Re: Archer thread reply

Doug wrote: ... now I have More questions (sorry about
the pun!)

***

I'm not offended. It's a bad pun, but someone had to
say it.

I'm the one who quoted More.

You wrote: "...I don't see how the possible
illigitimacy of Edward IV has anything to do with
Richard's taking the throne."


I quoted More and mentioned Jones to show that people
from the 15th-21st centuries have seen a connection.

***

Doug: My problem is - who is Shaa talking about? If I
read the excerpt from More correctly, first Shaa
mentions King Edward and the Duke of Clarence; THEN he
switches to the "very children" of Duchess Cecily??

***

Maybe we shouldn't blame Shaa for the confusion. I
quoted a 20th cent. English version of More's version
of what Shaa said. We don't know what Shaa actually
said.

I think More could be talking about all of Richard's
brothers and sisters.

I interpret this as More practicing overkill. More
wasn't satisfied with saying Richard III called his
mother an adultress and his brother and nephews
bastards. More added the Duke of Clarence
and--depending on the interpretation of "very children
of Duchess Cecily"--most of Edward IV's brothers and
sisters to the list.

This could be interpreted as an exaggerated way of
saying Richard claimed to be the only legitimate child
of Richard, Duke of York. I think More was trying to
make Richard look as evil as possible.

***

Doug: Maybe it's just me, but that is certainly an
unusual sentence construction.

***

I don't know whether the 20th century English version
I quoted was based on More's original English version,
More's original Latin version, or some other version.
The sentence construction may or may not be More's,
but I think More intended the exaggeration.

He may have intended the unusual sentence construction
to tell his contemporaries something that's been lost
on readers as time has passed.

***

Marie wrote: I try to ignore More as much as possible!

***

Maybe I should, too. Reading Weir's book got me
tangled in More, so I thought I'd try to apply that
reading to this thread. I thought I saw a connection,
but maybe Weir and More have distorted my vision. <G>


Marion





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Doug wrote: ... now I have More questions (sorry about
> the pun!)
>
> ***
>
> I'm not offended. It's a bad pun, but someone had to
> say it.

More than one has said it, I'm sure. More himself made puns on his
name, which in Latin is Morus, which essentially (I was going to say
more or less) means "fool".

> I'm the one who quoted More.
>
> You wrote: "...I don't see how the possible
> illigitimacy of Edward IV has anything to do with
> Richard's taking the throne."
>
>
> I quoted More and mentioned Jones to show that people
> from the 15th-21st centuries have seen a connection.
>
> ***
>
> Doug: My problem is - who is Shaa talking about? If I
> read the excerpt from More correctly, first Shaa
> mentions King Edward and the Duke of Clarence; THEN he
> switches to the "very children" of Duchess Cecily??
>
> ***
>
> Maybe we shouldn't blame Shaa for the confusion. I
> quoted a 20th cent. English version of More's version
> of what Shaa said. We don't know what Shaa actually
> said.
>
> I think More could be talking about all of Richard's
> brothers and sisters.
>
> I interpret this as More practicing overkill. More
> wasn't satisfied with saying Richard III called his
> mother an adultress and his brother and nephews
> bastards. More added the Duke of Clarence
> and--depending on the interpretation of "very children
> of Duchess Cecily"--most of Edward IV's brothers and
> sisters to the list.
>
> This could be interpreted as an exaggerated way of
> saying Richard claimed to be the only legitimate child
> of Richard, Duke of York. I think More was trying to
> make Richard look as evil as possible.
>
> ***
>
> Doug: Maybe it's just me, but that is certainly an
> unusual sentence construction.
>
> ***
>
> I don't know whether the 20th century English version
> I quoted was based on More's original English version,
> More's original Latin version, or some other version.
> The sentence construction may or may not be More's,
> but I think More intended the exaggeration.

This may be nit-picking, but More's actual original version would
have been in English. He couldn't compose in Latin, despite his
propaganda machine's describing him as a brilliant scholar. He
composed in English, then translated it into Latin. He mentions this
shortcoming in several letters to Erasmus of Rotterdam, who was
raised in an abbey and did compose and converse easily in Latin.

More's inability to compose in Latin is yet another clue tha
his "History of King Richard III" is only partially his. In the
original, the first part is in Latin and the second, which is in
More's characteristic style, is in English.


> He may have intended the unusual sentence construction
> to tell his contemporaries something that's been lost
> on readers as time has passed.
>
> ***
>
> Marie wrote: I try to ignore More as much as possible!
>
> ***
>
> Maybe I should, too. Reading Weir's book got me
> tangled in More, so I thought I'd try to apply that
> reading to this thread. I thought I saw a connection,
> but maybe Weir and More have distorted my vision. <G>
>
>
> Marion


More is not a credible witness or historian. For one thing, at the
time in question, 1483, he was five years old. For another, he is a
known perjuror...his account of the Hunne Affair is a pack of lies.
He thought the records would remain sealed forever, but history
caught up with him.

Katy

Katy wrote: More himself made puns on his name, which
in Latin is Morus, which essentially (I was going to
say More or less_ means "fool."

***

Isn't "jester" a synonym for "fool?"

Could More have written Richard III in jest?

Marion



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus

Katy wrote: More's inability to compose in Latin is
yet another clue that his "History of King Richard
III" is only partially his. In the original, the
first part is in Latin and the second, which is in
More's characteristic style, is in English.

***

I didn't know that More couldn't compose in Latin.
That's worth keeping in mind.

Did John Morton leave anything in writing that could
be compared to the original Latin parts of "More's"
Richard III? Or was he too shrewd for that?

Marion



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus

At 11:15 AM 1/9/2004, you wrote:
>Katy wrote: More himself made puns on his name, which
>in Latin is Morus, which essentially (I was going to
>say More or less_ means "fool."
>
>***
>
>Isn't "jester" a synonym for "fool?"
>
>Could More have written Richard III in jest?
>
>Marion

You know, I've read that theory somewhere. Despite a fondness for roasted
Protestant, More has a reputation for integrity and intelligence. It would
make sense to me that he might right such an outrageous piece of nonsense
precisely as a tongue-in-cheek satire of anti-Ricardian Tudor propaganda.
Maybe More's sense of humor is just too subtle for historians (having read
his biography of Luther, I've always had my doubts about Richard Marius,
for one).

--Bob Waters

At 11:26 AM 1/9/2004, you wrote:
>Katy wrote: More's inability to compose in Latin is
>yet another clue that his "History of King Richard
>III" is only partially his. In the original, the
>first part is in Latin and the second, which is in
>More's characteristic style, is in English.
>
>***
>
>I didn't know that More couldn't compose in Latin.
>That's worth keeping in mind.
>
>Did John Morton leave anything in writing that could
>be compared to the original Latin parts of "More's"
>Richard III? Or was he too shrewd for that?
>
>Marion

I seem to recall reading somewhere that he did, in fact.


--Bob Waters

At 17:15 09/01/2004, you wrote:
>Katy wrote: More himself made puns on his name, which
>in Latin is Morus, which essentially (I was going to
>say More or less_ means "fool."
>
>***
>
>Isn't "jester" a synonym for "fool?"
>
>Could More have written Richard III in jest?


I thought there was quite a strong argument that he had. That he was
deliberately sending up Henry VII's pet historian who was a friend of his
and that the whole thing read as a pisstake (after all, the style is very
vague academically, not at all like the sort of thinking one expects from
More based on other works).

And naturally, he would have chosen the biggest villain in his society's
history after Judas to write up, since it just begs the addition of phrases
such as "and as all right-thinking men know"...

Jenny

At 05:41 PM 1/9/2004, I wrote:
>It would
>make sense to me that he might right such an outrageous piece of nonsense
>precisely as a tongue-in-cheek satire of anti-Ricardian Tudor propaganda.

Or, failing that, that he might write it! :(



--Bob Waters

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Katy wrote: More's inability to compose in Latin is
> yet another clue that his "History of King Richard
> III" is only partially his. In the original, the
> first part is in Latin and the second, which is in
> More's characteristic style, is in English.
>
> ***
>
> I didn't know that More couldn't compose in Latin.
> That's worth keeping in mind.
>
> Did John Morton leave anything in writing that could
> be compared to the original Latin parts of "More's"
> Richard III? Or was he too shrewd for that?
>
> Marion


I got the info re More's not composing in Latin, along with the story
of his part in the Hunne affair from Richard Marius' biography of the
sainted More that was published 10-12 years ago. It's an interesting
book as well as a well-researched biography...Maruis was a More
admirer who, as the book goes on, seems to become palpably
disenchanted with the man.

Re comparing John Morton's writing style to that of the author of the
first part of "History of King Richard III" and the anonymous
continuator of the Croyland Chronicle while we're at it...'tis a
thing devoutly to be wished. I've seen instances of Shakespeare's
writings being compared to that of Bacon, Marlow, godwot, by means of
a computer which looked at elements of style, vocabulary and numerous
other points. Wish it could be done for Morton, but I have no dea
how much marerial that is indisputably his would be available for the
comparison. There might be enough. He didn't always write in
Church Latin...Morton was a secular lawyer who entered the Church as
an adult, so there may be examples of his writing before he did so.
But then again they might be legal writings, which are aways done in
a stilted obligatory format, then and now. Once in holy orders he
continued as a legal expert for quite some time...he was one of the
main authors of the attainder on the Duke of York and his family
produced at the Parliament of Devils. (In fact, IIRC, it was Moton
who melded the input of all the participants into the actual text of
the attainder.)

I have read that Morton was considered a fine writer -- and I don't
think his handwriting was meant -- so it doesn't sound like all his
work was in legalese of Church Latin. But finding examples would be
quite an undertaking. And thereis the language aspect. Shakespeare
and the others wrote in the same language. Here we have English and
Latin, both secular Latin, if you follow me and Church Latin and
maybe Law French, if that existed in those days.

Any voluteers? It'd be a heck of a dissertation or thesis topic.

Katy

--- In , Bob Waters
<uisgeachan@m...> wrote:
> At 11:15 AM 1/9/2004, you wrote:
> >Katy wrote: More himself made puns on his name, which
> >in Latin is Morus, which essentially (I was going to
> >say More or less_ means "fool."
> >
> >***
> >
> >Isn't "jester" a synonym for "fool?"
> >
> >Could More have written Richard III in jest?
> >
> >Marion
>
> You know, I've read that theory somewhere. Despite a fondness for
roasted
> Protestant, More has a reputation for integrity and intelligence.
It would
> make sense to me that he might right such an outrageous piece of
nonsense
> precisely as a tongue-in-cheek satire of anti-Ricardian Tudor
propaganda.
> Maybe More's sense of humor is just too subtle for historians
(having read
> his biography of Luther, I've always had my doubts about Richard
Marius,
> for one).
>
> --Bob Waters
>
I've read alot on More, and in my opinion most of his reputaton for
integrity, brilliance, and piety is an example of medieval spin-
doctoring. More almost desperately wanted to be famous, and
especially to be remembered. He thought he was very special indeed
and he told everyone so. He told his numerous children, who told
everyone. One daughter and two sons-in-aw devoted their lives to
telling everyone how wonderful More was.

I came to the conclusion that More put the noose around his own
throat by defying Henry because at last there was a way for him to
become famous, to have people reading his essays and treatises from
prison, to become a martyr.

He never wrote a trenchant reason for his refusing to take the oath
of acceptance of Henry VII's self-created position as head of the
church in England. John Fisher, Bishop of (I believe) London, who
preceded More up the scaffold steps, did. More is better known for
his quip to the executioner when he stumbled on the steps, to the
effect of "thank you for assisting me up...I'll take care of the
descent myself." I bet he had been rehearsing that for days.

Katy

*Didn't* compose in Latin...or *couldn't?* I find it very hard to believe
that Thomas More, amateur theologian and professional lawyer, wasn't an
accomplished Latinist in an age when every educated European knew Latin.

I think the point is that Morton was almost certainly in some sense real
author of the first part, not simply because it's in Latin but because it
isn't in More's accustomed style. Then, too, there's the very great
likelihood that in any case Morton was More's "source," in some sense,
because the latter was only a boy at the time of Bosworth. Morton, of
course, was an actor in the events themselves.

As for Marius, as I mentioned earlier, I've read his horrible biography of
Luther, and frankly don't put much store in him as an historian. But even
historians have bad days, or bad books, perhaps. Or good ones.

--Bob Waters


At 06:35 PM 1/9/2004, you wrote:
>--- In , marion davis
><phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> > Katy wrote: More's inability to compose in Latin is
> > yet another clue that his "History of King Richard
> > III" is only partially his. In the original, the
> > first part is in Latin and the second, which is in
> > More's characteristic style, is in English.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > I didn't know that More couldn't compose in Latin.
> > That's worth keeping in mind.
> >
> > Did John Morton leave anything in writing that could
> > be compared to the original Latin parts of "More's"
> > Richard III? Or was he too shrewd for that?
> >
> > Marion
>
>
>I got the info re More's not composing in Latin, along with the story
>of his part in the Hunne affair from Richard Marius' biography of the
>sainted More that was published 10-12 years ago. It's an interesting
>book as well as a well-researched biography...Maruis was a More
>admirer who, as the book goes on, seems to become palpably
>disenchanted with the man.
>
>Re comparing John Morton's writing style to that of the author of the
>first part of "History of King Richard III" and the anonymous
>continuator of the Croyland Chronicle while we're at it...'tis a
>thing devoutly to be wished. I've seen instances of Shakespeare's
>writings being compared to that of Bacon, Marlow, godwot, by means of
>a computer which looked at elements of style, vocabulary and numerous
>other points. Wish it could be done for Morton, but I have no dea
>how much marerial that is indisputably his would be available for the
>comparison. There might be enough. He didn't always write in
>Church Latin...Morton was a secular lawyer who entered the Church as
>an adult, so there may be examples of his writing before he did so.
>But then again they might be legal writings, which are aways done in
>a stilted obligatory format, then and now. Once in holy orders he
>continued as a legal expert for quite some time...he was one of the
>main authors of the attainder on the Duke of York and his family
>produced at the Parliament of Devils. (In fact, IIRC, it was Moton
>who melded the input of all the participants into the actual text of
>the attainder.)
>
>I have read that Morton was considered a fine writer -- and I don't
>think his handwriting was meant -- so it doesn't sound like all his
>work was in legalese of Church Latin. But finding examples would be
>quite an undertaking. And thereis the language aspect. Shakespeare
>and the others wrote in the same language. Here we have English and
>Latin, both secular Latin, if you follow me and Church Latin and
>maybe Law French, if that existed in those days.
>
>Any voluteers? It'd be a heck of a dissertation or thesis topic.
>
>Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>----------
>Yahoo! Groups Links
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> *
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//>http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> *
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> *
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>[email protected]
>
> *
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

----- Original Message -----
From: oregonkaty
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 12:47 AM
Subject: Re: RE: Archer thread reply


--- In , Bob Waters
<uisgeachan@m...> wrote:
> At 11:15 AM 1/9/2004, you wrote:
> >Katy wrote: More himself made puns on his name, which
> >in Latin is Morus, which essentially (I was going to
> >say More or less_ means "fool."
> >
> >***
> >
> >Isn't "jester" a synonym for "fool?"
> >
> >Could More have written Richard III in jest?
> >
> >Marion
>
> You know, I've read that theory somewhere. Despite a fondness for
roasted
> Protestant, More has a reputation for integrity and intelligence.
It would
> make sense to me that he might right such an outrageous piece of
nonsense
> precisely as a tongue-in-cheek satire of anti-Ricardian Tudor
propaganda.
> Maybe More's sense of humor is just too subtle for historians
(having read
> his biography of Luther, I've always had my doubts about Richard
Marius,
> for one).
>
> --Bob Waters
>
I've read alot on More, and in my opinion most of his reputaton for
integrity, brilliance, and piety is an example of medieval spin-
doctoring. More almost desperately wanted to be famous, and
especially to be remembered. He thought he was very special indeed
and he told everyone so. He told his numerous children, who told
everyone. One daughter and two sons-in-aw devoted their lives to
telling everyone how wonderful More was.

I came to the conclusion that More put the noose around his own
throat by defying Henry because at last there was a way for him to
become famous, to have people reading his essays and treatises from
prison, to become a martyr.

He never wrote a trenchant reason for his refusing to take the oath
of acceptance of Henry VII's self-created position as head of the
church in England. John Fisher, Bishop of (I believe) London, who
preceded More up the scaffold steps, did. More is better known for
his quip to the executioner when he stumbled on the steps, to the
effect of "thank you for assisting me up...I'll take care of the
descent myself." I bet he had been rehearsing that for days.

Katy

This reminds me of the C20 prisoner who complained about having to walk out to the execution shed in heavy rain. A warder replied "What are you moaning about? We have to walk back in it."

Stephen
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In , Bob Waters
<uisgeachan@m...> wrote:
> *Didn't* compose in Latin...or *couldn't?* I find it very hard to
believe
> that Thomas More, amateur theologian and professional lawyer,
wasn't an
> accomplished Latinist in an age when every educated European knew
Latin.


I find that abit hard to believe too. I read that More's first
publication was a Latin grammar written when he was nineteen and by
the way dedicated to Morton. Though I know compiling a latin grammar
for schoolboys is different than composing in the language.

Helen

--- In , "Helen"
<sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
> --- In , Bob Waters
> <uisgeachan@m...> wrote:
> > *Didn't* compose in Latin...or *couldn't?* I find it very hard to
> believe
> > that Thomas More, amateur theologian and professional lawyer,
> wasn't an
> > accomplished Latinist in an age when every educated European knew
> Latin.
>
>
> I find that abit hard to believe too. I read that More's first
> publication was a Latin grammar written when he was nineteen and by
> the way dedicated to Morton. Though I know compiling a latin
grammar
> for schoolboys is different than composing in the language.
>
> Helen

What I've read in several places, including More's own letters to
Erasmus, is that More wrote his material in English first, then
translated it into Latin himself. He could not use Latin as a "first
language"..ie, think in it as he wrote his material. He produced
many works in Latin, but by the above method. Which was certainly
good enough for the purose, and we wouldn't have known about
his "shortcoming" if he hadn't mentioned it himself. I assume his
revealing this fault (in his mind) was akin to the hairshirt he wore
under his rather splendd outer wardrobe...it publicized his
humility. The hairshirt business is More in a nutshell...a more
sincere form of penance might have been wearing one but having it
unseen under outer clothing, and not making everyone aware of it.


Katy