Re: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition
D. Spencer Hines
Nat Taylor was allegedly looking for all PDF files for the fabled 1911
edition, but he was actually looking at the 1910 edition, which allegedly
has no index. The index allegedly appeared in the 1911 version of the 11th
Edition.
So, naturally, Nat was unable to find the index in the files for that 1910
edition.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Renia
The 11th Edition was published between 1910-1911.
James Hogg
<pan...@excelsior.com> allegedly wrote:
>Hilarious!
Have you stopped laughing yet?
>Nat Taylor was allegedly looking for all PDF Format files for the fabled 1911
>edition, but he was actually looking at the 1910 edition, which allegedly
>has no index. The index allegedly appeared in the 1911 version of the 11th
>Edition.
>
>So, naturally, Nat was unable to find the index in the files for that 1910
>edition.
Note the overuse of the word "allegedly", a weaselly synonym for
"I don't actually know but I'm hoping that people more knowledgeable
myself, or people who know how to Google for information, will post
the facts about the EB Encyclopaedia."
Par for the course.
James
D. Spencer Hines
index, Volume 29, was published.
But he clearly knows there was a Volume 29.
Vide infra.
Vol 1 A to ANDROPHAGI
> http://books.google.com/books?id=QhPpsUqUkZoC
But then, what's all this about Volumes 30 and 31?
Hmmmmmm...
"How many more volumes are there" sounds like a pretty smart question.
How Sweet It Is!
D. Spencer Hines
Edition, of course....
But not Yearbooks.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:lcedj.37$hc7...@eagle.america.net...
> Nat is looking at the version published in 1910 -- reportedly BEFORE the
> index, Volume 29, was published.
>
> But he clearly knows there was a Volume 29.
>
> Vide infra.
>
> Vol 1 A to ANDROPHAGI
>> http://books.google.com/books?id=QhPpsUqUkZoC
>
> But then, what's all this about Volumes 30 and 31?
>
> Hmmmmmm...
>
> "How many more volumes are there" sounds like a pretty smart question.
Um, no - how many more volumes are there of a set that, as you had already
been told, was completed with the alphabet (ZYM) in volume 28 and indexed in
volume 29 is about as stupid as a question can very well get.
Now you are trying to laugh at Nat's searching Google Books for the title
published in 1910 as well as 1911, that you have been told were the
publication years of EB's 11th edition, while at the same time trying to
claim that supplements published from 1922 were part of this 1910/11 set.
Your idea of hilarity is no more sane than your bibliographic witterings are
sensible.
Peter Stewart
James Hogg
<pan...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>Nat is looking at the version published in 1910 -- reportedly BEFORE the
>index, Volume 29, was published.
>
>But he clearly knows there was a Volume 29.
>
>Vide infra.
>
> Vol 1 A to ANDROPHAGI
>> http://books.google.com/books?id=QhPpsUqUkZoC
>
>But then, what's all this about Volumes 30 and 31?
>
>Hmmmmmm...
>
>"How many more volumes are there" sounds like a pretty smart question.
But it wasn't smart at the time you first posted the question. It has
taken you a long time, considerable wriggling and a lot of help from
other people to convince yourself (but no one else) that it was a
smart question.
Twit
James
Peter Stewart
more widely? We already know it is fathomlessly deep...
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:qmedj.38$hc7...@eagle.america.net...
> Supplements and Errata to an Edition should be included as part of an
> Edition, of course....
As Renia has just told you, EB counted the supplementary volumes to the 9th
edition as forming with it the 10th edition, not as part of the 9th, "of
course".
Peter Stewart
D. Spencer Hines
Just like "Leticia Cluff".
Peter Stewart
> "James Hogg" is, of course, a sock puppet too.
>
> Just like "Leticia Cluff".
You haven't established that Leticia Cluff is a pseudonym rather than a
lifelong name for a single poster, much less a "sock puppet" for a second
person who also uses another identifier here, in the manner of "Uriah" the
Turk for Douglas Richardson, as exposed by his web browsing for local
colour.
Ditto, "of course", James Hogg, who openly ackowledged using
"E.S.Caypatch" - and the joke, "of course", was on you.
Peter Stewart
Jack Linthicum
This one
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Agincourt
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Agincourt
From Wikisource
< 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica
Jump to: navigation, search
←Aggtelek 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica (Agincourt) Agio→
See also Agincourt on Wikipedia, and our 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica
disclaimer.
Agincourt (Azincourt), a village of northern France in the department
of Pas de Calais, 14 m. N.W. of St Pol by road, famous on account of
the victory, on the 25th of October 1415, of Henry V. of England over
the French. The battle was fought in the defile formed by the wood of
Agincourt and that of Tramecourt, at the northern exit of which the
army under d'Albret, constable of France, had placed itself so as to
bar the way to Calais against the English forces which had been
campaigning on the Somme. The night of the 24th of October was spent
by the two armies on the ground, and the English had but little
shelter from the heavy rain which fell. Early on the 25th, St
Crispin's day, Henry arrayed his little a rmy (about 1000 men-at-arms,
6000 archers, and a few thousands of other foot). It is probable that
the usual three "battles" were drawn up in line, each with its archers
on the flanks and the dismounted men-at-arms in the centre; the
archers being thrown forward in wedge-shaped salients, almost exactly
as at Crécy (q.v.). The French, on the other hand, were drawn up in
three lines, each line formed in deep masses. They were at least four
times more numerous than the English, but restricted by the nature of
the ground to the same extent of front, they were unable to use their
full weight (cf. Bannockburn); further, the deep mud prevented their
artillery from taking part, and the crossbowmen were as usual
relegated to the read of the knights and men-at-arms. All were
dismounted save a few knights and men-at-arms on the flanks, who were
intended to charge the archers of the enemy. For three hours after
sunrise there was no fighting; then Henry, finding that the French
would not advance, moved his army farther into the defile. The archers
fixed the pointed stakes, which they carried t o ward off cavalry
charges, and opened t he engagement with flights of arrows. The
chivalry of France, undisciplined and careless of the lesson of Crécy
and Poitiers, was quickly stung into action, and the French mounted
men charged, only to be driven back in confusion. The constable
himself headed the leading line of dismounted men-at-arms; weighted
with their armour, and sinking deep into the mud with every step, they
yet reached and engaged the English men-at-arms; for a time the
fighting w as severe. The thin line of the defenders was borne back
and King Henry was almost beaten to the ground. But at this moment the
archers, taking their hatchets, swords or other weapons, penetrated
the gaps in the now disordered French, who could not move to cope with
their unarmoured assailants, and were slaughtered or t aken prisoners
to a man. The second line of the French came on, only to be engulfed
in the mêlée; its leaders, like those of the first line, were killed
or taken, and the commanders of the third sought and found their death
in the battle, while their men rode off to safety. The closing scene
of the battle was a half-hearted attack made by a body of fugitives,
which led merely to the slaughter of the French prisoners, which was
ordered by Henry because he had not enough men both to guard them and
to meet the attack. The slaughter ceased when the assailants drew off.
The total loss of the English is stated at thirteen men-at-arms
(including the Duke of York, grandson of Edward III.) and about 100 of
the foot. The French lost 500 of noble birth killed, including the
constable, 3 dukes, 5 counts and 90 barons; 1000 more were taken
prisoner, amongst them the duke of Orleans (the Charles d'Orléans of
literature).
See Sir Harris Nicolas, Battle of Agincourt; Fortescue, History of the
British Army, vol. i.; and H. B. George, Battles of English History.
D. Spencer Hines
There are several others here as well -- as the cognoscenti well understand.
James Hogg
<pan...@excelsior.com> wrote:
> like "Leticia Cluff".
Yes, I like Letitia Cluff. So do other people, judging by her ratings
in Google Groups: 4 stars from 231 ratings.
To be compared with the paltry 2 stars awarded to fake address
pan...@excelsior.com in 6226 ratings.
Your previous bogus address, pogue...@hotmail.com,
likewise got only 2 stars in 6263 ratings.
James Hogg
poet laureate
too modest to mention his own ratings
Barbarossa
> > Nat is looking at the version published in 1910 --
> > reportedly BEFORE the index, Volume 29, was published.
> >
> > But he clearly knows there was a Volume 29.
> >
> > Vide infra.
> >
> > Vol 1 A to ANDROPHAGI
> >> http://books.google.com/books?id=QhPpsUqUkZoC
> >
> > But then, what's all this about Volumes 30 and 31?
> >
> > Hmmmmmm...
> >
> > "How many more volumes are there" sounds like a pretty smart
> > question.
Peter Stewart :
> Um, no - how many more volumes are there of a set that, as you
> had already been told, was completed with the alphabet (ZYM)
> in volume 28 and indexed in volume 29 is about as stupid as a
> question can very well get.
>
> Now you are trying to laugh at Nat's searching Google Books
> for the title published in 1910 as well as 1911, that you have
> been told were the publication years of EB's 11th edition,
> while at the same time trying to claim that supplements
> published from 1922 were part of this 1910/11 set.
Barbarossa:
Well, it's really the TWELFTH, but what it says on the title
page third and last of the NEW volumes is:
The Encyclopaedia Britannica
The New Volumes constituting with the twenty-nine volumes of the
Eleventh Edition,
The Twelfth Edition
of that work, and also supplying a new, distinctive, and
independent reference dealing with events and developments of the
period 1910 to 1921 inclusive.
The Third of the New Volumes
Volume XXXII
Pacific Ocean Islands to Zuloaga
Also a separate index and list of contributors covering the New
Volumes XXX, XXXI and XXXII.
--
________B___a___r___b___a___r___o___s___s___a________
Wayne B. Hewitt Encinitas, CA whe...@ucsd.edu
David Teague
I actually have the 13th (1926), which is the 11th reprinted, plus the 3 supplemental volumes of the early 1920s(= the 12th ed.), plus the 3 further volumes published in 1926. One of the patrons of the small community library where I used to work brought in a massive donation of maybe 200 - 300 separate volumes, including the 1926 EB, and my boss let me have the encyclopedias in return for my "sweat equity" in carrying in and sorting the entire donation.
David Teague
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
_________________________________________________________________
Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary!
http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_wlhmtextlink1_dec
D. Spencer Hines
Thanks.
That 13th Edition (1926) seems to be the best one to own -- more complete
and with the 1920's material.
So it's a total of 35 volumes, including the index?
Volumes 33, 34 and 35 cover 1920's material [new articles?]
alphabetically -- with some errata material?
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"David Teague" <davt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1339.1199042...@rootsweb.com...
David Teague
Actually, I've had a chance to go home and have a closer look at the 13th EB, and what they did was to reprint the 11th ed. and to replace the 3 supplemental volumes of the 1921 ed. (the 12th) with 3 entirely new supplemental volumes which covered all the years since the 11th ed. So, with the 28 volumes of the 11th, plus the 3 revised and expanded supplemental volumes, plus the index volume, the total is 32 volumes. (My set, however, is one of those where each volume has the contents of two volumes bound together in one book, so I have 32 volumes bound in 16.)
David Teague
> From: pan...@excelsior.com
> Subject: Re: I Actually HAVE an Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition ...
> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:03:38 +0000
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
>
> Interesting!
>
> Thanks.
>
> That 13th Edition (1926) seems to be the best one to own -- more complete
> and with the 1920's material.
>
> So it's a total of 35 volumes, including the index?
>
> Volumes 33, 34 and 35 cover 1920's material [new articles?]
> alphabetically -- with some errata material?
>
> DSH
>
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>
> "David Teague" wrote in message
_________________________________________________________________
Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_powerofwindows_122007
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
"David Teague" <davt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1354.1199080...@rootsweb.com...
JohnR
> Actually, I've had a chance to go home and have a closer look at the 13th EB, and what they did was to reprint the 11th ed. and to replace the 3 supplemental volumes of the 1921 ed. (the 12th) with 3 entirely new supplemental volumes which covered all the years since the 11th ed. So, with the 28 volumes of the 11th, plus the 3 revised and expanded supplemental volumes, plus the index volume, the total is 32 volumes. (My set, however, is one of those where each volume has the contents of two volumes bound together in one book, so I have 32 volumes bound in 16.)
>
> David Teague
I have the 11th India paper edition in 29 volumes and the 3 "New
volumes constituting, in combination with the twenty-nine volumes of
the eleventh edition.The twelfth edition .... "
John
David Teague
Interesting. Did you happen on yours in some out-of-the-way second-hand bookshop or someone's yard/jumble sale? Or did they come to you in some altogether mundane fashion -- if I'm not being overly inquisitive, that is.
David Teague
> From: cjr...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: I Actually HAVE an Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition ...
> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:33:39 -0800
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Jwc...@aol.com
I have a set of the 200th
anniversary edition from 1969 (24 volumes including the index) which is I would
imagine extremely coomonplace in this day and age. It is the transitory edition
from the older Brittanicas to the so called Brittanica 3. which consisted of
the Micropaedia (which was breifer articles on all sorts of subjects) the
Macropaedia (long detailed articles on selected subjects) and the one volume index(i
forget what name ewas given to that)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
Leticia Cluff
<p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
>news:aQedj.41$hc7...@eagle.america.net...
>> "James Hogg" is, of course, a sock puppet too.
>>
>> Just like "Leticia Cluff".
>
>You haven't established that Leticia Cluff is a pseudonym rather than a
>lifelong name for a single poster, much less a "sock puppet" for a second
>person who also uses another identifier here, in the manner of "Uriah" the
>Turk for Douglas Richardson, as exposed by his web browsing for local
>colour.
Thank you for that interesting reference, Peter. I have now read the
posts of "Uriah N. Owen" -- a person who failed to keep his promise to
resume posting from Britain after returning from his visit to the US,
whence all his messages came. I notice that this obvious fake (with
his lavish compliments on the craftsmanship of "Plantagenet Ancestry")
provoked no condemnation at all from DSH. On the contrary, Hines
ridiculed you and others who tried to expose the fraud. And Hines even
praised the sycophantic sock puppet in the following terms:
"Uriah N. Owen's comments make a Great Deal of Sense. We should be
hearing more from him -- he raises the standards of debate and probity
[sic] in this newsgroup."
Self-praise is no praise, Mr. Hines. From the linguistic fingerprints
it's as plain as a pikestaff that this fabrication was none other than
Hines "playing silly buggers," a favorite expression of this wannabe
Brit and his sock puppet. Hines must have found it hilarious that you
wrongly identified him as Douglas Richardson.
All this took place after Spencer pretended to forget his description
of Douglas as "a sly, manipulative charlatan and an utter fraud" and
the two men had kissed and made up, thus forging yet another of
Spencer's alliances behind the scenes, rather like the one clumsily
exposed in the following misdirected email (signed -- with cavalier
disregard for the meaning of these words -- Vires et Honor):
As he types words like Honor and Probity, Hines is laughing at
everyone, including his cruelly manipulated pawn Douglas Richardson
("Dear Spencer ~ It's always good to hear from you"). But everyone
else is laughing with contempt at Hines, who continually exposes
himself for what he is, the epitome of Dishonor and Improbity.
Tish
letiTi...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:54:22 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
>
>
> >"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> "James Hogg" is, of course, a sock puppet too.
>
> >> Just like "Leticia Cluff".
>
> >You haven't established that Leticia Cluff is a pseudonym rather than a
> >lifelong name for a single poster, much less a "sock puppet"
>
>
Tish, sock puppet for Taft
merci, merci, merci
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval