small step
seems to follow logically from the previous one but when you stand back and
look at the whole it is nonsense.
The argument here about anagrams has not reached that stage but one always
fears that in the wrong hands it will and so instinctively there is
scepticism.
An example from another area - the earth precesses on its axis 1 degree
every 72 years. Graham Hancock then reads 72 (and multiples of it)into all
sorts of ancient monuments from Quetzacoatel to Giza and Ankhor (he says the
number 72 is hard-wired into the Great Pyramid). Others pick this up eg
Robert Bauval and read more into these sites and before you realise it you
have David Icke and lizards visiting earth in 10000 BC
Hope you are not offended by this Tony - I just have a fear of good theories
being highjacked
cheers
Simon
Peter Stewart
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1c1.30ac5d...@aol.com...
Yes, but it's not in verse, the letters are not forming a pattern in
particular spots, and the name is not found in conjunction with others.
Seaton presents many examples, and the Stradling ones - whether convincing
or not - are of no importance to her case about "anagrams".
Peter Stewart
Todd A. Farmerie
>>That, or it means that with a large enough data set and enough degrees
>>of freedom (in terms of acceptable variation) you can find an 'anagram'
>>for anything you look for.
>
> unknown as a literary device, Seaton was a somewhat respected critic (I
> gather), and Rupert Hart-Davis (her publisher) was a reputable firm.
A few years ago, the most reputable scientific journal on the planet
published an article by a scientist of some past prominence, with the
editor himself admitting in an accompanying commentary that he thought
the result being reported was absolute rubish (in this he was in
agreement with virtually the entire scientific community with the
exception of the author). To preserve the integrity of the process he
refused to reject it just because he and all the reviewers thought it
was obviously wrong, but couldn't identify the flaw or fraud.
Likewise, respected publishers have frequently printed what could be
called 'fringe' theories, just to rock the boat a little (and to sell
books/periodicals). Thus these are not foolproof criteria.
As has been pointed out, there is a long history of finding 'hidden'
codes in texts. Such patterns can look quite convincing. The problem
is that such patterns _will_ emerge in random (or rather, non-intended)
texts. I remember someone going through one of these 'secret code'
texts and finding the names of various Looney Tunes characters (e.g. B.
BuNy, Don DUC, etc). While I assume it is not easy to intentionally
encode a layer of irrelevant information into metre and rhyme, from what
you posted it looks like Seaton was quite liberal in the amount of
variation she was willing to allow the author, and in how much text was
searched to find these gems. One wonders what other names (using 'close
enough' as the benchmark) might be found if one looks. Even if these
names were intentionally put there by the author, do we know it
represents a genealogical collection of names and not simply a
prosopological one ("I will sneak in a bunch of people from high
society" rather than "I will encode a family group connected
genealogically").
There is even debate as to the value of Liber Vitae entries as
genealogical sources, and I would say this evidence is at least two
steps further removed, in that we can't know the encoded names represent
a family group, nor that it is all not coincidence to begin with.
taf
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> As has been pointed out, there is a long history of finding 'hidden'
> codes in texts. Such patterns can look quite convincing.
> The problem is that such patterns _will_ emerge in random (or
> rather, non-intended) texts. I remember someone going through
> one of these 'secret code' texts and finding the names of various
> Looney Tunes characters (e.g. B. BuNy, Don DUC, etc). While
> I assume it is not easy to intentionally encode a layer of irrelevant
> information into metre and rhyme, from what you posted it looks
> like Seaton was quite liberal in the amount of variation she was
> willing to allow the author, and in how much text was searched to
> find these gems. One wonders what other names (using 'close
> enough' as the benchmark) might be found if one looks. Even if
> these names were intentionally put there by the author, do we
> know it represents a genealogical collection of names and not
> simply a prosopological one ("I will sneak in a bunch of people
> from high society" rather than "I will encode a family group
> connected genealogically").
I agree completely about the problem of pinning down what - if anything
- this kind of "evidence" can tell us once its presence in a text has
been established.
However, I think the findings and reputation of Ethel Seaton are being
unfairly belittled by some recent posts.
She found far too many examples in the work ascribed to Roos, and some
of these far too concentrated, for the play of logogriphs to be
dismissable as mere co-incidence. Also she had published similar
findings previously about other poets, as I said in reporting the
inadequacy of her response in a controversy with military
cryptographers over French verse of the same era.
People played all sorts of literary parlour games through the
centuries, many of these even emptier & much sillier than hiding a
string of apparently connected names in the first, or first two,
letters of lines or following the caesura in a line. Plain acrostics
are the best known, most widespread and I suppose long-lasting of
these, still practised freely (and often set, for instance, in magazine
competitions) today.
In the fifteenth century people of literary bent enjoyed sharing verse,
in manuscript, to entertain each other - not unlike the more prosaic
pastime of an internet newsgroup nowadays. The degree of virtuosity
that could be shown in planting the names of group members was part of
the fun for them. They didn't have TV with the sleuthing of Miss Marple
or Hercule Poirot to occupy their time, and Agatha Christie's writing
skills to criticise, so they made up their own detective games.
The fact remains that the names, or name parts, uncovered by Seaton,
even if we accept them all (as I do not), can tell us nothing beyond
the identities who may have shared in or become the subjects of such
private jokes or gossip, not even whether they were simply listed at
random & out of boredom. We can have no idea if they were placed
together without revealing any particular social much less genealogical
connection, rather like an e-mail distribution list, just because they
were all corresponding at the time & were all to be sent copies of the
verses in question.
People were vain, and reading was a fairly elite skill. The most that
Seaton's findings can tell us about Jane Stradling is that the lady
could evidently read, so that whoever her parents were they had not
completely neglected her education. Not exactly worth a lot of hoo-hah.
Peter Stewart
Brad Verity
the Seaton material (or in Judy's case, seeking the opinion of those
familiar with it) and explaining why it should not be considered "a
much earlier source which indicates that Alice Arundel was the mother
of Joan
Stradling", as Douglas Richardson posted earlier in this thread.
"Tony Hoskins" wrote:
> "As Brad suggested, Seaton's work may be interesting but not
> conclusive."
>
> If Seaton's anagram-(logogriph-) reading is sound, of course this bit
> of evidence alone could never constitute in and of itself genealogical
> proof.
Seaton's reading of the poem - anagrams, logoriths, themes, messages in
the text, etc. - can only ever be a 1960-61 interpretation of a
15th-century work. It is not primary genealogy evidence. Even if the
poem had been explicit in stating that Henry Beaufort had an affair
with Alice, Lady of Powis, there is no way of determining if whichever
poet wrote it was making it up, elaborating, or what have you.
> I detect though among the scoffers not so much the determination
> that Seaton's read of Roos is in error as that the occasion affords said
> scoffers yet another opportunity to try to quash *unprejudiced*
> examination of the many facts and strong evidence of this case -
What I, a "scoffer", took offense to personally was the suggestion from
John Brandon that I had somehow suppressed the Seaton material by
leaving it out of my article. Even had I seen it before I wrote the
piece, however, I would not have addressed it. I don't feel literary
interpretation is sound genealogy. If that stance makes me
"prejudiced", I'll accept that label.
Nor did I try to quash anything - everyone on this newsgroup is
entitled to explore whatever avenue they wish regarding this "case",
just as I am entitled to my position that the case (Alice Lady Powis as
mistress of Cardinal Beaufort and mother of his daughter Jane
Stradling) is closed.
If "many facts and strong evidence" is meant to indicate a support that
Alice was the mistress and Cardinal and mother of Jane, I'd like to see
them enumerated, as I can think of few facts and little evidence to
suggest that she was.
> admittedly none of which in its *single elements* supports a
> genealogical proof, but which if allowed to be examined impartially, in
> toto, and through the proper historical methodological synthesis might
> bring us closer to a clear determination.
Have you read my article? I thought I had done in it exactly what you
are calling for above. If I failed to do so, please let me know in
what way and which facts.
> I sincerely regret the obvious partisanship here.
I have my position - Alice was not Jane's mother. But it is somewhat
disingenuous of you to appear to be above partisanship. You are
clearly disappointed that Alice is not Jane's mother, as you seem to
find "fascinating" anything that is presented which seems to counter
this position.
> It is sad to witness
> scholars seeming to care more about winning their points than arriving
> ever more closely at the truth.
I don't know if this comment is directed toward me or Peter Stewart or
both of us.
Truth is all I ever wanted to arrive at - that's why I examined the
issue and wrote the article in the first place. After all, I was
challenging a long-accepted tradition in the genealogical and
historical arenas. At the time, I had no idea that Jane Stradling was
such an important ancestor to several people on the newsgroup.
Apparently it is only through her that Katherine Deighton can claim
descent from Edward III (someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this
point) - though Deighton has a valid descent from Edward I through her
ancestor Anne Berkeley Dennis. I couldn't care less then (but I care
now - a likely bogus line has appeared in print) who Jane's children
were. What I wanted to get to the bottom of was whether or not the
Cardinal and Alice had had the affair that's been ascribed to them.
Apparently, Douglas Richardson needs to have Alice back as Jane's
mother(as it is vital to establish the Edward Stradling/Jane Beaufort
marriage prior to 1423 in order for Maurice Dennis's wife to have been
their daughter). So, he has John Brandon post about Ethel Seaton's
anagrams, then quickly follows up with encouragement and praise. I
find it remarkable that John Brandon would suddenly take an interest in
15th-century poetry interpretation as it seems so far astray from his
colonial-era sphere of research, and stumble upon Seaton's book on his
own. However, Douglas would want to follow-up on my posts on the Roos
of Helmsley family and track down the Seaton source for his Plantagenet
Ancestry research. I can only imagine his glee in finding the
unexpected Beaufort/Arundel material in it.
Yes, it is sad to witness "scholars" [cough] seeming to care more about
winning their points than arriving ever more closely at the truth.
Cheers, -----Brad
John Higgins
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <bat...@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence (?) of
anagrams
[snip]
This brings to mind a very pertinent comment by Eugene A. Stratton, FASG, in
"Applied Genealogy", a gem of a book published in 1988:
"The more genealogical books and articles I see, the more I have come to
believe that wishful thinking is one of the most deadly enemies of
genealogists, even those who normally know and practice all the rules.
Accordingly, when a genealogist is writing on his or her own line and that
line leads to some kind of illustrious ancestry, it should be examined with
double care."
[end of quote]
Even when the genealogist in question may NOT be writing on his or her own
line, the tendency toward wishful thinking can certainly be overpowering in
these cases of illustrious ancestry. A good amount of skepticism is much
healthier....even if it does mean being labeled a "scoffer" and "prejudiced"
by some.
BTW, as a sort of "truth in advertising" perhaps Douglas Richardson should
"go public" and identify those lines in RPA and MCA which lead to his
family - is Katherine Deighton perhaps among them?
Katheryn_Swynford
university's interlibrary loan that the Seaton Roos book as arrived.
I won't be getting back there until mid/late next week (only teach one
day a week and the campus is 75 miles one-way from the house), but I
can either scan or photocopy the relevant sections (one or the other,
depending upon length and the longevity of my scanner) and can
upload/post the info if anyone is interested.
Please let me know if you'd like me to provide this.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for keeping us informed. Much appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
John Higgins
anagrams in the poems which Seaton ascribes to Sir Richard Roos, it does not
provide the text of the poems themselves so that her conclusions can be
verified. She only cites the line numbers where the anagrams are said to be
located - in some cases, sections thirty or more lines long. It's not clear
(to me, at least) whether the poems in question have actually been
published - Seaton may well have been working from manuscript copies in
various collections, which would be extremely difficult for most researchers
to readily verify. In sections of such length, one might well suspect that
many interesting anagrams could be found - depending on what you were
looking for.
Aside from the anagram question, one of Seaton's premises is that poems
traditionally attributed to authors such as Chaucer and Sir Thomas Wyatt
should instead be attributed to Sir Richard Roos. I have no idea whether
this has stood up under critical scrutiny, but it is an interesting
hypothesis. She does provide a rather lengthy narrative of the Roos family
in this time period, together with many of its connections, which might be
of interest to genealogists (although I doubt that it breaks any new
ground).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Katheryn_Swynford" <katheryn...@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence (?) of
anagrams
Katheryn_Swynford
As for Seaton's premise "that poems traditionally attributed to Chaucer
and Sir Thomas Wyatt should instead be attributed to Sir Richard Roos,"
it should be noted that the emminent Chaucerian Derek let the following
statement(s) stand with respect to Seaton's take on Roos:
"Ethel Seaton. Sir Richard Roos: Lancastrian Poet (London: Rupert
Hart-Davis, 1961). Valuable literary and social background, especially
in chapters I and II; the authorship attributions (all three poems are
ascribed to Roos) are not to be taken seriously."
--As found in Pearsall (1990): Bibliography, Edited by Derek Pearsall
Originally Published in The Floure and the Leafe; The Assembly of
Ladies; The Isle of Ladies, Kalamazoo, Michigan: Western Michigan
University for TEAMS, 1990; reprinted 1992, and retrievable at
http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/teams/pearsbib.htm
HTH,
Katheryn_Swynford
Three little chihuahua puppies decided to traipse across my laptop
keyboard and managed to delete the last name :-/
Judy
Katheryn_Swynford
John A Rea
> Nor is it as much an anagram - more a hybrid anagram-acrostic.
>
> Shades of the Bible Code, anyone?
>
> (And how can Louis Cypher be an anagram of Lucifer? It has no 'f' and
> various extraneous letters. A witty alias perhaps - though hardly
> permitting incognito travel - but not an anagram.)
>
Francois Villon used anagrams, of one sort and another, and Rabelais
"published" under the pseudonym of Alcofribas Nasier. Charles Dodgeson
was a more recend gamesman with letters, and the author of Lolita went
occasionally by the name of Vivian Darkbloom. Sorry to be out of date
posting, I've been off-line for both maching and fleshly reasons.
John