Man of all seaons

The following comment by Joan rang a 28-year old bell in my head.
First, here's Joan's clip:

"Margie, I have, from time to time, thought that More's "History"
could stand scholarly scrutiny that would perhaps point to why More
abandoned the work. I find it quite curious that the very opening
paragraph gets Edward IV's age at death wrong by about 13 years. This
is more than a typo! Was it perhaps a signal that the work was not to
be taken seriously?"

Now, lay that alongside the following. To save typing it again, I am
cutting and pasting one of my own footnotes from my soon to be
published 'Dark Sovereign': <<"In 1983, Jack Leslau suggested that
Hans Holbeinýs portrait of Sir Thomas More and his family contained
many rebuses or visual clues, suggesting that the two little princes
had survived the reign of Richard III. (See Geraldine Norman, The
Times, Friday, March 25, 1983, p.12.) Without entering that debate,
it does seem clear that Moreýs commission (1527) put Holbein to work
devising rebuses or clues on several levels, including symbols of
royalty.">>

Does this begin to make sense, now that we find what may be a
patttern, twice over, disseminated by More using different media? Is
the appalling More in fact waving anti-Henry alarums in all
directions, telling posterity in fact that he is somehow trying to
protect himself, his family, and the still extant little princes?

Perhaps a collective examination of More's "History" would show more
of these errors that Joan has noticed, making it easier to show up a
pattern. Personally I always found that "mess of strawberries" highly
suspicious.

Robert Fripp

longtime..no see you pop up..:-)) congrats on the book. looking forward to it.
now for the strawberries. almost everything in that era had a "meaning" a duke's crown has strawberry leaves. i've done some research on this possible connection. but, i did it before i moved here..and we are still renovating. so much of my research is packed.
 
i'd need to see the passage to trigger more memory on what i did dig up. and i'm just calling it a night. so maybe tomorrow, i'll have a look.
 
roslyn - celebrating the birth of a red dun brindle filly.

--- On Mon, 5/16/11, Robert Fripp <r_fripp@...> wrote:


From: Robert Fripp <r_fripp@...>
Subject: Man of all seaons
To:
Received: Monday, May 16, 2011, 11:19 PM


The following comment  by Joan rang a 28-year old bell in my head. 
First, here's Joan's clip:

  "Margie, I have, from time to time, thought that More's "History" 
could stand scholarly scrutiny that would perhaps point to why More 
abandoned the work. I find it quite curious that the very opening 
paragraph gets Edward IV's age at death wrong by about 13 years. This 
is more than a typo! Was it perhaps a signal that the work was not to 
be taken seriously?"

Now, lay that alongside the following. To save typing it again, I am 
cutting and pasting one of my own footnotes from my soon to be 
published 'Dark Sovereign': <<"In 1983, Jack Leslau suggested that 
Hans Holbein's portrait of Sir Thomas More and his family contained 
many rebuses or visual clues, suggesting that the two little princes 
had survived the reign of Richard III. (See Geraldine Norman, The 
Times, Friday, March 25, 1983, p.12.) Without entering that debate, 
it does seem clear that More's commission (1527) put Holbein to work 
devising rebuses or clues on several levels, including symbols of 
royalty.">>

Does this begin to make sense, now that we find what may be a 
patttern, twice over, disseminated by More using different media? Is 
the appalling More in fact waving anti-Henry alarums in all 
directions, telling posterity in fact that he is somehow trying to 
protect himself, his family, and the still extant little princes?

Perhaps a collective examination of More's "History" would show more 
of these errors that Joan has noticed, making it easier to show up a 
pattern. Personally I always found that "mess of strawberries" highly 
suspicious.

Robert Fripp





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

Yahoo! Groups Links