Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
2012-05-01 16:28:08
Thank you, Nina Boyd. You have nailed down Thomas More and his book absolutely. And thank you, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" for reposting Nina.
Original Message -----
From: "boyd.nina" <ninaboyd@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 1:51 AM
"...More's book has always seemed to me to be the result of nearly thirty years
of constant propaganda on the part of Henry Tudor and his adherents against
Richard. More may well have wanted to either write a "humanistic" morality
tale or even a satire on those tales, but he was, at least at first, forced
to rely on "common knowledge" for his story. As More dug deeper he may have
discovered that "common knowledge" may have been widespread, but it
certainly couldn't be called "knowledge"!
I'm sure you are correct, and perhaps the appropriate phrase might be "common invention". More was tied up with metaphysics in that book, rather than historical fact and sequence, viz. his hardly credible reference to strawberries. That only shows More demonstrating his familiarity with the new, rising and fashionable symbolism of decadence (drifting over from fashionable Europe) rather than an actual taste for the fruit. (Dark Sovereign, footnote 448. Briefly, More wrote his accout about 1515, the year Hieronymus Bosch set up the image of ripe strawberries as symbols of licentiousness and greed.)
Robert Fripp, Author, 'Dark Sovereign'
Original Message -----
From: "boyd.nina" <ninaboyd@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 1:51 AM
"...More's book has always seemed to me to be the result of nearly thirty years
of constant propaganda on the part of Henry Tudor and his adherents against
Richard. More may well have wanted to either write a "humanistic" morality
tale or even a satire on those tales, but he was, at least at first, forced
to rely on "common knowledge" for his story. As More dug deeper he may have
discovered that "common knowledge" may have been widespread, but it
certainly couldn't be called "knowledge"!
I'm sure you are correct, and perhaps the appropriate phrase might be "common invention". More was tied up with metaphysics in that book, rather than historical fact and sequence, viz. his hardly credible reference to strawberries. That only shows More demonstrating his familiarity with the new, rising and fashionable symbolism of decadence (drifting over from fashionable Europe) rather than an actual taste for the fruit. (Dark Sovereign, footnote 448. Briefly, More wrote his accout about 1515, the year Hieronymus Bosch set up the image of ripe strawberries as symbols of licentiousness and greed.)
Robert Fripp, Author, 'Dark Sovereign'
Re: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
2012-05-08 18:16:19
I have the sense that More had no idea what he should do with his account of Richard III. I'm not convinced that he had determined what to believe and what not to believe. And, again, More did not publish it. The work was likely a draft, or perhaps just an interesting writing exercise.
________________________________
From: rspfripp <r_fripp@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 11:28:05 AM
Subject: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
Thank you, Nina Boyd. You have nailed down Thomas More and his book absolutely. And thank you, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" for reposting Nina.
Original Message -----
From: "boyd.nina" <ninaboyd@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 1:51 AM
"...More's book has always seemed to me to be the result of nearly thirty years
of constant propaganda on the part of Henry Tudor and his adherents against
Richard. More may well have wanted to either write a "humanistic" morality
tale or even a satire on those tales, but he was, at least at first, forced
to rely on "common knowledge" for his story. As More dug deeper he may have
discovered that "common knowledge" may have been widespread, but it
certainly couldn't be called "knowledge"!
I'm sure you are correct, and perhaps the appropriate phrase might be "common invention". More was tied up with metaphysics in that book, rather than historical fact and sequence, viz. his hardly credible reference to strawberries. That only shows More demonstrating his familiarity with the new, rising and fashionable symbolism of decadence (drifting over from fashionable Europe) rather than an actual taste for the fruit. (Dark Sovereign, footnote 448. Briefly, More wrote his accout about 1515, the year Hieronymus Bosch set up the image of ripe strawberries as symbols of licentiousness and greed.)
Robert Fripp, Author, 'Dark Sovereign'
________________________________
From: rspfripp <r_fripp@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 11:28:05 AM
Subject: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
Thank you, Nina Boyd. You have nailed down Thomas More and his book absolutely. And thank you, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" for reposting Nina.
Original Message -----
From: "boyd.nina" <ninaboyd@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 1:51 AM
"...More's book has always seemed to me to be the result of nearly thirty years
of constant propaganda on the part of Henry Tudor and his adherents against
Richard. More may well have wanted to either write a "humanistic" morality
tale or even a satire on those tales, but he was, at least at first, forced
to rely on "common knowledge" for his story. As More dug deeper he may have
discovered that "common knowledge" may have been widespread, but it
certainly couldn't be called "knowledge"!
I'm sure you are correct, and perhaps the appropriate phrase might be "common invention". More was tied up with metaphysics in that book, rather than historical fact and sequence, viz. his hardly credible reference to strawberries. That only shows More demonstrating his familiarity with the new, rising and fashionable symbolism of decadence (drifting over from fashionable Europe) rather than an actual taste for the fruit. (Dark Sovereign, footnote 448. Briefly, More wrote his accout about 1515, the year Hieronymus Bosch set up the image of ripe strawberries as symbols of licentiousness and greed.)
Robert Fripp, Author, 'Dark Sovereign'
Re: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
2012-05-08 21:23:44
Hi, William!
It's long been my opinion More was writing with a bit of tongue in cheek. Look how he slipped Utopia under "the radar" of both HVIII and Morton.
BTW, a few days past, someone brought up Machiavelli, that vile So-and-So. Except he was a rather nice fellow, and his Prince (originally called On Principalities) may have been a similar send-up. Considering he dedicated it to the Medici grandsons (whom he loathed), and praised Cesare Borgia, it's always struck me as interesting that he was tortured, imprisoned, and exiled by his Patrons. Read carefully, one senses a Platonic Humanist - a democratic/republican - hoping people would rise up angry, like the character in Network. But sad to say, people accepted it as a guidebook. Of course, there were plenty of readers of Swift's Modest Proposal who missed the point, also.
[Had a nice exchange with a writer acquaintance who used Machiavelli as a character in one of his books, and he tended to agree with me; the man who wrote the most popular comedy of his time, La Mandragola, wasn't that likely to change his stripes so completely....]
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
I have the sense that More had no idea what he should do with his account of Richard III. I'm not convinced that he had determined what to believe and what not to believe. And, again, More did not publish it. The work was likely a draft, or perhaps just an interesting writing exercise.
________________________________
From: rspfripp <r_fripp@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 11:28:05 AM
Subject: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
Thank you, Nina Boyd. You have nailed down Thomas More and his book absolutely. And thank you, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" for reposting Nina.
Original Message -----
From: "boyd.nina" <ninaboyd@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 1:51 AM
"...More's book has always seemed to me to be the result of nearly thirty years
of constant propaganda on the part of Henry Tudor and his adherents against
Richard. More may well have wanted to either write a "humanistic" morality
tale or even a satire on those tales, but he was, at least at first, forced
to rely on "common knowledge" for his story. As More dug deeper he may have
discovered that "common knowledge" may have been widespread, but it
certainly couldn't be called "knowledge"!
I'm sure you are correct, and perhaps the appropriate phrase might be "common invention". More was tied up with metaphysics in that book, rather than historical fact and sequence, viz. his hardly credible reference to strawberries. That only shows More demonstrating his familiarity with the new, rising and fashionable symbolism of decadence (drifting over from fashionable Europe) rather than an actual taste for the fruit. (Dark Sovereign, footnote 448. Briefly, More wrote his accout about 1515, the year Hieronymus Bosch set up the image of ripe strawberries as symbols of licentiousness and greed.)
Robert Fripp, Author, 'Dark Sovereign'
It's long been my opinion More was writing with a bit of tongue in cheek. Look how he slipped Utopia under "the radar" of both HVIII and Morton.
BTW, a few days past, someone brought up Machiavelli, that vile So-and-So. Except he was a rather nice fellow, and his Prince (originally called On Principalities) may have been a similar send-up. Considering he dedicated it to the Medici grandsons (whom he loathed), and praised Cesare Borgia, it's always struck me as interesting that he was tortured, imprisoned, and exiled by his Patrons. Read carefully, one senses a Platonic Humanist - a democratic/republican - hoping people would rise up angry, like the character in Network. But sad to say, people accepted it as a guidebook. Of course, there were plenty of readers of Swift's Modest Proposal who missed the point, also.
[Had a nice exchange with a writer acquaintance who used Machiavelli as a character in one of his books, and he tended to agree with me; the man who wrote the most popular comedy of his time, La Mandragola, wasn't that likely to change his stripes so completely....]
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
I have the sense that More had no idea what he should do with his account of Richard III. I'm not convinced that he had determined what to believe and what not to believe. And, again, More did not publish it. The work was likely a draft, or perhaps just an interesting writing exercise.
________________________________
From: rspfripp <r_fripp@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 11:28:05 AM
Subject: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
Thank you, Nina Boyd. You have nailed down Thomas More and his book absolutely. And thank you, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" for reposting Nina.
Original Message -----
From: "boyd.nina" <ninaboyd@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 1:51 AM
"...More's book has always seemed to me to be the result of nearly thirty years
of constant propaganda on the part of Henry Tudor and his adherents against
Richard. More may well have wanted to either write a "humanistic" morality
tale or even a satire on those tales, but he was, at least at first, forced
to rely on "common knowledge" for his story. As More dug deeper he may have
discovered that "common knowledge" may have been widespread, but it
certainly couldn't be called "knowledge"!
I'm sure you are correct, and perhaps the appropriate phrase might be "common invention". More was tied up with metaphysics in that book, rather than historical fact and sequence, viz. his hardly credible reference to strawberries. That only shows More demonstrating his familiarity with the new, rising and fashionable symbolism of decadence (drifting over from fashionable Europe) rather than an actual taste for the fruit. (Dark Sovereign, footnote 448. Briefly, More wrote his accout about 1515, the year Hieronymus Bosch set up the image of ripe strawberries as symbols of licentiousness and greed.)
Robert Fripp, Author, 'Dark Sovereign'
Re: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
2012-05-08 23:31:39
Hi, Judy:
Some people have trouble with irony. I think you're right in all your examples.
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 4:23:41 PM
Subject: Re: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
Hi, William!
It's long been my opinion More was writing with a bit of tongue in cheek. Look how he slipped Utopia under "the radar" of both HVIII and Morton.
BTW, a few days past, someone brought up Machiavelli, that vile So-and-So. Except he was a rather nice fellow, and his Prince (originally called On Principalities) may have been a similar send-up. Considering he dedicated it to the Medici grandsons (whom he loathed), and praised Cesare Borgia, it's always struck me as interesting that he was tortured, imprisoned, and exiled by his Patrons. Read carefully, one senses a Platonic Humanist - a democratic/republican - hoping people would rise up angry, like the character in Network. But sad to say, people accepted it as a guidebook. Of course, there were plenty of readers of Swift's Modest Proposal who missed the point, also.
[Had a nice exchange with a writer acquaintance who used Machiavelli as a character in one of his books, and he tended to agree with me; the man who wrote the most popular comedy of his time, La Mandragola, wasn't that likely to change his stripes so completely....]
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
I have the sense that More had no idea what he should do with his account of Richard III. I'm not convinced that he had determined what to believe and what not to believe. And, again, More did not publish it. The work was likely a draft, or perhaps just an interesting writing exercise.
________________________________
From: rspfripp <r_fripp@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 11:28:05 AM
Subject: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
Thank you, Nina Boyd. You have nailed down Thomas More and his book absolutely. And thank you, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" for reposting Nina.
Original Message -----
From: "boyd.nina" <ninaboyd@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 1:51 AM
"...More's book has always seemed to me to be the result of nearly thirty years
of constant propaganda on the part of Henry Tudor and his adherents against
Richard. More may well have wanted to either write a "humanistic" morality
tale or even a satire on those tales, but he was, at least at first, forced
to rely on "common knowledge" for his story. As More dug deeper he may have
discovered that "common knowledge" may have been widespread, but it
certainly couldn't be called "knowledge"!
I'm sure you are correct, and perhaps the appropriate phrase might be "common invention". More was tied up with metaphysics in that book, rather than historical fact and sequence, viz. his hardly credible reference to strawberries. That only shows More demonstrating his familiarity with the new, rising and fashionable symbolism of decadence (drifting over from fashionable Europe) rather than an actual taste for the fruit. (Dark Sovereign, footnote 448. Briefly, More wrote his accout about 1515, the year Hieronymus Bosch set up the image of ripe strawberries as symbols of licentiousness and greed.)
Robert Fripp, Author, 'Dark Sovereign'
Some people have trouble with irony. I think you're right in all your examples.
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 4:23:41 PM
Subject: Re: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
Hi, William!
It's long been my opinion More was writing with a bit of tongue in cheek. Look how he slipped Utopia under "the radar" of both HVIII and Morton.
BTW, a few days past, someone brought up Machiavelli, that vile So-and-So. Except he was a rather nice fellow, and his Prince (originally called On Principalities) may have been a similar send-up. Considering he dedicated it to the Medici grandsons (whom he loathed), and praised Cesare Borgia, it's always struck me as interesting that he was tortured, imprisoned, and exiled by his Patrons. Read carefully, one senses a Platonic Humanist - a democratic/republican - hoping people would rise up angry, like the character in Network. But sad to say, people accepted it as a guidebook. Of course, there were plenty of readers of Swift's Modest Proposal who missed the point, also.
[Had a nice exchange with a writer acquaintance who used Machiavelli as a character in one of his books, and he tended to agree with me; the man who wrote the most popular comedy of his time, La Mandragola, wasn't that likely to change his stripes so completely....]
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
I have the sense that More had no idea what he should do with his account of Richard III. I'm not convinced that he had determined what to believe and what not to believe. And, again, More did not publish it. The work was likely a draft, or perhaps just an interesting writing exercise.
________________________________
From: rspfripp <r_fripp@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 11:28:05 AM
Subject: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
Thank you, Nina Boyd. You have nailed down Thomas More and his book absolutely. And thank you, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" for reposting Nina.
Original Message -----
From: "boyd.nina" <ninaboyd@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 1:51 AM
"...More's book has always seemed to me to be the result of nearly thirty years
of constant propaganda on the part of Henry Tudor and his adherents against
Richard. More may well have wanted to either write a "humanistic" morality
tale or even a satire on those tales, but he was, at least at first, forced
to rely on "common knowledge" for his story. As More dug deeper he may have
discovered that "common knowledge" may have been widespread, but it
certainly couldn't be called "knowledge"!
I'm sure you are correct, and perhaps the appropriate phrase might be "common invention". More was tied up with metaphysics in that book, rather than historical fact and sequence, viz. his hardly credible reference to strawberries. That only shows More demonstrating his familiarity with the new, rising and fashionable symbolism of decadence (drifting over from fashionable Europe) rather than an actual taste for the fruit. (Dark Sovereign, footnote 448. Briefly, More wrote his accout about 1515, the year Hieronymus Bosch set up the image of ripe strawberries as symbols of licentiousness and greed.)
Robert Fripp, Author, 'Dark Sovereign'
Re: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
2012-05-09 00:17:20
Why, thanks, William!
The bit about Machiavelli came up in re: the "real" Richard. I got a bit steamed at the time.
R would have been more likely to quote: "Nessun maggior dolore che ricordarsi del tempo felice ne la miseria" (by that other exiled guy), IMHO, not "It's better to be feared than loved..."
La Speranza,
Judy
BTW, will you attend the Toronto AGM? My big dream is L. McKennitt might be in the 'hood.... What a theme song she could compose....
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
Hi, Judy:
Some people have trouble with irony. I think you're right in all your examples.
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 4:23:41 PM
Subject: Re: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
Hi, William!
It's long been my opinion More was writing with a bit of tongue in cheek. Look how he slipped Utopia under "the radar" of both HVIII and Morton.
BTW, a few days past, someone brought up Machiavelli, that vile So-and-So. Except he was a rather nice fellow, and his Prince (originally called On Principalities) may have been a similar send-up. Considering he dedicated it to the Medici grandsons (whom he loathed), and praised Cesare Borgia, it's always struck me as interesting that he was tortured, imprisoned, and exiled by his Patrons. Read carefully, one senses a Platonic Humanist - a democratic/republican - hoping people would rise up angry, like the character in Network. But sad to say, people accepted it as a guidebook. Of course, there were plenty of readers of Swift's Modest Proposal who missed the point, also.
[Had a nice exchange with a writer acquaintance who used Machiavelli as a character in one of his books, and he tended to agree with me; the man who wrote the most popular comedy of his time, La Mandragola, wasn't that likely to change his stripes so completely....]
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
I have the sense that More had no idea what he should do with his account of Richard III. I'm not convinced that he had determined what to believe and what not to believe. And, again, More did not publish it. The work was likely a draft, or perhaps just an interesting writing exercise.
________________________________
From: rspfripp <r_fripp@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 11:28:05 AM
Subject: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
Thank you, Nina Boyd. You have nailed down Thomas More and his book absolutely. And thank you, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" for reposting Nina.
Original Message -----
From: "boyd.nina" <ninaboyd@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 1:51 AM
"...More's book has always seemed to me to be the result of nearly thirty years
of constant propaganda on the part of Henry Tudor and his adherents against
Richard. More may well have wanted to either write a "humanistic" morality
tale or even a satire on those tales, but he was, at least at first, forced
to rely on "common knowledge" for his story. As More dug deeper he may have
discovered that "common knowledge" may have been widespread, but it
certainly couldn't be called "knowledge"!
I'm sure you are correct, and perhaps the appropriate phrase might be "common invention". More was tied up with metaphysics in that book, rather than historical fact and sequence, viz. his hardly credible reference to strawberries. That only shows More demonstrating his familiarity with the new, rising and fashionable symbolism of decadence (drifting over from fashionable Europe) rather than an actual taste for the fruit. (Dark Sovereign, footnote 448. Briefly, More wrote his accout about 1515, the year Hieronymus Bosch set up the image of ripe strawberries as symbols of licentiousness and greed.)
Robert Fripp, Author, 'Dark Sovereign'
The bit about Machiavelli came up in re: the "real" Richard. I got a bit steamed at the time.
R would have been more likely to quote: "Nessun maggior dolore che ricordarsi del tempo felice ne la miseria" (by that other exiled guy), IMHO, not "It's better to be feared than loved..."
La Speranza,
Judy
BTW, will you attend the Toronto AGM? My big dream is L. McKennitt might be in the 'hood.... What a theme song she could compose....
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
Hi, Judy:
Some people have trouble with irony. I think you're right in all your examples.
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 4:23:41 PM
Subject: Re: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
Hi, William!
It's long been my opinion More was writing with a bit of tongue in cheek. Look how he slipped Utopia under "the radar" of both HVIII and Morton.
BTW, a few days past, someone brought up Machiavelli, that vile So-and-So. Except he was a rather nice fellow, and his Prince (originally called On Principalities) may have been a similar send-up. Considering he dedicated it to the Medici grandsons (whom he loathed), and praised Cesare Borgia, it's always struck me as interesting that he was tortured, imprisoned, and exiled by his Patrons. Read carefully, one senses a Platonic Humanist - a democratic/republican - hoping people would rise up angry, like the character in Network. But sad to say, people accepted it as a guidebook. Of course, there were plenty of readers of Swift's Modest Proposal who missed the point, also.
[Had a nice exchange with a writer acquaintance who used Machiavelli as a character in one of his books, and he tended to agree with me; the man who wrote the most popular comedy of his time, La Mandragola, wasn't that likely to change his stripes so completely....]
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
I have the sense that More had no idea what he should do with his account of Richard III. I'm not convinced that he had determined what to believe and what not to believe. And, again, More did not publish it. The work was likely a draft, or perhaps just an interesting writing exercise.
________________________________
From: rspfripp <r_fripp@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 11:28:05 AM
Subject: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
Thank you, Nina Boyd. You have nailed down Thomas More and his book absolutely. And thank you, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" for reposting Nina.
Original Message -----
From: "boyd.nina" <ninaboyd@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 1:51 AM
"...More's book has always seemed to me to be the result of nearly thirty years
of constant propaganda on the part of Henry Tudor and his adherents against
Richard. More may well have wanted to either write a "humanistic" morality
tale or even a satire on those tales, but he was, at least at first, forced
to rely on "common knowledge" for his story. As More dug deeper he may have
discovered that "common knowledge" may have been widespread, but it
certainly couldn't be called "knowledge"!
I'm sure you are correct, and perhaps the appropriate phrase might be "common invention". More was tied up with metaphysics in that book, rather than historical fact and sequence, viz. his hardly credible reference to strawberries. That only shows More demonstrating his familiarity with the new, rising and fashionable symbolism of decadence (drifting over from fashionable Europe) rather than an actual taste for the fruit. (Dark Sovereign, footnote 448. Briefly, More wrote his accout about 1515, the year Hieronymus Bosch set up the image of ripe strawberries as symbols of licentiousness and greed.)
Robert Fripp, Author, 'Dark Sovereign'
Re: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
2012-05-17 18:30:56
I agree with that. Why shouldn´t someone leave "insider informations" in his works? Being ironic was a safer way to express ones opinion. Especially when one was watched by an regime which was a worthy subject to some critical considerations.
--- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Judy:
>
> Some people have trouble with irony. I think you're right in all your examples.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 4:23:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
>
>
> Â
> Hi, William!
>
> It's long been my opinion More was writing with a bit of tongue in cheek. Look how he slipped Utopia under "the radar" of both HVIII and Morton.
>
> BTW, a few days past, someone brought up Machiavelli, that vile So-and-So. Except he was a rather nice fellow, and his Prince (originally called On Principalities) may have been a similar send-up. Considering he dedicated it to the Medici grandsons (whom he loathed), and praised Cesare Borgia, it's always struck me as interesting that he was tortured, imprisoned, and exiled by his Patrons. Read carefully, one senses a Platonic Humanist - a democratic/republican - hoping people would rise up angry, like the character in Network. But sad to say, people accepted it as a guidebook. Of course, there were plenty of readers of Swift's Modest Proposal who missed the point, also.
>
> [Had a nice exchange with a writer acquaintance who used Machiavelli as a character in one of his books, and he tended to agree with me; the man who wrote the most popular comedy of his time, La Mandragola, wasn't that likely to change his stripes so completely....]
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 12:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
>
>
> Â
>
> I have the sense that More had no idea what he should do with his account of Richard III. I'm not convinced that he had determined what to believe and what not to believe. And, again, More did not publish it. The work was likely a draft, or perhaps just an interesting writing exercise.
>
> ________________________________
> From: rspfripp <r_fripp@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 11:28:05 AM
> Subject: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
>
> Â
> Thank you, Nina Boyd. You have nailed down Thomas More and his book absolutely. And thank you, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" for reposting Nina.
>
> Original Message -----
> From: "boyd.nina" <ninaboyd@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 1:51 AM
>
> "...More's book has always seemed to me to be the result of nearly thirty years
> of constant propaganda on the part of Henry Tudor and his adherents against
> Richard. More may well have wanted to either write a "humanistic" morality
> tale or even a satire on those tales, but he was, at least at first, forced
> to rely on "common knowledge" for his story. As More dug deeper he may have
> discovered that "common knowledge" may have been widespread, but it
> certainly couldn't be called "knowledge"!
>
> I'm sure you are correct, and perhaps the appropriate phrase might be "common invention". More was tied up with metaphysics in that book, rather than historical fact and sequence, viz. his hardly credible reference to strawberries. That only shows More demonstrating his familiarity with the new, rising and fashionable symbolism of decadence (drifting over from fashionable Europe) rather than an actual taste for the fruit. (Dark Sovereign, footnote 448. Briefly, More wrote his accout about 1515, the year Hieronymus Bosch set up the image of ripe strawberries as symbols of licentiousness and greed.)
>
> Robert Fripp, Author, 'Dark Sovereign'
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Judy:
>
> Some people have trouble with irony. I think you're right in all your examples.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 4:23:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
>
>
> Â
> Hi, William!
>
> It's long been my opinion More was writing with a bit of tongue in cheek. Look how he slipped Utopia under "the radar" of both HVIII and Morton.
>
> BTW, a few days past, someone brought up Machiavelli, that vile So-and-So. Except he was a rather nice fellow, and his Prince (originally called On Principalities) may have been a similar send-up. Considering he dedicated it to the Medici grandsons (whom he loathed), and praised Cesare Borgia, it's always struck me as interesting that he was tortured, imprisoned, and exiled by his Patrons. Read carefully, one senses a Platonic Humanist - a democratic/republican - hoping people would rise up angry, like the character in Network. But sad to say, people accepted it as a guidebook. Of course, there were plenty of readers of Swift's Modest Proposal who missed the point, also.
>
> [Had a nice exchange with a writer acquaintance who used Machiavelli as a character in one of his books, and he tended to agree with me; the man who wrote the most popular comedy of his time, La Mandragola, wasn't that likely to change his stripes so completely....]
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 12:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
>
>
> Â
>
> I have the sense that More had no idea what he should do with his account of Richard III. I'm not convinced that he had determined what to believe and what not to believe. And, again, More did not publish it. The work was likely a draft, or perhaps just an interesting writing exercise.
>
> ________________________________
> From: rspfripp <r_fripp@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 11:28:05 AM
> Subject: Nina Boyd gets Thomas More's motivation just about right
>
> Â
> Thank you, Nina Boyd. You have nailed down Thomas More and his book absolutely. And thank you, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" for reposting Nina.
>
> Original Message -----
> From: "boyd.nina" <ninaboyd@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 1:51 AM
>
> "...More's book has always seemed to me to be the result of nearly thirty years
> of constant propaganda on the part of Henry Tudor and his adherents against
> Richard. More may well have wanted to either write a "humanistic" morality
> tale or even a satire on those tales, but he was, at least at first, forced
> to rely on "common knowledge" for his story. As More dug deeper he may have
> discovered that "common knowledge" may have been widespread, but it
> certainly couldn't be called "knowledge"!
>
> I'm sure you are correct, and perhaps the appropriate phrase might be "common invention". More was tied up with metaphysics in that book, rather than historical fact and sequence, viz. his hardly credible reference to strawberries. That only shows More demonstrating his familiarity with the new, rising and fashionable symbolism of decadence (drifting over from fashionable Europe) rather than an actual taste for the fruit. (Dark Sovereign, footnote 448. Briefly, More wrote his accout about 1515, the year Hieronymus Bosch set up the image of ripe strawberries as symbols of licentiousness and greed.)
>
> Robert Fripp, Author, 'Dark Sovereign'
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.