North Star Acturus, namesake of King Arthur
Viral Minion
The Star for which King Arthur was named, Acturus, was photographed
just a few years ago, seeming to guide the Comet Hayakutake, closer
and closer to Earth. Acturus, is "caught" in the tiny eye of the
needle that is in the northernmost vector of our North Celestial Pole.
The Lady of Shallot tricked Lancelot, and may have been instrumental
in Arthur's demise. Was she named after the galaxy Andromeda or
Cassiopia?
Will some archeologists soon unearth near the Giza Pyramids, or
elsewhere, a sextant or astronomical measurement scrolls that point to
a deadly link between the real stars, and our ancient legends?
The website quoted above goes all out to explore such prospects, such
as cosmic viruses, and intelligent colonies of viruses, hitching rides
on meteors, to plague our planet.
"At the time of Christ the prevailing theory of comets was due to
Aristotle who had proposed that comets were sub-lunar objects located
in the upper atmosphere. This theory was consistent with the
Aristotelian model of comets lying below the 'heavenly spheres'
containing the Sun, Moon, planets and fixed stars, and presumably it
also appeared to be consistent with visual observations of bright
comets which often seem to be close to the Earth. Hence a comet is
probably the only astronomical object to appear to be sufficiently low
lying to be capable of satisfying the descriptions in Dio Cassius,
Josephus and Matthew of a star standing over a particular town or city
for part of the night. In addition, the upward tail of the comet would
appear to point the head of the comet towards the city. Hence we
interpret Matthew's description of a star 'standing over' the place
where Jesus was born as meaning that
when the Magi left Herod and headed towards Bethlehem, as he had
suggested, they looked up and saw the comet in front of them, with a
near vertical tail, the head of the comet appearing to stand over
Bethlehem. The use of the characteristic term 'stood over' by Dio
Cassius and Josephus to describe a comet would seem to leave little
doubt that when Matthew uses the term 'stood over' he is also
describing a comet. Thus a comet uniquely fits the description in
Matthew that the star was new, it travelled slowly through the star
field from the east to the south, it went ahead of the Magi, and
'stood over' Bethlehem, the place where the child was. The
identification of a comet with the star of Bethlehem goes back to
Origen in the third century, and this is the earliest known theory for
the star. Origen stated:
The star that was seen in the East we consider to be a new
star...partaking of the nature of those celestial bodies which appear
at times such as comets. . . If then at the commencement of new
dynasties or on the occasion of other important events there arises a
comet. . .why should it be a matter of wonder that at the birth of Him
who was to introduce a new doctrine. . .a star should have arisen? In
about AD 1303, Giotto painted a comet above the head of the infant
Jesus in a fresco in the Arena Chapel in Padua, presumably using as a
model the AD 1301 appearance of Halley's comet."
Fin Fahey
news:874a8b5e.01082...@posting.google.com...
> RE: http://www.geocities.com/chemosh_of_ammon/NGC1987A.html
>
> The Star for which King Arthur was named, Acturus...
Arcturus' name has no connection with King Arthur. It is from the Ancient
Greek meaning 'Bear's Tail'.
...was photographed
> just a few years ago, seeming to guide the Comet Hayakutake, closer
> and closer to Earth.
How is a star 30ly away 'guiding' a comet in the solar system? Does the
comet have integral star-trackers just like our automated probes?
>Acturus, is "caught" in the tiny eye of the
> needle that is in the northernmost vector of our North Celestial Pole.
>
This is completely meaningless.
[SNIP additional meaningless crap]
Fin
--
---------------------------------------
fin@albédo.demon.co.uk
---------------------------------------
(please Tippex out the acute accent to reply)
Joe Jefferson
>
> Will some archeologists soon unearth near the Giza Pyramids, or
> elsewhere, a sextant or astronomical measurement scrolls that point to
> a deadly link between the real stars, and our ancient legends?
Clearly one cannot absolutely know what archaeologists will or won't
discover in the future, but I wouldn't hold my breath on this one.
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.primenet.com/~jjstrshp/
Site updated October 1st, 1999.
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4.
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>RE: http://www.geocities.com/chemosh_of_ammon/NGC1987A.html
Where (if one is patient enough to wait out the graphics inundation)
one can read such inimitable gems as this:
Recent astro-archaeological evidence has affirmed
that Pegasus is the White Sea Horse of the BOOK
OF REVELATIONS, in addition to being the
legendary hippocampus of memory [Aisling]. The
pineal gland plays a nearly mystical role in this
time wormhole.'
(By the way, <aisling> is 'a dream, a vision', not 'memory'.)
>The Star for which King Arthur was named, Acturus, was photographed
>just a few years ago, seeming to guide the Comet Hayakutake, closer
>and closer to Earth.
<Arcturus> is from Greek <Arktouros>, from <arktos> 'bear' and <ouros>
'guard, guardian, watcher'; it is the 'bear-ward' on account of its
position relative to Ursa Major. (The 'bear's tail' etymology that
someone else mentioned was long ago discarded as untenable.)
The etymology of Arthur's name is uncertain, but it's highly unlikely
that he was named for the star. The two main contenders for a source
are the Latin name <Artorius> 'plowman' and a hypothetical British
*<Artgur> 'man of the bear, bear-man'; Tom Green discusses them in his
excellent article at
<http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~tomgreen/arthur.htm> and makes a
good case for the British derivation. (The fact his name actually
does also occur as <Arcturus> can be seen as support for this view.)
> Acturus, is "caught" in the tiny eye of the
>needle that is in the northernmost vector of our North Celestial Pole.
Someone doesn't know what 'vector' means.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
Cherith Baldry
>The Lady of Shallot tricked Lancelot,
Would you please quote your reference for this?
>and may have been instrumental
>in Arthur's demise.
Somewhat difficult, since she died some time before the final events of
Arthur's reign.
> Was she named after the galaxy Andromeda or
>Cassiopia?
>
>
No, her name was Elaine.
Best regards,
Cherith
Tim Ormsby
>
> <Arcturus> is from Greek <Arktouros>, from <arktos> 'bear' and <ouros>
> 'guard, guardian, watcher'; it is the 'bear-ward' on account of its
> position relative to Ursa Major. (The 'bear's tail' etymology that
> someone else mentioned was long ago discarded as untenable.)
>
> The etymology of Arthur's name is uncertain, but it's highly unlikely
> that he was named for the star. The two main contenders for a source
> are the Latin name <Artorius> 'plowman' and a hypothetical British
> *<Artgur> 'man of the bear, bear-man'; Tom Green discusses them in his
> excellent article at
> <http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~tomgreen/arthur.htm> and makes a
> good case for the British derivation. (The fact his name actually
> does also occur as <Arcturus> can be seen as support for this view.)
>
It might also be from the welsh names Arthrwys or Arthmael (meaning "Iron
Bear")
Ellis
"Tim Ormsby" <cerb...@dove.net.au> wrote in message
news:TTog7.65$qa7....@news.interact.net.au...
Where have I seen that before?
Steffan Ellis
greywolf
wrote:
Sounds like a Blackett & Wilsonism.
Christopher Gwinn
> It might also be from the welsh names Arthrwys or Arthmael (meaning "Iron
> Bear")
Arthur's name is not derived from Athrwys (note the spelling here: ATHRWYS,
not Arthrwys) or Arthmael. Arthmael is quite clearly "Bear Prince" (Welsh
"prince/lord", a second meaning for mael, "armor" is late and likely a
borrowing from Middle Englsh mail, as in chain mail, via Old French maille).
Athrwys doesn't even contain the root arth "bear" at all - it comes from a
Celtic root alt-r- meaning "fosterer".
- Chris Gwinn
Ellis
"greywolf" <ask...@answerin.NG> wrote in message
news:ima4otsdh26scb41s...@4ax.com...
Do you know, I think you might be right.
Steffan
Martin Reboul
Viral Minion wrote:
> RE: http://www.geocities.com/chemosh_of_ammon/NGC1987A.html
>
> The Star for which King Arthur was named, Acturus, was photographed
> just a few years ago, seeming to guide the Comet Hayakutake, closer
> and closer to Earth. Acturus, is "caught" in the tiny eye of the
> needle that is in the northernmost vector of our North Celestial Pole.
Ahem! Arthur means 'bear man' in fact, nothing to do with Arcturus (an
Arabic name) I'm afraid. In Bootes (the shepherd) it is a long long way
off the celestial pole, and always has been.... nice bright and orange
though!
>
> The Lady of Shallot tricked Lancelot, and may have been instrumental
> in Arthur's demise. Was she named after the galaxy Andromeda or
> Cassiopia?
No she was named after a vegetable commonly used in stews, and
occasionally in salads....
> Will some archeologists soon unearth near the Giza Pyramids, or
> elsewhere, a sextant or astronomical measurement scrolls that point to
> a deadly link between the real stars, and our ancient legends?
No. It's all in the Book of the Dead. Haven't you read it?
> The website quoted above goes all out to explore such prospects, such
> as cosmic viruses, and intelligent colonies of viruses, hitching rides
> on meteors, to plague our planet.
No comment - I had 'flu quite recently....
Hmmmm.... I think you should see "The Life of Brian".....
Cheers
Martin
Phyllis M. Gilmore
I notice the poor soul didn't post this to an astronomy group--a good,
if accidental, decision.
>
> Ahem! Arthur means 'bear man' in fact, nothing to do with Arcturus (an
> Arabic name) I'm afraid. In Bootes (the shepherd) it is a long long way
> off the celestial pole, and always has been.... nice bright and orange
> though!
The relationship to the pole probably springs from a dim memory of the
mnemonic to "follow the arc to Arcturus"--the arc being the curve of the
Big (I believe--my memory, too, is a tad dim, unlike the streetlights
hereabouts) Dipper's "handle."
> >
> > The Lady of Shallot tricked Lancelot, and may have been instrumental
> > in Arthur's demise. Was she named after the galaxy Andromeda or
> > Cassiopia?
*She* tricked *him*? I thought she died of unrequited love. I guess
the male viewpoint differs. And I seriously doubt that Tennyson, who
gave her the name, knew jack squat about galaxies. (I've got a
hysterically funny astronomy text that dates from about 1900, that still
asserts that those fuzzy patches of light are clouds.)
> > Will some archeologists soon unearth near the Giza Pyramids, or
> > elsewhere, a sextant or astronomical measurement scrolls that point to
> > a deadly link between the real stars, and our ancient legends?
>
> No. It's all in the Book of the Dead. Haven't you read it?
Also, c.f., stories about Nut, her body covered with stars, who gives
birth to the Sun each morning.
<snip>
>
> Hmmmm.... I think you should see "The Life of Brian".....
Nah, it's probably already too late.
Phyllis
Bert Olton
the tried and true Usenet advice "don't feed the trolls", but I've
enjoyed everyone's responses as much as Virus - excuse me - Viral
Minion's thread starter. He/She/It at least provided a comic
interlude. Since VM isn't extending any ridiculous or argumentative
defense or attacks (perhaps the mother ship showed up) it doesn't
qualify as trolling, not quite spam either, just some kind of cosmic
hiccup I guess.
Bert
richard wardle
>My initial thought as a response to this post last night was to quote
>the tried and true Usenet advice "don't feed the trolls", but I've
>enjoyed everyone's responses as much as Virus - excuse me - Viral
>Minion's thread starter. He/She/It at least provided a comic
>interlude. Since VM isn't extending any ridiculous or argumentative
>defense or attacks (perhaps the mother ship showed up) it doesn't
>qualify as trolling, not quite spam either, just some kind of cosmic
>hiccup I guess.
>
>Bert
>
Regards Richard.
>Viral Minion wrote:
>>
>> RE: http://www.geocities.com/chemosh_of_ammon/NGC1987A.html
>>
>> The Star for which King Arthur was named, Acturus, was photographed
>> just a few years ago, seeming to guide the Comet Hayakutake, closer
>> and closer to Earth. Acturus, is "caught" in the tiny eye of the
>> needle that is in the northernmost vector of our North Celestial Pole.
<snip>
Joe Jefferson
A better theory might be that her name comes from the Iliad. (For some
reason, any time Arthurian authors get stuck for a female name they
inevitably come up with some variation of 'Helen'.)
Luke Goaman-Dodson
>
> The Star for which King Arthur was named,
*plonk*
Martyn Harrison
wrote:
>RE: http://www.geocities.com/chemosh_of_ammon/NGC1987A.html
>
>The Star for which King Arthur was named, Acturus, was photographed
>just a few years ago, seeming to guide the Comet Hayakutake, closer
>and closer to Earth. Acturus, is "caught" in the tiny eye of the
>needle that is in the northernmost vector of our North Celestial Pole.
>
>The Lady of Shallot tricked Lancelot, and may have been instrumental
>in Arthur's demise. Was she named after the galaxy Andromeda or
>Cassiopia?
>
>Will some archeologists soon unearth near the Giza Pyramids, or
>elsewhere, a sextant or astronomical measurement scrolls that point to
>a deadly link between the real stars, and our ancient legends?
I'll have a pint of whatever you've been drinking! ;)))
Tim Ormsby
Ellis <ell...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:tFpg7.23020$0L6.3...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Its in "The Holy Kingdom" by Allan Wilson and Baram Blackett. A very
interesting book on not only King Arthur but also early british history.
Adrian Gilbert
> <Arcturus> is from Greek <Arktouros>, from <arktos> 'bear' and <ouros>
> 'guard, guardian, watcher'; it is the 'bear-ward' on account of its
> position relative to Ursa Major. (The 'bear's tail' etymology that
> someone else mentioned was long ago discarded as untenable.)
>
> The etymology of Arthur's name is uncertain, but it's highly unlikely
> that he was named for the star. The two main contenders for a source
> are the Latin name <Artorius> 'plowman' and a hypothetical British
> *<Artgur> 'man of the bear, bear-man'; Tom Green discusses them in his
> excellent article at
> <http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~tomgreen/arthur.htm> and makes a
> good case for the British derivation. (The fact his name actually
> does also occur as <Arcturus> can be seen as support for this view.)
>
Re all of the above and other posts, I have always understood that if any
constellation is Arthur's then it is Ursa Major: "the Great Bear". In
America you call the body of this "the Big Dipper" but in England we refer
to it as "the Plough". An alternative name is "Arthur's Wain" (i.e. wagon).
I presume that this isn't meant to be a hay-wain or suchlike but rather a
battle-chariot. Arthur's star, which "rides" the chariot, is often said to
be Alcor. Could this be "Artorius" the plowman according to Tom Green? Alcor
is the companion double-star of Mizar or delta-Ursa Major. You need good
eyes to distinguish Alcor from Mizar without glasses or binoculars but some
people can.
The idea that Arcturus is at the end of the Bear's tail would seem to come
from a mis-identification of the Pole Star itself. This is at the end of a
bear's tale (Ursa Minor in this case). I presume this is why the first post
said: 'Acturus, is "caught" in the tiny eye of the
needle that is in the northernmost vector of our North Celestial Pole.' If
you apply this to the pole star, which he erroneously identifies as
"Arcturus" then this is certainly true.
Interestingly, it is my belief that the popular figure of the "dancing bear"
or "Bear and Staff", which is derived from the coat-of-arms of the Duke's of
Warwick, is also connected with the Great Bear. Ursa Major goes round and
round the axis or pole of the world like a tethered bear dancing round a
pole. The choice of this emblem by the Dukes of Warwick may be connected
with some old tradition going back to the time of King Arthur I, who Wilson
and Blackett believe to be buried near Atherstone in Warwickshire.
Adrian Gilbert.
Brian M. Scott
<cerb...@dove.net.au> wrote:
>Ellis <ell...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:tFpg7.23020$0L6.3...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>> "Tim Ormsby" <cerb...@dove.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:TTog7.65$qa7....@news.interact.net.au...
[...]
>> > It might also be from the welsh names Arthrwys or Arthmael (meaning
>> >"Iron Bear")
>> Now, what on earth makes you think that Arthmael means Iron Bear?
>> Where have I seen that before?
>Its in "The Holy Kingdom" by Allan Wilson and Baram Blackett. A very
>interesting book on not only King Arthur but also early british history.
They're in the same class as Adrian Gilbert and Graham Hancock. The
book may be entertaining, but as a source of trustworthy information
it's completely useless. The misinformation concerning the name
<Arthmael> is typical of them.
Brian M. Scott
Brian M. Scott
<Awenl...@btinternet.com> wrote:
[...]
>Interestingly, it is my belief that the popular figure of the "dancing bear"
>or "Bear and Staff", which is derived from the coat-of-arms of the Duke's of
>Warwick,
No, it isn't, as I told you on 15 December 1999:
Irrelevant, however, as is easily discovered with a
little checking in standard heraldic references. The bear
and ragged staff derive from a badge of the Earls of
Warwick. Richard Neville (the Kingmaker) created
the badge by uniting two separate badges of the
Beauchamps, Earls of Warwick. (He was Earl of
Warwick in right of his wife Anne, a Beauchamp.)
The Beauchamp bear badge alludes to their remote
ancestor Urso. (John Woodward & George Burnett,
Woodward's A Treatise on Heraldry British and
Foreign, 585.)
A badge is not a coat of arms, and an earl is not a duke.
> is also connected with the Great Bear. Ursa Major goes round and
>round the axis or pole of the world like a tethered bear dancing round a
>pole. The choice of this emblem by the Dukes of Warwick may be connected
>with some old tradition going back to the time of King Arthur I, who Wilson
>and Blackett believe to be buried near Atherstone in Warwickshire.
Still peddling the same old nonsense, I see.
Brian M. Scott
Graham Nowland
For what it's worth the Everyman's Encyclopaedia of 1978 describes Arcturus as "a
first magnitude star in Bootes whose name is derived from the Greek and signifies
the 'Guardian of the Bear'".
Regards
Graham
Adrian Gilbert
"Brian M. Scott" <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:3b83df31....@enews.newsguy.com...
Adrian Gilbert
Cherith Baldry
>Re all of the above and other posts, I have always understood that if any
>constellation is Arthur's then it is Ursa Major: "the Great Bear". In
>America you call the body of this "the Big Dipper" but in England we refer
>to it as "the Plough". An alternative name is "Arthur's Wain" (i.e. wagon).
I have never heard the constellation called 'Arthur's Wain'. 'Charles's Wain',
yes. I have no information as to who Charles may have been.
Best regards,
Cherith
Luke Goaman-Dodson
> Its in "The Holy Kingdom" by Allan Wilson and Baram Blackett. A very
> interesting book on not only King Arthur but also early british
history.
Interesting in the sense that it's a load of rubbish?
Brian M. Scott
<Awenl...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>"Brian M. Scott" <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote in message
>news:3b83df31....@enews.newsguy.com...
>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 15:50:38 +0100, "Adrian Gilbert"
>> <Awenl...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Still peddling the same old nonsense, I see.
>Still as blunt and rude as ever in your replies see.
That was blunt but not rude, though in your case I'm prepared to be
both. I've little use for a 'scholar' who continues to perpetuate
nonsense long after he's been corrected; it suggests the con-man more
than the honest fool.
BMS
Adrian Gilbert
anything much about you.
Adrian Gilbert.
Martin Reboul
Adrian Gilbert wrote:
> >
> > <Arcturus> is from Greek <Arktouros>, from <arktos> 'bear' and <ouros>
> > 'guard, guardian, watcher'; it is the 'bear-ward' on account of its
> > position relative to Ursa Major. (The 'bear's tail' etymology that
> > someone else mentioned was long ago discarded as untenable.)
> >
> > The etymology of Arthur's name is uncertain, but it's highly unlikely
> > that he was named for the star. The two main contenders for a source
> > are the Latin name <Artorius> 'plowman' and a hypothetical British
> > *<Artgur> 'man of the bear, bear-man'; Tom Green discusses them in his
> > excellent article at
> > <http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~tomgreen/arthur.htm> and makes a
> > good case for the British derivation. (The fact his name actually
> > does also occur as <Arcturus> can be seen as support for this view.)
> >
>
> Re all of the above and other posts, I have always understood that if any
> constellation is Arthur's then it is Ursa Major: "the Great Bear". In
> America you call the body of this "the Big Dipper" but in England we refer
> to it as "the Plough". An alternative name is "Arthur's Wain" (i.e. wagon).
> I presume that this isn't meant to be a hay-wain or suchlike but rather a
> battle-chariot. Arthur's star, which "rides" the chariot, is often said to
> be Alcor. Could this be "Artorius" the plowman according to Tom Green? Alcor
> is the companion double-star of Mizar or delta-Ursa Major. You need good
> eyes to distinguish Alcor from Mizar without glasses or binoculars but some
> people can.
I can... piece of cake!
> The idea that Arcturus is at the end of the Bear's tail would seem to come
> from a mis-identification of the Pole Star itself. This is at the end of a
> bear's tale (Ursa Minor in this case). I presume this is why the first post
> said: 'Acturus, is "caught" in the tiny eye of the
> needle that is in the northernmost vector of our North Celestial Pole.' If
> you apply this to the pole star, which he erroneously identifies as
> "Arcturus" then this is certainly true.
If you 'extend' the Bear's Tail (or the handle of the Plough, or the curve of
the Sickle, you come to Arcturus. Beautiful, bright orange star, which twinkles
nicely here (London) because it stays near the horizon.
> Interestingly, it is my belief that the popular figure of the "dancing bear"
> or "Bear and Staff", which is derived from the coat-of-arms of the Duke's of
> Warwick, is also connected with the Great Bear. Ursa Major goes round and
> round the axis or pole of the world like a tethered bear dancing round a
> pole. The choice of this emblem by the Dukes of Warwick may be connected
> with some old tradition going back to the time of King Arthur I, who Wilson
> and Blackett believe to be buried near Atherstone in Warwickshire.
The "Ragged Staff" goes back to the legendary Guy, Earl of Warwick, who was a
big lad, and ripped a tree out of the ground, and tore off the branches to make
a club, with which he despatched a troublesome giant.... or was it a bear?
More seriously, I suspect that this symbol (and other things) possibly
influenced Richard Neville (EofW) aka 'The Kingmaker' to a dangerous degree, and
may have been partly responsible for setting him on the disastrous path he took
in life - a long story, I'll save it for now......
Cheers
Martin
>
> Adrian Gilbert.
Graham Nowland
> I have never heard the constellation called 'Arthur's Wain'. 'Charles's Wain',
> yes I have no information as to who Charles may have been.
I have somewhere read of the Plough or Big Dipper being called called Arthur's
Wain in England but it must be very rare and I can’t remember where I have seen
it.
There is apparently an Arthurian association anyway, even as Charles's Wain
This form derives from Charlemagne, and according to The Oxford English
Dictionary, comes from a verbal association of the name of the bright nearby
Arcturus with Arturus, or Arthur, and the legendary association of Arthur and
Charlemagne.
(Don't ask me how Murray arrived at that last bit but he did)
The Great Bear (Ursa Major), or Big Dipper, was still called Charles's Wain (or
Wagon) in Shakespeare's day:
An't be not four by
The day I'll be hanged; Charles' Wain is over
The new chimney and yet our horse not pack'd.
King Henry IV, Part I, Act ii, Scene 1
Ursas Major (The Great Bear) was referred to in the Bible (Job 9:9; 38:32) and
mentioned by Homer in the Iliad (xviii, 487). The Greeks identified the
constellation with the nymph Callisto, who was placed in the heavens by Zeus in
the form of a bear together with her son Arcas as "bear keeper," or Arcturus.
The Greeks named the constellation Arctos, the she-bear, or Helice, from its
turning around Polaris, the Pole Star. The Romans knew the constellation as Arctos
or Ursa.
Also:
Gazing with fixed eye on the Pleiades,
Boötes setting late and the Great Bear,
By others called the Wain, which wheeling round,
Looks ever toward Orion and alone
Dips not into the waters of the deep.
Odyssey, V
So those who wish for bear associations have them in plenty.
It has to be remembered that Arcturus is in a different constellation from the
Great Bear. Then you can pick up some of the mythological resonances.
It is worth re-reading Viral Minion's original (very witty?) post in the light of
the above.
Nothing is quite what it seems. The universe does not really exist.
Cheers Viral you are a true Brit.
Regards
Graham
Luke Goaman-Dodson
news:3B85E553...@bigpond.com...
> I have somewhere read of the Plough or Big Dipper being called
called Arthur's
> Wain in England but it must be very rare and I can't remember where
I have seen
> it.
Perhaps you made it up?
Luke Goaman-Dodson
news:3B82B90B...@redsuspenders.com...
> My initial thought as a response to this post last night was to
quote
> the tried and true Usenet advice "don't feed the trolls", but I've
> enjoyed everyone's responses as much as Virus - excuse me - Viral
> Minion's thread starter. He/She/It at least provided a comic
> interlude. Since VM isn't extending any ridiculous or argumentative
> defense or attacks (perhaps the mother ship showed up) it doesn't
> qualify as trolling, not quite spam either, just some kind of cosmic
> hiccup I guess.
Actually, most of the definitions of "troll" I've heard state that
trolls rarely post more than once on any particular thread. But that's
just pedantry.
Adrian Gilbert
"Martin Reboul" <martin...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:3B85B862...@virgin.net...
>
>
> If you 'extend' the Bear's Tail (or the handle of the Plough, or the curve
of
> the Sickle, you come to Arcturus. Beautiful, bright orange star, which
twinkles
> nicely here (London) because it stays near the horizon.
>
astronomy books as a guide for the novice finding his/her way around the
heavens.
> > Interestingly, it is my belief that the popular figure of the "dancing
bear"
> > or "Bear and Staff", which is derived from the coat-of-arms of the
Duke's of
> > Warwick, is also connected with the Great Bear. Ursa Major goes round
and
> > round the axis or pole of the world like a tethered bear dancing round a
> > pole. The choice of this emblem by the Dukes of Warwick may be connected
> > with some old tradition going back to the time of King Arthur I, who
Wilson
> > and Blackett believe to be buried near Atherstone in Warwickshire.
>
> The "Ragged Staff" goes back to the legendary Guy, Earl of Warwick, who
was a
> big lad, and ripped a tree out of the ground, and tore off the branches to
make
> a club, with which he despatched a troublesome giant.... or was it a bear?
>
This "Guy of Warwick" archetype seems to be connected with the Arthurian
myth in some way. In "The Holy Kingdom" we suggest that though the era in
which he is supposed to have lived is much later than Arthur, the mythos
might have been drawing on earlier material in the folk-memory of
Warwickshire. In short that the "Guy of Warwick" myth has borrowed from
earlier myths do with Arthun/Anhun (King Arthur I) who Wilson and Blackett
believe to have been buried at Oldbury near Atherstone in Warwickshire. IMHO
the Neville earls of Warwick (who adopted this device from the earlier
Beauchamps of Warwick) may have been aware of how the "bear and staff" has
astronomical as well as historical associations. In any case the archetype
of the bear and staff is almost certainly derived from the custom of
bear-baiting. which was a popular sport in mediaeval England. For this a
bear was tethered to a staff, which it could only walk round and round and
not escape. This mimicks the behaviour of Ursa Major which endlessly circles
the pole star, its tethering point.
> More seriously, I suspect that this symbol (and other things) possibly
> influenced Richard Neville (EofW) aka 'The Kingmaker' to a dangerous
degree, and
> may have been partly responsible for setting him on the disastrous path he
took
> in life - a long story, I'll save it for now......
As you say it's a long story and he did overplay his hand. However the Wars
of the Roses were dangerous times to live through and not everyone was going
to end up a winner.
On a related subject I have found a reference to the constellation of Lyra
being referred to as "Arthur's harp" ("Telyn Arthur" for the Welsh purists).
Also there is a very interesting piece in "Hamlet's Mill" on the subject of
the star "Alcol", which I have read elsewhere (I wish I could remember
where) is seen as "Arthur riding his "wain". It says:
"According to South Russian folklore, a dog is fettered to Ursa Minor. and
tries constantly to bite through the fetter; when he succeeds, the end of
the world has come.
Others say that Ursa Major consists of a team of horses with harness;
every night a black dog is gnawing at the harness, in order to destroy the
world, but he does not reach his aim; at dawn, when he runs to a spring to
drink, the harness renews itself....
...Proclus informs us that the fox star nibbles continuously at the thong of
the yoke which holds together heaven and earth; German folklore adds that
when the fox succeeds, the world will come to its end. This fox star is no
other than Alcor, the small star g near zeta Ursai Majoris IIn India
Arundati, the common wife of the seven Rishis, alpha-eta Ursae;...) known as
such since Babylonian times."
Reading this, I think they are probably mistaken in this attribution. The
"dog" or "fox" is obviously Ursa Minor, which like a tethered dog is
fettered to the north pole or Polaris. If he should manage to break free
from his mooring, then of course the world will tumble from its normal
rotation around the pole. Curious though that the "fox" star has, in
mythology, been transferred to Alcor, which is difficult for those without
perfect vision to even see. Curious that this star is also signified as
"Arthur" in the Wain myth. Unravelling all this would make an interesting
line of research. I seem to remember that in German mythology Loki is a fox
and he brings about the destruction of the world...Hm.
Adrian Gilbert.
Brian M. Scott
<martin...@virgin.net> wrote:
>Adrian Gilbert wrote:
[...]
>> Interestingly, it is my belief that the popular figure of the "dancing bear"
>> or "Bear and Staff", which is derived from the coat-of-arms of the Duke's of
>> Warwick, is also connected with the Great Bear. Ursa Major goes round and
>> round the axis or pole of the world like a tethered bear dancing round a
>> pole. The choice of this emblem by the Dukes of Warwick may be connected
>> with some old tradition going back to the time of King Arthur I, who Wilson
>> and Blackett believe to be buried near Atherstone in Warwickshire.
>The "Ragged Staff" goes back to the legendary Guy, Earl of Warwick, who was a
>big lad, and ripped a tree out of the ground, and tore off the branches to make
>a club, with which he despatched a troublesome giant.... or was it a bear?
No. As I told Adrian on 15 December 1999 and again on 22 August 2001:
The bear and ragged staff derive from a badge of the
Earls of Warwick. Richard Neville (the Kingmaker)
created the badge by uniting two separate badges of
the Beauchamps, Earls of Warwick. (He was Earl
of Warwick in right of his wife Anne, a Beauchamp.)
The Beauchamp bear badge alludes to their remote
ancestor Urso. (John Woodward & George Burnett,
Woodward's A Treatise on Heraldry British and
Foreign, 585.)
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<Awenl...@btinternet.com> wrote:
[...]
> IMHO
>the Neville earls of Warwick (who adopted this device from the earlier
>Beauchamps of Warwick)
No, he didn't; he combined two separate Beauchamp badges.
> may have been aware of how the "bear and staff" has
>astronomical as well as historical associations. In any case the archetype
>of the bear and staff is almost certainly derived from the custom of
>bear-baiting. which was a popular sport in mediaeval England. For this a
>bear was tethered to a staff, which it could only walk round and round and
>not escape. This mimicks the behaviour of Ursa Major which endlessly circles
>the pole star, its tethering point.
(1) The bear badge refers to Urso, an ancestor of the Beauchamps.
(2) Justify the use of the term 'archetype' here.
[...]
> I seem to remember that in German mythology Loki is a fox
>and he brings about the destruction of the world...Hm.
Loki doesn't figure in *German* mythology, isn't a fox, and does not
bring about the destruction of the world, though he participates in
it.
BMS
Martin Reboul
Brian M. Scott wrote:
Did you notice how he altered it? The bear gradually became more 'chained and
restrained' as RN began to lose his grip..... this bit of symbolism meant an awful
lot to him, I'm sure!). But I stand by the bit about the Ragged Staff whatever.
Guy of Warwick must have been from Saxon days or before - is he in the Rous Roll?
I've never seen the earlier parts of it unfortunately (is it in the BM?)
Cheers
Martin
Graham Nowland
> Perhaps you made it up?
Why should I want to make it up?
Arthur's Wain is of course mentioned in Adrian Gilbert's book The Holy
Kingdom, though I wouldn't go so far as he does and say it is in popular
use.
I certainly heard of and also read of it in Britain long before his book
was published. So there is evidently a tradition somewhere. I will
eventually recall the other place I read it.
The full version of the OED apparently indicates there are Arthurian
associations anyway with Ursa Major, through the name Charles's Wain. The
material I quoted demonstrating this was from the Encyclopeadia
Britannica which you can look up as you can the OED.
The issue goes much deeper than whet you will there and is tangled up in
verbal associations and mythological links.
In Greek mythology Callisto saw Diana bathing naked. The goddess was
enraged and to protect Callisto, Zeus turned her into a she bear. Zeus of
course made love to Callisto and she died giving birth to her son Arcos.
Zeus put Callisto in the heavens where she is now known as Ursa Major or
the Great Bear. This constellation is also known as the Plough, Charles's
Wain and occasionally Arthur's Wain.
Her son Arcos, presumably half bear, was allegedly the ancestor of the
Arcadians and therefore also the patron of the plough.
I think you have to allow for the human tendency to make free association
with similar sounding names and images. In that context there seem to be
substantial mythological and verbal links between the
Callista/Ursa/Arcos/Arcturus culture and Arthur, which means bear in
Brythonic. The Arcos/Ursus link to the most common British name for the
big bear constellation, the Plough, is also interesting.
The half-bear son Arcos, sometime also Arctos, and as Arcturus the
brightest star in the north, was put by Zeus into the constellation now
called Bootes (the Shepherd), to act as a "guardian for the bear"
These mythological assocations are quite well known. They have often made
people wonder if the well read Gildas circa 540AD might have been
clumsily referring to Arthur, in what seems to be a learned pun.
In section 32 of his Ruin of Britian, Gildas described Cuneglasus, an
elderly minor tyrant and possibly an associate of Arthur, as "You bear,
rider of many and driver of the chariot of the bear's stronghold."
I hope this helps in your quest for the truth.
Regards
Graham
Brian M. Scott
<martin...@virgin.net> wrote:
[...]
>Guy of Warwick must have been from Saxon days or before - is he
>in the Rous Roll? I've never seen the earlier parts of it unfortunately
>(is it in the BM?)
I have what appears to be a 1980 reproduction (with a new historical
introduction added) of an 1859 edition of the English version.
According to the introduction there are two versions, one English, the
other Latin; the English version is in the British Library, B.L. Add.
MS. 48976, and the Latin version has been in the possession of the
English College of Arms since 1786.
Gy appears in Cap. 20, which treats of 'Dame Felys -- dowghter and eyr
to Erl Rohand for hur bewte callyd fely le beale or felys the feyre',
who 'by trew enheritans was countes of Warwike and lady and wife to
the most victorius knyght Syr Gy'. He himself is the subject of Cap.
21, in which we learn that he was the son of 'sir Seyward baron of
Walyngford and his lady and wyfe dame Sabyn a florentyn in Itale of
the noblest blode of the cuntre translate from Itayle un to this
lond', and Cap. 22, which briefly summarizes his life and the
miraculous circumstances surrounding his death.
In Cap. 23 we are told of Raiburnus or Raynbrowne (Reynbroun,
Raynbroun), son of Gy and his lady Felys: This son was stolen as a
child by 'maryners of Russy' and sold to a heathen king, but
eventually he was found, brought back to England, and 'cherfully
receyuid of kyng Athelstan', whose (unnamed) daughter he then married.
This, like G(u)y himself, is pure fiction. Athelstan reigned from 924
to 940, so the tale puts Gy around 900. His name, however, is an Old
French form of Continental Germanic <Wido>; it was introduced into
England by the Normans. For that matter, <Raiburn(us)> is also an Old
French form of a Continental Germanic name, and <Felys> is a Middle
English form of French <Felise>, from Latin <Felicia>; I'm not aware
of any pre-Conquest instances of <Felicia> in England. Moreover,
there obviously was no 'countes of Warwike' ca.900. (The place itself
of course goes way back; it's in record as <Wærincgwic> in the early
8th c. and as <Wæringwic> in 1001.)
The real Guy of Warwick was of course Guy de Beauchamp, who was alive
in 1300. (He finally appears in Cap. 46 of the Rous Roll.) He was
the son of William de Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, who died in 1298;
William was the son of William de Beauchamp of Elmley, Worcs., and a
nephew and heir of William Mauduit, earl of Warwick, who died without
offspring in 1268. Before that the earldom was in the hands of the
so-called Newburgh earls, who derived from Beaumont-le-Roger (Eure).
(They actually never bore that name, though a cadet branch did; the
confusion is probably due to a mistake by Rous.) The first earl of
Warwick, Henry (d.1123) was of this family. (He is the subject of
Cap. 31. Rous makes him the husband of Margaret, daughter and heir of
Thurkyl of Warwick; her father is supposed to have supported the
Conqueror.)
Some (unconnected) comments from the historical introduction (by
Charles Ross) should be borne in mind:
[The roll] is a strange but not unique amalgam of three
elements: a primitive antiquarianism, often of a garbled
and credulous character, but none the less interesting
for that, as an indication of how contemporaries saw
their own history; of provincial pride, in the sense that
the town of Warwick, as well as its line of earls, is
never far from the centre of the story; and of an
undisguised search for patronage from the lords of
Warwick.
He was wholly uncritical and undiscriminating in his
approach to evidence, willing to purvey as history
a whole fantasy world of myth and miracles, eagar to
invent heroic origins for the earls and ancient origins
for the town of Warwick, and in the process adding
myths of his own invention to those he inherited from
others. Two good examples of this latter trait are to
be found in the first few chapters of the Roll, which
are frankly mythological. The origin of the other
favoured badge of the Earls of Warwick, apart from
the Bear, the Ragged Staff, is sought in a duel between
king Gwayr and a giant (Rous himself wrote a book
about giants), in which the king defended himself with
just such a weapon, 'a tre shred and the barke of' (cap.
4). Rous also joined in the favourite contemporary
game of inventing eponymous founders. Thus Warwick
was founded as far back as the fourth century B.C. by
King Guthelinus, who called it Caerleon, but its name
was changed first to Cairumbre, then to Cayr Gwayr,
from which derives 'Warwick'. (cap. 1).
The derivation is ridiculous, the more so since we know what the OE
name of the place actually was. This Guthelinus is supposed to have
been 'hole kyng of grete Brytayn that comprehendyth Englond Walys and
Scotlond' and to have founded Warwick 'abowte the byrthe of kyng
Alysaunder the grete'. Of course there was no such king by any name,
and this name is absolutely out of the question: it's a Romance
diminutive of a Continental Germanic name. (The parallel feminine
<Gothelina> is actually attested from France in the mid-10th c.)
Ross also points out that the main purpose of the work was to please
Richard III and Anne Nevill 'by presenting them with an account of the
ancient descent of their forebears, of the excellent virtues of the
latter, and, in particular, their previous munificence to the town of
Warwick'. This explains why he takes every possible opportunity to
link the lords of Warwick with the Nine Worthies, 'whose cult was one
of the highly fashionable features of the chivalrous romance
circulating among aristocratic circles in his own day, both in
Burgundy and in England'; he even makes Aeneas an ancestor of the
earls of Warwick.
Ross demonstrates that even after Rous moves on to the times of the
genuine earls of Warwick he frequently gets his facts wrong. Only
when he gets to matters of which he has personal knowledge is he both
somewhat reliable and of some independent value as a source.
Brian
Martin Reboul
"Brian M. Scott" wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:26:02 +0100, Martin Reboul
> <martin...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >Guy of Warwick must have been from Saxon days or before - is he
> >in the Rous Roll? I've never seen the earlier parts of it unfortunately
> >(is it in the BM?)
>
> I have what appears to be a 1980 reproduction (with a new historical
> introduction added) of an 1859 edition of the English version.
> According to the introduction there are two versions, one English, the
> other Latin; the English version is in the British Library, B.L. Add.
> MS. 48976, and the Latin version has been in the possession of the
> English College of Arms since 1786.
I believe one version is favourable to Richard III - the only survivor
of a
number of copies which were made? The other was cleaned up for Tudor
tastes
(the Latin one I think?), and is rather different. What about the
illustrations though - are they the same?
As you say, the 'legendary' stuff is a load of cobblers. However, I
suspect
the same of the opinions of the gentleman that is mentioned next....
> Some (unconnected) comments from the historical introduction (by
> Charles Ross) should be borne in mind:
Bear in mind Ross's notable hostility toward the Nevilles, and often
twistedly old fashioned views....
> [The roll] is a strange but not unique amalgam of three
> elements: a primitive antiquarianism, often of a garbled
> and credulous character, but none the less interesting
> for that, as an indication of how contemporaries saw
> their own history; of provincial pride, in the sense that
> the town of Warwick, as well as its line of earls, is
> never far from the centre of the story; and of an
> undisguised search for patronage from the lords of
> Warwick.
>
> He was wholly uncritical and undiscriminating in his
> approach to evidence........
More than Ross was himself!
> .......willing to purvey as history
Not 'Alexander the Great' perhaps...?
>
> Ross also points out that the main purpose of the work was to please
> Richard III and Anne Nevill 'by presenting them with an account of the
> ancient descent of their forebears, of the excellent virtues of the
> latter, and, in particular, their previous munificence to the town of
> Warwick'. This explains why he takes every possible opportunity to
> link the lords of Warwick with the Nine Worthies, 'whose cult was one
> of the highly fashionable features of the chivalrous romance
> circulating among aristocratic circles in his own day, both in
> Burgundy and in England'; he even makes Aeneas an ancestor of the
> earls of Warwick.
>
> Ross demonstrates that even after Rous moves on to the times of the
> genuine earls of Warwick he frequently gets his facts wrong. Only
> when he gets to matters of which he has personal knowledge is he both
> somewhat reliable and of some independent value as a source.
I'm sure the fantasy past stuff is of no consequence - this coming from
an
age where family trees going back to Adam and Eve were commonplace! The
only
'worthy' part of the Rous Roll is obviously the stuff contemporary to
him.
What I'd like to know most of all is if the artwork is possibly based on
anything realistic ( I suspect it is) and if Rous had any real idea what
Clarence, Richard and Richard Neville looked like?
Cheers
Martin
Brian M. Scott
<martin...@virgin.net> wrote:
>"Brian M. Scott" wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:26:02 +0100, Martin Reboul
>> <martin...@virgin.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> >Guy of Warwick must have been from Saxon days or before - is he
>> >in the Rous Roll? I've never seen the earlier parts of it unfortunately
>> >(is it in the BM?)
>> I have what appears to be a 1980 reproduction (with a new historical
>> introduction added) of an 1859 edition of the English version.
>> According to the introduction there are two versions, one English, the
>> other Latin; the English version is in the British Library, B.L. Add.
>> MS. 48976, and the Latin version has been in the possession of the
>> English College of Arms since 1786.
>I believe one version is favourable to Richard III - the only survivor
>of a number of copies which were made? The other was cleaned up
>for Tudor tastes (the Latin one I think?), and is rather different.
Rous was apparently unable to get his hands on the English version, so
it retains the original comment on and portrait of Richard; he was
able to remove the original comment from the Latin version and to
substitute a figure of Edward, Prince of Wales.
>What about the
>illustrations though - are they the same?
There is an expert opinion that different hands drew the
illustrations, that of the English version being the more talented.
Rous himself may have been the illustrator of the Latin version.
Don't know anything about them. I do know that what he says
accurately describes the text of the roll.
>> [The roll] is a strange but not unique amalgam of three
>> elements: a primitive antiquarianism, often of a garbled
>> and credulous character, but none the less interesting
>> for that, as an indication of how contemporaries saw
>> their own history; of provincial pride, in the sense that
>> the town of Warwick, as well as its line of earls, is
>> never far from the centre of the story; and of an
>> undisguised search for patronage from the lords of
>> Warwick.
>> He was wholly uncritical and undiscriminating in his
>> approach to evidence........
>More than Ross was himself!
I know nothing of Ross, but it certainly seems likely. It's
irrelevant, too: Ross's own failings, whatever they were, don't repair
Rous's.
??
>> Ross also points out that the main purpose of the work was to please
>> Richard III and Anne Nevill 'by presenting them with an account of the
>> ancient descent of their forebears, of the excellent virtues of the
>> latter, and, in particular, their previous munificence to the town of
>> Warwick'. This explains why he takes every possible opportunity to
>> link the lords of Warwick with the Nine Worthies, 'whose cult was one
>> of the highly fashionable features of the chivalrous romance
>> circulating among aristocratic circles in his own day, both in
>> Burgundy and in England'; he even makes Aeneas an ancestor of the
>> earls of Warwick.
>> Ross demonstrates that even after Rous moves on to the times of the
>> genuine earls of Warwick he frequently gets his facts wrong. Only
>> when he gets to matters of which he has personal knowledge is he both
>> somewhat reliable and of some independent value as a source.
>I'm sure the fantasy past stuff is of no consequence - this coming from
>an age where family trees going back to Adam and Eve were commonplace!
>The only 'worthy' part of the Rous Roll is obviously the stuff contemporary
>to him.
Which is apparently quite unreliable.
>What I'd like to know most of all is if the artwork is possibly based on
>anything realistic ( I suspect it is) and if Rous had any real idea what
>Clarence, Richard and Richard Neville looked like?
Haven't a clue. Note, though, that it's not clear that he's the
artist of either version.
Brian
Adrian Gilbert
>
>> Rous also joined in the favourite contemporary
> > game of inventing eponymous founders. Thus Warwick
> > was founded as far back as the fourth century B.C. by
> > King Guthelinus, who called it Caerleon, but its name
> > was changed first to Cairumbre, then to Cayr Gwayr,
> > from which derives 'Warwick'. (cap. 1).
> >
> > The derivation is ridiculous, the more so since we know what the OE
> > name of the place actually was. This Guthelinus is supposed to have
> > been 'hole kyng of grete Brytayn that comprehendyth Englond Walys and
> > Scotlond' and to have founded Warwick 'abowte the byrthe of kyng
> > Alysaunder the grete'. Of course there was no such king by any name,
> > and this name is absolutely out of the question: it's a Romance
> > diminutive of a Continental Germanic name. (The parallel feminine
> > <Gothelina> is actually attested from France in the mid-10th c.)
>
> Not 'Alexander the Great' perhaps...?
>
clearly come from "Gwrtheyrn Gwrthenau". This is the Welsh name for King
Vortigerrn, a well known character in the early Dark Ages. As an archetype
of the "bad king", Vortigern in many ways is an exemplar of later bad kings
such as John and Richard III. He is the king who allowed the Saxons to
settle in Kent and was regarded by the Welsh as one of the three great
traitors. The suggestion that he should have founded Warwick is not as
stupid as it might at first seem. According to all the old histories he
hailed from Ewyas and Erging, a part of Britain encompassing the Wye Valley
up to Hereford. He is also strongly connected with Gloucester. Thus he was a
Western Briton with strong connections to areas not so very nfar from
Warwick.
Warwickshire, of course, is in the Midlands of England in territory that was
once part of Mercia. The reference to Athelstan in an earlier part of this
post is probably because he was the first Saxon king to claim hegemony over
the entire island of Britain, Scotland included. He was probaly the first
king to do this seriously after the time of Vortigern and probably of
Arthur.
Adrian Gilbert.
What is also of interest about the Warwick arms is that they include
Jerusalem crosses. If anyone has any information on why this should be I
would like to hear from them.
Adrian Gilbert.
Adrian Gilbert.
Brian M. Scott
<Awenl...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>"Martin Reboul" <martin...@virgin.net> wrote in message
>news:3B8BFD4C...@virgin.net...
>>> Rous also joined in the favourite contemporary
>> > game of inventing eponymous founders. Thus Warwick
>> > was founded as far back as the fourth century B.C. by
>> > King Guthelinus, who called it Caerleon, but its name
>> > was changed first to Cairumbre, then to Cayr Gwayr,
>> > from which derives 'Warwick'. (cap. 1).
>> > The derivation is ridiculous, the more so since we know what the OE
>> > name of the place actually was. This Guthelinus is supposed to have
>> > been 'hole kyng of grete Brytayn that comprehendyth Englond Walys and
>> > Scotlond' and to have founded Warwick 'abowte the byrthe of kyng
>> > Alysaunder the grete'. Of course there was no such king by any name,
>> > and this name is absolutely out of the question: it's a Romance
>> > diminutive of a Continental Germanic name. (The parallel feminine
>> > <Gothelina> is actually attested from France in the mid-10th c.)
>> Not 'Alexander the Great' perhaps...?
>Not Alexander the Great but still of interest. "Gwayr" and "Guthelinus"
>clearly come from "Gwrtheyrn Gwrthenau".
Wrong again -- and you even left the likeliest identification of
<Guthelinus> standing just a few lines up. <Gwayr>, normally spelled
<Gwair> in modern Welsh, is an independent name; there are two of them
in the early Welsh genealogical tracts edited by Bartrum, one a
grandson of Llywarch Hen.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
Adrian Gilbert
king in Welsh. Gwrtheyrn probably means Duke Gwr or Guir if you prefer.
"Guy" would be a corruption of this. I don't think there can be much
mistaking that Gwrtheyrn Gwrthenau is the person being referred to when this
"Guthelinus" is being described as a King of not just a tiny territory in
mid-Wales but of England and Scotland too. One other possibility is
Vortigern's son Vortimer, who is called Gwrthefyr Fendigaid in Welsh. Unlike
his dad, who was a traitor of the first degree, Vortimer the Blessed was a
hero. He is said to have driven back the Saxons but to have been
treacherously poisoned by Alice Rhonwen, the daughter of Hengist and wife of
Gwrtheyrn Gwrthenau. I don't know that he had much connection with the
Warwick region though. He is more remembered in Kent.
A propos King Arthur I, remember that if he is to be identified with
Arthun/Anhun son so Magnus Maximus then he was a brother-in-law of Vortigern
who before marrying Rhonwen was previously married to Servilla the daughter
of Magnus Maximus. Perhaps it is because Gwrtheyn Gwrthenau is so closely
related to Arthur I that you are bending over backwards to distract us with
"Gwair" nonsense.
Adrian Gilbert.
Christopher Gwinn
> Your opinion Brian and not mine!
Not just Brian's opinion.
> Theyrn means something like Duke or minor
> king in Welsh.
Teyrn (not Theyrn - I see you still haven't gotten those Welsh lessons I
suggested to you) means "monarch" or "king" - there is not mention of the
title beeing anything lesser than this in my dictionary.
> Gwrtheyrn probably means Duke Gwr or Guir if you prefer.
Uhhh....no it doesn't. If you ever bothered to pick up some books on
Brittonic linguistics instead of making wild stabs in the dark, you would
realize that the prefix Uor-/Uer (Brittonic) / Gwr-/Gor (modern Welsh) means
"over/superior". Brittonic Uortigernos literally means "Over-King".
> "Guy" would be a corruption of this.
Not likely.
> A propos King Arthur I, remember that if he is to be identified with
> Arthun/Anhun son so Magnus Maximus then he was a brother-in-law of
Vortigern
> who before marrying Rhonwen was previously married to Servilla the
daughter
> of Magnus Maximus. Perhaps it is because Gwrtheyn Gwrthenau is so closely
> related to Arthur I that you are bending over backwards to distract us
with
> "Gwair" nonsense.
Adrian, you really are an idiot. I am sorry - I know I promised not to call
you this anymore - but there is really no better way to sum up your
intellect. Go out and get some actual academic books on the subject instead
of rattling off utter foolishness, making yourself look very stupid to those
that actually know better.
- Chris Gwinn
Brian M. Scott
<Awenl...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Your opinion Brian and not mine!
Indeed; the difference is that mine is considerably better informed
than yours.
> Theyrn means something like Duke or minor
>king in Welsh.
The word is <teyrn>, and it means 'king' or 'monarch'. Its derivative
<teyrnas> is 'kingdom, realm'.
> Gwrtheyrn probably means Duke Gwr or Guir if you prefer.
It doesn't. It's from earlier <Guorthigern(us)>, itself from
Britannic *<Wortigernos>, a compound of the preposition <wor> 'on,
over' and <tigernos> 'king, lord'; the etymological sense is
'over-king, overlord'. (And the byname <Gwrtheneu> is 'thin'.)
>"Guy" would be a corruption of this.
Again, it isn't. <Guy> is the normal Old French reflex of the
Germanic monothematic name <Wido>, and the development is
well-attested. (In some Northern dialects of Old French initial /w/
did not become /g/ but was retained under Germanic influence; in those
dialects the name became <Wy>, a form that is also well-attested.)
> I don't think there can be much
>mistaking that Gwrtheyrn Gwrthenau is the person being referred to when this
>"Guthelinus" is being described as a King of not just a tiny territory in
>mid-Wales but of England and Scotland too.
There's no telling what Rous, writing in the late 15th c., had in
mind, although, given the nature of medieval writing, it's likely that
he had sources of some kind even for his out and out fictions. As I
pointed out before, <Gutholinus> is a Latinized Germanic name. It's
unlikely, though, that Rous would (or could) have pulled such a name
out of thin air. In this context it seems much more probable that he
got it, directly or indirectly, from Geoffrey of Monmouth's
<Guitholinus>, which in turn seems to have been lifted from Nennius's
<Guitolin>, a borrowing of Latin <Vitalinus>. (By the way, Nennius
makes Guitolin the grandfather of Guorthigirn Guortheneu.)
However, Rous names this king not just <Guthelinus> and its Englishing
<Guthelyne>, but also <Kenelyn>. I have no idea what his source for
this was, but since this (and obviously is) a different name, it's
pretty clear that he was groping in the dark and didn't really know
*what* he was doing besides giving the earls of Warwick a really
ancient and illustrious, if fictitious, past.
> One other possibility is
>Vortigern's son Vortimer, who is called Gwrthefyr Fendigaid in Welsh. Unlike
>his dad, who was a traitor of the first degree, Vortimer the Blessed was a
>hero. He is said to have driven back the Saxons but to have been
>treacherously poisoned by Alice Rhonwen, the daughter of Hengist and wife of
>Gwrtheyrn Gwrthenau.
The name <Alice>, from Germanic <Adelheid>, didn't exist until well
after the 5th century CE, so that bit is obviously wrong. The story
of the poisoning is, I believe, found only in Geoffrey's HRB and is
therefore essentially without support. (The only thing resembling
contemporary support even for Vortigern's *existence* is Gildas's 'De
Excidio', which is hardly very informative.)
> I don't know that he had much connection with the
>Warwick region though. He is more remembered in Kent.
>A propos King Arthur I, remember that if he is to be identified with
>Arthun/Anhun son so Magnus Maximus then he was a brother-in-law of Vortigern
>who before marrying Rhonwen was previously married to Servilla the daughter
>of Magnus Maximus. Perhaps it is because Gwrtheyn Gwrthenau is so closely
>related to Arthur I that you are bending over backwards to distract us with
>"Gwair" nonsense.
You brought up the name, not I; if it's a distraction, blame yourself.
I merely pointed out why your claim that it's from <Gwrtheyrn
Gwrthenau> is highly implausible. I realize that you couldn't care
less, but others may prefer evidence and fact to wild speculation.
In any case no distraction is required to deal with your claim that
'Gwrtheyn Gwrthenau is so closely related to Arthur I'. Anyone who
thinks that so precise a statement is justifiable on the basis of
existing evidence has the critical acumen of a senile pet rock.
Brian M. Scott
john....@sk.sympatico.ca
My source for this is Carl Sagan's book Cosmos, page 47. I don't know
who Charles was in this case :).
Graham Nowland
john....@sk.sympatico.ca wrote:
> Hi, Actually the big dipper was known as Charles' Wain in medieval times.
> My source for this is Carl Sagan's book Cosmos, page 47. I don't know
> who Charles was in this case :).
>
Charlemagne.
See Enyclopeadia Britannica under Charles' Wain
Regards
Graham
richard wardle
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 20:00:27 +0100, "Adrian Gilbert"
><Awenl...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>"Brian M. Scott" <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote in message
>>news:3b8ce2ea....@enews.newsguy.com...
>
>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:47:22 +0100, "Adrian Gilbert"
>>> <Awenl...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>> >"Martin Reboul" <martin...@virgin.net> wrote in message
>>> >news:3B8BFD4C...@virgin.net...
>
>>> >>> Rous also joined in the favourite contemporary
>>> >> > game of inventing eponymous founders. Thus Warwick
>>> >> > was founded as far back as the fourth century B.C. by
>>> >> > King Guthelinus, who called it Caerleon, but its name
>>> >> > was changed first to Cairumbre, then to Cayr Gwayr,
>>> >> > from which derives 'Warwick'. (cap. 1).
>
>In any case no distraction is required to deal with your claim that
>'Gwrtheyn Gwrthenau is so closely related to Arthur I'.
<>"Anyone who thinks that so precise a statement is justifiable on the basis
of
existing evidence has the critical acumen of a senile pet rock."<>
Brian I love it!!!!! <>""<>,Can I add it to my collection Please!!!!
--
Regards Richard
Mankind is divided into three classes,
The rich,The poor and Those who have enough
Therefore abolish the rich and you will have no more poor,
For it is the few rich who are the cause of the many poor.
Brian M. Scott
<ric...@wadl.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Brian M. Scott wrote in message <3b8d739c....@enews.newsguy.com>...
[...]
>>In any case no distraction is required to deal with your claim that
>>'Gwrtheyn Gwrthenau is so closely related to Arthur I'.
><>"Anyone who thinks that so precise a statement is justifiable on the basis
>of existing evidence has the critical acumen of a senile pet rock."<>
>Brian I love it!!!!! <>""<>,Can I add it to my collection Please!!!!
By all means; be my guest.
Brian
Adrian Gilbert
Internet server. There seems to be a problem here in the circulation of
usenet messages.
>"Brian M. Scott" <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote in message
>news:3b8ce2ea....@enews.newsguy.com...
>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:47:22 +0100, "Adrian Gilbert"
!
>Indeed; the difference is that mine is considerably better informed
>than yours.
> Theyrn means something like Duke or minor
>king in Welsh.
The word is <teyrn>, and it means 'king' or 'monarch'. Its derivative
<teyrnas> is 'kingdom, realm'.
Well I am happey to translate Teyrn as "king" but I have been criticised for
this before by, I think, Heather Rose Jones no less. For this reason I have
downgraded the translation to "Duke" or minor king. I would imagine that the
word is closely connected to the Scottish "Thane" (as in Thane of Cawdor)
and that it can men rather less than a king and quite possible be translated
as "earl".
> Gwrtheyrn probably means Duke Gwr or Guir if you prefer.
It doesn't. It's from earlier <Guorthigern(us)>, itself from
Britannic *<Wortigernos>, a compound of the preposition <wor> 'on,
over' and <tigernos> 'king, lord'; the etymological sense is
'over-king, overlord'. (And the byname <Gwrtheneu> is 'thin'.)
Well "Thin over-king" is a nick-name for Vortigern that I can live with. The
question then is, what was his real name?
By the way, in my Welsh dictionary "Gwr" means man (I presume it is derived
from a similar root to the Latin word "vir" but wouldn't take an oath on
this).
><Guy> is the normal Old French reflex of the
>Germanic monothematic name <Wido>, and the development is
>well-attested. (In some Northern dialects of Old French initial /w/
>did not become /g/ but was retained under Germanic influence; in those
>dialects the name became <Wy>, a form that is also well-attested.)
Even you must admit, Brian, that not every twelfth century chronicler had
quite your grasp of etymologies. Of course I know that "Guy" in the modern
sense, is derived from "Guido". After all here in Britain we celebrated Guy
Fawkes day on 5th November each year and his name was Guido. But don't you
think there is just a possibility that someone not as clever as you might
have corrupted Gwr or Guir into Guy?
>> I don't think there can be much
>>mistaking that Gwrtheyrn Gwrthenau is the person being referred to when
this
>>"Guthelinus" is being described as a King of not just a tiny territory in
>>mid-Wales but of England and Scotland too.
>There's no telling what Rous, writing in the late 15th c., had in
>mind, although, given the nature of medieval writing, it's likely that
>he had sources of some kind even for his out and out fictions. As I
>pointed out before, <Gutholinus> is a Latinized Germanic name. It's
>unlikely, though, that Rous would (or could) have pulled such a name
>out of thin air. In this context it seems much more probable that he
>got it, directly or indirectly, from Geoffrey of Monmouth's
<Guitholinus>, which in turn seems to have been lifted from Nennius's
<Guitolin>, a borrowing of Latin <Vitalinus>. (By the way, Nennius
>makes Guitolin the grandfather of Guorthigirn Guortheneu.)
Thank you for that last snippet but I already know it. If you consult "The
Holy Kingdom" you will find Vortigern's family tree presented, going back to
Gloyw Gwalltir, the father of this "Guitolion" (or "Gwdoloeu"), whose son
was called "Guitaul" (Gwidawl).
In the wedding lists of Owain son of Howell Dda (list 19) there is a Guiteun
son of Samuil Pennissel amd grandson of Papp Post Priten. In list 24 there
is Guitgen son of Bodeg son of Carantmail. In list 27 there is Guilauc son
of Eli grandson of Eliud. Clearly names starting with "Gui-" were not all
that uncommon in the dark ages.
You raise an interesting point with "Vitalinus". Wilson and Blackett believe
this to be the real identity of Vortimer, son of Vortigern and they identify
the fifth century "Vitaliani Emerito" stone at Nevern church with him.
Perhaps he does have some input into the "Guy of Warwick" mythos after all.
(See "The Holy Kingdom" p. 148)
However, Rous names this king not just <Guthelinus> and its Englishing
<Guthelyne>, but also <Kenelyn>. I have no idea what his source for
this was, but since this (and obviously is) a different name, it's
pretty clear that he was groping in the dark and didn't really know
*what* he was doing besides giving the earls of Warwick a really
ancient and illustrious, if fictitious, past.
>> One other possibility is
>>Vortigern's son Vortimer, who is called Gwrthefyr Fendigaid in Welsh.
Unlike
>>his dad, who was a traitor of the first degree, Vortimer the Blessed was a
>>hero. He is said to have driven back the Saxons but to have been
>>treacherously poisoned by Alice Rhonwen, the daughter of Hengist and wife
of
>>Gwrtheyrn Gwrthenau.
>The name <Alice>, from Germanic <Adelheid>, didn't exist until well
>after the 5th century CE, so that bit is obviously wrong. The story
>of the poisoning is, I believe, found only in Geoffrey's HRB and is
>therefore essentially without support. (The only thing resembling
>contemporary support even for Vortigern's *existence* is Gildas's 'De
>Excidio', which is hardly very informative.)
Maybe you're right on this. I always thought Alice came from "Alicia", a
Latin rendering of the Greek "Alethia" meaning "Truth". I bow to your
greater knowledge in this respect and shall forthwith stop giving Rhonwen
the pre-name of Alice.
On your last point about Vortigern's existence. He gets extensive coverage
in Nennius. He is also mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. That's about
as good as it gets for Dark Age kings of Britain and I personally don't
doubt that he existed.
>> I don't know that he had much connection with the
>>Warwick region though. He is more remembered in Kent.
>>A propos King Arthur I, remember that if he is to be identified with
>>Arthun/Anhun son so Magnus Maximus then he was a brother-in-law of
Vortigern
>>who before marrying Rhonwen was previously married to Servilla the
daughter
>>of Magnus Maximus. Perhaps it is because Gwrtheyn Gwrthenau is so closely
>>related to Arthur I that you are bending over backwards to distract us
with
>>"Gwair" nonsense.
>You brought up the name, not I; if it's a distraction, blame yourself.
>I merely pointed out why your claim that it's from <Gwrtheyrn
>Gwrthenau> is highly implausible. I realize that you couldn't care
>less, but others may prefer evidence and fact to wild speculation.
If news-groups have any value at all (and I sometimes wonder if they do)
then they are for discussing ideas. As far as I can tell your idea of a
"discussion" seems to be to pontificate on the basis of received opinion. I
prefer to explore ideas in an open and intuitive way. I don't always get
things right and I admit this. On the other hand, by thinking laterally, I
often make new discoveries. That's why my books are best-sellers: they
introduce fresh ideas for people to think about.
>In any case no distraction is required to deal with your claim that
>'Gwrtheyn Gwrthenau is so closely related to Arthur I'. Anyone who
>thinks that so precise a statement is justifiable on the basis of
>existing evidence has the critical acumen of a senile pet rock.
You seem to have been drinking vinegar for breakfast again Brian! Let's try
and keep things civilized shall we and avoid personal insults.
It makes no difference to me if Guy of Warwick is a total fiction from the
Middle Ages. I don't care if his name was derived from Guido, Gwiddo,
Guidolfin or Guelfus. What is of more interest to me is the archetype on
which the mythos is based. I read in the bear and staff motif a reference to
the stars. You prefer to think mundane and go for a simple explanation of a
bear-hero tearing out a tree and making a club. That you refuse to see a
connection between this myth and the reality of Ursa Major, the Great Bear,
circling the pole of heaven is your own business. You may have it your own
way. I no longer care and regard this discussion as over.
Adrian Gilbert.
Graham Nowland
> I don't always get
> things right and I admit this.
Here's one you got right Adrian. The Plough or Big Dipper has been called
Arthur's Wain in print, not just in European vernacular.
Sir Walter Scott in his 1805 poem The Last Minstrel wrote
"Arthur's slow wain his course doth roll
In utter darkness round the pole."
It appears to have been called Arthur's Wain long before the concept got
transferred to Charles's Wain about 1000AD. The earlier tradtion carried on in
parallel and Scott must have heard it in the British countryside somewhere.
Regards
Graham
Brian M. Scott
[...]
>I assume 'teyrn' is cognate with Irish 'Tiarna', meaning lord?
Yes; pre-spelling-reform <tighearna>, Old Irish <tigerna>.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<Awenl...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>I would have replied to this posting sooner had it appered on the BT
>Internet server. There seems to be a problem here in the circulation of
>usenet messages.
>"Brian M. Scott" <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote in message
>news:3b8ce2ea....@enews.newsguy.com...
>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:47:22 +0100, "Adrian Gilbert"
[...]
>>> Theyrn means something like Duke or minor
>>>king in Welsh.
>>The word is <teyrn>, and it means 'king' or 'monarch'. Its derivative
>><teyrnas> is 'kingdom, realm'.
>Well I am happey to translate Teyrn as "king" but I have been criticised for
>this before by, I think, Heather Rose Jones no less. For this reason I have
>downgraded the translation to "Duke" or minor king.
A duke is rather different from a minor king, and 'duke' is a poor
translation'. ('Duke' is even worse.) There's no problem with
translating it as 'king' as long as you know a bit about the culture
in which the term was used. (What she actually suggested to you was
'ruler, prince, etc.'; the connotations may be a bit more helpful for
the typical modern reader.)
>> I would imagine that the
>>word is closely connected to the Scottish "Thane" (as in Thane of Cawdor)
In all probability it is unrelated to <thane>, which is hardly
Scottish in origin. <Thane> is from Old English <ţegn> 'freeman,
nobleman, military vassal, warrior', from Common Germanic */ţegnaz/
'boy, man, servant, warrior'. <Teyrn> is from Common Celtic
*/tegernos/ 'lord', which is generally taken to derive from CC
*/tegos/ 'house'; this is related not to OE <ţegn> but to OE <ţćc>
'roof, thatch' (whence our <thatch>), Old Icelandic <ţak> 'roof,
thatch, bed-cover', Latin and Greek <tegô> 'I cover', etc.
>>and that it can men rather less than a king and quite possible be translated
>>as "earl".
The word 'earl' has completely wrong connotations for the society in
which the term was used.
>>> Gwrtheyrn probably means Duke Gwr or Guir if you prefer.
>>It doesn't. It's from earlier <Guorthigern(us)>, itself from
>>Britannic *<Wortigernos>, a compound of the preposition <wor> 'on,
>>over' and <tigernos> 'king, lord'; the etymological sense is
>>'over-king, overlord'. (And the byname <Gwrtheneu> is 'thin'.)
>Well "Thin over-king" is a nick-name for Vortigern that I can live with. The
>question then is, what was his real name?
In all probability <Vortigern>. See Kenneth Jackson, 'Varia: II.
Gildas and the Names of the British Princes', Cambridge Medieval
Celtic Studies 3 (Summer 1982), 30-40. After several pages of
argumentation he concludes inter alia that 'the notion that for
<Vortigernus> we must read <vortigernus>, and that this was a title,
not the usurper's personal name, is too far-fetched to be taken
seriously'.
Note that the Celtic <tigern-> 'ruler' appears in a good many early
medieval Welsh and Irish personal names; Welsh <Cateyrn> and
<Cyndeyrn> and Irish <Caíntigern> and <Echthigern> are examples.
There was even an Irish <Fortchern>, name of an early saint, that is
cognate with <Gwrtheyrn>.
>By the way, in my Welsh dictionary "Gwr" means man (I presume it is derived
>from a similar root to the Latin word "vir" but wouldn't take an oath on
>this).
There is indeed a Welsh word <gwr> 'man', and it is cognate with Latin
<vir>. As Heather pointed out to you a little over a year ago, 'the
earliest recordings of the name clearly use the form "Vor-" (over,
above) which is clearly distinguished from contemporary "vir-" (man)
-- phonological changes in the two didn't lead to them falling
together until the Old Welsh period'.
>><Guy> is the normal Old French reflex of the
>>Germanic monothematic name <Wido>, and the development is
>>well-attested. (In some Northern dialects of Old French initial /w/
>>did not become /g/ but was retained under Germanic influence; in those
>>dialects the name became <Wy>, a form that is also well-attested.)
>Even you must admit, Brian, that not every twelfth century chronicler had
>quite your grasp of etymologies. Of course I know that "Guy" in the modern
>sense, is derived from "Guido".
There's no 'of course' about it.
> After all here in Britain we celebrated Guy
>Fawkes day on 5th November each year and his name was Guido.
Since he was born in 1570 in York, I find that rather unlikely. It's
far more probable that his name was <Guy> but was recorded as <Guido>;
such documentary Latinization was still quite common at the time.
> But don't you
>think there is just a possibility that someone not as clever as you might
>have corrupted Gwr or Guir into Guy?
You don't have <Gwr> or <Guir> as a starting point; you have the name
<Gwrtheyrn>, and possibly access to even older forms like
<Guorthigernus>. Even if you assume (without any real evidence) that
Guy of Warwick is based on Vortigern, 'corruption' into <Guy> doesn't
look like a good bet at all compared with simple substitution of a
familiar name appropriate to the period in which the romance was
composed (2nd quarter of the 13th c.).
>>> I don't think there can be much
>>>mistaking that Gwrtheyrn Gwrthenau is the person being referred to
>>>when this "Guthelinus" is being described as a King of not just a tiny
>>>territory in mid-Wales but of England and Scotland too.
>>There's no telling what Rous, writing in the late 15th c., had in
>>mind, although, given the nature of medieval writing, it's likely that
>>he had sources of some kind even for his out and out fictions. As I
>>pointed out before, <Gutholinus> is a Latinized Germanic name. It's
>>unlikely, though, that Rous would (or could) have pulled such a name
>>out of thin air. In this context it seems much more probable that he
>>got it, directly or indirectly, from Geoffrey of Monmouth's
>><Guitholinus>, which in turn seems to have been lifted from Nennius's
>><Guitolin>, a borrowing of Latin <Vitalinus>. (By the way, Nennius
>>makes Guitolin the grandfather of Guorthigirn Guortheneu.)
>Thank you for that last snippet but I already know it.
Then you can already see that it's inconsistent with an identification
of Gutholinus/Guitolin with Gwrtheyrn.
> If you consult "The
>Holy Kingdom" you will find Vortigern's family tree presented, going back to
>Gloyw Gwalltir, the father of this "Guitolion" (or "Gwdoloeu"), whose son
>was called "Guitaul" (Gwidawl).
I'll stick to sources that I can trust, like Bartrum's 'Early Welsh
Genealogical Tracts'. (Trusting the genealogies themselves, of
course, is another matter altogether.)
Gloyw Gwalltir ('Longhair') is a fiction invented (in good and very
familiar medieval fashion) to explain the place-name <Gloucester>
(Roman <Glevum> already in the 2nd c. CE, <Cair Gloiu> in Nennius).
(We've been through this before.)
>In the wedding lists of Owain son of Howell Dda (list 19) there is a Guiteun
>son of Samuil Pennissel amd grandson of Papp Post Priten. In list 24 there
>is Guitgen son of Bodeg son of Carantmail. In list 27 there is Guilauc son
>of Eli grandson of Eliud. Clearly names starting with "Gui-" were not all
>that uncommon in the dark ages.
These would be the 'Welsh Genealogies' from Harleian MS. 3859, dated
to about 1100; the original source dates to the second half of the
10th century. The first name that you mention should be <Guitcun>,
not <Guiteun>. I doubt very much that anyone contemporary with the
names <Guitcun> and <Guitgen> would have thought of them as 'starting
with "Gui-"', since they are obviously compounds with first element
<Guit->. For a rough modern English parallel, we immediately
recognize in <without> and <within> an element <with->, not <wi->, and
we don't lump these words together with <willing>.
>You raise an interesting point with "Vitalinus". Wilson and Blackett believe
>this to be the real identity of Vortimer, son of Vortigern and they identify
>the fifth century "Vitaliani Emerito" stone at Nevern church with him.
>Perhaps he does have some input into the "Guy of Warwick" mythos after all.
>(See "The Holy Kingdom" p. 148)
There is no compelling reason to suppose that <Vortimer> was anything
other than a personal name or to look any further for a 'real
identity'.
[...]
>>> One other possibility is
>>>Vortigern's son Vortimer, who is called Gwrthefyr Fendigaid in Welsh.
>>>Unlike his dad, who was a traitor of the first degree, Vortimer the Blessed
>>>was a hero. He is said to have driven back the Saxons but to have been
>>>treacherously poisoned by Alice Rhonwen, the daughter of Hengist and
>>>wife of Gwrtheyrn Gwrthenau.
>>The name <Alice>, from Germanic <Adelheid>, didn't exist until well
>>after the 5th century CE, so that bit is obviously wrong. The story
>>of the poisoning is, I believe, found only in Geoffrey's HRB and is
>>therefore essentially without support. (The only thing resembling
>>contemporary support even for Vortigern's *existence* is Gildas's 'De
>>Excidio', which is hardly very informative.)
[...]
>On your last point about Vortigern's existence. He gets extensive coverage
>in Nennius. He is also mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. That's about
>as good as it gets for Dark Age kings of Britain and I personally don't
>doubt that he existed.
You miss the point completely. I was not arguing against his
existence; I was pointing out the absurdity of telling detailed
stories about him as if they were established fact.
>>> I don't know that he had much connection with the
>>>Warwick region though. He is more remembered in Kent.
>>>A propos King Arthur I, remember that if he is to be identified with
>>>Arthun/Anhun son so Magnus Maximus then he was a brother-in-law of
>>>Vortigern who before marrying Rhonwen was previously married to
>>>Servilla the daughter of Magnus Maximus. Perhaps it is because
>>>Gwrtheyn Gwrthenau is so closely related to Arthur I that you are
>>>bending over backwards to distract us with "Gwair" nonsense.
>>You brought up the name, not I; if it's a distraction, blame yourself.
>>I merely pointed out why your claim that it's from <Gwrtheyrn
>>Gwrthenau> is highly implausible. I realize that you couldn't care
>>less, but others may prefer evidence and fact to wild speculation.
>If news-groups have any value at all (and I sometimes wonder if they do)
>then they are for discussing ideas.
The Internet as a whole is a two-edged sword, and Usenet in particular
reflects this. On the one hand it makes it easy for just about anyone
to publish his pet notions, no matter how idiotic they may be. It
greatly increases the visibility of people like you, Graham Hancock,
and Heribert Illig at very little cost. On the other hand, it makes
it easy for just about anyone to publish refutations. This is
probably a net improvement, since it makes the refutations much more
widely available than before. Well-informed amateurs, who are much
more likely than professional scholars to be willing to spare the time
on a task that is of no value in the academic world, can now publish
on the Web as easily as the loons. Moreover, unlike book publishers,
they don't have to worry.about the profitability of debunking; they
can do it as a public service.
> As far as I can tell your idea of a
>"discussion" seems to be to pontificate on the basis of received opinion.
Received opinion or current consensus in any scholarly field is almost
certainly wrong in detail, at least; it's also almost always the way
to bet on the basis of currently available information. In
particular, it's the height of fatuity to challenge the scholarly
consensus without understanding why it is the received opinion. In
fact, without that understanding you can't even discuss the subject
intelligently.
> I
>prefer to explore ideas in an open and intuitive way. I don't always get
>things right and I admit this.
That you don't always get things right is an understatement, but in
fact the situation is even worse: you don't even try very hard to get
them right. You throw out wild guesses without having done even the
most basic research to check them; this makes you an intellectual
slob. Frequently you even state them as fact; this makes you
intellectually dishonest. And don't try to tell me that you do this
only on Usenet. At bottom you neither understand nor value
scholarship, though you do value its trappings for the air of
(spurious) authority that they lend your writing. In this you remind
me of the Institute for Creation Research, a profoundly unscientific
organization trying desperately to clothe itself in the trappings of
science.
> On the other hand, by thinking laterally, I
>often make new discoveries. That's why my books are best-sellers: they
>introduce fresh ideas for people to think about.
No, your books are best-sellers because they substitute sensationalism
for scholarship and simple certainties for the complex and heavily
qualified statements that are all that we can honestly make. People
love to think that they're getting a close look at The Truth,
especially if it's mysterious or exciting, or if they feel as if
they're being let in on a secret -- provided, that is, that they don't
actually have to do any work. Worthless fad diets push some of the
same buttons.
>>In any case no distraction is required to deal with your claim that
>>'Gwrtheyn Gwrthenau is so closely related to Arthur I'. Anyone who
>>thinks that so precise a statement is justifiable on the basis of
>>existing evidence has the critical acumen of a senile pet rock.
>You seem to have been drinking vinegar for breakfast again Brian! Let's try
>and keep things civilized shall we and avoid personal insults.
It's forcefully put, but I consider it a fundamentally accurate
assessment. Moreover, it's a general assessment, not a personal
comment.
>It makes no difference to me if Guy of Warwick is a total fiction from the
>Middle Ages.
Your posts suggest otherwise.
> I don't care if his name was derived from Guido, Gwiddo,
>Guidolfin or Guelfus. What is of more interest to me is the archetype on
>which the mythos is based. I read in the bear and staff motif a reference to
>the stars. You prefer to think mundane and go for a simple explanation of a
>bear-hero tearing out a tree and making a club.
At no point have I made such a suggestion. I do not know the source
of the ragged staff badge.
> That you refuse to see a
>connection between this myth and the reality of Ursa Major, the Great Bear,
>circling the pole of heaven is your own business. You may have it your own
>way. I no longer care and regard this discussion as over.
Nice try: someone who wasn't paying attention might actually miss the
fact that you've changed the subject. In correcting your numerous
errors of fact I don't believe that I've said a thing one way or the
other about a possible connection between the romance of Guy of
Warwick and the circling of the pole star by Ursa Major.
BMS
Dave
which bears little resemblance to English and so cannot be described as
English either old or new except by rabid Anglo-Saxonists.news:3b886835....@enews.newsguy.com...
Dave
Adrian Gilbert <Awenl...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9mje3t$9nh$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
Anglo-Saxon invasion and so cannot be accepted as historical evidence.
Hengist and Horse were just part of a Germanic horse cult not unlike Castor
and Pollux, or the Asvins of the Vedas. There were never any real people
called Hengist and Horsa, it is just nonesense. Concerning Arthur, how do
you explain that his battle sites that can be identified all took place in
North Britain, and what evidence is there that Arthur was either a king or
fought any Saxons? Was there even an Arthur, was it just a nick-name that
was attached to various Romano-British war lords?
Adrian Gilbert
provoked to do so by Brian Scott's latest outpouring. I will try to keep it
short!
>
> >"Brian M. Scott" <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote in message
> >news:3b8ce2ea....@enews.newsguy.com...
>
>
> A duke is rather different from a minor king, and 'duke' is a poor
> translation'. ('Duke' is even worse.) There's no problem with
> translating it as 'king' as long as you know a bit about the culture
> in which the term was used. (What she actually suggested to you was
> 'ruler, prince, etc.'; the connotations may be a bit more helpful for
> the typical modern reader.)
>
I think you are splitting hairs here Brian. In Britain we still have dukes
and they are the highest peers below the monarch herself. Whether you call a
"teyrn" a prince or duke it is of little consequence. Within their own
locales they ruled over the peasantry and from their number was drawn the
king or pendragon.
> >> I would imagine that the
> >>word is closely connected to the Scottish "Thane" (as in Thane of
Cawdor)
>
> In all probability it is unrelated to <thane>, which is hardly
> Scottish in origin. <Thane> is from Old English <þegn> 'freeman,
> nobleman, military vassal, warrior', from Common Germanic */þegnaz/
> 'boy, man, servant, warrior'. <Teyrn> is from Common Celtic
> */tegernos/ 'lord', which is generally taken to derive from CC
> */tegos/ 'house'; this is related not to OE <þegn> but to OE <þæc>
> 'roof, thatch' (whence our <thatch>), Old Icelandic <þak> 'roof,
> thatch, bed-cover', Latin and Greek <tegô> 'I cover', etc.
>
Again it is your "all probability" against my "imagination". Neither of us
know for sure and I don't believe the answer is to be found in semantics.
> >>and that it can men rather less than a king and quite possible be
translated
> >>as "earl".
>
> The word 'earl' has completely wrong connotations for the society in
> which the term was used.
>
I said translated as earl. I realise of course that "earl" is a Saxon term
and belongs to a later period but it the earls of Wessex etcetera had a very
similar position, as far as I can tell, to the minor princes of kinglets
that were called by the term "teyrn" or "tigern" in earlier periods. That is
all I was saying here.
> >>> Gwrtheyrn probably means Duke Gwr or Guir if you prefer.
>
> >>It doesn't. It's from earlier <Guorthigern(us)>, itself from
> >>Britannic *<Wortigernos>, a compound of the preposition <wor> 'on,
> >>over' and <tigernos> 'king, lord'; the etymological sense is
> >>'over-king, overlord'. (And the byname <Gwrtheneu> is 'thin'.)
>
> >Well "Thin over-king" is a nick-name for Vortigern that I can live with.
The
> >question then is, what was his real name?
>
> In all probability <Vortigern>. See Kenneth Jackson, 'Varia: II.
> Gildas and the Names of the British Princes', Cambridge Medieval
> Celtic Studies 3 (Summer 1982), 30-40. After several pages of
> argumentation he concludes inter alia that 'the notion that for
> <Vortigernus> we must read <vortigernus>, and that this was a title,
> not the usurper's personal name, is too far-fetched to be taken
> seriously'.
>
Well, having hit me repeatedly over the head with the brick bat of etymology
concerning the meaning of Vortigern ("Gwrtheyn Gwrthenau" in Welsh and
translated by you as "thin overking"), you now say forget all that! On the
evidence of Kenneth Jackson you now tell me this guy's name (presumably
given him by his parents) is "Overking". I find that hard to believe, not
least because if there is one thing Vortigern is famous for it is the fact
that he usurped the throne by murdering Constantine the Blessed. At the time
he was being named as a baby no-one would have expected him to be king of
Britain. However, I expect you will tell me I am mistaken in this too and
that there was no Constantine either.
> Note that the Celtic <tigern-> 'ruler' appears in a good many early
> medieval Welsh and Irish personal names; Welsh <Cateyrn> and
> <Cyndeyrn> and Irish <Caíntigern> and <Echthigern> are examples.
> There was even an Irish <Fortchern>, name of an early saint, that is
> cognate with <Gwrtheyrn>.
>
So what? These could be nick-names too.
> >By the way, in my Welsh dictionary "Gwr" means man (I presume it is
derived
> >from a similar root to the Latin word "vir" but wouldn't take an oath on
> >this).
>
>
> There is no compelling reason to suppose that <Vortimer> was anything
> other than a personal name or to look any further for a 'real
> identity'.
>
Well one reason might be that he is called Gwrthefyr Fendigaid in Welsh. One
reads today of the activities of the "Prince of Wales". Often his name is
not specified, which doesn't matter since we know that it is HRH Charles
Windsor who is being referred to but it could be confusing if we didn't. The
Battle of Waterloo was won by the Duke of Wellington. This also could be
confusing if we didn't know that he is the same person as Arthur Wellesley.
> [...]
>
> >On your last point about Vortigern's existence. He gets extensive
coverage
> >in Nennius. He is also mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. That's
about
> >as good as it gets for Dark Age kings of Britain and I personally don't
> >doubt that he existed.
>
> You miss the point completely. I was not arguing against his
> existence; I was pointing out the absurdity of telling detailed
> stories about him as if they were established fact.
>
What is history without detail? A very thin book indeed. Some details are
absurd, some are barely believable but that is also how life is. If you
throw out the details because you require to poke your finger into every
open wound you leve us with a much impoverished vision of the past and not
necessarily any nearer to the truth.
> >If news-groups have any value at all (and I sometimes wonder if they do)
> >then they are for discussing ideas.
>
> The Internet as a whole is a two-edged sword, and Usenet in particular
> reflects this. On the one hand it makes it easy for just about anyone
> to publish his pet notions, no matter how idiotic they may be. It
> greatly increases the visibility of people like you, Graham Hancock,
> and Heribert Illig at very little cost. On the other hand, it makes
> it easy for just about anyone to publish refutations. This is
> probably a net improvement, since it makes the refutations much more
> widely available than before. Well-informed amateurs, who are much
> more likely than professional scholars to be willing to spare the time
> on a task that is of no value in the academic world, can now publish
> on the Web as easily as the loons. Moreover, unlike book publishers,
> they don't have to worry.about the profitability of debunking; they
> can do it as a public service.
>
I have never heard of Heribert Illig and can't abide Graham Hancock so why
throw them in my face? You imply that you are a "well-informed" amateur.
However, like everyone else in this world you have certain knowledge and
experience that you have gained either through personal experience, reading
books or watching films etcetera. This doesn't mean you necessarily know
everything even about subjects you calim to have mastered. Sometimes it
happens that the people labelled as "loons" turn out to hve a better grasp
on reality than their "well-informed" critics. Copernicus was considered a
"loon" by many for saying the earth went round the sun and not vice-versa.
Just because you have a reductionist turn of mind and love indulging in
philological name-games doesn't mean you have a better knowledge of
Arthurian Britain than I do. I would guess that neither of us have the whole
picture of the times. You just have different parts of the puzzle and a
different orientation towards the past.
I think it is time you grew up and stopped trying to be so clever
"debunking" what you don't like and spent more time trying to understand
what is actually being said by people such as myself. You might find that my
work is not all as valueless as you imagine and great deal more fun than
posing as a critic.
> > As far as I can tell your idea of a
> >"discussion" seems to be to pontificate on the basis of received opinion.
>
> That you don't always get things right is an understatement, but in
> fact the situation is even worse: you don't even try very hard to get
> them right. You throw out wild guesses without having done even the
> most basic research to check them; this makes you an intellectual
> slob. Frequently you even state them as fact; this makes you
> intellectually dishonest. And don't try to tell me that you do this
> only on Usenet. At bottom you neither understand nor value
> scholarship, though you do value its trappings for the air of
> (spurious) authority that they lend your writing. In this you remind
> me of the Institute for Creation Research, a profoundly unscientific
> organization trying desperately to clothe itself in the trappings of
> science.
>
Again I have never heard of the Institute for Creation Research. Who are you
to say I am "intellectually dishonest" and an "intellectual slob"? This is
getting very near to libel Brian and such attacks are unacceptable. In fact
I work extremely hard. If you imagine that books just write themselves you
are much mistaken. However as I have never heard of a single publication by
you I don't imagine you know what I am talking about. In my books I explore
ideas: often ideas which today are deeply unfashionable (such as the Trojan
migration to Britain for example). I have a perfect right to do this and I
do so in an open and honest way. If people wish to buy my books then that is
entirely their choice. I do my best to back what I say with quotes and
references. From what you say above you seem to see this as somehow
dishonest. I can't understand your logic here. Why does my referencing
sources lend an "air of spurious authority" when if this is done by Geoffrey
Ashe, say, you label no such charge?
From you venom of your attacks and their now personal nature I can only
conclude that you are now projecting your own shadow side onto me and my
works. If you don't know wht I am talking about I suggest you study the
works of C. G. Jung. I think if you went deeper into your mind than the
outer layers of your own ego you might just find that all you hate in me and
my works is actually in yourself. It is your own devil you are fighting
Brian and not me. The sooner you see this the sooner you will have a happy
life.
> > On the other hand, by thinking laterally, I
> >often make new discoveries. That's why my books are best-sellers: they
> >introduce fresh ideas for people to think about.
>
> No, your books are best-sellers because they substitute sensationalism
> for scholarship and simple certainties for the complex and heavily
> qualified statements that are all that we can honestly make. People
> love to think that they're getting a close look at The Truth,
> especially if it's mysterious or exciting, or if they feel as if
> they're being let in on a secret -- provided, that is, that they don't
> actually have to do any work. Worthless fad diets push some of the
> same buttons.
>
And why shouldn't people have fun with their studies of Mysteries? Why
should King Arthur be left to people like you who want to count the number
of angels on a pin-head and reduce everything to semantics? Some of us get
excited when a couple of amateur archaeologist discover a tombstone with the
name Artorius on it. You are very critical of Wilson and Blackett but have
you any idea of the amount of work they have done? You might not agree with
their conclusions or with my writing about them in "The Holy Kingdom" but
those stones didn't appear by magic. It took a lot of work to pin down the
site on Mynydd y Gaer and even more to get the dig done on St Peter's
Church. If our readers enjoy our books and get some excitement when reading
them on the tube on the way to work, then that is fine by me. I hope they do
get excited! Incidently I have been accosted by more than one teenager who
having read "The Orion Mystery" has since decided to study Egyptology.
That's the nature of things. Without excitement we live in a very dull world
and few people get excited, as you seem to, on the intricacies of etymology.
>
> >You seem to have been drinking vinegar for breakfast again Brian! Let's
try
> >and keep things civilized shall we and avoid personal insults.
>
> It's forcefully put, but I consider it a fundamentally accurate
> assessment. Moreover, it's a general assessment, not a personal
> comment.
>
I consider what you have written to be very personal. You have called me an
intellectual slob and intellectually dishonest. How much more personal do
you have to get?
> >It makes no difference to me if Guy of Warwick is a total fiction from
the
> >Middle Ages.
>
> Your posts suggest otherwise.
>
> > I don't care if his name was derived from Guido, Gwiddo,
> >Guidolfin or Guelfus. What is of more interest to me is the archetype on
> >which the mythos is based. I read in the bear and staff motif a reference
to
> >the stars. You prefer to think mundane and go for a simple explanation of
a
> >bear-hero tearing out a tree and making a club.
>
> At no point have I made such a suggestion. I do not know the source
> of the ragged staff badge.
>
Then don't call me intellectually dishonest for putting forward a theory
that it is based on stellar myths. It might just happen that I know more
about these things (stellar myths that is) than you do.
Adrian Gilbert.
Adrian Gilbert
"Dave" <fl...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles
were written centuries after the so called
> Anglo-Saxon invasion and so cannot be accepted as historical evidence.
> Hengist and Horse were just part of a Germanic horse cult not unlike
Castor
> and Pollux, or the Asvins of the Vedas. There were never any real people
> called Hengist and Horsa, it is just nonesense. Concerning Arthur, how do
> you explain that his battle sites that can be identified all took place in
> North Britain, and what evidence is there that Arthur was either a king or
> fought any Saxons? Was there even an Arthur, was it just a nick-name that
> was attached to various Romano-British war lords?
>
>
well you may as well say noone existed if you can't find a stone for them.
What about Cerdic and Cynric of Wessex? What are they donkeys? If you have
been following the King Arthur newsgroup for a time you will find we have
been into the Hengist and Horsa subject quite a lot over the past year. I
would also recommend you examine the work of John Greenall, who posts quite
a lot on the King Arthur newsgroup. He has done some very interesting
research on the probable place of execution and burial of Hengist.
As regards Arthur's battles, the most important is Mons Badonis. There are a
number of contenders for the site (not least Mynnydd y Gaer in Glamorgan)
but I think you will find all of them are in the south of England or Wales.
Adrian Gilbert.
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>By O.E. I presume you mean the ancient Low German dialect called Anglo-Saxon
>which bears little resemblance to English and so cannot be described as
>English either old or new except by rabid Anglo-Saxonists.
It is of course a Germanic dialect, and, like Low German, it did not
participate in the High German sound shift. It is not a Low German
dialect, however, as there was no Low German at the time.
The term 'Old English' has largely replaced 'Anglo-Saxon' in the
scholarly literature as the name of the language. It is parallel to
'Old Icelandic', 'Old Saxon', 'Old High German', and 'Old Frisian' as
names for the oldest extant written forms of the languages in
question.
Brian
Simon Ward
(...)
> > Concerning Arthur, how do
> > you explain that his battle sites that can be identified all took place
in
> > North Britain,
(...)
> As regards Arthur's battles, the most important is Mons Badonis. There are
a
> number of contenders for the site (not least Mynnydd y Gaer in Glamorgan)
> but I think you will find all of them are in the south of England or
Wales.
Add to that the battle at the Glein, for which, in my opinion, a very
convincing argument can be put forward for placing the site near to Lewes in
East Sussex. And you can't get much further south than that.
But then I think Dave is trolling anyway.
Regards
Simon
Tim O'Neill
> > >"Brian M. Scott" <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote in message
> > >news:3b8ce2ea....@enews.newsguy.com...
> > >> I would imagine that the
> > >>word is closely connected to the Scottish "Thane" (as in Thane of
> Cawdor)
> >
> > In all probability it is unrelated to <thane>, which is hardly
> > Scottish in origin. <Thane> is from Old English <ţegn> 'freeman,
> > nobleman, military vassal, warrior', from Common Germanic */ţegnaz/
> > 'boy, man, servant, warrior'. <Teyrn> is from Common Celtic
> > */tegernos/ 'lord', which is generally taken to derive from CC
> > */tegos/ 'house'; this is related not to OE <ţegn> but to OE <ţćc>
> > 'roof, thatch' (whence our <thatch>), Old Icelandic <ţak> 'roof,
> > thatch, bed-cover', Latin and Greek <tegô> 'I cover', etc.
> >
> Again it is your "all probability" against my "imagination".
> Neither of us know for sure and I don't believe the answer
> is to be found in semantics.
Hmmm. Having followed this debate from its beginning, I think
I know which one of the two I'd be putting money on. We
certainly don't 'know for sure' but Brian's use of the phrase
'in all probability' is not semantics, it's simply the kind of
careful language used in scholarship - we don't know for sure
but the evidence certainly stacks up that way. 'Imaginative'
speculation can be fun, and *can* lead to new insights and
exciting discoveries, but only when tested against boring old
things like 'probability'. New ideas and speculations are
not hard to come by. *Good* new ideas, however, are rarer and
can only be sorted from wild speculation by stringent analysis
and criticism. That's why peer review, debate and disputation
have been part of the scholarly process for centuries.
> > >Well "Thin over-king" is a nick-name for Vortigern that I can live with.
> > >The question then is, what was his real name?
> >
> > In all probability <Vortigern>. See Kenneth Jackson, 'Varia: II.
> > Gildas and the Names of the British Princes', Cambridge Medieval
> > Celtic Studies 3 (Summer 1982), 30-40. After several pages of
> > argumentation he concludes inter alia that 'the notion that for
> > <Vortigernus> we must read <vortigernus>, and that this was a title,
> > not the usurper's personal name, is too far-fetched to be taken
> > seriously'.
> >
> Well, having hit me repeatedly over the head with the brick bat of etymology
> concerning the meaning of Vortigern ("Gwrtheyn Gwrthenau" in Welsh and
> translated by you as "thin overking"), you now say forget all that! On the
> evidence of Kenneth Jackson you now tell me this guy's name (presumably
> given him by his parents) is "Overking". I find that hard to believe, not
> least because if there is one thing Vortigern is famous for it is the fact
> that he usurped the throne by murdering Constantine the Blessed. At the time
> he was being named as a baby no-one would have expected him to be king of
> Britain.
Names based on such concepts are common in many societies, and
sometimes people with such names became rulers. There were
many Gothic kids called Theodoric and many Gallic kids called
Vercingetorix as well, but not all of them became rulers.
Two did.
This is not to say 'Vortigern' is definitely a name rather
than a title, of course. I'm inclined to think it was a
title myself.
> > You miss the point completely. I was not arguing against his
> > existence; I was pointing out the absurdity of telling detailed
> > stories about him as if they were established fact.
> >
> What is history without detail? A very thin book indeed. Some details are
> absurd, some are barely believable but that is also how life is. If you
> throw out the details because you require to poke your finger into every
> open wound you leve us with a much impoverished vision of the past and not
> necessarily any nearer to the truth.
Ummm, fine, but Brian's point is that 'details' which are
pure speculation should be presented as such, not as
facts. Judging from your posts, you seem rather eager to
blur the two. Brian's point is quite valid.
> Sometimes it
> happens that the people labelled as "loons" turn out to hve a better grasp
> on reality than their "well-informed" critics. Copernicus was considered a
> "loon" by many for saying the earth went round the sun and not vice-versa.
Martin Gardner calls this 'the Gallileo Fallacy' - an
argument beloved of fringe theorists. Unfortunately,
as Gardner points out, it's not enough to be disagreed
with to be a Gallileo (or a Copernicus), you also have
to be correct. Gallileos are very rare. 'Loons' on
the other hand, are a dime a dozen.
This is not to say that you *aren't* a Gallileo, just
that it's unlikely that you are and claiming the
status of being disapproved of by orthodoxy doesn't
necessarily make you a Gallileo by a very long chalk.
> Just because you have a reductionist turn of mind and love indulging in
> philological name-games doesn't mean you have a better knowledge of
> Arthurian Britain than I do.
Reductionism, something which is often used as a
perjorative these days, is actually a very useful
critical tool and one which is of particular utility
when testing a theory. True scholarship doesn't lie
in the ability to be able to dream up a 'big picture'
idea, it lies in then subjecting the details which
make up that idea to rigorous and careful analysis
and stringent criticism and in allowing others to do
the same, and then taking honest account of the results.
True scholarship is knowing when to abandon a big idea
because it isn't properly supported by the little
details. Big ideas, attractive and seductive as they
may be, are actually cheap and easy to come by. The
ability to test them judiciously, often from a highly
critical, analytical and 'reductionist' perspective,
is rarer.
'Philological name games' is quite a misrepresentation
of what is going on here. You are presenting a
big picture idea based, in part, on the philology of
certain names. Brian is, quite rightly, subjecting
that underpinning of your big picture to some detailed
analysis and, IMO, finding it seriously wanting. There
is nothing invalid in what he's doing - it's how any
big picture theory should be tested. What you should
be doing is disagreeing with him and showing where and
how his philology is wrong or agreeing with him and
adjusting your theory. Crying foul and claiming that
he's not seeing the bigger, brighter picture isn't a
very compelling counter argument however. This kind
of scrutiny is the scholarly way that ideas are tested.
> I would guess that neither of us have the whole
> picture of the times. You just have different parts of the puzzle and a
> different orientation towards the past.
I think you and Brian overlap substantially on the parts
of the puzzle in front of you and that his orientation
on the past is very similar to yours or that of anyone else
who has an interest in these things. The difference,
it seems to me, lies in that he thinks it's appropriate
to subject your theory to some careful analysis and
you, for some reason, object. As an observer, it seems
that you're objecting mainly because you don't like the
implications of his scrutiny, which doesn't exactly
make your position look very strong.
> I think it is time you grew up and stopped trying to be so clever
> "debunking" what you don't like and spent more time trying to understand
> what is actually being said by people such as myself. You might find that my
> work is not all as valueless as you imagine and great deal more fun than
> posing as a critic.
Brian's language has been strong in places, but I gather
that this is not the first time the two of you have been
over this ground. I can't see that he is needing to
'grow up', or that he is having trouble understanding you,
or that he is 'posing as a critic'. He's subjecting a
theory to analysis and stating where he feels its weak.
This process is the heart and soul of scholarship - why
are you objecting to it?
> > That you don't always get things right is an understatement, but in
> > fact the situation is even worse: you don't even try very hard to get
> > them right. You throw out wild guesses without having done even the
> > most basic research to check them; this makes you an intellectual
> > slob. Frequently you even state them as fact; this makes you
> > intellectually dishonest. And don't try to tell me that you do this
> > only on Usenet. At bottom you neither understand nor value
> > scholarship, though you do value its trappings for the air of
> > (spurious) authority that they lend your writing. In this you remind
> > me of the Institute for Creation Research, a profoundly unscientific
> > organization trying desperately to clothe itself in the trappings of
> > science.
> >
> Again I have never heard of the Institute for Creation Research.
The ICR is the largest of the 'Creation Science' lobby groups
established by Christian fundamentalists who don't believe in
evolution because it contradicts their literal interpretation
of the Bible. They are a by-word for the kind of pseudo-
scholarship which starts with its conclusion, finds 'evidence'
to support it and then wraps this up in pseudo-academic jargon
as a way of seeming credible. And yes, I doubt Brian is
paying you a compliment by this comparison.
I don't know enough about you to say whether the comparison
is valid.
> Who are you
> to say I am "intellectually dishonest" and an "intellectual slob"? This is
> getting very near to libel Brian and such attacks are unacceptable. In fact
> I work extremely hard. If you imagine that books just write themselves you
> are much mistaken. However as I have never heard of a single publication by
> you I don't imagine you know what I am talking about.
He wasn't saying that you don't work hard, but that you
seem to put your energies in coming up with the 'big picture'
ideas and then don't put an equal amount of energy in subjecting
your specualation to stringent criticism and analysis.
> In my books I explore
> ideas: often ideas which today are deeply unfashionable (such as the Trojan
> migration to Britain for example). I have a perfect right to do this and I
> do so in an open and honest way.
'Unfashionable' ideas are sometimes unfashionable because
they are neglected. But often they are 'unfashionable'
because they are have been tested many times and found to
be quite wrong. It's fairly unfashionable to believe the
world is flat, for example. ;>
> From you venom of your attacks and their now personal nature I can only
> conclude that you are now projecting your own shadow side onto me and my
> works. If you don't know wht I am talking about I suggest you study the
> works of C. G. Jung. I think if you went deeper into your mind than the
> outer layers of your own ego you might just find that all you hate in me and
> my works is actually in yourself. It is your own devil you are fighting
> Brian and not me. The sooner you see this the sooner you will have a happy
> life.
Again, as an observer, I'd say Brian's simply finding
debating you a little frustrating.
> > > On the other hand, by thinking laterally, I
> > >often make new discoveries. That's why my books are best-sellers: they
> > >introduce fresh ideas for people to think about.
Von Daniken was also a huge best-seller, and he also
introduced fresh ideas for people to think about.
This didn't stop his books from being rubbish.
Maybe your books are nothing like Von Daniken's
(I hope not), but being best sellers doesn't
make them valid, for more or less the reason
Brian states below - people love sensation,
sober scholarship tends to move fewer units.
> > No, your books are best-sellers because they substitute sensationalism
> > for scholarship and simple certainties for the complex and heavily
> > qualified statements that are all that we can honestly make. People
> > love to think that they're getting a close look at The Truth,
> > especially if it's mysterious or exciting, or if they feel as if
> > they're being let in on a secret -- provided, that is, that they don't
> > actually have to do any work. Worthless fad diets push some of the
> > same buttons.
> >
> And why shouldn't people have fun with their studies of Mysteries? Why
> should King Arthur be left to people like you who want to count the number
> of angels on a pin-head and reduce everything to semantics?
When 'fun' is presented as being the same as 'fact'
then scholars tend to have a problem. No-one
is saying Arthur should be left to the academics, but
if you present your 'fun' theories as fact, you should
expect people to expose them to appropriate scrutiny.
> Some of us get
> excited when a couple of amateur archaeologist discover a tombstone with the
> name Artorius on it. You are very critical of Wilson and Blackett but have
> you any idea of the amount of work they have done? You might not agree with
> their conclusions or with my writing about them in "The Holy Kingdom" but
> those stones didn't appear by magic. It took a lot of work to pin down the
> site on Mynydd y Gaer and even more to get the dig done on St Peter's
> Church.
No-one has said no work was involved, but the suggestion
is that not enough critical analysis was applied. What's
the point in claiming those stones have something to do
with Arthur if the linguistic evidence doesn't indicate this
at all? I'm struggling to see the 'fun' in this - its
seems utterly pointless.
I've seen your book around - I'll give it a bit more of a
look next time I'm in a bookshop.
Cheers,
Tim O'Neill
Graham Nowland
> Hengist and Horse were just part of a Germanic horse cult not unlike
>Castor and Pollux, or the Asvins of the Vedas. There were never any real
>people called Hengist and Horsa, it is just nonesense.
Dave,
I tried to get to the bottom of this theory some time ago and there seems to be
little to support it. If it had any foundation, you would expect at the very
least to find traces of the twin Germanic horse cult you mention in Nordic or
Teutonic mythology.
There is none to my understanding.
From what I can work out the idea was first developed about fifty or sixty years
ago. It seemed to have been initially triggered by two factors.
1) The perceived "horse" meanings of the names Hengist and Horsa in some early
form of German.
2) The lack of any hard historical evidence for Hengist and Horsa.
3) A knowledge from the classics of Castor and Pollux. (Hey! what if Hengist and
Horsa were horse gods too?)
4) (very secondary), the presence of the name Wotan a number of links back in
the genealogies of the pair.
Basically though it is a linguistic argument. To shore it up the historians
needed more than they had. Failing to find any evidence in Norse or Teutonic
mythology, where you would expect it to be, they spread the net wider to Indian
and other mythologies.
These are much less likely to have had an impact on the expanding Saxon culture
of the fifth century and are not clinching evidence.
With Castor and Pollux being widely known one in the Classics one wonders why
the hypothesis wasn't formulated earlier. Bede for example, by 730 or so had
written of Hengist and Horsa as historical figures. One has to ask what he based
this on. Not Nennius that's for certain. Not Gildas either who simply said the
Saxons were "not to be named". Lost sources possibly? I would be interested to
know the answer.
Despite the twin horse gods theory being little than an attractive modern
hypothesis, it is now often treated as gospel, particularly when trying to
undermine sources which may have some relevance to a historical Arthur.
For example, Dr Tom Green in his The Historicity and Historicisation of Arthur,
uses the argument in exactly this way. He says Hengist and Horsa "were Kentish
totemic horse-gods historicised by the 8th-century with an important role in the
Anglo-Saxon conquest of eastern Britain (see Turville-Petre, 1953-7; Ward, 1969;
Brooks, 1989; Yorke, 1993);".
The thinking of Dr Green's listed authorities was explained in a certain amount
of detail on the alt.legend.king-arthur NG not long ago but the arguments seemed
incomplete and unconvincing.
During that discussion the following question was put: Are there any examples of
proved twin horse mythology in Nordic and Teutonic myth, and if not, what effect
does this have on the Turville theory? The question was not answered.
Also asked was: What certainty is there that the original form of the names
Hengist and Horsa actually both meant "horse" in the relevant dialects during
the Dark Ages? This question went unanswered too.
Regards
Graham
Tony Jebson
> I tried to get to the bottom of this theory some time ago and there
> seems to be little to support it.
> If it had any foundation, you would expect at the very least to find
> traces of the twin Germanic horse cult you mention in Nordic or
> Teutonic mythology.
This is a strawman. Pairs of kinsmen with alliterating names
meeting, and defeating folks who's names seem to be derived
from place-names is what the theory is *actually* about.
Horse gods are incidental to it.
> There is none to my understanding.
Strange how strawmen are easily defeated.
> From what I can work out the idea was first developed about fifty
> or sixty years ago. It seemed to have been initially triggered by
> two factors.
>
> 1) The perceived "horse" meanings of the names Hengist and Horsa
> in some early form of German.
Oddly enough, they *do* mean "horse", and the meanings are pretty
well indisputable given the evidence from Anglo-Saxon latin glosses.
> 2) The lack of any hard historical evidence for Hengist and Horsa.
Well, basically there isn't any. The only mentions are of very
dubious historical value (the ASC, written centuries after the events
and Bede, who's choice of words makes it clear he's quoting
an unverifiable oral tradition)..
> 3) A knowledge from the classics of Castor and Pollux. (Hey! what
> if Hengist and Horsa were horse gods too?)
Oh, don't forget those other alliterating kinsmen: Cerdic / Cynric and
AEsc / AElle spring to mind.
> 4) (very secondary), the presence of the name Wotan a number of
> links back in the genealogies of the pair.
This is irrelevant. Any Anglo-Saxon king worth his salt could trace
his ancestors back through the founders of his kingdom to the
gods themselves.
And that's four factors. "Nobody expects the Spanish inquisistion!"
[snip]
> With Castor and Pollux being widely known one in the Classics
> one wonders why the hypothesis wasn't formulated earlier. Bede
> for example, by 730 or so had written of Hengist and Horsa as
> historical figures. One has to ask what he based this on.
Bede actually says "Their first rulers are said (perhibentur) to have
been two brothers Hengist and Horsa". Bede used the word
"perhibentur" fairly consistently to indicate places where he wasn't
relying on a written or first hand account.
So, rather than writing of them as historical figures, he wrote in a
way that suggests an oral source.
> Not Nennius that's for certain. Not Gildas either who simply said
the
> Saxons were "not to be named". Lost sources possibly? I would be
> interested to know the answer.
Try reading the literature . . . Tom Green's pages have all the
references you need, and you even quote some of them in what
I snipped below.
[snip]
> The thinking of Dr Green's listed authorities was explained in a
> certain amount of detail on the alt.legend.king-arthur NG not long
> ago but the arguments seemed incomplete and unconvincing.
You don't actually expect a detailed analysis on Usenet do you?
The experts generally have better things to do than argue against
every misconception that appears on the net.
> During that discussion the following question was put: Are there
> any examples of proved twin horse mythology in Nordic and Teutonic
> myth, and if not, what effect does this have on the Turville theory?
> The question was not answered.
It's a strawman anyway.
> Also asked was: What certainty is there that the original form of
the
> names Hengist and Horsa actually both meant "horse" in the relevant
> dialects during the Dark Ages? This question went unanswered too.
If that went unanswered, it says little for the quality of the
discussion.
This can be answered by a quick peek at Bosworth and Toller.
"Horsa" is pretty obvious as the OE for "horse" is (gasp!) "hors".
Hengest
is also well attested and appears in several OE glossaries (e.g.
AElfric's
has hengest = canterius).
The following quote from a charter includes both words:
"An hundred wildra horsa ond xvi tame hencgestas"
[A hundred wild horses and 16 tame steeds]
There are also cognates in other Germanic languages.
--- Tony Jebson
Brian M. Scott
<Awenl...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>I wasn't going to respond to anymore postings on this thread but feel
>provoked to do so by Brian Scott's latest outpouring. I will try to keep it
>short!
>> >"Brian M. Scott" <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:3b8ce2ea....@enews.newsguy.com...
>> A duke is rather different from a minor king, and 'duke' is a poor
>> translation'. ('Duke' is even worse.) There's no problem with
>> translating it as 'king' as long as you know a bit about the culture
>> in which the term was used. (What she actually suggested to you was
>> 'ruler, prince, etc.'; the connotations may be a bit more helpful for
>> the typical modern reader.)
>I think you are splitting hairs here Brian. In Britain we still have dukes
>and they are the highest peers below the monarch herself. Whether you call a
>"teyrn" a prince or duke it is of little consequence.
It's of little consequence if you don't care about the accuracy of
your translation. The modern British system is altogether unlike
anything in sub-Roman Britain.
> Within their own
>locales they ruled over the peasantry and from their number was drawn the
>king or pendragon.
And this doesn't really sound much like the fragmented reality of
sub-Roman Britain either. Occasionally some local ruler would manage,
at least partly by conquest, to gain control of a fairly substantial
territory; owing to the custom of splitting inheritances, however,
these larger kingdoms generally fragmented in the next generation or
two, unless one of the heirs was able to fight his way through enough
brothers and uncles to put something back together again.
By the way, <pendragon> is 'chief war-leader'.
>> >> I would imagine that the
>> >>word is closely connected to the Scottish "Thane" (as in Thane of
>> >>Cawdor)
>> In all probability it is unrelated to <thane>, which is hardly
>> Scottish in origin. <Thane> is from Old English <þegn> 'freeman,
>> nobleman, military vassal, warrior', from Common Germanic */þegnaz/
>> 'boy, man, servant, warrior'. <Teyrn> is from Common Celtic
>> */tegernos/ 'lord', which is generally taken to derive from CC
>> */tegos/ 'house'; this is related not to OE <þegn> but to OE <þæc>
>> 'roof, thatch' (whence our <thatch>), Old Icelandic <þak> 'roof,
>> thatch, bed-cover', Latin and Greek <tegô> 'I cover', etc.
>Again it is your "all probability" against my "imagination".
Exactly: I've made a judgement about a question of historical
linguistics that is informed by some knowledge of historical
linguistics, while you've made an uninformed shot in the dark based
(apparently) on a superficial similarity of sound.
> Neither of us know for sure
I know for sure that <thane> has a Common Germanic heritage and that
<teyrn> does not. This means that if the words are related at all,
the relationship is much older than any possible British connection.
I know that while the etymology of Celtic */tigernos/ isn't completely
certain, it is most often taken to be a derivative of */tegos/
'house', in which case it is completely distinct from <thane>;
moreover, I have not seen any serious suggestion that would relate it
to Germanic */þegnaz/, and I can see why: the /r/ of */tigernos/
pretty much rules out any such connection.
> and I don't believe the answer is to be found in semantics.
It isn't a matter of semantics, but rather of historical phonology,
and you don't know enough about historical linguistics for your
opinion of its value to matter.
>> >>and that it can men rather less than a king and quite possible be
>> >>translated as "earl".
>> The word 'earl' has completely wrong connotations for the society in
>> which the term was used.
>I said translated as earl. I realise of course that "earl" is a Saxon term
No, it's not Saxon; it's the modern reflex of Old English (or in older
terminology Anglo-Saxon) <eorl>. There is a cognate Old Saxon word,
<erl>, but it's irrelevant.
>and belongs to a later period but it the earls of Wessex etcetera had a very
>similar position, as far as I can tell, to the minor princes of kinglets
>that were called by the term "teyrn" or "tigern" in earlier periods. That is
>all I was saying here.
I'm aware that you said 'translated as "earl"'; I'm saying that this
is a bad translation.
>> >>> Gwrtheyrn probably means Duke Gwr or Guir if you prefer.
>> >>It doesn't. It's from earlier <Guorthigern(us)>, itself from
>> >>Britannic *<Wortigernos>, a compound of the preposition <wor> 'on,
>> >>over' and <tigernos> 'king, lord'; the etymological sense is
>> >>'over-king, overlord'. (And the byname <Gwrtheneu> is 'thin'.)
>> >Well "Thin over-king" is a nick-name for Vortigern that I can live with.
>> >The question then is, what was his real name?
>> In all probability <Vortigern>. See Kenneth Jackson, 'Varia: II.
>> Gildas and the Names of the British Princes', Cambridge Medieval
>> Celtic Studies 3 (Summer 1982), 30-40. After several pages of
>> argumentation he concludes inter alia that 'the notion that for
>> <Vortigernus> we must read <vortigernus>, and that this was a title,
>> not the usurper's personal name, is too far-fetched to be taken
>> seriously'.
>Well, having hit me repeatedly over the head with the brick bat of etymology
>concerning the meaning of Vortigern ("Gwrtheyn Gwrthenau" in Welsh and
>translated by you as "thin overking"), you now say forget all that!
Not in the least. You confuse the etymology of a name with its
meaning. The English feminine name <Margaret> is from a Greek word
meaning 'pearl', but <Margaret> does not therefore mean 'pearl'. You
can't say 'I love your Margaret earrings', for instance.
> On the
>evidence of Kenneth Jackson you now tell me this guy's name (presumably
>given him by his parents) is "Overking".
Not precisely, no. I'm saying that just as we have both masculine
names <Duke> and <Earl> and common nouns <duke> and <earl>, so
Britannic appears to have had a name */Wortigernos/ with the same
etymology as the hypothetical common noun */wortigernos/. (I say
'hypothetical' because it's not clear that there actually was such a
noun; see the next paragraph but one.) There are many examples of
this phenomenon. In medieval France, for instance, we find women
named <Prince>, <Contasse>, and <Reyne>. In Old Norse there's
masculine <Jarl>. In early Irish we find masculine <Rígán>, which
from an etymological point of view is a diminutive of <rí> 'king'.
Old English offers many examples; <Æðelweald>, for instance, is
etymologically something like 'noble ruler'. All of these were
unquestionably used as personal names.
Moreover, Irish records record two early saints named <Foirtchern>,
which is the Old Irish cognate of the name, so it's hardly shocking to
find the name in the other branch of Insular Celtic.
Finally, no such rank as <gwrtheyrn>, <foirtchern>, or <vertigernos>
is attested in the early Welsh, Irish, and Gaulish legal systems,
respectively.
> I find that hard to believe, not
>least because if there is one thing Vortigern is famous for it is the fact
>that he usurped the throne by murdering Constantine the Blessed.
No. He is primarily famous (or notorious) for inviting the Saxons to
serve as foederati against the invaders from whom Rome was in no
position to offer protection.
> At the time
>he was being named as a baby no-one would have expected him to be king of
>Britain. However, I expect you will tell me I am mistaken in this too and
>that there was no Constantine either.
According to the genealogies, Constantine the Blessed, i.e., Custennin
Fendigaid, is identical with Custennin Gorneu, of whom nothing much
appears to be known, unless -- as Rachel Bromwich has suggested -- he
is the Constantinus whom Gildas accuses of perjury, sacrilege, the
murder of two boy princes, adultery, and sodomy. In that case he
certainly wasn't replaced by Vortigern.
>> Note that the Celtic <tigern-> 'ruler' appears in a good many early
>> medieval Welsh and Irish personal names; Welsh <Cateyrn> and
>> <Cyndeyrn> and Irish <Caíntigern> and <Echthigern> are examples.
>> There was even an Irish <Fortchern>, name of an early saint, that is
>> cognate with <Gwrtheyrn>.
>So what? These could be nick-names too.
It's possible, though by no means necessary, that some of them
*originated* as nicknames; there is no doubt, however, that they
became perfectly ordinary personal names, just like our <Earl> and
<Regina>.
The Old Norse masculine name <Gamall> is etymologically identical to
the adjective <gamall> 'old' and probably originated as a byname;
nevertheless, and despite the apparent absurdity of naming a baby
'Old', it became moderately common as a medieval Icelandic and
Norwegian given name and, in the Anglo-Scandinavian form <Gamel>, as a
medieval English given name.
[...]
>> There is no compelling reason to suppose that <Vortimer> was anything
>> other than a personal name or to look any further for a 'real
>> identity'.
>Well one reason might be that he is called Gwrthefyr Fendigaid in Welsh.
This isn't a reason at all: <bendigaid> 'blessed' is not an uncommon
byname, and there is nothing here to distinguish this from other
examples of 'Blessed So-and-so'.
[...]
>> >On your last point about Vortigern's existence. He gets extensive
>> >coverage in Nennius. He is also mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon
>> >Chronicle. That's about as good as it gets for Dark Age kings of
>> >Britain and I personally don't doubt that he existed.
>> You miss the point completely. I was not arguing against his
>> existence; I was pointing out the absurdity of telling detailed
>> stories about him as if they were established fact.
>What is history without detail? A very thin book indeed. Some details are
>absurd, some are barely believable but that is also how life is. If you
>throw out the details because you require to poke your finger into every
>open wound you leve us with a much impoverished vision of the past and not
>necessarily any nearer to the truth.
You could hardly have admitted more clearly that you are no scholar
and that you are writing fiction, not history. Like it or not,
sometimes history *is* a very thin book. This is certainly true of
the history of 5th and 6th century Britain. A scholar tries to
squeeze as much information out of the evidence as possible, while
always recognizing its limitations. A scholar may well speculate a
bit beyond the evidence, but such speculations will be identified as
such, not presented as established fact. (Yes, one can find
occasional exceptions; typically they get pretty rough treatment in
reviews.)
>> >If news-groups have any value at all (and I sometimes wonder if they do)
>> >then they are for discussing ideas.
>> The Internet as a whole is a two-edged sword, and Usenet in particular
>> reflects this. On the one hand it makes it easy for just about anyone
>> to publish his pet notions, no matter how idiotic they may be. It
>> greatly increases the visibility of people like you, Graham Hancock,
>> and Heribert Illig at very little cost. On the other hand, it makes
>> it easy for just about anyone to publish refutations. This is
>> probably a net improvement, since it makes the refutations much more
>> widely available than before. Well-informed amateurs, who are much
>> more likely than professional scholars to be willing to spare the time
>> on a task that is of no value in the academic world, can now publish
>> on the Web as easily as the loons. Moreover, unlike book publishers,
>> they don't have to worry.about the profitability of debunking; they
>> can do it as a public service.
>I have never heard of Heribert Illig and can't abide Graham Hancock so why
>throw them in my face?
Because in this context you appear to be three of a kind.
> You imply that you are a "well-informed" amateur.
>However, like everyone else in this world you have certain knowledge and
>experience that you have gained either through personal experience, reading
>books or watching films etcetera. This doesn't mean you necessarily know
>everything even about subjects you calim to have mastered. Sometimes it
>happens that the people labelled as "loons" turn out to hve a better grasp
>on reality than their "well-informed" critics. Copernicus was considered a
>"loon" by many for saying the earth went round the sun and not vice-versa.
I wondered when you'd trot out something like this; it's one of the
classic defenses. In this particular case at least three points are
worth making:
1. It didn't take all that long for his ideas to be widely accepted
by those who were most knowledgeable.
2. Many of the objections were rooted in religion, not science, and
are therefore not comparable to the objections that I've raised.
3. For every apparently loony idea that turns out to be basically
sound, there are thousands that are simply loony.
>Just because you have a reductionist turn of mind and love indulging in
>philological name-games doesn't mean you have a better knowledge of
>Arthurian Britain than I do. I would guess that neither of us have the whole
>picture of the times. You just have different parts of the puzzle and a
>different orientation towards the past.
I have several things that you lack, all of which are crucial to doing
history. I have some understanding of the limitations of historical
evidence, and I know enough not to pretend to be able to go beyond
them; by your own admission you lack the latter knowledge, and your
posts over several years strongly suggest that you lack the former
understanding as well. I have the willingness to do some basic
research before shooting from the hip; we've seen you make any number
of elementary boners that should have been caught.
>I think it is time you grew up and stopped trying to be so clever
>"debunking" what you don't like and spent more time trying to understand
>what is actually being said by people such as myself.
Oh, I understand very well what you say; that's why I have a problem
with it.
> You might find that my
>work is not all as valueless as you imagine and great deal more fun than
>posing as a critic.
You write fiction that many people evidently find entertaining, though
this may be in part because they don't realize that it's fiction. For
them it has value as entertainment. As history, however, it *is*
valueless: so much is wrong or at best unsupported speculation
presented as fact that no assertion can safely be taken at face value.
>> > As far as I can tell your idea of a
>> >"discussion" seems to be to pontificate on the basis of received opinion.
>> That you don't always get things right is an understatement, but in
>> fact the situation is even worse: you don't even try very hard to get
>> them right. You throw out wild guesses without having done even the
>> most basic research to check them; this makes you an intellectual
>> slob. Frequently you even state them as fact; this makes you
>> intellectually dishonest. And don't try to tell me that you do this
>> only on Usenet. At bottom you neither understand nor value
>> scholarship, though you do value its trappings for the air of
>> (spurious) authority that they lend your writing. In this you remind
>> me of the Institute for Creation Research, a profoundly unscientific
>> organization trying desperately to clothe itself in the trappings of
>> science.
>Again I have never heard of the Institute for Creation Research. Who are you
>to say I am "intellectually dishonest" and an "intellectual slob"? This is
>getting very near to libel Brian and such attacks are unacceptable. In fact
>I work extremely hard.
This is a non sequitur: working hard is not incompatible with these
shortcomings in the senses made explicit above. If you really want to
defend yourself, address the specific complaints.
> If you imagine that books just write themselves you
>are much mistaken.
Of course I imagine no such thing. I do a great deal of writing,
albeit for more limited audiences. E.g., over a span of about seven
years not too long ago I averaged about a quarter of a million words a
year of technical commentary for a specialist audience.
> However as I have never heard of a single publication by
>you I don't imagine you know what I am talking about.
That certainly doesn't follow!
> In my books I explore
>ideas: often ideas which today are deeply unfashionable (such as the Trojan
>migration to Britain for example).
Your use of the term 'unfashionable', with the implication that this
*is* just a matter of fashion, is characteristically inaccurate. The
idea is 'unfashionable' for the good reason that the weight of
evidence against it is overwhelming.
> I have a perfect right to do this
Indeed; and when you make obvious gaffes, the rest of us have a
perfect right to point them out.
> and I do so in an open and honest way.
Not entirely, no. An honest exploration would look at *all* of the
evidence and arguments. An honest exploration would not present
speculation as fact.
> If people wish to buy my books then that is
>entirely their choice. I do my best to back what I say with quotes and
>references. From what you say above you seem to see this as somehow
>dishonest. I can't understand your logic here.
I'm beginning to believe that you really can't; certainly you've
completely distorted my actual objections in a way that suggests lack
of understanding.
Those quotations and references that you mention are the trappings
that give your work the appearance of scholarship; they do not of
themselves make it scholarly in content. Scholarly content comes from
a scholarly approach to the evidence, taking into account conflicting
evidence, existing interpretations of the evidence, evidence from
allied areas (archaeology, historical linguistics, literature), etc.
John Morris's _Age of Arthur_ is scholarship, albeit seriously flawed;
Heribert Illig's _Das Erfundene Mittlealter_, which has a similarly
extensive scholarly apparatus, is pseudo-scholarship.
> Why does my referencing
>sources lend an "air of spurious authority" when if this is done by Geoffrey
>Ashe, say, you label no such charge?
Actually, I've said nothing at all about Geoffrey Ashe.
>From you venom of your attacks and their now personal nature I can only
>conclude that you are now projecting your own shadow side onto me and my
>works.
Venomous? Perhaps, though I've seen worse in the realm of real
scholarship. I *have* called a spade a spade, but you've earned that
bluntness by continuing to make the same kinds of elementary errors
every time you appear -- sometimes even the exact same errors.
> If you don't know wht I am talking about I suggest you study the
>works of C. G. Jung. I think if you went deeper into your mind than the
>outer layers of your own ego you might just find that all you hate in me and
>my works is actually in yourself. It is your own devil you are fighting
>Brian and not me. The sooner you see this the sooner you will have a happy
>life.
<snort> As a psychoanalyst you're a fine historian: I've been
chugging along quite happily for over half a century now.
>> > On the other hand, by thinking laterally, I
>> >often make new discoveries. That's why my books are best-sellers: they
>> >introduce fresh ideas for people to think about.
>> No, your books are best-sellers because they substitute sensationalism
>> for scholarship and simple certainties for the complex and heavily
>> qualified statements that are all that we can honestly make. People
>> love to think that they're getting a close look at The Truth,
>> especially if it's mysterious or exciting, or if they feel as if
>> they're being let in on a secret -- provided, that is, that they don't
>> actually have to do any work. Worthless fad diets push some of the
>> same buttons.
>And why shouldn't people have fun with their studies of Mysteries? Why
>should King Arthur be left to people like you who want to count the number
>of angels on a pin-head and reduce everything to semantics?
People who confuse serious history with 'Mysteries' are in no position
to do serious history. People can legitimately do all sorts of things
with King Arthur; in modern times look at Rosemary Sutcliffe, Mary
Stewart, Mike W. Barr & Brian Bolland (now *there's* a change of
pace!), Sanders Anne Laubenthal, T.H. White, and a host of others.
But none of these people pretended to be writing history.
> Some of us get
>excited when a couple of amateur archaeologist discover a tombstone with the
>name Artorius on it. You are very critical of Wilson and Blackett but have
>you any idea of the amount of work they have done?
I don't care how much work they've done: it has no bearing on the
merits of their conclusions.
[...]
> Incidently I have been accosted by more than one teenager who
>having read "The Orion Mystery" has since decided to study Egyptology.
It's a pity that these youngsters will be starting their studies with
heads full of nonsense, however.
>That's the nature of things. Without excitement we live in a very dull world
>and few people get excited, as you seem to, on the intricacies of etymology.
I'm sorry that you don't find the real world sufficiently exciting.
>> >You seem to have been drinking vinegar for breakfast again Brian! Let's
>> >try and keep things civilized shall we and avoid personal insults.
>> It's forcefully put, but I consider it a fundamentally accurate
>> assessment. Moreover, it's a general assessment, not a personal
>> comment.
>I consider what you have written to be very personal. You have called me an
>intellectual slob and intellectually dishonest. How much more personal do
>you have to get?
You're confused. Your 'vinegar' remark was in response to this
comment of mine:
In any case no distraction is required to deal with your
claim that 'Gwrtheyn Gwrthenau is so closely related
to Arthur I'. Anyone who thinks that so precise a
statement is justifiable on the basis of existing evidence
has the critical acumen of a senile pet rock.
This is a general observation; it apparently applies to you, but it is
not specifically directed at you. The labels 'intellectual slob' and
'intellectually dishonest' were of course specifically applied to you,
but they came *after* the 'vinegar' comment, so you couldn't possibly
have been referring to them at the time. Moreover, it's easy to
verify that your Usenet posts exhibit the behavior to which I
explicitly applied them; thus, while they are personal in the sense of
being directed at you personally, they are also accurate. You may
object that the uncomplimentary labels are inappropriately applied to
the specified behavior -- obviously I disagree -- but the behavior
itself is demonstrable.
[...]
>> > I read in the bear and staff motif a reference
>> >to the stars. You prefer to think mundane and go for a simple explanation of
>> >a bear-hero tearing out a tree and making a club.
>> At no point have I made such a suggestion. I do not know the source
>> of the ragged staff badge.
>Then don't call me intellectually dishonest for putting forward a theory
>that it is based on stellar myths.
You didn't. You put forth a theory about the bear-and-ragged-staff
badge, which -- as you apparently did not know a year ago -- is a
rather late amalgamation of two older badges. I know something about
the origin of the bear badge; it's the ragged staff badge that is a
question mark.
But your comment is a non sequitur in any case. It is entirely
possible not to know the source of X and nevertheless to know that the
source isn't Y. For instance, I do not certainly know the IE source
of Celtic */tigernos/ (though in this case I have a good idea), but I
do know that the source isn't Germanic */þegnaz/.
Actually, it's a non sequitur twice over: putting forward the
hypothesis isn't in itself intellectually dishonest, and I've not said
anything to suggest that it is.
> It might just happen that I know more
>about these things (stellar myths that is) than you do.
BMS
Graham Nowland
In reponse to my comments about the "Hengist and Horsa are myth" theory
> > If it had any foundation, you would expect at the very least to find
> > traces of the twin Germanic horse cult you mention in Nordic or
> > Teutonic mythology.
>
> This is a strawman. Pairs of kinsmen with alliterating names
> meeting, and defeating folks who's names seem to be derived
> from place-names is what the theory is *actually* about.
>
I wonder if the "seem to be derived from place names" means it is
unproved.
Mind if quote Tom Green?
"the historicisation of non-historical/mythical personages -- often
through association with some important event of the past -- is not in any
way an unusual occurrence (some examples of this that will probably
particularly interest readers of this article are Hengest and Horsa, who
were Kentish totemic *horse-gods* historicised by the 8th-century with an
important role in the Anglo-Saxon conquest of eastern Britain (see
Turville-Petre, 1953-7; Ward, 1969; Brooks, 1989; Yorke, 1993);
>Oh, don't forget those other alliterating kinsmen: Cerdic / Cynric and
AEsc / AElle spring to mind.
Yes I can see the reasoning. It seems a bit sweeping and theoretical. To
convince me there needs to be more to it.
> 4) (very secondary), the presence of the name Wotan a number of
> > links back in the genealogies of the pair.
>
> This is irrelevant. Any Anglo-Saxon king worth his salt could trace
> his ancestors back through the founders of his kingdom to the
> gods themselves.
>
We agree on that then. Yet I have seen see it argued a number of times
that the presence of Wotan in the Hengist and Horsa genealogies militates
against their being historical figures.
> With Castor and Pollux being widely known in the Classics
> one wonders why the hypothesis wasn't formulated earlier. Bede
> for example, by 730 or so had written of Hengist and Horsa as
> historical figures.
>Why do you think the theory wasn't formulated earlier?
No one has mentioned it that's all. It seems to make its first official
appearance about 1950 something. You appear to be implying the theory may
have been formed earlier. Is that a correct inference? What sort of
historians I wonder might have anticipated Turville et al?
> Bede actually says "Their first rulers are said (perhibentur) to have
> been two brothers Hengist and Horsa". Bede used the word
> "perhibentur" fairly consistently to indicate places where he wasn't
> relying on a written or first hand account.So, rather than writing of
> them as historical figures, he wrote in a
> way that suggests an oral source.
I see. Seems like a good point. Nevertheless it doesn't say they were
horse gods so it feels like negative support for the Turville theory.
Bede must have felt the comment had some substance to have included it. It
makes me think of the way a quality (note the adjective) news reporter
will include a piece of evidence as "said to" or "thought to" if he feels
it is valuable in the understanding of the truth, but cannot, for one
reason or another, get a precise corroboration. The use is often badly
misunderstood.
>Try reading the literature . . . Tom Green's pages have all the
references you need, and you even quote some of them in what I >snipped
below.
Well, as I said, I am not a professional historian, so I haven't got easy
access to everything.
> The thinking of Dr Green's listed authorities was explained in a
> certain amount of detail on the alt.legend.king-arthur NG not long
> ago but the arguments seemed incomplete and unconvincing.
>You don't actually expect a detailed analysis on Usenet do you?
Perhaps not a fully detailed analysis but a sustained and intelligent
Usenet discussion over a week or so should cover all the salient points.
Unless the historian side of the discussion decides to dodge questions
about citations or bluff about the extent of his or her reading of the
sources.
> The experts generally have better things to do than argue against
> every misconception that appears on the net.
>
But there seem to be a number busily refuting amateurs and radical
historians, at least if alt.legend.king-arthur is anything to go by. Some
of them become extremely querulous, using terms like "con man," "liar,"
"forger," "idiot," "cretin" and all the rest of it. Comments and jokes
about historian's evasions, on the other hand, are hysterically shouted
off the pitch.
It's quite amusing really, especially if there is any truth in the story
that alt.legend.king-arthur was not meant to be a serious academic forum.
Most amateurs I suspect are too frightened to join in and I can't say I
blame them. I did try to get a thread going on it once called "hijacked by
historians", but apart from some supporting personal e-mail there was no
action.
> > During that discussion the following question was put: Are there
> > any examples of proved twin horse mythology in Nordic and Teutonic
> > myth, and if not, what effect does this have on the Turville theory?
> > The question was not answered.
>
> It's a strawman anyway.
There it is again. Strawman. Is this jargon for an idea of no solidity?
The dictionary says a person of no substance.
> > Also asked was: What certainty is there that the original form of
> the
> > names Hengist and Horsa actually both meant "horse" in the relevant
> > dialects during the Dark Ages? This question went unanswered too.
>
> If that went unanswered, it says little for the quality of the
> discussion.
>
Well I don't know about that. It seemed high quality on my side of it. You
will have to check with Chris Gwinn, who represented the historian's side.
> This can be answered by a quick peek at Bosworth and Toller.
> "Horsa" is pretty obvious as the OE for "horse" is (gasp!) "hors".
>
Thanks very much. Yes. Gasp!! It is pretty much the same as the modern
German, which I knew already.
>Hengest is also well attested and appears in several OE glossaries (e.g.
>AElfric's has hengest = canterius).
>.The following quote from a charter includes both words:
>"An hundred wildra horsa ond xvi tame hencgestas"
>[A hundred wild horses and 16 tame steeds]
>There are also cognates in other Germanic languages.
Hengest of course is the harder of the two for an amateur to track with
certainty. Thanks again. Knowing this does remove an obstacle to
acceptance of the hypothesis.
On its own though it doesn't carry the argument. If there is a pair of
names like Fleur and Flora, and no strong historical evidence for the two
people existing in a certain context, it would obviously dangerous to
assume on this alone that we are in the presence of vegetation totems or
gods.
There needs to be more to tip the balance surely? Is the crucial factor
the mythology argument? If so why is Classic and Vedic mythology OK to
cite as supporting evidence, while a question about the absence of
relevant parallels in Nordic and Teutonic mythologies is a "strawman"?
If there is no twin horse god cult in the Nordic and Teutonic mythologies,
and no one has confirmed that yet, what effect would it have on the
theory,
If this really is a stupid question ( strawman?) I would most appreciate
your explaining precisely why, so that I can decide if I should dump my
opposition to the Turville theory.
Regards
Graham
Tim O'Neill
> Dave wrote
>
> > Hengist and Horse were just part of a Germanic horse cult not unlike
> >Castor and Pollux, or the Asvins of the Vedas. There were never any real
> >people called Hengist and Horsa, it is just nonesense.
> I tried to get to the bottom of this theory some time ago and there seems to > be little to support it.
That H&H may be mythical is a fair possibility. Flat statements that
they definitely *are* 'totemic horse gods' or whatever is presenting
some (fairly vague) speculation as fact however.
> During that discussion the following question was put: Are there any examples >of proved twin horse mythology in Nordic and Teutonic myth, and if not, what
> effect does this have on the Turville theory? The question was not answered.
Twin gods certainly exist in the Northern mythos, but no horse gods or
twin horse gods that I know of. Horses were sacrificed however and
their skulls and skins were sometimes displayed as cult items.
Tacitus also mentions horses being used in religious rituals and many
examples of horse sacrifices from Germanic graves.
> Also asked was: What certainty is there that the original form of the names
> Hengist and Horsa actually both meant "horse" in the relevant dialects during
> the Dark Ages? This question went unanswered too.
This is quite definite - Hengist = 'stallion' and 'Horsa' = horse.
Both words are found in Old English with cognates in several other
early Germanic languages.
Cheers,
Tim O'Neill
Inger E
what about looking for Vortigern before he entered(because that he did)
"England"? If you search for him in contemporary sources outside the
Brittish Isle you will find that he is one of that Age most known persons.
You can start with the Saxon Chronicle(not the same as you would imagin but
a chronicle which start in the Baltic area. One manuscript was in Berliner
Stadt's Museum in 1993 when I searched it). Then you can go on with Greek
and Roman sources from the East-Roman Empire dealing with guardians to
Gothic Kings' sons. Short before he is mentioned to have been in
England(five years yearlier in fact) he was thrown out of Gaul twice, once
in direction of today's Italy from where he was transported north-east till
he crossed Donau.
His name is spelled almost identical but in some sources he is called
Forteigern, Verteignern, Vertigern and in some the "normal" way Vortigern.
Inger E
"Tim O'Neill" <sca...@bigpond.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:b9ebd984.01090...@posting.google.com...
Inger E
In my opinion you are almost right in every assumption you make below but
one:
re. Historical proof of Horsa(/Horse) and Hengist.
The fact is that there exists one manuscript from the mid-440's which talk
about their sail to today's England.
I don't have it in my computer for the moment, but I was given it(= it was
sent to me ) in 1994 when I wrote my D-essay and I have my photocopy of a
pholio as a file on one of my many discs.
Inger E
"Graham Nowland" <gcno...@bigpond.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:3B96BEC3...@bigpond.com...
Ellis
[...]
> What about Cerdic and Cynric of Wessex? What are they donkeys?
[...]
Well, now you come to mention it .......
No, they weren't donkeys, but there seems to be more than a suggestion of
another origin myth here. To lend credence to the West Saxons claim to
Wessex. There's been some interesting debates on this following the Channel
4 Time Team programme and their excavation of a Saxon burial site in
Hampshire.
Steffan Ellis
Ellis
http://www.channel4.com/timeteamlive2001/index.html
The forum has some strange contributions on the possibility of King Arthur
being buried there.
Steffan Ellis
"Ellis" <ell...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:0WGl7.8365$592.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Simon Ward
Tony Jebson <je...@texas.net> wrote in message news:o1Cl7.338864
> Oh, don't forget those other alliterating kinsmen: Cerdic / Cynric and
> AEsc / AElle spring to mind.
I won't give an opinion on either Hengist/Horsa nor Cerdic/Cynric, but to
say that Aelle and Aesc (the latter often denoted as Oesc) are kinsmen is
perhaps stretching the point. Aelle was a South Saxon and Oesc was from
Kent, the latter usually associated with the Jutish tribe.
We first hear about Aelle from Bede and the ASC, neither of which are South
Saxon in origin. Bede makes Aelle the first Bretwalda (big boss type thing
and an interesting counterpoint to Arthur's status amongst the British). To
my mind, these are details that make Aelle something more than just some
totum figure.
I guess Tony was making a point too far.
Regards
Simon
Tim O'Neill
Inger E wrote:
> Graham,
> In my opinion ...
For what it's worth
> you are almost right in every assumption you make below but
> one:
>
> re. Historical proof of Horsa(/Horse) and Hengist.
> The fact is that there exists one manuscript from the mid-440's which talk
> about their sail to today's England.
Gosh.
Will she reveal more?
> I don't have it in my computer for the moment, but I was given it(= it was
> sent to me ) in 1994 when I wrote my D-essay and I have my photocopy of a
> pholio as a file on one of my many discs.
Nope. The dog ate her homework. Again.
Is it just me or has Inger been sending more or less this same post in various
forms for the last three or so years? "I have amazing information that no-one
else has, but I can't/won't tell you what it is, so there."
Boring.
For Christ's sake Inger - post something of substance and substantiate
what you claim or just go away.
Tim O'Neill
Adrian Gilbert
"Tim O'Neill" <sca...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:b9ebd984.01090...@posting.google.com...
>
> Hmmm. Having followed this debate from its beginning, I think
> I know which one of the two I'd be putting money on. We
> certainly don't 'know for sure' but Brian's use of the phrase
> 'in all probability' is not semantics, it's simply the kind of
> careful language used in scholarship - we don't know for sure
> but the evidence certainly stacks up that way. 'Imaginative'
> speculation can be fun, and *can* lead to new insights and
> exciting discoveries, but only when tested against boring old
> things like 'probability'. New ideas and speculations are
> not hard to come by. *Good* new ideas, however, are rarer and
> can only be sorted from wild speculation by stringent analysis
> and criticism. That's why peer review, debate and disputation
> have been part of the scholarly process for centuries.
>
Well Tim, I can understand your reasoning. The problem of knowing who to
believe really goes down to something fundamental: it is a matter of what
historical scenario do you subscribe to. Basically there are two approaches
to the history of Britain and they are not compatible. The first, which we
can call modernist (though it goes back to the 18th century) is to say there
really was no history-at least none of any real consequence-before the
coming of Julius Caesar in 55 BC and the conquest proper in 43 AD. The
Romans brought everything of any worth to Britain and their departure in 410
AD was a national tragedy. The "Dark Ages" which followed were dark because
Roman civilization had departed. People such as Ambrosius, Arthur and others
are of importance because they tried to hold onto Roman civilization against
barbarian onslaught. Paradoxically these "Celtic" leaders laid the
foundations for the successor kingdoms of the Saxons. They were the
inventors of kingship in Britain even if they were not really kings
themselves and were nor its final beneficiaries.
In the light of this approach, which uses the tools of modern scholarship
(principally philology) to bolster its position, virtually all records of
ancient history other than Gildas (6th century) and maybe parts of Nennius
(8-9th century) are highly suspect. Geoffrey of Monmouth's "History of the
Kings of Britain" is regarded as a "spoof" , written by him to entertain the
nobles of the Norman court. By this analysis Geoffrey is a forger, a creator
of a false, imaginary history which is not to be taken seriously. So too are
other Welsh records such as genealogies, Triads and so on. They are all
products of the fevered Welsh mind seeking to deceive the English into
believing that their forbears had a grander history than they really did.
"Real" British history begins at 1066, or maybe a little before at the time
of King Alfred. It is primarily the history of England and in actual fact
begins in Germany. As the English only conquered Wales in the 11th-13th
centuries, nothing in Wales from before this date can be taken seriously. In
other wordsWelsh history begins with the Norman conquest of the Vale of
Glamorgan in 1091, but has little of interest before the death of Llewellyn
ap Gruffyd in 1282.
This attitude is well represented by the writings of Bishop William Stubbs,
who was Regius Professor of History at Oxford University at a very critical
time-1866-84. He writes:
"The English nation is of distinctly Teutonic or German origin. The Angles,
Jutes and Saxons...entered upon a land...whose inhabitants were enervated
and demoralised by long dependence, wasted by successive pestilences, worn
out by the attacks of half-savage neighbours and by their own suicidal
wars...
This new race [the Anglo-Saxons] was the main stock of our forefathers,
sharing the primeval German pride of purity of extraction...and strictly
careful of the distinction between themselves and the tolerated remnant of
their predecessors...
It is unnecessary to suppose that any general intermixture either of
Roman or of British blood has affected this national identity...from the
Briton and the Roman of the 5th century we have received nothing...The first
traces, then, of our national history must be sought not in Britain but in
Germany. [W. Stubbs "Select Charters from the beginning to 1307, (9th ed.
Oxford 1951) pp. 1-3]
Now whilst most historians and archaeologists today would not consciously
subscribe to such Xenophobic and racist ideas and indeed would say that the
Saxons and Britons were much more inter-mixed than was supposed in Stubbs'
day, the effect of his pronouncements remain with us. It was he who changed
the history curriculum as taught in schools throughout the British Isles and
introduced the then fashionable Germanism. It was he who removed the ancient
Bruts from the libraries of Oxford and forbade the teaching of the
traditional history which till then had been based on such works as
Hardynge's Chronicles, which contain material taken from Welsh traditions.
The nett result of this Orwellian re-writing of the history books is that
today few people, even in Britain, have much of a clue what their ancient
history might have been; those who do are mostly sneeringly dismissive of
what they perceive to be a collection of myths.
The second approach (which I ascribe to) flies in the face of this academic
conspiracy to deprive Britain of its ancient past. It says what if the
ancient histories, as preserved in Geoffrey of Monmouth and other places,
are basically true? What if modern scholars are working from a false
scenario of the past? Might this not mean that they are just not seeing the
evidence for this history simply because they don't know it?
I will give a couple of instances here to show what I mean. Few people today
realise that English law is founded on the Molmutine Code. This code of Laws
was adopted by King Alfred of Wessex at the instigation of his friend and
confidant, Bishop Asser. This Asser, known in Wales as the "Blue Bard" was
previously Bishop of Menevia or St David's in Wales. At that time Wales, far
from being a cultural backwater on the backside of England, was the centre
of what learning still existed in Britain. Alfred had to ask the Welsh to
supply him with teachers who could read and write as at the time even he was
illiterate. The Molmutine code which Alfred adopted for his kingdom was in
fact the old system of laws instituted by a much earlier king od Britain
called Molmutius or Dyfnwal Moelmud. According to Geoffrey of Monmouth
Molmutius, previous to becoming King of Britain (in the Pre-Roman period)
had been King of Corwall.
Now this brings hoots of derision from modern academics but could it be
true? Does "Cornwall" mean what we think it does: the tip of the south-west
peninsular of England as it juts out into the Atlantic? Was this "King of
Cornwall" a sort of Pirate of Penzance? I think not.
If we look at a map of Roman Britain we discover that the region we now call
Devon was known as "Dumnonia". It seems logical to me that the people who
originally inhabited this county were the "Dobuni" or "Dovuni"-a name
obviously linked with the modern county name of Devon. Yet the same map will
show this "tribe" displaced northwards to the region of what we now call
Gloucestershire. Why is this? What is going on here?
Well if you adopt the modernist approach there is no mystery at all. The
names bear no relation to one another. We are dealing with different tribes
in different places as Dyfnwal Moelmud, "King of Cornwall" is a mythological
figure of no interest to serious historians. Yet if you follow a line of
reasoning based on a serious study of the traditional histories you come to
quite a different conclusion.
The title King (or Duke) of Cornwall goes back a long way. The real term was
probably Teyrn or Tigernus-a subject much debated recently in the King
Arthur newsgroup.According to the ancient histories the first person to bear
this title was Corineus, who came to Britain with Brutus the Trojan at some
time after the Trojan War. This Corineus was a mighty man and he wrestled
with a giant called Gogmagog. After an exhausting encounter he eventually
threw the giant over a cliff at a place called Gogmagog's leap. As a reward
for his bravery Brutus let him choose where he wanted to settle and he chose
Cornwall. Geoffrey writes:
"Corineus...called the region of the kingdom which had fallen to his share
Cornwall, after the manner of his own name, and the people who lived there
he called Cornishmen. Although he might have chosen his own estates before
all the others who had come there, he prefered the region which is now
called Cornwall, either for its being the "cornu" [Latin for horn] or horn
of Britain, or through a corruption of his own name."
At first sight this seems clear enough but when you go into it further, you
realise that even Geoffrey didn't properly understand what he was writing
about. (Another reason for believing that he didn't "invent" his history but
merely translated and adapted it from older sources.) Like all conquerors
Corineus would have founded a city and had it names after him. If we look
around southwest Britain we can see where this city was. It was not
Penzance, Padstow, Truro or even Falmouth but rather Cirencester in the far
off (from Cornwall) county of Gloucester. The Roman name for this city was
"Corinium Dobunorum". The first part of this name tells us it was the city
of Corin or Corineus and the second that it was the "tribal" capital of the
Dobuni. This, now insignificant town, was once the regional capital of the
west of England and the seat of the Kings of Cornwall.
Following on from this we can see that Dyfnwal Moelmud (who maybe lived in
the 3rd century BC) would have had this as his seat prior to his being
elected King of England. Either his name "Dyfnwal" is derived from that of
the people he ruled: the Dobuni (Dyfni) from whom we get the name "Devon",
or (more likely in my opinon) they took their name from him. They were
"Dyfnwal's people" and the place they lived was Devonia or Dumnonia. This
would have embraced the entire region of the Southwest Peninsular: Cornwall,
Devon, Somerset, Gloucestershire and maybe even Dorset and Wiltshire too.
Originally it would have been a greater "Cornwall", the principality set up
by Corineus. At that time all of these Britons would have been "Corni"
(Corin's people) and once we understand this we can begin to appreciate why
in the ancient history of Britain the Dukes of Cornwall are such powerful
figures and are so prominent.
There is a futher rider to this that explains something else that is
otherwise inexplicable. Besides framing the Molmutine laws, Dyfnwal Moelmud
is famous for instituting laws governing the network of roads throughout the
kingdom of Britain. It is therefore of interest to see that there are more
Roman roads leading in and out of Cirencester than any other city of
Britain except for London despite the fact tht it was not a particularly
important city either in Roman times or since. This would suggest (to me
anyway) that this networking of roads was a legacy of pre-Roman Britain and
that the Romans merely built on and improved a system that was already there
when they arrived.
Now I realise that much of the above flies in the face of currently accepted
theories of settlement. However I present this as an example of how opposite
approaches to history produce widely differing results. Now I must get on
with some real work!
Adrian Gilbert.
Grethe Bachmann
who in every letter can come up with a literary thesis??
I´m sure that some of you really have scared eventuel new members away when
they read some of the strict answers that come up from time to time.
Why don´t you take it more relaxed - of course it´s a great thing that
there are so many knowing people - and it´s great to recieve all that
knowledge - no doubt about that - but we all have a right to participate in
our own way.
Now - about Hengist and Horsa - where there are different opinions which is
quite natural considering the different sources of material.
My source of material says - and I can only quote - that Hengist and Horsa
according to tradition were 2 "guys" (or what you like to call them )- from
Jutland who in 449 led an army of Anglo-Saxon mercenaries to England and
with that started the Anglo-Saxon colonization of this country.
And I reserve my right to pop up with some non-scientific questions and
letters from time to time.
Kind regards to all
Grethe Bachman `)
I
"Inger E" <norah....@telia.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:jLFl7.53376$e5.26...@newsb.telia.net...
Grethe Bachmann
Sorry!
GB
"Tim O'Neill" <sca...@bigpond.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3B975841...@bigpond.com...
Adrian Gilbert
"Ellis" <ell...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:0WGl7.8365$592.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
he was hung like one. Who knows? Are we to suppose that King Arthur was
really just the remnant of a bear cult because Arth means bear in Welsh?
Obviously the Jutes had leaders and these leaders had names. Why try to read
more into their names than that? After all the name Hengest is met with in
Beowulf so (assuming he is not meant to be the same person) it must have
been a recognised name in Anglo-Saxon society that was used by more than one
person.
As regards horse cults, the only one I am familiar with is that of Troy and
look where that got them. I do note, however, that the badge of Kent is a
rearing white horse with the motto "invicta" and that Hengist was the first
Jutish King of Kent. Perhaps he had a white horse on his standard.
Adrian Gilbert.
Brian M. Scott
<grethe....@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
>Do you try to scare people away from this ng?? Is this group only for people
>who in every letter can come up with a literary thesis??
For several years in more than one newsgroup Inger has been posting
outlandish theories, claiming to have good evidence for them, and
refusing to present any of this evidence. At first most people took
her seriously and attempted to discuss her ideas and evidence, but she
has steadfastly refused to cooperate. By now quite a few of us are
very tired of her imaginary documents and imaginary scholars and have
consigned her to the loony bin.
[...]
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<gcno...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>Tony Jebson wrote:
[...]
>> > During that discussion the following question was put: Are there
>> > any examples of proved twin horse mythology in Nordic and Teutonic
>> > myth, and if not, what effect does this have on the Turville theory?
>> > The question was not answered.
>> It's a strawman anyway.
>There it is again. Strawman. Is this jargon for an idea of no solidity?
>The dictionary says a person of no substance.
The relevant definition, given first in Merriam-Webster Online s.v.
straw man, is 'a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or
adversary) set up only to be easily confuted'.
>> > Also asked was: What certainty is there that the original form of
>> > the names Hengist and Horsa actually both meant "horse" in the relevant
>> > dialects during the Dark Ages? This question went unanswered too.
[...]
>> This can be answered by a quick peek at Bosworth and Toller.
>> "Horsa" is pretty obvious as the OE for "horse" is (gasp!) "hors".
>Thanks very much. Yes. Gasp!! It is pretty much the same as the modern
>German, which I knew already.
Perhaps, if your definition of 'pretty much the same' is quite
generous. Modern German has the common <Pferd>, which is from
<para-vered-us>, a Latinized Greco-Celtic hybrid from the Merovingian
bureaucratic language that has nothing to do with the matter;
<Hengst>, which is an obvious match, but with <Hengest>, not <Horsa>;
<Ross>, which goes with <Horsa> but is not to most people 'pretty much
the same as' OE <hors>; and doubtless others less common and less
relevant that I've forgotten.
[...]
Brian
Inger E
I guess you better still ask if your fellows in the groups will reveal more,
you see I know the name of the person who sent me the copy from where the
University Library ordered a book and enclosed had the copy sent to me. The
person in question sometimes writes in one of the groups above and since I
hadn't asked for that photocopy but was given it for free it's up to the
person in question to reveal more because he(it's a he) is the one who have
access to the original manuscript in it's archieve.
Inger E
"Tim O'Neill" <sca...@bigpond.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:3B975841...@bigpond.com...
Dick Wisan
grethe....@mail.tele.dk says...
>
>Do you try to scare people away from this ng?? Is this group only for people
In which newsgroup are you following this thread? Notice that it's being
cross-posted to four different groups (and to one of them twice). They
may have quite different standards and customs. Of them, I know only
soc.history.medieval, which is a group to which the kind of argument
you're objecting to is quite normal, and, no it doesn't drive people
away. We have flame and troll problems, but not serious-argument
problems. It _is_ possible to walk into trouble in this group by
posting certain kinds of questions about things like King Arthur, the
Templars after their offical suppression, millions of medieval witch-
burnings, ghost riders in the sky...
This is one of the reasons why cross-posting is usually a mistake.
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan Email: wis...@hartwick.edu
Snail: 37 Clinton St., Oneonta, NY 13820, USA
Just your opinion, please, Ma'am. No fax.
Inger E
for your information the lines I have posted neither are outlandish theories
nor are the documents imaginary. I have had almost all documents up for
Seminaries or presented in B-, C- and/or D-essay checked before they were up
by specialist who naturally have had access to the same sources. Those prime
sources I haven't had up in normal Academic seminaries have been up when my
friend Ph.D. Ingemar Nordgren or when Tomas Widholm MA had their works up!
If you had had at least some knowledge in all the things you have been
presenting assumption about in the past you would have known of the sources
yourself!
I have sent more than 100 referensis to Prime sources to the groups over the
years. Up to now you haven't proven that you even tried to read any one all
those sources!
Stop accusing me of being a non-Scholar. Because Scholar I am and I have had
several articles published even if they aren't in English-speaking media!
Btw as late as today I have been asked to send in an article regarding the
early Scandinavians in North America by Sunday.
Inger E
"Brian M. Scott" <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> skrev i meddelandet
news:3b977683....@enews.newsguy.com...
Brian M. Scott
>In article <3b9762e7$0$273$edfa...@dspool01.news.tele.dk>,
>grethe....@mail.tele.dk says...
>>Do you try to scare people away from this ng?? Is this group only for people
>>who in every letter can come up with a literary thesis?? ...
>In which newsgroup are you following this thread? Notice that it's being
>cross-posted to four different groups (and to one of them twice). They
>may have quite different standards and customs. Of them, I know only
>soc.history.medieval, which is a group to which the kind of argument
>you're objecting to is quite normal, and, no it doesn't drive people
>away. We have flame and troll problems, but not serious-argument
>problems. It _is_ possible to walk into trouble in this group by
>posting certain kinds of questions about things like King Arthur, the
>Templars after their offical suppression, millions of medieval witch-
>burnings, ghost riders in the sky...
It's quite mild by sci.archaeology standards.
>This is one of the reasons why cross-posting is usually a mistake.
Brian
Peter Guy
people to leave the newsgroup please?
Peter
"Tim O'Neill" <sca...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:3B975841...@bigpond.com...
William Black
Grethe Bachmann <grethe....@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
news:3b9762e7$0$273$edfa...@dspool01.news.tele.dk...
> Do you try to scare people away from this ng?? Is this group only for
people
> who in every letter can come up with a literary thesis??
> I´m sure that some of you really have scared eventuel new members away
when
> they read some of the strict answers that come up from time to time.
> Why don´t you take it more relaxed - of course it´s a great thing that
> there are so many knowing people - and it´s great to recieve all that
> knowledge - no doubt about that - but we all have a right to participate
in
> our own way.
Because, to cut a very long story short, to say that you have proof but
you can't say where it came from isn't an argument.
For a serious conversation about the facts involved in any and all history
then some primary material should be referred to at some point. Even good
secondary material from a reputable source is acceptable some of the time.
Opinion and proof are two different things, and to give an opinion, then
to say it's a fact and then to provide no reliable proof isn't really on.
If it's an opinion then you should say so and not try to invent a proof
which doesn't exist, because that irritates people.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
richard wardle
>I would have replied to this posting sooner had it appered on the BT
>Internet server. There seems to be a problem here in the circulation of
>usenet messages.
>
>>"Brian M. Scott" <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote in message
>>news:3b8ce2ea....@enews.newsguy.com...
>!
<snip>
>If news-groups have any value at all (and I sometimes wonder if they do)
>"discussion" seems to be to pontificate on the basis of received opinion. I
>prefer to explore ideas in an open and intuitive way. I don't always get
>things right and I admit this. On the other hand, by thinking laterally, I
>often make new discoveries. That's why my books are best-sellers: they
>introduce fresh ideas for people to think about.
>
with you about your book sales, they do introduce 'fresh' idea's
>>In any case no distraction is required to deal with your claim that
>>'Gwrtheyn Gwrthenau is so closely related to Arthur I'. Anyone who
>>thinks that so precise a statement is justifiable on the basis of
>>existing evidence has the critical acumen of a senile pet rock.
>
>You seem to have been drinking vinegar for breakfast again Brian! Let's try
>and keep things civilized shall we and avoid personal insults.
>
>It makes no difference to me if Guy of Warwick is a total fiction from the
>Middle Ages. I don't care if his name was derived from Guido, Gwiddo,
>Guidolfin or Guelfus. What is of more interest to me is the archetype on
>which the mythos is based. I read in the bear and staff motif a reference
to
>the stars. You prefer to think mundane and go for a simple explanation of a
>bear-hero tearing out a tree and making a club. That you refuse to see a
>connection between this myth and the reality of Ursa Major, the Great Bear,
>circling the pole of heaven is your own business. You may have it your own
>way. I no longer care and regard this discussion as over.
>
>
>Adrian Gilbert.
>
--
Regards Richard
Mankind is divided into three classes,
The rich,The poor and Those who have enough
Therefore abolish the rich and you will have no more poor,
For it is the few rich who are the cause of the many poor.
Eric Stevens
>Martin Gardner calls this 'the Gallileo Fallacy' - an
>argument beloved of fringe theorists. Unfortunately,
>as Gardner points out, it's not enough to be disagreed
>with to be a Gallileo (or a Copernicus), you also have
>to be correct. Gallileos are very rare. 'Loons' on
>the other hand, are a dime a dozen.
>
>This is not to say that you *aren't* a Gallileo, just
>that it's unlikely that you are and claiming the
>status of being disapproved of by orthodoxy doesn't
>necessarily make you a Gallileo by a very long chalk.
All Galileos are loons but not all loons are Galileos.
It was Max Planck who wrote to the effect that opponents of a new idea
are never converted but simply die out. Presumably that means it takes
an academic generation before one can complete the winnowing of the
loons (a great title for a painting).
Eric Stevens
There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
Brian M. Scott
<Awenl...@btinternet.com> wrote:
[...]
>Well Tim, I can understand your reasoning. The problem of knowing who to
>believe really goes down to something fundamental: it is a matter of what
>historical scenario do you subscribe to. Basically there are two approaches
>to the history of Britain and they are not compatible. The first, which we
>can call modernist (though it goes back to the 18th century) is to say there
>really was no history-at least none of any real consequence-before the
>coming of Julius Caesar in 55 BC and the conquest proper in 43 AD. The
>Romans brought everything of any worth to Britain and their departure in 410
>AD was a national tragedy. The "Dark Ages" which followed were dark because
>Roman civilization had departed. People such as Ambrosius, Arthur and others
>are of importance because they tried to hold onto Roman civilization against
>barbarian onslaught. Paradoxically these "Celtic" leaders laid the
>foundations for the successor kingdoms of the Saxons. They were the
>inventors of kingship in Britain even if they were not really kings
>themselves and were nor its final beneficiaries.
Whether through ignorance or through malice, this is a straw man, a
crude parody of the standard view of the history of Britain. It's
true that there's not a great deal of history before the Romans, but
that's because history depends on a written record, and Britain
figures minimally in the written record before Caesar. There is,
however, an increasing body of knowledge derived from another
historical science, archaeology; Doug Weller could tell you more about
that. It's also rather well known that Romano-British civilization
didn't collapse suddenly in 410 (or any other year).
>In the light of this approach, which uses the tools of modern scholarship
>(principally philology) to bolster its position, virtually all records of
>ancient history other than Gildas (6th century) and maybe parts of Nennius
>(8-9th century) are highly suspect. Geoffrey of Monmouth's "History of the
>Kings of Britain" is regarded as a "spoof" , written by him to entertain the
>nobles of the Norman court. By this analysis Geoffrey is a forger, a creator
>of a false, imaginary history which is not to be taken seriously.
More accurately, a very creative synthesizer building on a base of the
material available to a very well-read man of the 12th century.
> So too are
>other Welsh records such as genealogies, Triads and so on. They are all
>products of the fevered Welsh mind seeking to deceive the English into
>believing that their forbears had a grander history than they really did.
The 'fevered Welsh mind seeking to deceive the English' is more
misrepresentation. Whom were the Anglo-Saxons trying to deceive with
their genealogies leading back to Woden? Whom were the Scandinavians
trying to deceive with their genealogies that similarly fade into
myth?
>"Real" British history begins at 1066, or maybe a little before at the time
>of King Alfred.
You can't seem to make up your mind whether modern scholarship
supposedly starts 'real' British history with the Romans, the
Anglo-Saxons, or the Normans. It doesn't matter much, since your
implication is false in any case. History is no less real for being
known only in barest outline, unsatisfying as you may find it.
(It would be fair to say that *English* history starts with the
Anglo-Saxons, however.)
> It is primarily the history of England and in actual fact
>begins in Germany. As the English only conquered Wales in the 11th-13th
>centuries, nothing in Wales from before this date can be taken seriously. In
>other wordsWelsh history begins with the Norman conquest of the Vale of
>Glamorgan in 1091, but has little of interest before the death of Llewellyn
>ap Gruffyd in 1282.
Funny; even I've heard of Rhodri Mawr, Hywel Dda, and Gruffydd ap
Llywelyn, and I've never even taken any particular interest in Welsh
history.
>This attitude is well represented by the writings of Bishop William Stubbs,
>who was Regius Professor of History at Oxford University at a very critical
>time-1866-84. He writes:
Oh? What was critical about it?
>"The English nation is of distinctly Teutonic or German origin. The Angles,
>Jutes and Saxons...entered upon a land...whose inhabitants were enervated
>and demoralised by long dependence, wasted by successive pestilences, worn
>out by the attacks of half-savage neighbours and by their own suicidal
>wars...
> This new race [the Anglo-Saxons] was the main stock of our forefathers,
>sharing the primeval German pride of purity of extraction...and strictly
>careful of the distinction between themselves and the tolerated remnant of
>their predecessors...
> It is unnecessary to suppose that any general intermixture either of
>Roman or of British blood has affected this national identity...from the
>Briton and the Roman of the 5th century we have received nothing...The first
>traces, then, of our national history must be sought not in Britain but in
>Germany. [W. Stubbs "Select Charters from the beginning to 1307, (9th ed.
>Oxford 1951) pp. 1-3]
>Now whilst most historians and archaeologists today would not consciously
... or unconsciously ...
>subscribe to such Xenophobic and racist ideas and indeed would say that the
>Saxons and Britons were much more inter-mixed than was supposed in Stubbs'
>day, the effect of his pronouncements remain with us.
Not really, no. The fruits of his scholarship remain with us, which
is a very different thing. His dated prejudices have little relevance
to modern scholarship.
[...]
>The second approach (which I ascribe to) flies in the face of this academic
>conspiracy to deprive Britain of its ancient past.
Ah, yes, an academic conspiracy. One that's apparently lasted over a
century in an increasingly competitive academic world in which
reputations can be made by successfully arguing revolutionary
hypotheses. One that's apparently lasted over a century despite
offering no real incentive to most of its supposed members. Get real.
If I have time, I'll come back to some of what follows, but one
mistake should be corrected at once:
[...]
> Like all conquerors
>Corineus would have founded a city and had it names after him. If we look
>around southwest Britain we can see where this city was. It was not
>Penzance, Padstow, Truro or even Falmouth but rather Cirencester in the far
>off (from Cornwall) county of Gloucester. The Roman name for this city was
>"Corinium Dobunorum".
No. The Antonine Itinerary gives it in the ablative as <Durocornovio>
'the fort of the Cornovii'.
[...]
BMS
Tim O'Neill
Grethe Bachmann wrote:
> My letter was meant to be linked to this letter and not to Graham Nowland´s.
> Sorry!
> GB
Okay.
> Do you try to scare people away from this ng?? Is this group only for people
> who in every letter can come up with a literary thesis??
>
I only realised that I'd accidently crossposted this to alt.legend.king.arthur
after
I posted it. I don't know which 'ng' you're referring to above, but since I
don't
recognise your name from soc.history.medieval, I'll assume it's
alt.legend.king.arthur. If that's the case you won't realise that Inger is a
regular on SHM, and one who, as I've said above, regularly pops into a
discussion, informs us that she has vast insights into the subject that the rest
of us (and the rest of the world) don't have, hints at what they might be and
then scampers off without supporting her (vague) claims. When challenged
she usually says she has the information somewhere but can't lay her hands
on it at the moment. When pressed she often claims that her research is
top secret and can't be revealed to anyone.
SHM regulars would be very familiar with all this and would have known
what I was talking about. I don't care if people can't back up their claims
with academic references (though it's good when they can) - simple
clearly presented logical arguments or indications of their evidence will
do.
I hope that context makes my post a little clearer - it was aimed at SHM
regulars and probably didn't make much sense to ALK-A people.
Cheers,
Tim O'Neill
D. Spencer Hines
are never converted but simply die out. Presumably that means it takes
an academic generation before one can complete the winnowing of the
loons (a great title for a painting)."
Eric Stevens
--------------------
Indeed.
That's why it's quite important that this current generation of
academics ---- many of whom are essentially damaged goods ---- die out.
Deus Vult.
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." "La Trahison des clercs" [The Treason of the Intellectuals]
(1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
Tim O'Neill
Inger E wrote:
> Tim,
> I guess you better still ask if your fellows in the groups will reveal more,
> you see I know the name of the person who sent me the copy from where the
> University Library ordered a book and enclosed had the copy sent to me. The
> person in question sometimes writes in one of the groups above and since I
> hadn't asked for that photocopy but was given it for free it's up to the
> person in question to reveal more because he(it's a he) is the one who have
> access to the original manuscript in it's archieve.
I've got a better idea - since you mentioned this MS from 440 AD which
details Hengist and Horsa, how about you tell us all about it. What is it?
What does it say? If it clearly mentions Hengist and Horsa, why do no
other scholars seem to know about it?
You brought it up (again - we've heard you mention it and then run away
before), so now tell us more.
Tim O'Neill
Keith Marzullo
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote:
>That's why it's quite important that this current generation of
>academics ---- many of whom are essentially damaged goods ---- die out.
yes, but you just don't seem to be following your own advice... how
long do we have to wait?
cheers,
keith
(who is not really wishing to start a discussion on eugenics)
--
___________________________________________________
Keith Marzullo University of California, San Diego
Department of Computer Science & Engineering
---------------------------------------------------
Michael Kuettner
Inger E <norah....@telia.com> wrote in message
news:EzOl7.53449$e5.26...@newsb.telia.net...
> Brian,
> for your information the lines I have posted neither are outlandish
theories
> nor are the documents imaginary.
We've never seen any.
> I have had almost all documents up for
> Seminaries or presented in B-, C- and/or D-essay checked before they
were up
> by specialist who naturally have had access to the same sources.
Because I'm fed up with your postings by now, we'll have a little chat
about the Swedish school system.
To become a teacher in Sweden you don't have to go to an university.
You just survive their equivalent of high-school and then you go on
to write nice little essays to become a teacher.
So it's hardly likely in your Socialist Bureaucrats Dream that a
specialist
would ever have seen your rags.
But you are allowed to have a go at innocent little children.
> Those prime
> sources I haven't had up in normal Academic seminaries have been up
when my
> friend Ph.D. Ingemar Nordgren or when Tomas Widholm MA had their works
up!
>
And WHERE can one look at those sources ?
Cat ate your homework again ?
> If you had had at least some knowledge in all the things you have been
> presenting assumption about in the past you would have known of the
sources
> yourself!
>
Just talking out of your ass again.
> I have sent more than 100 referensis to Prime sources to the groups
over the
> years. Up to now you haven't proven that you even tried to read any
one all
> those sources!
>
Strange that nobody can find any ...
> Stop accusing me of being a non-Scholar. Because Scholar I am and I
have had
> several articles published even if they aren't in English-speaking
media!
You mean by writing D-level essays and never giving sources you
become a scholar ? Dream on, little girl.
> Btw as late as today I have been asked to send in an article regarding
the
> early Scandinavians in North America by Sunday.
>
To whom ? Another phantasy ?
And now - for the last time :
Deliver or piss off, school girl.
MK
Tim O'Neill
Peter Guy wrote:
> 'scuse me Tim, but would you explain on what you base your authority to tell
> people to leave the newsgroup please?
I didn't say anything of the sort (and which of the five newsgroups are you
referring to?). 'Substantiate what you claim or go away' is a figurative
way of saying, effectively, 'put up or shut up'. As has been explained to
nonSHM regulars already, Inger is always popping into discussions, claiming
to have amazing information that no-one else knows about, hinting at
what it might be and then running away when asked for details. Note the
other contributions on this thread by SHM who know what I'm talking about.
Of course, if one day she actually stood still, stopped hand waving and
stated what her evidence is, what it says and how it supports her position
I'd be interested to hear it and to discuss it with her. But in all the time
she's
been posting to SHM that has almost never happened.
Clearer?
Cheers,
Tim O'Neill
Heather Rose Jones
Another thing to consider here is that there is plenty of solidly
historic evidence for the use of alliterating names in Anglo-Saxon
families and lineages (for that matter, for repetition of entire name
themes, not simply initial letters). This habit may both reflect and
reinforce a preference for alliterative kinsmen as cultural icons, but
it also means that it's hard to see the appearance of kinsmen with
alliterative names as diagnostic of non-historicity.
--
*********
Heather Rose Jones
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
*********
Inger E
for your information there are several Scholars from Columbia University to
California's University in North America, from England, Scotland, Ireland,
Norway and Denmark who have had access to the parts of my sources incl. my
own writings(Essays, articles, pre-studies etc). But that's not the same as
to send my manuscripts for two books out in the open air. That's not the
same as being top-secret, is it?
If I don't find you reliable to send such documentation to it's my judgement
and a result of the way you behaved in sci.archaeology and
soc.history.medieval in the past.
Inger E
"Tim O'Neill" <sca...@bigpond.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:3B97E40E...@bigpond.com...
Inger E
Inger E
as I said over and over again the last years:
start reading the ref. I have sent to the groups. They are over 100 and some
of them I have enclosed ref. to transcribed English-version as well. If you
are to lazy to read when you have had the sources given, notabene you have
many times had ref. with chapter page or year and line, than you either have
to ask around if the person who sent me the photocopy would be kind enough
to send it to you too
or you have to wait until my manuscript's translation into English is
finished and the book(the Gothic Mosaic) is published.
Bye Bye till than
Inger E
"Tim O'Neill" <sca...@bigpond.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:3B97E501...@bigpond.com...
Inger E
how do you know that when you never ever have read the sources I have
refered to????? :-) You are funny Michael but not fun....
Inger E
"Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> skrev i meddelandet
news:IORl7.84$iK6....@reader3.kpnqwest.net...
Michael Kuettner
> Tim,
> for your information there are several Scholars from Columbia
University to
> California's University in North America, from England, Scotland,
Ireland,
> Norway and Denmark who have had access to the parts of my sources
incl. my
> own writings(Essays, articles, pre-studies etc).
schoolgirls who want to be scholars.
Names of the scholars ?
Oh - you aren't allowed to mention their names ?
Your computer is malfunctioning again ?
You still can't split files ?
You're still too supid ?
> But that's not the same as
> to send my manuscripts for two books out in the open air. That's not
the
> same as being top-secret, is it?
You have no manuscripts; you've just got your X-level essays; might
suffice
in Sweden but nowhere else.
And I honestly hope that they put you down before you write a book.
> If I don't find you reliable to send such documentation to it's my
judgement
> and a result of the way you behaved in sci.archaeology and
> soc.history.medieval in the past.
Your judgement is faulty, as always.
And you're still talking out of your ass.
You're a pathetic joke.
And learn to snip, you stupid bitch !
Disregards,
Michael Kuettner
<snip>
PS : To the regulars at s.h.m and sci.arch. :
I've finally had enough. Be it Ken Littleton who must have
invested a whole lot of time to bring some geological
facts; be it Brian Scott who must have invested some
time to bring some linguistical facts (thanks, btw) -
this stupid bitch always knows better and never brings
any sources.
And to the regulars at the other groups where this
is cross-posted : Sorry. But please keep her.
Michael Kuettner
> Tim,
> as I said over and over again the last years:
> start reading the ref. I have sent to the groups. They are over 100
and some
> of them I have enclosed ref. to transcribed English-version as well.
If you
> are to lazy to read when you have had the sources given, notabene you
have
> many times had ref. with chapter page or year and line, than you
either have
> to ask around if the person who sent me the photocopy would be kind
enough
> to send it to you too
> or you have to wait until my manuscript's translation into English is
> finished and the book(the Gothic Mosaic) is published.
>
> Bye Bye till than
>
> Inger E
And another post full of empty platitudes.
You haven't sent anything to this group.
Why do you have to show your empty-
headedness in public ?
Oh, btw : be a good girl and fuck off - will you ?
Disregards,
Michael Kuettner
Michael Kuettner
> Michael,
> how do you know that when you never ever have read the sources I have
> refered to????? :-) You are funny Michael but not fun....
>
It shows your abysmal grasp of English and my point.
So - school girl - are you prepared to bring some
citations for your claims ?
insert from below :
Inger :
> > > I have had almost all documents up for
> > > Seminaries or presented in B-, C- and/or D-essay checked before
they
> > were up
> > > by specialist who naturally have had access to the same sources.
Me :
> > Because I'm fed up with your postings by now, we'll have a little
chat
> > about the Swedish school system.
> > To become a teacher in Sweden you don't have to go to an university.
> > You just survive their equivalent of high-school and then you go on
> > to write nice little essays to become a teacher.
> > So it's hardly likely in your Socialist Bureaucrats Dream that a
> > specialist
> > would ever have seen your rags.
> > But you are allowed to have a go at innocent little children.
I'm still waiting for an answer.
And Inger, you aren't even funny anymore -
you're just pathetic.
Disregards,
Michael Kuettner
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Tim,
>as I said over and over again the last years:
>start reading the ref. I have sent to the groups. They are over 100 and some
>of them I have enclosed ref. to transcribed English-version as well. If you
>are to lazy to read when you have had the sources given, notabene you have
>many times had ref. with chapter page or year and line, [...]
Not from you.
BMS