Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007

Xah Lee wrote:
«I just finished reading Gulliver's Travels, part 3 chapter 11, where
the guy arrived in Japan and went home from there.
( http://xahlee.org/p/Gullivers_Travels/gt3ch11.html )
i no unstand. help!
»

«Nangasac is almost certainly Nagasaki
http://www.jaffebros.com/lee/gulliver/moonlight/intro.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Adams_%28sailor%29
As you will see, there was, for a period, an English trading outpost
there.
»

That article by Maurice JOHNSON et al
http://www.jaffebros.com/lee/gulliver/moonlight/intro.html
is particularly helpful.

Thanks to all who replied! The background info helped tremendously.

PS to those who have helped me often in the past year or so in reading
or discussing Shakespeare's Titus or Sir Richard Francis Burton Arabian
Nights, i've put up a word acknowledgment for alt.usage.English and
mentioned a few people. If i have forgotten you, whoever you may be,
please email me.

 Xah
 xah@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/

We can be much more exact than this.   Swift lived
1667-1745 (i.e. from the Great Fire of London, almost,
to the rebellion of Bonnie Prince Charlie.)  In the 1660s
there were short, savage wars between England and
the Netherlands (notably when the Dutch sailed into the
fortified River Medway and burned the English flagship,
see Pepys's diary.)  But for most of Swift's lifetime the
Netherlands was a valued refuge for English dissidents
or refugees (e.g. Catholics under a Protestant monarch
or Protestants under a Catholic) and a Dutchman even
(by invitation of Parliament) occupied the English throne.

In the 17th century England was in some years at war
against France, Spain or the Netherlands, and in other
years at war in alliance with France, Spain or the
Netherlands.  This does not suggest that any foreign
country was generally "the Enemy" in any modern
sense:  it suggests that the state of being at war with
or at peace with XYZ was evaluated in the 17th century
differently from how we nowadays think about it;  and
perhaps similarly for topics of race and culture (cf.
Samuel Johnson on the Welsh, Scotch, Irish, etc.)

[snip]

See Glorious Revolution at Wikipedia:

[snip]

That link refers to the UK Bill of Rights and its removal of the
monarch's power to suspend laws:

"...The Revolution of 1688 is considered by some as being one of the
most important events in the long evolution of powers possessed by
Parliament and by the Crown in England. With the passage of the Bill of
Rights, it stamped out any final possibility of a Catholic monarchy,
and ended moves towards monarchical absolutism in the British Isles by
circumscribing the monarch's powers. The King's powers were greatly
restricted; he could no longer suspend laws, levy taxes, or maintain a
standing army during peacetime without Parliament's permission...."

The standards of the UK Bill of Rights have been held by the US Supreme
Court to be incorporated into the US Bill of Rights.  While this is a
non-political forum, I think the principle of a limited executive power
is so important that I may be excused for digressing a little with this
bit from yesterday's newspaper (Bush, through a signing statement, in
effect suspends a law at the very time he signs it):

New York Daily News, Jan. 4, 2007
W pushes envelope on U.S. spying
New postal law lets Bush peek through your mail
Daily News Exclusive BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to
open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has
learned.  The President asserted his new authority when he signed a
postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing
statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under
emergency conditions.

That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had
just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.  ..."  Despite the
President's statement that he may be able to circumvent a basic privacy
protection, the new postal law continues to prohibit the government
from snooping into people's mail without a warrant," said Rep. Henry
Waxman (D-Calif.), the incoming House Government Reform Committee
chairman, who co-sponsored the bill.  Experts said the new powers could
be easily abused and used to vacuum up large amounts of mail.  "The
[Bush] signing statement claims authority to open domestic mail without
a warrant, and that would be new and quite alarming," said Kate Martin,
director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington.
"The danger is they're reading Americans' mail," she said.  "You have
to be concerned," agreed a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the
legal underpinnings of Bush's claim. "It takes Executive Branch
authority beyond anything we've ever known."
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2007/01/1733642.php

Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego

too bad about King James II.  He certainly got the raw end of the deal.