Havelok

I've taken the easy route and pulled down amodern(ish) retelling of
Havelok.

The story is a myth of King Olaf, and goes as follies:

King Birkabeyn of Denmark (goodie) had one son, Havelok (ie Olaf), and
two daughters. Birkabeyn died while his children were young, and he left
them and the kingdom in the hands of his "frende" (ie friend or
relative)Godard (baddie) until Havelok was old enough to rule himself:
"Here biteche I thee/ Mine children alle three, All Denemark and all my
fee,/ Till that my sone of elde be...."
After Birkabeyn's death, however, Godard showed his true colours: "And
in the castel he hem do,/ Ther non ne mighte hem comen to/ Of here kyn",
keeping the children short of food and warmth. When this failed to kill
them, Jarl Godard "ferde / To the tour" to finish them off himself. He
slew the two girls but when Havelok, "that sely knave", begged for mercy
he could not kill him too. So instead he sent for a fisherman named Grim
and told him to take the boy out to sea in the middle of the night and
throw him overboard with an anchor round his neck.
However, when Grim found the telltale birthmark, the cross of royalty,
on the boy's shoulder he realised his identity and decided to rescue
him. So Grim & his family fled to England with Havelok, thus founding
Grimsby!

Meanwhile in England, King Athelwold had died leaving as heir his little
daughter Goldeborow (the original Goldberry!)under the regency of Earl
Godrich of Cornwall (baddie no 2). Godrich had promised to marry
Goldborow to the best, fairest and strongest man alive when she reached
12 years, but had no intentions of letting her rule.

Now, Havelok grew up to be amazingly big & strong and hungry, and being
too much for Grim to feed, he went to Lincoln, where he got work as a
cook's boy. Here he distinguished himself in contests at the fair while
Earl Godrich was in the town for a parliament. So Godrich had a
brainwave and decided to marry Goldborow to this scullion.
But, after the wedding, Havelok and Goldborow returned to Denmark to
reclaim the kingdom from Jarl Godard. Havelok landed in the guise of a
merchant and gained the support of the local lord, Ubbe, by giving him a
gold ring "An hundred pound was worth the ston" (shades of Perkin
Warbeck here, the Merchant of the Ruby). Havelok's identity was revealed
to Ubbe, and Godard was surprised while hunting in the forest. The
wicked Jarl tried to flee, but was caught and as "the thef than men dos
henge, /So hund men hole in dike slenge, / He [they] bunden him full
swithe faste,/ While the bondes wolden laste, / That he rorede als a
bole [bull]/ That wore parred [confined] in an hole/ With dogges forto
bite and beite - / Were the bondes nought to leite!/ He bounden him so
fele sore/ That he gan crien Godes ore... Wolden he nought therfore
lette/ That [until] he bounden hond and fet-/...But dunten [beat] him so
man doth bere [bear]/ And keste him on a scabbed mere [mare]; / His nese
went unto the crice/ So ledden he that fule swike/ Till he biforn
Havelok was brought". He was tried by Ubbe and condemned to a horrible
death (the details are quite sickening).
Then Havelok and Goldborow returned to England with an army to challenge
Earl Godrich. There was a fierce and bloody battle. Earl Godrich lost a
hand and was captured "And demden him to binden faste/ Upon an asse
swithe unwraste [endwise/athwart]/ Andelong, nought overthwart, His nose
went unto the stert, And so into Lincolne lede..."
Then he was tried, condemned and burnt to ashes.
Havelok and Goldborow lived and reigned happily ever after (or at least
for 60 years).
Marie

Hello Marie!

Thanks for posting this.

You wrote: The story is a myth of King Olaf

***
Is there a cycle of King Olaf stories comparable to
the King Arthur stories?

Do historians debate about whether a leader like King
Olaf ever lived?

Is the 60 year reign a symbolic number? Would 60
mean something to the original storyteller and
listeners that has been lost over the years?
***

You wrote: ýHavelok, that sely knaveý

***
Was Havelok supposed to be like the third son in folk
tales that wins the princess? Havelok had two
sisters, not brothers, but ýsely knaveý suggests the
lazy, good-for-nothing youngest son who passes the
tests his brothers fail and reigns happily and well
afterwards.
***

You wrote: ýbeing too much for Grim to feedý

***
Is this comic relief? Did Havelok eat prodigious
amounts of food?

***
You wrote: ýShades of Perkin Warbeck here, the
Merchant of the Rubyý

***
This sounds like a possible association with Edward
Brampton, that Audrey Williamson writes about. (p.
167, The Mystery of the Princes) But she doesnýt
mention The Merchant of the Ruby. Was that Brampton,
Warbeck, or someone else? Whatýs the story behind it?
***

You wrote: ýAnd keste [Godard] on a scabbed [mare]/
ý ý[Godrich] Upon an asse swithe unwraste
[endwise/athwart]ý
***

That makes two evil guardians who get carried to their
trials across the backs of sickly beasts. The
resemblence to the Tudorsý treatment of Richardýs
corpse is clear.

Is it going too far to say that the Tudors were
covering all the bases: 1) Acting out the punishments
of Godard and Godrich as a warning to people who
wouldnýt be reading the legal documents; and 2)
Comparing Richard to Herod in their writings, such as
the attainder which accused Richard of shedding
ýinfants blood?ý

TIA!

Marion


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Hello Marie!
>
> Thanks for posting this.
>
> You wrote: The story is a myth of King Olaf
>
> ***
> Is there a cycle of King Olaf stories comparable to
> the King Arthur stories?
>
> Do historians debate about whether a leader like King
> Olaf ever lived?

Um. There seem to have been various versions of this story, rather
than a cycle of stories; this, however, is the only version that I
have read. There may also have been other tales told of Olaf in
Denmark. I don't know if the second question is tongue in cheek or
not. There certainly was at least one king Olaf (two?), but I'm not
good on that period of history. Probably the best I can do is to
quote from the intro to 'Havelok the Dane' in 'Middle English Verse
Romances' , ed. Donald B. Sands (that is the version with original
text). That says:
"the name 'Havelok' is etymologically linked with the French
name 'Avelok', which equates with the Old English 'Anlaf', a form of
the Scandinavian 'Olaf'; from this point, the Havelok of the poem can
be traced to the historical Olaf Sictricson, who once bore the
nickname 'Cuaron', a name of Celtic origin deriving from a word
meaning "sandal" and a name, furthermore, which in the French
versions of 'Havelok' the hero himself at one time assumes. Scholarly
reasoning can go further: Olaf Sictricson is known to have been
confused by chroniclers with his cousin, Anlaf Guthfrithson, defeated
in the Battle of Brunanburg in 937, and the careers of both Olaf and
Anlaf show vicissitudes bearing some similarity to those suffered by
the Havelok of romance. Other attempts to trace down the historicity
of the Havelok legend - in particular, the historicity of Goldborow,
Grim, and the two kings Birkabeyn and Aethelowld - are equally
tenuous. . . "

Digested that?

I can only add that some of the above names seem to me to belong to
myth rather than history. For instance, one of Havelok's sisters was
named Swanborow. Now, Goldborow and Swanborow seem to be paired
names - silver & gold, lunar & solar, whatever you like
(incidentally, for those who have read The Lord of the Rings rather
than just seen the films, I think Goldborow was almost certainly the
name from which JRR Tolkien took 'Goldberry'). Grim, I have read, was
a name applied to Odin; Odin certainly went about in beggarly guise
and would be a suitable protective deity for a king. However, I seem
to recall reading a story in Ruth Tongue's 'Forgotten Folktales of
the English Counties' which suggested that the Humber was associated
with the Norse sea-god Aegir, so perhaps Grim the fisherman is a sort
of combination of the two.

>
> Is the 60 year reign a symbolic number? Would 60
> mean something to the original storyteller and
> listeners that has been lost over the years?
> ***
>
Quite possibly. Numerology is a fascinating subject, but not one I'm
very good at, I'm afraid.


> You wrote: "Havelok, that sely knave"
>
> ***
> Was Havelok supposed to be like the third son in folk
> tales that wins the princess? Havelok had two
> sisters, not brothers, but "sely knave" suggests the
> lazy, good-for-nothing youngest son who passes the
> tests his brothers fail and reigns happily and well
> afterwards.
> ***
The number of sisters is certainly significant, three being a number
of completion (think of it in terms of 1 yin, 1 yang + a perfect
balance of the two). The text suggest that Havelok was the youngest,
which is why he was spared. 'Sely' is, as you have guessed, an old
spelling of 'silly'. However, in Middle English it meant innocent,
not foolish (in fact, I think in Old English the word
meant 'blessed'. And for 'knave' read 'youth' or 'male child' - so
an innocent boy. More and other writers of course used the
word 'sely' to describe the Princes.
>
> You wrote: "being too much for Grim to feed"
>
> ***
> Is this comic relief? Did Havelok eat prodigious
> amounts of food?

Yes, comic relief, he did eat prodigious amounts of food.
>
> ***
> You wrote: "Shades of Perkin Warbeck here, the
> Merchant of the Ruby"
>
> ***
> This sounds like a possible association with Edward
> Brampton, that Audrey Williamson writes about. (p.
> 167, The Mystery of the Princes) But she doesn't
> mention The Merchant of the Ruby. Was that Brampton,
> Warbeck, or someone else? What's the story behind it?
> ***

I can't remember the source, but when Brampton arrived in Cork with
Perkin Warbeck posing as his merchant's assistant, he was so finely
decked out that he was nicknamed 'The Merchant of the Ruby'.
>
> You wrote: "And keste [Godard] on a scabbed [mare]/
> … "[Godrich] Upon an asse swithe unwraste
> [endwise/athwart]"
> ***
>
> That makes two evil guardians who get carried to their
> trials across the backs of sickly beasts. The
> resemblence to the Tudors' treatment of Richard's
> corpse is clear.
>
Yes, like a lot of old stories, 'Havelok the Dane' is cast in two
parts which mirror each other (compare the two halves of Beowulf).
The two baddies even have virtually the same name (and both
are 'G's' - a point that could have been used against Richard of
Gloucester).

> Is it going too far to say that the Tudors were
> covering all the bases: 1) Acting out the punishments
> of Godard and Godrich as a warning to people who
> wouldn't be reading the legal documents; and 2)
> Comparing Richard to Herod in their writings, such as
> the attainder which accused Richard of shedding
> "infants blood?"

Not going too far at all, in my opinion. Jonathan Hughes' book
doesn't mention this story, but does make it clear how during Henry
VI's reign the alchemists looked around for a candidate with a
suitable horoscope & ancestry, and then helped to promote and
encourage him by drawing on the Arthurian cycle, prophecies about the
restoration of Cadwallader's line, Jason and the Golden Fleece, etc.
This wasn't just for propaganda purposes, but would have been
intended to tap into sort of cosmic energies and patterns. I haven't
finished the book yet but I've glanced ahead and it seems he reckons
that after Richard became king the alchemists, headed by Bishop
Morton, turned to Henry Tudor; if Rous' remarks about Richard's
horoscope are anything to go by, it seems he would have been a non-
starter. I even wonder whether Perkin Warbeck's launch in Ireland
as 'The Merchant of the Ruby' wasn't another attempt - by the
Yorkists this time - to tap into the legend of the surviving tower
prisoner. The term 'Merchant of the Ruby' doesn't actually appear in
the surviving English text of the story, but there are 180 lines of
text missing from it at just this point.
It makes you wonder what they might have done with Richard if they
had caught him alive (Godard was sentenced to be flayed alive, drawn
at the mare's tail to the gallows, nailed through the feet and hanged
with two fetters. His two sisters took the opportunity to knife
themselves. Perhaps this adds another twist to Richard's
determination not to flee the field!

I have long had the impression that the conventional way of looking
at medieval history, from a modern outsider's rationalistic
interpretation of sources, does no more than skim the surface of
events. I don't know much at all about Henry VII's reign, and I'd be
interested if anyone who knows more has come across any other hints
at political use of this story. A lot of Hughes' arguments are based
on reading of contemporary alchemical texts, and I supppose someone
might have to study those relating to Richard & Henry's reign.

Marie

>
>>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
> http://tax.yahoo.com

Re my last reply, I see I din't make it clear: the Merchant of the
Ruby was Perkin Warbeck (who of course claimed to be the younger of
the Princes). I wonder whether any other version of Havelok gave him
an older brother rather than two older sisters??? That would be
really neat.
Marie



--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Hello Marie!
>
> Thanks for posting this.
>
> You wrote: The story is a myth of King Olaf
>
> ***
> Is there a cycle of King Olaf stories comparable to
> the King Arthur stories?
>
> Do historians debate about whether a leader like King
> Olaf ever lived?
>
> Is the 60 year reign a symbolic number? Would 60
> mean something to the original storyteller and
> listeners that has been lost over the years?
> ***
>
> You wrote: "Havelok, that sely knave"
>
> ***
> Was Havelok supposed to be like the third son in folk
> tales that wins the princess? Havelok had two
> sisters, not brothers, but "sely knave" suggests the
> lazy, good-for-nothing youngest son who passes the
> tests his brothers fail and reigns happily and well
> afterwards.
> ***
>
> You wrote: "being too much for Grim to feed"
>
> ***
> Is this comic relief? Did Havelok eat prodigious
> amounts of food?
>
> ***
> You wrote: "Shades of Perkin Warbeck here, the
> Merchant of the Ruby"
>
> ***
> This sounds like a possible association with Edward
> Brampton, that Audrey Williamson writes about. (p.
> 167, The Mystery of the Princes) But she doesn't
> mention The Merchant of the Ruby. Was that Brampton,
> Warbeck, or someone else? What's the story behind it?
> ***
>
> You wrote: "And keste [Godard] on a scabbed [mare]/
> … "[Godrich] Upon an asse swithe unwraste
> [endwise/athwart]"
> ***
>
> That makes two evil guardians who get carried to their
> trials across the backs of sickly beasts. The
> resemblence to the Tudors' treatment of Richard's
> corpse is clear.
>
> Is it going too far to say that the Tudors were
> covering all the bases: 1) Acting out the punishments
> of Godard and Godrich as a warning to people who
> wouldn't be reading the legal documents; and 2)
> Comparing Richard to Herod in their writings, such as
> the attainder which accused Richard of shedding
> "infants blood?"
>
> TIA!
>
> Marion
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
> http://tax.yahoo.com

Hello Marie,

You wrote: I donýt know if the second question [Do
historians debate about whether a leader like King
Olaf ever lived?] is tongue in cheek or not.
***

It isnýt. But now that you mention it, I see the
possibilities. I wonýt pursue them here. Iýll find
out if a Metaphysical Forum exists. <g>

When I wrote that question, I was thinking about a
book Iým sloowly reading, ýArthurýs Britain,ý by
Leslie Alcock. I thought it would tell me whether the
King Arthur stories originated in the life of a
historical leader. But the revised preface (1987)
says that research done between the bookýs publication
in 1971 and reissue in 1987 has ýunderminedý Alcockýs
case for an historic Arthur.

Iým reading it anyway. Alcock gives his reasons for
believing in Arthurýs existence in great detail.
Eventually, I'll read some of the titles in Alcockýs
supplementary bibliography, which describe the
research that disagrees with his conclusions.

Right now, it looks to me as if historians can argue
either side of a question, and the most convincing
debater wins. Folks like me, who will never get to
read an original manuscript or take part in an
archaeological dig, have to decide which historianýs
reasoning makes the best sense. Or settle for being
undecided.
***

You asked: Digested that?
***

Yes. Iýve done a web search, and I found a long essay
about Havelok and all the related names, which I
havenýt digested yet.

Your suggestion that Odin (or Aegir) disguised himself
as Grim the fisherman is appealing. It sounds like
something Odin would do.
***

You wrote: ýý in Middle English ýselyý meant
innocent, not foolish ý and for ýknaveý read youth or
male child ý so an innocent boy.
***

So my theory about the third son in the folk tales
doesnýt fit Havelok so well.
***

You wrote: More and other writers, of course, used
the word ýselyý to describe the Princes.
***

I agree that ýselyý or ýinnocentý describes both
Havelok and Richardýs nephews. That strengthens my
belief that the Havelok story is a better fit than the
story of Herodýs murdering thousands of male babies
unrelated to him.

I still disagree with anyone who describes Richardýs
nephews as ýinfants.ý According to Nicholas Orme and
Barbara Hanawalt, 10 and 12 years old was well beyond
the age of infancy, although not yet legally
adolescent.
***

You wrote: The two baddies even have virtually the
same name (and both are Gýs a point that could have
been used against Richard of Gloucester)
***

Shakespeare used it against his character, Richard in
both Richard III and Henry VI, Part III. Since
Richard III is well known, I wonýt quote from it. But
here are the lines from Henry VI, Pt. III, Scene VI:

Edward: ýRichard, I will create thee Duke of Gloster/
And George, of Clarenceý

Richard: ýLet me be Duke of Clarence, George of
Gloster/ For Glosterýs dukedom is too ominous

Earl of Warwick: Tut, thatýs a foolish observation /
Richard, be Duke of Gloster ý [Exeunt]

Actually, this seems to contradict everything
Shakespeare does to show Richardýs ambition. But
Shakespeare may have intended for his audiences to
take this as more evidence of Richardýs deviousness, a
way of camouflaging his ambition.
***

You wrote: ýThe alchemists, headed by Bishop Morton
ýý
***

Could a bishop be an alchemist? I though alchemy was
an underground, possibly heretical, activity. Looks
like I need to read Jonathan Hugheýs book eventually.
***

You wrote: I have long had the impression that the
conventional way of looking at medieval history, from
a modern outsiderýs rationalistic interpretation of
sources, does no more than skim the surface of events.
***

It seems to me that historians and their readers need
to balance rationalistic with non-rationalistic
interpretation. Medieval people acted from beliefs
and motivations very different from the beliefs and
motivations of people today. I find this balance is
more of a goal than an experience, but I keep trying.
***

You wrote: I wonder whether any other version of
Havelok gave him an older brother rather than two
older sisters?
***

Iým not confident of finding anything you havenýt
found. But things do turn up for me sometimes. If
anything does, Iýll post it.

Marion



__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Hello Marie,
>
> You wrote: I don't know if the second question [Do
> historians debate about whether a leader like King
> Olaf ever lived?] is tongue in cheek or not.
> ***
>
> It isn't. But now that you mention it, I see the
> possibilities. I won't pursue them here. I'll find
> out if a Metaphysical Forum exists. <g>
>
> When I wrote that question, I was thinking about a
> book I'm sloowly reading, "Arthur's Britain," by
> Leslie Alcock. I thought it would tell me whether the
> King Arthur stories originated in the life of a
> historical leader. But the revised preface (1987)
> says that research done between the book's publication
> in 1971 and reissue in 1987 has "undermined" Alcock's
> case for an historic Arthur.
>
> I'm reading it anyway. Alcock gives his reasons for
> believing in Arthur's existence in great detail.
> Eventually, I'll read some of the titles in Alcock's
> supplementary bibliography, which describe the
> research that disagrees with his conclusions.

Not up to date on Arthur. What I digested from past reading is that
evidence for Arthur's historical existence sketchy but interesting;
but certainly much evidence for the provenance of characters like
Gawain in Celtic mythology (see Loomis). The Grail is a more
complicated subject, and I'm not convinced by Loomis' attempts to
pass that off completely as more of the old Celtic myth - it seems to
me there's a strong, later, layer of gnostic Christian stuff with
all that. Would certainly repay study by anyone with knowledge of
alchemy, I would suggest.
>
> Right now, it looks to me as if historians can argue
> either side of a question, and the most convincing
> debater wins. Folks like me, who will never get to
> read an original manuscript or take part in an
> archaeological dig, have to decide which historian's
> reasoning makes the best sense. Or settle for being
> undecided.
> ***
>
> You asked: Digested that?
> ***
>
> Yes. I've done a web search, and I found a long essay
> about Havelok and all the related names, which I
> haven't digested yet.

Perhaps I should do the same.
>
> Your suggestion that Odin (or Aegir) disguised himself
> as Grim the fisherman is appealing. It sounds like
> something Odin would do.
> ***
>
> You wrote: "… in Middle English `sely' meant
> innocent, not foolish … and for `knave' read youth or
> male child … so an innocent boy.
> ***
>
> So my theory about the third son in the folk tales
> doesn't fit Havelok so well.

Well, not as regards the foolish third son. But the downtrodden yet
fortunate third sibling did not always fit that description - viz
Cinderella.
> ***
>
> You wrote: More and other writers, of course, used
> the word `sely' to describe the Princes.
> ***
>
> I agree that `sely' or `innocent' describes both
> Havelok and Richard's nephews. That strengthens my
> belief that the Havelok story is a better fit than the
> story of Herod's murdering thousands of male babies
> unrelated to him.

Yes, thinking about it, I'm sure More's phrase was 'sely babes'. A
good soundex for sely knave, yes?
>
> I still disagree with anyone who describes Richard's
> nephews as `infants.' According to Nicholas Orme and
> Barbara Hanawalt, 10 and 12 years old was well beyond
> the age of infancy, although not yet legally
> adolescent.

Absolutely! He was playing to the gallery, methinks.
> ***
>
> You wrote: The two baddies even have virtually the
> same name (and both are G's a point that could have
> been used against Richard of Gloucester)
> ***
>
> Shakespeare used it against his character, Richard in
> both Richard III and Henry VI, Part III. Since
> Richard III is well known, I won't quote from it. But
> here are the lines from Henry VI, Pt. III, Scene VI:
>
> Edward: "Richard, I will create thee Duke of Gloster/
> And George, of Clarence…
>
> Richard: "Let me be Duke of Clarence, George of
> Gloster/ For Gloster's dukedom is too ominous
>
> Earl of Warwick: Tut, that's a foolish observation /
> Richard, be Duke of Gloster … [Exeunt]
>
> Actually, this seems to contradict everything
> Shakespeare does to show Richard's ambition. But
> Shakespeare may have intended for his audiences to
> take this as more evidence of Richard's deviousness, a
> way of camouflaging his ambition.

If you read Hughes' book, you'll see the obsession with prophecies at
the time. There were many old ones, of course. But the earliest
source we have for the 'prophecy of G' is Rous (the version he wrote
after Richard's death). I think offhand it dates from about 1489. Of
course, we can't prove it wasn't current in Richard's lifetime, but
my own feeling is that, if it was, it was probably sparked off by
knowledge of something like the Havelok story.
> ***
>
> You wrote: "The alchemists, headed by Bishop Morton
> …"
> ***
>
> Could a bishop be an alchemist? I though alchemy was
> an underground, possibly heretical, activity. Looks
> like I need to read Jonathan Hughe's book eventually.

Yes. I've finished the book over Easter (long weekend at my mum's).
It seems nobody during Edward's reign was too bothered about
religious orthodoxy. Archbishop Neville was apparently a serious
alchemist. Having finished the book now, I see that John Morton is
more speculative: "John Morton bishop of Ely's interest in alchemy is
suggested by his empoloyment of the alchemist Mr T. Ward as his
confessor". However, it seems certain that the alchemists who
propped up Edward IV turn up again as supporters of Henry VII. One of
the things I had noticed and pondered over wbefore reading Hughes was
the symbolism of the marriage of the white and red roses - the red
king & the white queen being alchemical symbols, and the red rose not
actually having been a badge of the House of Lancaster until Henry
VII pulled it out of his hat, so to speak.... So my ponderings on
whether this may have been intended as something akin to the
alchemical marriage of Christian Rosenkreuz (or however you spell it)
seems to have been not so wide of the mark.
Everyone had their own prophecies. Richard had his (about the boar).
Hughes seems to have noticed that Richard believed in the validity of
his claim, which is probably why he treats the precontract as a given
as I mentioned in an earlier message (at one point he mentions the
story of Edward's illegitimacy and wonders whether Richard might have
believed it, but doesn't pursue the matter). However, whereas other
people, like Edward IV and Henry VII, going with their pet
prophecies, are treated very sympathetically, in Richard it is
written off as 'self-righteous' amd 'sinister'. Perhaps because
Hughes is on the other side. Perhaps also because R. did not have the
alchemists (or at least Hughes' alchemists) urging him on, and so we
are left to assume it all came from his own ego. But to my mind we
are brought back to the boring old facts about the succession. If
Edward wasn't York's son, and therefore had no Mortimer blood (and no
descnt from Llewelyn), then no alchemist in the world could get over
that problem in trying to put him, or his daughter, forward as the
prophesied heir of Arthur or Cadwallader (Cadwallader being the last
British king of Britain, whose line would one day be restored). As
for Henry Tudor, certainly he was Welsh in the male line but Owen
Tudor's family were no great shakes and I seem to think from memory
that his claim to be a descendant of Cadwallader was also invented
for the occasion.
Confirmed, however, is the fact that the strong Scorpio in Rivhard's
horoscope would have been anathema to the alchemists (as would his
autumn birth). However, Hughes is brought down here in that he gives
the impression of not understanding the difference between sun sign
and ascendant.
These alchemists seem, from my reading, to have confused the world of
symbols with concrete reality, thus (to my mind) misusing their
position to interfere in politics, making and unmaking kings at their
whim, and flling the heads of their proteges with vainglorious dreams
of empire. Hughes does allude to this once or twice, but doesn't get
to grips with it. He's too enamoured of them and their eventual role
in creating BRITAIN and its EMPIRE. That they succeeded in the long
term doesn't make it right to my way of thinking. Even medically, I
wonder what they were dosing Henry VI and Edward IV with. Well,
perhaps you should read the book yourself.
> ***
>
> You wrote: I have long had the impression that the
> conventional way of looking at medieval history, from
> a modern outsider's rationalistic interpretation of
> sources, does no more than skim the surface of events.
> ***
>
> It seems to me that historians and their readers need
> to balance rationalistic with non-rationalistic
> interpretation. Medieval people acted from beliefs
> and motivations very different from the beliefs and
> motivations of people today. I find this balance is
> more of a goal than an experience, but I keep trying.

yes, perhaps 'rationalistic' was the wrong word. What I mean is that
people do what seems rational given their viewpoint. The world which
medieval people thought they inhabited was in many ways not the world
that we think we inhabit.
> ***
>
> You wrote: I wonder whether any other version of
> Havelok gave him an older brother rather than two
> older sisters?
> ***
>
> I'm not confident of finding anything you haven't
> found. But things do turn up for me sometimes. If
> anything does, I'll post it.

Oh, Marion, there's LOADS I haven't found. For a start, the entire
bibliography of Hughes' book (bar some extracts from George Ripley's
writing I downloaded last year [and didn't read], completely not
realising the significance but thinking I ought perhaps to find out
what alchemy was really all about). History's a tall order. Even to
get to grip with a short period means familiarising oneself with an
entire world....

Marie

PS. Next, the wicked uncle from Geoffrey of Monmouth
>

>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
> http://search.yahoo.com