 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / December 2011Beowulf manuscript
May be slightly OT but of all the places I go online, this seems the most likely for an answer or at least a pointer. I am reading MJ Harper's "History of Britain Revealed" in which he suggests that the surviving manuscript of 'Beowulf' is a fake. His main argument seems to be that (a) nobody has used any testing technique on the manuscript to determine its likely date of writing and (b) while it is believed to have been written around the 11th century (ie copy made of existing poem) there is no record of ownership until the 17th century and (c) there are no references to the poem prior to the 17th century. A little searching online shows various people offering opinions on the subject but too many to browse and I don't know where to start. Has there been any scholarly espousal / rebuttal of the fake Beowulf theory?  SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > May be slightly OT but of all the places I go online, this seems the most > likely for an answer or at least a pointer. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > subject but too many to browse and I don't know where to start. Has there > been any scholarly espousal / rebuttal of the fake Beowulf theory? If you want my scholarly opinion, I would say that the claim is bollocks. SignatureJames >> May be slightly OT but of all the places I go online, this seems the >> most likely for an answer or at least a pointer. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > If you want my scholarly opinion, I would say that the claim is > bollocks. Score one for the traditionalists. So, in your scholarly opinion, where was the Ms for the missing 500 years? Who had it and whence did Laurence Nowell acquire it? SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>> May be slightly OT but of all the places I go online, this seems the >>> most likely for an answer or at least a pointer. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the Ms for the missing 500 years? Who had it and whence did Laurence Nowell > acquire it? A more difficult question is: Who could have produced such a good fake, and why? SignatureJames > A more difficult question is: Who could have produced such a good fake, > and why? It's obviously either aliens who did it as part of their genital examination project ( and if you don't see a connection that means you're already hypnotised by the same aliens) or it's time travellers who did it to win a bet, unwisely based on what the original document didn't say, that'd ruin them if they were to lose it. >> A more difficult question is: Who could have produced such a good >> fake, and why? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > who did it to win a bet, unwisely based on what the original > document didn't say, that'd ruin them if they were to lose it. I tend to agree with the reviewer on Amazon who described the book as "arrant tosh". If you read it as comedy you will find it has its moments. If you start taking any of the outrageous claims seriously, you are in trouble. SignatureJames > >> A more difficult question is: Who could have produced such a good > >> fake, and why? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > moments. If you start taking any of the outrageous claims seriously, you > are in trouble. I've enjoyed reading quite a bit of tosh in my time and I've enjoyed some of it. Part of the problem with tosh is that you can't be quite certain that it's tosh the whole way through until you've actually read it - until, that is, you're old enough to spot the signs reliably. >>> A more difficult question is: Who could have produced such a good >>> fake, and why? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > moments. If you start taking any of the outrageous claims seriously, you > are in trouble. I've been taking advantage of Amazon's "Look Inside!" feature, and it seems pretty clear that you are right. I'm reminded of Merritt Ruhlen's efforts to show that all the experts in linguistics apart from Joseph Greenberg are idiots, and that anyone can do linguistic studies better than they can. However, Ruhlen is a lot more scholarly than this guy, to the point where he can convince Nobel prizewinners of his ideas (one Nobel prizewinner, anyway). Signatureathel > I've been taking advantage of Amazon's "Look Inside!" feature, and it > seems pretty clear that you are right. I'm reminded of Merritt Ruhlen's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to the point where he can convince Nobel prizewinners of his ideas (one > Nobel prizewinner, anyway). I think that, as a class, Nobel prizewinners are a lot easier to convince than, say, loan sharks. >> I've been taking advantage of Amazon's "Look Inside!" feature, and it >> seems pretty clear that you are right. I'm reminded of Merritt Ruhlen's [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I think that, as a class, Nobel prizewinners are a lot easier to > convince than, say, loan sharks. True (not that I have a lot of experience of loan sharks); Nobel prizewinners have a tendency to think themselves experts on subjects far from their domains of expertise. (Fred Sanger is a notable exception, and remains quite modest even when talking about things he really is an expert on.) Signatureathel >>> I've been taking advantage of Amazon's "Look Inside!" feature, and it >>> seems pretty clear that you are right. I'm reminded of Merritt Ruhlen's [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > exception, and remains quite modest even when talking about things he > really is an expert on.) Linus Pauling's vitamin C theory of everything is another demonstration that Nobel Prize winners are not infallible and have room in their bonnets for bees. SignatureLes (BrE) > I tend to agree with the reviewer on Amazon who described the book as > "arrant tosh". If you read it as comedy you will find it has its > moments. If you start taking any of the outrageous claims seriously, you > are in trouble. Well, it's certainly fantasy by modern standards, but I enjoyed reading it and didn't find it particularly funny. Maybe you had a bad translation? SignatureMathematiker sind wie Franzosen: Was man ihnen auch sagt, übersetzen sie in ihre eigene Sprache, so daß unverzüglich etwas völlig anderes daraus wird. [Goethe] >>>> May be slightly OT but of all the places I go online, this seems >>>> the most likely for an answer or at least a pointer. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > A more difficult question is: Who could have produced such a good > fake, and why? Second question first - "Why?" - why does *anyone* produce a forgery? To make money they're not entitled to. First question now - "Who could have produced such a good fake...?" invites the response - how would we know if it's a good fake? All this "tosh" goes away the second someone shows an authoritative source who can say the manuscript was examined using appropriate scientific methods and was conclusively shown to be a product of the 11th century. However, the best the British Library can come up with is: http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/englit/beowulf/ "How old is the manuscript? Beowulf survives in a single medieval manuscript, housed at the British Library in London. The manuscript bears no date, and so its age has to be calculated by analysing the scribes' handwriting. Some scholars have suggested that the manuscript was made at the end of the 10th century, others in the early decades of the eleventh, perhaps as late as the reign of King Cnut, who ruled England from 1016 until 1035. The most likely time for Beowulf to have been copied is the early 11th century, which makes the manuscript approximately 1,000 years old." Which suggests there has been no serious attempt at dating. I would, however, be grateful to know how such a feat as "analysing the scribes' handwriting" might have been carried out. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>>>> May be slightly OT but of all the places I go online, this seems >>>>> the most likely for an answer or at least a pointer. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Second question first - "Why?" - why does *anyone* produce a forgery? To > make money they're not entitled to. That is so unlikely in the case of this manuscript. There's no evidence of anyone ever paying anything for it. It probably came into private hands when the monastery that held it was dissolved. > First question now - "Who could have produced such a good fake...?" invites > the response - how would we know if it's a good fake? All this "tosh" goes [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > however, be grateful to know how such a feat as "analysing the scribes' > handwriting" might have been carried out. That's easy. Comparison with manuscripts with known provenance. Take a look at the 180-page introduction to Klaeber's third edition of Beowulf some time. Hardly any manuscript has been examined as closely as Beowulf. It was copied by two scribes. Scribe B writes a flat-topped 'a'. Scribe A sometimes ligates a high 's' to a following 't'. It has been scrutinized by experts who would know a 17th-century forgery if they saw one. Harper's book is the linguistic equivalent of the flat-earth theory, or Fomenko's revised chronology. His "applied epistemology" is utter bollocks. As the reviewer at Amazon wrote, "It would take a book considerably longer than his to fully explain why every single point he makes is so wrong." I'll waste just a few more minutes on this rubbish before I give up. Harper writes: "The name Beowulf is one to conjure with - his name is conjured quite a lot in Anglo-Saxon studies because, to a great extent, Beowulf is Anglo-Saxon studies. Without Beowulf, Anglo-Saxon isn't a 'study' at all, it's a period in English history on a par with Norman England or the Tudors and Stuarts. But chuck in Beowulf (and Caedmon and a few other poem fragments) and all of a sudden you've got a language and a literature." This could only be written by someone who has no idea how much Old English survives (poetry, prose, histories, homilies, chronicles, laws, charters, etc). Beowulf is a tiny but important fraction of the total quantity. Harper makes a mistake of that magnitude in every single paragraph. He doesn't care about the truth; he's out to make money. He's the fake, not Beowulf. SignatureJames >>>>>> May be slightly OT but of all the places I go online, this seems >>>>>> the most likely for an answer or at least a pointer. [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > English survives (poetry, prose, histories, homilies, chronicles, laws, > charters, etc). The mind boggles. Can he really have written such bollocks (though "bollocks" seems too weak a word)? Even a complete non-expert like myself knows that we have stuff by Alfred the Great, Bede and others. > Beowulf is a tiny but important fraction of the total > quantity. > > Harper makes a mistake of that magnitude in every single paragraph. He > doesn't care about the truth; he's out to make money. He's the fake, not > Beowulf. Signatureathel Am 24.11.2011 18:28, schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden: > The mind boggles. Can he really have written such bollocks (though > "bollocks" seems too weak a word)? Even a complete non-expert like > myself knows that we have stuff by Alfred the Great, Bede and others. Didn't Bede write in Latin? Joachim > Am 24.11.2011 18:28, schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Didn't Bede write in Latin? There's an Old English translation. I forgot to mention all the Latin works translated into Old English. SignatureJames > Am 24.11.2011 18:28, schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Didn't Bede write in Latin? See James's answer. But yes, I should have checked that, as I did with John of Worcester and didn't mention him because the manuscript I could find an image of was clearly in Latin. Signatureathel >> Am 24.11.2011 18:28, schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > John of Worcester and didn't mention him because the manuscript I could > find an image of was clearly in Latin. Here's another quotation (p. 43): "And that gives us our first rule of thumb: spoken languages hardly change at all over time." Why on earth are we wasting time discussing this joker? SignatureJames >>> Am 24.11.2011 18:28, schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden: >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Why on earth are we wasting time discussing this joker? Answer: because I can't help myself. I was flicking through the book again as I sat on the bog and found this remarkable proof that English has not changed radically at any time (p. 98): "The English of Gladstone was a fair approximation of the English of Shakespeare which was a fair approximation of the English of Chaucer which was a fair approximation of the English being spoken when Julius Caesar arrived." And presumably the language had changed very little since the first settlers arrived in the British Isles, the English-speakers who came some time after the end of the Ice Age (p. 38). On page 178 he has a family tree similar to the ones you see for Indo-European, except that he doesn't have Proto-Indo-European at the top. No, he has English, which split into two branches. One is German, which begat Anglo-Saxon. The other is French (sic), which begat Provençal, which split into two branches: Catalan and Italian, the latter yielding Latin. This explains why Latin has such a high English content. If that isn't enough evidence that Harper is taking the piss, I don't know how much John Dean needs. SignatureJames > If that isn't enough evidence that Harper is taking the piss, I don't > know how much John Dean needs. I have already explained that taking the piss is *exactly* what Harper is doing. See my post elsethread. I have been surprised at the posts by you and others quoting instances to show he is talking bollocks when it's obvious (well,. it was to me) that he is not talking bollocks, he's taking the piss. I'm interested in just one aspect of his piss-taking ie the story of the Beowulf MS where it seems to me that there is some grain of interest in the story behind his humour. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > On page 178 he has a family tree similar to the ones you see for > Indo-European, except that he doesn't have Proto-Indo-European at the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If that isn't enough evidence that Harper is taking the piss, I don't > know how much John Dean needs. Oh, it's another book by him... see http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005396.html for Feb 2008 Language Log comments on "The Secret History of the English Language" by MJ Harper, which was depressingly prominent in Waterstones a few years ago. >> On page 178 he has a family tree similar to the ones you see for >> Indo-European, except that he doesn't have Proto-Indo-European at the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Language" by MJ Harper, which was depressingly prominent in Waterstones > a few years ago. Wow, that is bizarre. I'm almost tempted to look for the book just to see how such notions are presented. I like the "bar bet" hypothesis (it reminds me of the Hubbard & Heinlein legend). SignatureMathematiker sind wie Franzosen: Was man ihnen auch sagt, übersetzen sie in ihre eigene Sprache, so daß unverzüglich etwas völlig anderes daraus wird. [Goethe] >>> On page 178 he has a family tree similar to the ones you see for >>> Indo-European, except that he doesn't have Proto-Indo-European at [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > see how such notions are presented. I like the "bar bet" hypothesis > (it reminds me of the Hubbard & Heinlein legend). I'm not sure why people are having so much trouble with this. I've pointed out several times that the book is a piss take. Yet people persist here in analysing the content as if it was a serious theoretical work. Consider this early explanation from Harper of how the book works: "We take a subject ... we disassemble it down to its basic paradigms and if we burst out laughing we know we're in business" Sound like an extract from a text-book or from a work of humour? Reading people taking the book seriously is like hearing people criticise the Pythons for writing bollocks in the Dead Parrot sketch on the grounds there's no such creature as the Norwegian Blue. Or describing them as clueless gastronomes because they think there are cafes where every item on the menu includes spam. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>>> On page 178 he has a family tree similar to the ones you see for >>>> Indo-European, except that he doesn't have Proto-Indo-European at [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I'm not sure why people are having so much trouble with this. I've > pointed out several times that the book is a piss take. Not at the beginning, however. In your original post you gave every impression of taking it seriously. Also, to be accepted as humour it has to be funny. Nothing I saw at Amazon made me smile, let alone laugh. > Yet people persist here in analysing the content as if it was a serious > theoretical work. Consider this early explanation from Harper of how [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > describing them as clueless gastronomes because they think there are > cafes where every item on the menu includes spam. Signatureathel >>>>> On page 178 he has a family tree similar to the ones you see for >>>>> Indo-European, except that he doesn't have Proto-Indo-European at [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Not at the beginning, however. In your original post you gave every > impression of taking it seriously. No, I didn't. I said "I am reading MJ Harper's "History of Britain Revealed" in which he suggests that the surviving manuscript of 'Beowulf' is a fake." Then I explained the main points he makes. And later asked "Has there been any scholarly espousal / rebuttal of the fake Beowulf theory?" I thought the Beowulf theory was interesting and wondered if it had been raised in a serious contest. Note I ask "Has there been any scholarly espousal / rebuttal ..." NOT "Has there been any OTHER scholarly espousal / rebuttal ..." It's a bit like listening to the Pythons' Philosophers Song and, from "Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle" asking "Is there any serious evidence that Aristotle was a drinker?". The question may be serious even though the work which gave rise to it is clearly not. If I thought people were going to leap up and start critiquing the book as if it were a philological treatise I'd either not have mentioned it (but then I'm one of those who objects when posters don't give context) or made it plain that this was a point raised in a humorous work which actually interested me as a theory to be examined. > Also, to be accepted as humour it has to be funny. Nothing I saw at > Amazon made me smile, let alone laugh. I don't know which bits Amazon reproduces. I wouldn't personally judge the humour of a book solely from isolated quotes any more than I'd judge the humour of a film from the trailer or a clip show. As a satire it's not always (but occasionally is) laugh-out-loud funny but I certainly found it amusing. Pays yer money, takes yer choice. I don't personally find "Tristram Shandy" funny but I don't dispute it should go on the humour shelf. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > I'm not sure why people are having so much trouble with this. I've pointed > out several times that the book is a piss take. Yet people persist here in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sound like an extract from a text-book or from a work of humour? Well apparently some of the Language Loggers fell for it too. SignatureNo sport is less organized than Calvinball! >> Why on earth are we wasting time discussing this joker? > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >If that isn't enough evidence that Harper is taking the piss, I don't >know how much John Dean needs. As Dan Brown has shown, there's money to be made from that kind of thing. And soon you'll find that there are more people who believe it than don't. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > Here's another quotation (p. 43): > "And that gives us our first rule of thumb: spoken languages hardly > change at all over time." Wow. Just wow. === = DUG. === >> Here's another quotation (p. 43): > >> "And that gives us our first rule of thumb: spoken languages hardly >> change at all over time." > >Wow. Just wow. If he is right we would expect to find the exclamation "wow" in use way, way, back. But the OED has it no earlier than: 1513 G. Douglas tr. Virgil Æneid vi. Prol. 19 Out on thir wanderand spiritis, wow! thow cryis. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>> Here's another quotation (p. 43): >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If he is right we would expect to find the exclamation "wow" in use > way, way, back. Not to give spurious credence to a piece of work that, apparently, few here recognise as humourous work, but you should note what he says - that *spoken* languages hardly change. Quoting examples of *written* language isn't going to address the issue. Of course, analysis of spoken language is not really possible until the age of voice recording but that, of course, is part of Harper's joke. And, of course, "hardly change" isn't the same as "never change" so there would be nothing to bring such a theory down merely because new words are introduced. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford On Nov 25, 7:08 am, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote: > >> Here's another quotation (p. 43): > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 1513 G. Douglas tr. Virgil Æneid vi. Prol. 19 Out on thir > wanderand spiritis, wow! thow cryis. Yeah, but they had the word Internet before 1513, right? === = DUG. === > On Nov 25, 7:08 am, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Yeah, but they had the word Internet before 1513, right? I don't know about the word, but the OED must have had some way of googling the cited sentence. How else would they find it? SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. On Nov 25, 11:26 am, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote: > > On Nov 25, 7:08 am, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I don't know about the word, but the OED must have had some way of > googling the cited sentence. How else would they find it? High speed wireless of some kind. Then again, the paper gifs you see of ye olde timesese they didn't have power or phone lines so they must have all been wi-fi. Do you think they had a world for fibre connection or not? === = DUG. === >On Nov 25, 11:26 am, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >have power or phone lines so they must have all been wi-fi. Do you >think they had a world for fibre connection or not? Thet had several words and phrases for "fibre connection": paper, wooden bridge, rope, etc. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On Nov 25, 10:05 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote: > >On Nov 25, 11:26 am, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Thet had several words and phrases for "fibre connection": paper, wooden > bridge, rope, etc. So the language really hasn't changed much like whacko said. === = DUG. === > On Nov 25, 11:26 am, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > have power or phone lines so they must have all been wi-fi. Do you > think they had a world for fibre connection or not? What did NBN mean in ancient Hebrew? SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au > > On Nov 25, 11:26 am, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > What did NBN mean in ancient Hebrew? Same thing as in modern English. Spoken language doesn't change over time it seems. === = DUG. === >>> On Nov 25, 11:26 am, Peter Moylan >>> <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Same thing as in modern English. Spoken language doesn't change over > time it seems. You're not confusing spoken language with written language are you? SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > >>> On Nov 25, 11:26 am, Peter Moylan > >>> <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > You're not confusing spoken language with written language are you? Hebrew and English spoken language are the same? === = DUG. === >>>>> On Nov 25, 11:26 am, Peter Moylan >>>>> <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Hebrew and English spoken language are the same? I'm afraid not Dug. I was referring to your comment that "Spoken language doesn't change over time it seems." SignatureJohn Dean Oxford They had two words for fiber connection: rope bridge. >>>>>>> May be slightly OT but of all the places I go online, this seems >>>>>>> the most likely for an answer or at least a pointer. [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > "bollocks" seems too weak a word)? Even a complete non-expert like > myself knows that we have stuff by Alfred the Great, Bede and others. I think Harper's "applied epistemology" means ignoring most of the evidence, selecting a few pieces that suit you, and making up the rest. SignatureJames > I think Harper's "applied epistemology" means ignoring most of the > evidence, selecting a few pieces that suit you, and making up the rest. Ooh, I like that, I shall file it for future use. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >> I think Harper's "applied epistemology" means ignoring most of the >> evidence, selecting a few pieces that suit you, and making up the rest. > > Ooh, I like that, I shall file it for future use. And do like Harper, don't ever name your source! SignatureJames >> I think Harper's "applied epistemology" means ignoring most of the >> evidence, selecting a few pieces that suit you, and making up the rest. > > Ooh, I like that, I shall file it for future use. The term or the technique? (I'll file both.) SignatureNo right of private conversation was enumerated in the Constitution. I don't suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be prevented. [Whitfield Diffie] >>>>>> May be slightly OT but of all the places I go online, this seems >>>>>> the most likely for an answer or at least a pointer. [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > 't'. It has been scrutinized by experts who would know a 17th-century > forgery if they saw one. So the simple expedient of subjecting a fragment of manuscript to scientific analysis has not, in fact, been carried out? And the names of the 'experts' and their track records? The names of the manuscripts of "known provenance"? BTW, I think you (and others) miss the point with Harper. It's not 'bollocks' it's a piss-take - which becomes even wilder as the book progresses. But that doesn't mean it's not of interest how the Beowulf manuscript has and has not been authenticated. When the British Library resorts to "some scholars have suggested..." one thing while other scholars have "suggested" something else, we're hardly in the realms of hard fact and expertise. And I remain interested in the question of how a manuscript can disappear for 500 years and then suddenly appear without anyone offering an explanation. It's not as if London was a sort of 16th century Qumran where this kind of thing turned up in ancient jars in a cave. How did Nowell lay his hands on it? Is friend Klaeber vocal on the subject? SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>>>>>> May be slightly OT but of all the places I go online, this seems >>>>>>> the most likely for an answer or at least a pointer. [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > And the names of the 'experts' and their track records? The names of the > manuscripts of "known provenance"? Look at Klaeber's Beowulf for a start. That edition cites sources, plenty of them (even me!),which is something Harper never does. > BTW, I think you (and others) miss the point with Harper. It's not > 'bollocks' it's a piss-take - which becomes even wilder as the book [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > this kind of thing turned up in ancient jars in a cave. How did Nowell lay > his hands on it? Is friend Klaeber vocal on the subject? You seem to think the medieval monasteries had computerised catalogues available online. Have you ever wondered why it's not possible to trace your ancestors back to the first millennium? Not everything has survived, you know. SignatureJames >> And I remain interested in the question of how a manuscript can >> disappear for 500 years and then suddenly appear without anyone [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You seem to think the medieval monasteries had computerised catalogues > available online. Now what on earth in my post would incline you to such a strange statement? > Have you ever wondered why it's not possible to > trace your ancestors back to the first millennium? Some people can trace ancestors and some can't. Alexander Armstrong is famously able to trace his ancestry back to William the Conqueror and, therefore, back along William's lineage at least as far as Rollo in the 9th century. There is a Society of the Descendants of Charlemagne to join which you have to prove descent from Charlemagne so all those people can trace to the 8th century. Tracing back to the first millennium may not be commonplace but it isn't unusual. I've assumed when you say " ... why it's not possible to trace your ancestors back to the first millennium?" you mean "you" in the general sense ie "people". If you mean me specifically I can only say I have no idea how far back I could trace my ancestors since I've never tried. > Not everything has > survived, you know. Well, as they say in the Valley, Duh. But I was writing specifically about something which *has* survived - ie the 11thC Ms of Beowulf and I'm asking where it spent its 500 years hidden from sight. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >> Have you ever wondered why it's not possible to >> trace your ancestors back to the first millennium? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you have to prove descent from Charlemagne so all those people can trace to > the 8th century. A friend of mine list relatives back to about 300 AD. That's because she's descended from the MacDonald chiefs, a line that's very well documented. On top of that the first Lord of the Isles had royal relatives, and royals tend to have more detailed recorded histories than anyone else. That's not to say that the records are trustworthy. It's not always clear whether people were making things up. There's one MacDonald lineage on the web that goes all the way back to Adam. > Tracing back to the first millennium may not be commonplace but it isn't > unusual. I've assumed when you say " ... why it's not possible to trace > your ancestors back to the first millennium?" you mean "you" in the general > sense ie "people". If you mean me specifically I can only say I have no idea > how far back I could trace my ancestors since I've never tried. In my case I can go back to the early-to-mid 1800s, and then I hit a blank wall. That's because Ireland has a particularly bad record for destruction of records. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. On Nov 25, 10:01 am, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote: > That's not to say that the records are trustworthy. It's not always > clear whether people were making things up. There's one MacDonald > lineage on the web that goes all the way back to Adam. My surname apparently goes back to a Mug Ruith a giant Irish magician/ druid flying guy. === = DUG. === >>> Have you ever wondered why it's not possible to >>> trace your ancestors back to the first millennium? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > blank wall. That's because Ireland has a particularly bad record for > destruction of records. I do not have any famous ancestors that I know and my name is just a town name from Devon. My son, who is interested in these things, traced a man with the same first name as him who was pardoned for murder in the 13th century but whether there is any connection, I don't know. SignatureJames Silverton, Potomac I'm *not* not.jim.silverton@verizon.net Peter Moylan filted: >> Tracing back to the first millennium may not be commonplace but it isn't >> unusual. I've assumed when you say " ... why it's not possible to trace [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >blank wall. That's because Ireland has a particularly bad record for >destruction of records. I get stuck a little over a century short of the goal; one of my ancestors is Raymerus Moncrieff, wardrober to King Alexander I of Scotland, who Wikipedia tells me reigned from 1107-24....r SignatureMe? Sarcastic? Yeah, right. > Peter Moylan filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Raymerus Moncrieff, wardrober to King Alexander I of Scotland, who Wikipedia > tells me reigned from 1107-24....r Sir Rupert Iain Kay Moncreiffe of that Ilk, 11th Baronet, was interested in that sort of thing, and wrote a book called "Blood Royal" that I possessed many years ago (maybe I still have it, but I've no idea where). I imagine that the Moncrieff line has been as thoroughly researched as any line can, and if it doesn't go back earlier than Raymerus that's probably it! Signatureathel Athel Cornish-Bowden filted: >> I get stuck a little over a century short of the goal; one of my ancestors is >> Raymerus Moncrieff, wardrober to King Alexander I of Scotland, who Wikipedia [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >researched as any line can, and if it doesn't go back earlier than >Raymerus that's probably it! I've got some Maxwells in there as well that go back quite a bit further, but the actual links are poorly attested....r SignatureMe? Sarcastic? Yeah, right. >>> Have you ever wondered why it's not possible to >>> trace your ancestors back to the first millennium? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > A friend of mine list relatives back to about 300 AD. That's because > she's descended from the MacDonald chiefs, That brought me up short--I read it as MacDonald chefs... > a line that's very well > documented. On top of that the first Lord of the Isles had royal [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > blank wall. That's because Ireland has a particularly bad record for > destruction of records. SignatureLes (BrE) Peter Moylan wrote, in <g_WdnSVmJ8JQR1PTnZ2dnUVZ8mednZ2d@westnet.com.au> on Fri, 25 Nov 2011 11:01:15 +1100: > >> Have you ever wondered why it's not possible to > >> trace your ancestors back to the first millennium? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > blank wall. That's because Ireland has a particularly bad record for > destruction of records. I can go back to the mid-1700s on several lines but my father's mother was a second cousin twice removed of Sir Walter Scott and his line is reasonably well documented back to the 1300s. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE > I can go back to the mid-1700s on several lines but my father's mother > was a second cousin twice removed of Sir Walter Scott and his line is > reasonably well documented back to the 1300s. Now *that's* impressive. (I think I've posted here before about my connection to Charlemagne.) SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) On Nov 24, 5:01 pm, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote: > >> Have you ever wondered why it's not possible to > >> trace your ancestors back to the first millennium? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > blank wall. That's because Ireland has a particularly bad record for > destruction of records. The blank wall in my family is mostly at immigration in the late 19th century, though one of my father's cousins did find something in Vilnius. When my brother lived in Budapest, he didn't get anywhere looking for our Friedman ancestors. Lucky for me I don't care about this sort of thing. -- Jerry Friedman > In my case I can go back to the early-to-mid 1800s, and then I hit a > blank wall. I can go back to the 1700s but only in one male-begat-male line, and I can do that only because I have a reprint of Fretz's 1899 book of all the descendants of Henry Funck (who immigrated to Pennsylvania in 1719 & died in 1760), which includes my great-grandfather. I've had some correspondence with Daniel Bly (author of _From the Rhine to the Shenandoah_), who thinks --- but not with absolute certainty -- that he's identified the matching Heinrich Funck and his parents in Switzerland. > That's because Ireland has a particularly bad record for > destruction of records. Well if they'd succeeded in completely destroying the bad record, rather than just decimating it, they'd have a little paradox. SignatureWar is God's way of teaching Americans geography. [Ambrose Bierce] > But I was writing specifically about > something which *has* survived - ie the 11thC Ms of Beowulf and I'm asking > where it spent its 500 years hidden from sight. Things disappear and reappear. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-09/one-man27s-trash-is-another27s-centuries-o ld-treasure/3654974 === = DUG. === > Well, as they say in the Valley, Duh. But I was writing specifically about > something which *has* survived - ie the 11thC Ms of Beowulf and I'm asking > where it spent its 500 years hidden from sight. The information about where it was for 500 years has not survived, and that is not at all surprising. SignatureJames > > Well, as they say in the Valley, Duh. But I was writing specifically about > > something which *has* survived - ie the 11thC Ms of Beowulf and I'm asking > > where it spent its 500 years hidden from sight. > > The information about where it was for 500 years has not survived, and > that is not at all surprising. So, sort of what you've already implied a number of times but spelled out in really simple terms because someone doesn't get it? === = DUG. === >> Well, as they say in the Valley, Duh. But I was writing specifically >> about something which *has* survived - ie the 11thC Ms of Beowulf >> and I'm asking where it spent its 500 years hidden from sight. > > The information about where it was for 500 years has not survived, and > that is not at all surprising. No indeed. But you'd wonder, wouldn't you, how Nowell "acquired" it and whether he passed the provenance on to Robert Cotton when he flogged it to him? I wouldn't expect the whole 500 years to be accounted for but I'd expect some of it to be. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > When the British Library > resorts to "some scholars have suggested..." one thing while other scholars > have "suggested" something else, we're hardly in the realms of hard fact and > expertise. On their website. It's not like they're claiming that the BL website is *the* authoritative work on the subject. It's for tourists and potential visitors. > And I remain interested in the question of how a manuscript can disappear > for 500 years and then suddenly appear without anyone offering an > explanation. Who said it disappeared? === = DUG. === >> When the British Library >> resorts to "some scholars have suggested..." one thing while other [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Who said it disappeared? Ah, you know its whereabouts from 1035 to 1550. Do tell. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > Which suggests there has been no serious attempt at dating. Well a few disasters in High School but since... wait, sorry. They had a technique that gave them a general date without damaging the document. > I would, > however, be grateful to know how such a feat as "analysing the scribes' > handwriting" might have been carried out. By experts in ancient handwriting looking at it. === = DUG. === >>> May be slightly OT but of all the places I go online, this seems the >>> most likely for an answer or at least a pointer. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the Ms for the missing 500 years? Who had it and whence did Laurence Nowell > acquire it? Wasn't it left on shelf in a cave under a lake? SignatureRobert Bannister >> Score one for the traditionalists. So, in your scholarly opinion, where was >> the Ms for the missing 500 years? Who had it and whence did Laurence Nowell >> acquire it? > > Wasn't it left on shelf in a cave under a lake? ...with a "beware of the leopard" sign. SignatureWhen Elaine turned 11, her mother sent her to train under Donald Knuth in his mountain hideaway. [XKCD 342] Enough on Beowulf already. You can all try my standing Win-A-Million competition. All you have to do to get the prize is to name a language that has changed substantially over time. Obviously there has to be some evidence. You'll probably find that means written evidence. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.