| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
In ye olden days, academic subjects advanced in three ways:
1. Scholarly papers/books would be written
2. Conferences would be held
3. Appointments would be made on the basis of 1 and 2
This is still the official position but since universities became part of show biz and have to compete on the basis of bums on seats (and that’s just the students) this is becoming more and more irrelevant. Or at any rate, more and more pro forma. The real nub goes on on the internet, either in the form of specialist forums or – especially when it comes to attracting the bums – on Twitter, Facebook and other places I haven’t even heard of.
But universities haven’t quite caught up with this. Universities never quite catch up with anything which is why we might be able to slide in the shiv.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| Wile E. Coyote wrote: | | Caitlyn was right to point out the camels on the Bayeux Tapestry. Good spot that. |
Caitlin believes the tapestry was made c 1070 so camels must have been known about by that time but what is her evidence? She says the Annals of Inisfallen recorded a camel being sent to Ireland in 1105. Since the Annals were written in 1450 it isn't a very convincing report.
Her other source for claiming William I possessed camels is via a Benedictine monk, Rodulf Tortarius. Not much is known about Rodulf, least of all how he came by the epithet 'Tortarius', as he was only discovered in the seventeenth century, first attested to by Dom Jean Mabillon (1632 - 1707) and 'fleshed out' by Jacques Paul Migne in his nineteenth-century Patrologia Latina. If Caitlin had examined her sources more thoroughly she'd have known all this is built on sand but not from Arabia.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
Facebook on the whole is a let-down in the way of discussion but for once it's thrown up a lengthy and very technical response on Aelfric so I was forced to hunt around to find a suitably authoritative reply. The research has clarified the position, for me anyway.
Aelfric, it transpires, has several manifestations. Wiki thankfully summarises the conflation more succintly than I can
Until the end of the nineteenth century, the true identification of Ælfric had been problematic, primarily because Ælfric had often been confused with Ælfric of Abingdon, who served as Archbishop of Canterbury. Though Ælfric had formerly been identified with the archbishop, thanks to the work of Lingard and Dietrich, most modern scholars now identify Ælfric as holding no higher office than abbot of Eynsham. However, in the past, there have been attempts to identify him with three different people:
(1) As above, Ælfric was identified with Ælfric of Abingdon (995–1005), Archbishop of Canterbury. This view was upheld by John Bale; by Humphrey Wanley; by Elizabeth Elstob;[7] and by Edward Rowe Mores, Ælfrico, Dorobernensi, archiepiscopo, Commentarius (ed. G. J. Thorkelin, 1789), in which the conclusions of earlier writers on Ælfric are reviewed. Mores made him abbot of St Augustine's at Dover, and finally archbishop of Canterbury.
(2) Sir Henry Spelman, in his Concina …[8] printed the Canones ad Wulsinum episcopum and suggested Ælfric Putta or Putto, Archbishop of York, as the author, adding some note of others bearing the name. The identity of Ælfric the grammarian with Ælfric archbishop of York was also discussed by Henry Wharton, in Anglia Sacra.
(3) William of Malmesbury[10] suggested that he was Abbot of Malmesbury and Bishop of Crediton. |
But Aelfric only became popular in the sixteenth century when he was first published and occupied an ideological role as a proto-Protestant, through the offices of Matthew Parker.
He is central to the myth of an earlier independent Anglo-Saxon Church mainly through his works e.g. homilies, the first and most prolific writer in 'Old English'
| Aelfric is famous for the vigour with which he opposed the doctrine of transubstantiation. He was instrumental in shaping knowledge of Old English, contributing in particular to the production of dictionaries and grammars |
Even in 1840 Aelfic was still being portrayed as ‘ably defending the Anglo-Saxon church against the heretical doctrines attempted to be imposed by Rome’ and as late as 1885 the Dictionary of National Biography highlighted Aelfric’s ‘strong statements against the teaching of the Romish church on the subject of the Eucharist’. It took Eduard Dietrich, a German theologian, who in 1855 sorted out the Aelfrics. Not completely, by the sound of it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
As we've noted before, rude Anglo-Saxons sitting around discussing transubstantiation never give the Anglo-Saxonists pause for thought. Jarring anachronisms are to celebrated, not wondered at. But mainly to be carefully ignored.
However, as you say, this is hardly the stuff of Facebook. What we really need is a Facebook or a Twitter or a something that allows discussions on a paradigm level without everyone going off on conspiracy-theorist hunts or flat earth accusations. I will post up, with suitable homilies by me, your recent Evolution discussion to see what needs to be avoided. I'll put it on the De-volution thread in the Life Sciences section to avoid gumming this already unwieldy thread further.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
Just wondering about the Bodleian Bowl currently owned by the Ashmolean Museum
| a medieval English Jewish artefact alleged to be connected to the 13th century French rabbi, Yechiel of Paris. |
The copper bowl was found in 1696 in a disused moat in Norfolk. Water channels are common enough in Norfolk though usually called broads but 'moat' suggests a castle which isn't common.
The bowl seems to be undamaged but the central Hebrew inscription is indecipherable even to Hebrew scholars. The bowl's authenticity has never been discussed, probably helped by Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford, famous for his collection, taking a hand in the proceedings.
Provenance is given as found in Norfolk moat, passed to Cambridge, then sold to Harley who sold it to the Bodleian who passed it to the Ashmolean
The bowl was found in an old moat in Norfolk, England, in or before 1696. Shortly after it was found it was acquired by the Master of Christ Church College, Cambridge University, Dr. John Covell, and then sold to the first Earl of Oxford, Robert Harley. According to Dr. Covell, as related to a German traveller Zacharias Conrad von Uffenbach in summer 1710, the person who found the bowl suddenly became rich.
It was then sold in March 1742 for £1.5s.0d. to the benefactor of the Bodleian Library, Dr. Richard Rawlinson, who bequeathed it to the University of Oxford when he died in 1755. Its shelf mark therefore became MS Rawl. D. 1513, even though it was not technically a manuscript. As it was donated to the Bodleian Library, it acquired the simple name ‘Bodleian Bowl’ - although it is now held in the Ashmolean Museum. |
The Ashmolean, founded in 1683, was lauded as Britain's first public museum and the world's first university museum. From the off its emphasis was on ethnography and exotic artefacts. A problem with decipherment never deterred anyone as we saw with runes.
| Although there is Hebrew inscription indicating an origin and narrative of the bowl, its actual meaning and purpose has continued to perplex scholars up to the present day. |
Please don't get the idea that the Ashmolean or the Bodleian are being singled out but it would appear that Oxford museums are in the thick of it. Or thick as thieves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I was reading this https://twitter.com/Seb_Falk/status/1100789980719472641 and thinking "Ho-hum"
Seb Falk†@Seb_Falk Feb 27
Think the Middle Ages were parochial & unscientific? These are instructions for incredibly precise astronomical tables. Based on Greek theory & Arabic models, produced in Spanish by Jewish astronomers, updated into Latin in Paris & dedicated to an Italian churchman in Scotland |
when I reached this exchange and thought "Hatty"
Jim†@Salsalito Replying to @Seb_Falk @CaiusCollege
Do they have the originals in Spanish?
Seb Falk†@Seb_Falk
Yes, there's one copy of the original instructions (a copy made in the 16th century, which is in the @BNE_biblioteca). The tables that went with them are lost, but they have been reconstructed from the instructions, plus other tables that were made soon afterwards | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
The tweeters are presumably referring to the 'Alfonsine Tables' allegedly based on an earlier version, the 'Toledan Tables', said to have been completed by Arabic scholars in 1080.
| Alfonso X assembled a team of scholars, known as the Toledo School of Translators, who among other translating tasks, were commanded to produce new tables that updated the Tables of Toledo. The new tables were based on earlier astronomical works and observations by Islamic astronomers, adding observations by astronomers Alfonso had gathered in Toledo |
There may be some overlap as the Alfonso astronomers were also based in Toledo...only four hundred years later
| The instructions for the Alfonsine tables were originally written in Castilian Spanish. The first printed edition of the Alfonsine tables appeared in 1483, and a second edition in 1492 | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously we can ignore the 1080 date. But even the eerie echo seems a bit early. Were they really printing tables in Spain in 1483? I am mildly surprised to hear they were printing anything at that time. And astronomical tables? Sounds more post-Tycho de Brahe to me. Not to mention written Castillian. But if you/they are saying it...well...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
An odd thing about the lost Alfonsine tables is they're said by historians to have used Roman numerals but if Arab scholars, as claimed, were responsible surely they'd have used Arabic numerals? Historians explain, if at all, the loss of the Spanish tables, and near-loss of the Introduction (barely survived in a single manuscript) as inevitable because knowledge of Spanish was limited, unlike Latin.
The Paris edition was printed in 1545 and reprinted in 1553, written in Latin but with Arabic numerals.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Not after all in Spain
| On July 4, 1483 German printer Erhard Ratdolt, working in Venice, published Tabulae Alphonsinae or the Alphonsine Tables, a compilation of astronomical data tabulating the positions and movements of the planets |
This may be one of our famous 'world records'
| The Alphonsine Tables were among the first mathematical tables printed |
When historians start using the word 'among' you know you are in the presence of careful ignoral. They would be well advised to be cautious because in all likelihood this is (yet another) example of Renaissance scholars using ancient authority as cover for their own work. Since the Greeks and Romans were not exactly famous for their observational astronomy, they are using Moorish Spain. And just in case that might be a bit suspect they have conjured Alfonso the Astronomer into existence to make it respectable
| The tables were computed at Toledo, Spain, from 1262 to 1272 by about 50 astronomers (human computers) assembled for the purpose by King Alfonso X of Castile and León , known as el Sabio, "the learned." They were a revision and improvement of the Tables of the Cordoban mathematician/ astronomer AbÅ« IshÄq IbrÄhÄ«m al-ZarqÄlÄ« , retaining the Ptolemaic system for explaining celestial motion. |
Soon to be a major motion picture starring Charlton Heston with Omar Sharif as Abu, the Man By His Side but a bit before.
| The original Spanish version was lost, and the tables became known through Latin translation |
That would be Alfonso the Forgetful.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
Copernicus had a copy of the second edition (Venice, 1492) with his name on the title page which is now in the University of Uppsala Library. Another fifteenth century copy, a manuscript rather than a book, also has his name on it. The manuscript copy, Codex Ashburnham 1697, is in the Medicea-Laurentian Library of Florence.
The notorious forger-thief-scholar Guglielmo Libri (1803-1869) imitated a genuine Copernicus signature occurring in a letter that was published for the first time in 1843.
The market price of the manuscript thus considerably enhanced, Libri included this copy of the Alfonsine Tables in the collection which he sold in 1847 to Lord Ashburham, from whom it was bought in 1844 by the Italian government for the library in Florence. |
Libri, an Italian polymath, was in exile in Paris and is said to have stolen 'thousands of books and manuscripts' from libraries in France, altered records and forged ownership signatures throughout the 1840s. Being appointed Chief Inspector of French Libraries in 1841 must have made things considerably easier. He was about to be tried for fraud but the 1848 revolution intervened and he fled to England where he was safe from extradition
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Copernicus had a copy of the second edition (Venice, 1492) with his name on the title page |
And on his gym shorts but they were sold separately. Since this would certainly be a smoking gun you might care to delve into it. Especially whether the Swedes occupied Frombork, Poland where Copernicus (and presumably his papers) ended up. Not that Uppsala Library would have cared one way or the other. We've dealt with that band of crooks before.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| Wile E. Coyote wrote: | Here stands the Penmachno Stones at St Tudclud's Church, nobody knows how or why. The legions have left, but Latin is still used for funerary inscriptions, and only for important people, so it is said....Here lies xxxxx buried amongst the stones.
I reckon it's to do with masons and quarrying
|
The Penmachno stone site says there are only two such stones in Wales which is odd if there's a quarrying/mining connection
| It bears the CHI RHO symbol and only one other such stone, Treflys, has been found in Wales. In fact only twelve examples have been found in Britain. |
Their explanation for the rarity of fifth/sixth century stones inscribed with crosses is priceless
| Early Christians preferred not to use the symbol of the Cross as this was seen as a pagan symbol of capital punishment. |
It is then the case that the cross was Christianity's preferred emblem for a few hundred years, post-Roman Christians desisted out of squeamishness, then took it up again and retained the symbol ever since.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
The 'earliest extant manuscript' of the various Anglo-Saxon Chronicles is the Parker Chronicle (aka Winchester Chronicle).
| The Parker Chronicle, also known as the A-version, is the oldest manuscript surviving. It was started in the late ninth century and continued into the eleventh. It originated somewhere in Wessex, probably Winchester where it has mid tenth-century provenance |
It's hailed as one of the most important manuscripts in the collection of the Parker Library of Corpus Christi College Cambridge. The content is mainly to do with King Aelfric and Danish raids but another section of the manuscript contains the ancient laws of Alfred and the even more ancient laws of King Ine.
But there's an addendum, by Parker perhaps unsurprisingly
| The volume was greatly valued by Parker and his circle; Parker brought the list of archbishops of Canterbury up to date to include own name. |
That seems a bit... indiscreet, shall we say... might people realise anyone with access could have added names and dates? Well, apart from modern historians
| It was also used in the earliest printed book in Old English, Parker's Testimonie of Antiquitie. |
Parker's 'Testimonie', full title "A testimony of antiquity shewing the ancient faith in the Church of England, touching the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord here publickly preached, and also received in the Saxons time, above 600 years agoe", was only published in 1675, about a hundred years after Parker's lifetime. How can it be 'one of the earliest printed books in Old English'?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Since nobody bar a few scholars could read Old English (what we call Anglo-Saxon) it is surprising anybody would think it worthwhile printing a book in it. Ever. All them new fonts! Meanwhile your discoveries are grist to the drama mill. It's good to hear it was all actually happening.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
