MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Inventing History : forgery: a great British tradition (British History)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 161, 162, 163
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This is an interesting. to me, wiki quote Re The Alfred (Alexander) Jewel

wiki wrote:
In a paper published in 2014, Sir John Boardman endorsed the earlier suggestion by David Talbot Rice that the figure on the jewel was intended to represent Alexander the Great. A medieval legend in the Alexander Romance had Alexander, wishing to see the whole world, first descending into the depths of the ocean in a sort of diving bell, then wanting to see the view from above. To do this he harnessed two large birds, or griffins in other versions, with a seat for him between them. To entice them to keep flying higher he placed meat on two skewers which he held above their heads. This was quite commonly depicted in several medieval cultures, from Europe to Persia, where it may reflect earlier legends or iconographies. Sometimes the beasts are not shown, just the king holding two sticks with flower-like blobs at their ends. The scene is shown in the famous 12th-century floor mosaic in Otranto Cathedral, with a titulus of "ALEXANDER REX". The scene refers to knowledge coming through sight, and so would be appropriate for an aestel. Boardman detects the same meaning in the figure representing sight on the Anglo-Saxon Fuller Brooch.[29]

There are no portraits of Alexander, unless you folks know otherwise.

Orthodoxy simply guesses this is a Heracles, aha, this might be a Alexander.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
This is a real discovery. My provisional assessment is that he never existed but is a vehicle for other people's chicanery. There might be a real Simons d'Ewes, an obscure backbencher by the sound of it, but not this Simon d'Ewes. I will think on't and take up some of your points tomorrow.


This is all a fascinating read!

Though I will reiterate, I was the first to here publicly cast doubt upon Pepys. :-)
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You throw so much spaghetti at so many walls, one strand is bound to turn out to be properly cooked. However, by coincidence, I was working on Pepys yesterday so I'm going to give you a sneak preview of something I discovered to welcome you back to the land of the contributor. It's about a principle of Applied Epistemology called the ambiguous formulation

--------------------

The frieze inscription 'Bibliotheca Pepysiana 1724' records the date of arrival of the Pepys Library; above it are painted Pepys's arms and his motto. To the left and right appear the arms of two College benefactors added much later (1813?).

Finishing with a delightfully ambiguous formulation. You can’t get more precise than the actual year, you can’t make it more ambiguous than by adding a question mark and slapping brackets round it. Gordon Bennet, they do make it easy for us. Just leaving it as ‘added much later, full stop’ would tick all the boxes.

As it is, we are forced to wonder what the significance of 1813 is. The Evelyn Diaries were ‘discovered’ in 1815, the Pepys Diaries in 1818 so it looks as though it may be for establishing a terminus post quem or a terminus ad quem or a terminus a quo... or something. In English ‘someone’s playing silly buggers’. And that isn’t even the best ambiguous formulation in the paragraph. Try this

Bibliotheca Pepysiana 1724’ records the date of arrival of the Pepys Library

Up to a point, Lord Braybrooke. We’ve been told the date when the Pepys Library is supposed to have arrived, it would be nice to know when the inscription arrived. And even that isn’t the best ambiguous formulation in the paragraph. Try this

To the left and right appear the arms of two College benefactors added much later (1813?).

If I were one of them I’d want to know how much later is ‘much later’, why a Pepys scholar can’t be bothered mentioning my name, why I’m treated as a benefactory afterthought to someone who made a few contributions to the building fund, and how come the ingrates don’t even know when they carved my arms in stone. I’m not Cecil bleedin’ Rhodes.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 161, 162, 163

Jump to:  
Page 163 of 163

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group