Articles of interest

Monday, April 23, 2018

Reading 16th Century English

Many are put off with reading earlier English because it looks too difficult to read. There are two main obstacles: the font and the difference in spelling. Blackletter fonts were used because that was the font used in handwritten manuscripts prior to printed books. Reading texts from this time is not as difficult as you might think. It takes some patience, but there are rewards in enjoyment.

Good examples of both obstacles can be found in texts dating from the reign of Henry VIII (r. 1509-1547). Printing was still in its first century, and the font universally used in England was blackletter, which today is often called "Old English" or something like that. Here's an example from Thomas More's The Supplycacyon of Soulys, published in 1529. More wrote this book about heresy, one of his obsessions. He tortured heretics for entertainment, and salivated at the opportunity to have them burned alive. Here's an excerpt:

A transliteration:

He sayeth that the lyuynge whych the clergye hathe ye the onely cause that there be so many beggers that be fyh and fore. Very well and wysely/ as though the clergye by theyre substaunce made men blynde and lame. The clergye also ye the the cause he sayth why they dye for hunger/ as though euery lay man gaue to beggers all that euer he could/ and the clergye gyue them neuer a grote: (as though there wolde not mo beggers walk a brode yf the clergye lefte of such lay men as they fynde.

And, a modernization in spelling and punctuation:

He sayeth that the living which the clergy hath ye the only cause that there be so many beggars that be fie and fore. Very well and wisely, as though the clergy by their substance made men blind and lame. The clergy also ye the cause he sayeth why they die for hunger, as though every layman gave to beggars all that ever he could, and the clergy give them never a groat: (as though there would not more beggars walk abroad if the clergy left of such lay men as they find).

Most of the words are familiar, with the exception of "groat," which was a small coin worth four pence. The spelling presents obstacles, however. One obvious one is the use of "y" for "i." Another is the switching of "v" and "u." Some of the words are spelled the same as they are today, such as "the," "men," "not," etc.

Knowing this usage, it isn't that difficult to read it if you read it aloud phonetically.

Here's a somewhat later example, from a 1553 translation of Quintus Curcius' The Actes of the Greate Alexander:

Transliteration:
For as calamitie of his nature is querelous, so felicitie is always proude & euery one doth use to consider his own fortune, when  he determineth an other mans. For except we had all ben in mysery, one of us long ago had bene wery of an other.

Modernization:

For as calamity of his nature is querulous, so felicity is always proud and every one doth use to consider his own fortune, when he determineth another man's. For except we all been in misery, one of us long ago had been weary of another.

In a few decades modernization in spelling had moved along, and the font, although still blackletter, is easier to read, thanks to improvement in the technology in making type. As for the spelling, again, sound it out and it will make sense.

An early example of the use of a Roman type face in an English book is the Geneva Bible, first published in 1560. Initially it was printed in Geneva, Switzerland, but soon was printed in England.

Here is a very familiar passage, the opening of Genesis:

With the Roman font this is easy to read, despite some earlier spelling:
In the beginning God created ye heauen and the earth. And the earth was without forme & voyde, and darknes was upon the depe, & the Spirit of God moued vpon the waters. Then God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw ye light that it was good, and God separated the light from the darknes.
For the most part this is close to modern English with some exceptions, such as only one "s" at the end of "darkness," an "e" at the end of "form," and the continued transposition of "v" an "u."  Something else appears that is not always seen in a blackletter font: the word "ye" for "the." This is a leftover from Old English, which has more letters than modern English. The letter for the sound "th" looks a lot like "y," so that is how it is printed. It is pronounced "the," just as we say today, not "ye."

When you get into the early 17th century the modernization of spelling continues. Take the King James Bible (the "Authorized Version,") published in 1611. Note that the spelling is not the same as the KJV of today. The modernization of the spelling was done in the 1760's. Here's the original:

In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse.

Here the printer chose to use a blackletter font rather than a Roman font, perhaps to lend the text a bit of extra dignity. Sorry, "dignitie." 

That's a brief romp through my strange little world. Or as Thomas More might have written, "Thvs be a brefe rompe through my straunge lyttle worlde."





Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Comparisons to Donald Trump


Periodically, there is a lot of press comparing President Trump to a really bad person in history. Stalin and Hitler come up most often. As much as I feel that Trump is perhaps the worst president this country has ever had, I am not sure those comparisons are accurate. Stalin and Hitler both killed in the range of 20 million people. Hitler launched an invasion of Europe that led to World War II, and Stalin carried out the plans of Lenin by centralizing the Soviet economy and steamrolling over anyone who got in the way.

I have another comparison that I feel is much more accurate. As it turns out, it’s a probable ancestor of mine who lived 500 years ago. He ruled a European nation with an iron fist, and couldn’t help but let his personal problems dictate national policy.

Henry VIII of England.

Here is why. Henry started out as a good ruler with the promise of lifting England out of the Middle Ages, overseen by his cheap and suspicious father, Henry VII. When Henry VII died in 1509 Henry VIII was eighteen years old and raring to go. He married the widow of his brother Arthur, who would have succeeded their father had he survived.

Most know that Henry remained married to Catherine of Aragon for over twenty years, and in that time they had only one child to survived, who turned out to be a murderous tyrant, Mary I. One son survived birth but only lived a few weeks, and with the exception of Mary, the rest of her pregnancies ended in miscarriage or stillbirth. Henry became convinced that despite a papal decree, marrying his brother’s widow was a violation of Scripture, and by happy coincidence this revelation came about around the time that Anne Boleyn graced Henry’s court. The rest is well known. Henry fought with the Pope and members of his own court to have his marriage annulled so that he could marry Anne.

Here’s where the comparison of Trump and Henry comes in. Despite his marriage, Henry was a serial philanderer. He had a habit of drawing in a mistress, using her for a year or so until he tired of her, then pawning her off in marriage to a low level courtier. Sometimes an illegitimate child resulted. One son, Henry Fitzroy, was all but acknowledged by Henry, and had he survived past the age of 20 he might very well have become Henry’s heir.

My 12 great grandmother, Mary Boleyn, was another such mistress. Henry’s affair with her went on for awhile, and to cover his tracks Henry married her off to a courtier, William Carey, who obediently died of the plague. They had two children, Henry and Katherine. I am descended from Katherine. Many historians feel that Katherine is likely an illegitimate daughter of Henry. She bore a close resemblance to her cousin/possible half sister Elizabeth, with whom she was very close.

Henry did not use people very well. He treated women abominably, showering them with gifts until they got pregnant, when he sent them away. He was too cowardly to face people personally when they were about to get the ax. With the two wives that he executed (Anne Boleyn, #2, and Katherine Howard, #5), he had them hauled in, tried in his absence, and sent off to the Tower for execution, never seeing them again. Shades of using Twitter to fire someone?

As Henry got older he got worse. Historians trace this back to a jousting injury in 1536, in which his horse fell on top of him. He was unconscious for two hours and at the time was thought to be dead or nearly so. This aggravated a leg wound which never healed and plagued him the rest of his life. Some have speculated that a head injury at the same time may have caused a brain injury which changed his personality. To be sure, he was becoming more imperious before the accident, but it got worse after. It is well documented that a serious blow to the brain can cause a change in personality. Henry had a volcanic temper which he displayed in public on a regular basis, upbraiding members of court for one failing or another.

Henry saw the world as revolving around him, and in England it actually did. He changed the course of English history by separating England from the Roman Catholic Church. He was all consumed by the desire for a male heir. The Tudors were always looking over their shoulders because they knew that Henry VII had a very, very slim claim to the throne. We see this behavior in Trump, obsessing about voter fraud that didn't happen, Russian collusion which would seem to call the legitimacy of his election into question, and "Crooked Hillary" and Obama. He can't seem to get past this obsession with proving his election was legitimate.

Henry is known to have had a short attention span, and was more likely to be found gorging himself at a meal or hunting than attending to the business of the kingdom. Even though he laid plans for the modernization of England’s defenses and its educational system, and bringing the Church in England under the control of government, Henry was rather bored with work and spent a lot of time doing the 16th century equivalent of playing golf every weekend. Can anyone say Mar-a-lago?

Henry had a large but fragile ego and crushed anyone who crossed him. He regularly fired members of his Council who did not  perform up to expectation, and even had Thomas Cromwell, a Chancellor (Prime Minister of sorts) executed because he didn’t like Cromwell’s choice of Henry’s fourth wife, Anne of Cleves. How many heads have rolled in the White House lately?

Henry didn’t like it when someone said no to him. He was never intended to be King. Arthur was groomed for kingship from birth, but Henry was the second son who could well have become a bishop or a military commander. He grew up under his mother’s care, which would not have happened if he had been the first son.

Henry was a self-centered, impulsive ruler who frequently went through aides who always seemed to disappoint him. Any takers on this comparison?