Cyrus, if you do not mind, I will take the following verses out of chapter 1, for some examination? Concerning the so called "Domesday Book!"
"All this is a vast system of legal fictions; for William's whole position, the whole scheme of his government, rested on a system of legal fictions. Domesday is full of them; one might almost say that there is nothing else there." (Does this indicate that the entire survey of the realm, was "fiction?") "A very attentive study of Domesday might bring out the fact that William was a foreign conqueror, and that the book itself was a record of the process by which he took the lands of the natives who had fought against him to reward the strangers who had fought for him." (The answer is nothing but astonding?) "But nothing of this kind appears on the surface of the record. The great facts of the Conquest are put out of sight. William is taken for granted, not only as the lawful king, but as the immediate successor of Edward. The "time of King Edward" and the "time of King William" are the two times that the law knows of." (Kind of weird is it not?) "The compilers of the record are put to some curious shifts to describe the time between 'the day when King Edward was alive and dead' and the day 'when King William came into England.'
That coming might have been as peaceful as the coming of James the First or George the First. The two great battles are more than once referred to, but only casually" (note the words "only casually!") "in the mention of particular persons. A very sharp critic might guess that one of them had something to do with King William's coming into England; but that is all." (And especially note the following words!) "Harold appears only as Earl; it is only in two or three places that we hear of a "time of Harold," and even of Harold "seizing the kingdom" and "reigning."" (It should be mentioned here that Shakespeare later used the word "reignier" in his work to describe a King!) "These two or three places stand out in such contrast to the general language of the record that we are led to think that the scribe must have copied some earlier record or taken down the words of some witness (Please note the word "copied" and the "words of some witness!") ", and must have forgotten to translate them into more loyal formulae.
So in recording who held the land in King Edward's day and who in King William's, there is nothing to show that in so many cases the holder under Edward had been turned out to make room for the holder under William. The former holder is marked by the perfectly colourless word "ancestor" ("antecessor"), a word as yet meaning, not "forefather," but "predecessor" of any kind. In Domesday the word is most commonly an euphemism for "dispossessed Englishman." It is a still more distinct euphemism where the Norman holder is in more than one place called the "heir" of the dispossessed Englishmen."
I could continue but the format here has me baffeled!
Regards,
|
Quotes from the last chapter of the book;
"The border-land of France and Normandy, the French Vexin, the land of which Mantes is the capital, had always been disputed between kingdom and duchy." (It seems here the key word is found in "VEXin", or the "Land that VEX'es?) "Border wars had been common; just at this time the inroads of the French commanders at Mantes are said to have been specially destructive. William not only demanded redress from the King, but called for the surrender of the whole Vexin. What followed is a familiar story. Philip makes a foolish jest on the bodily state of his great rival, unable just then to carry out his threats. "The King of the English lies in at Rouen; there will be a great show of candles at his churching." (Did the King of France [Phillip] call William "the King of the English" and nothing more?)
"As at Alencon in his youth, so now, William, who could pass by real injuries, was stung to the uttermost by personal mockery. By the splendour of God, when he rose up again, he would light a hundred thousand candles at Philip's cost." (It seems that to be the "King of the English" was some kind of insult?)
"He kept his word at the cost of Philip's subjects. The ballads of the day told how he went forth and gathered the fruits of autumn in the fields and orchards and vineyards of the enemy. But he did more than gather fruits; the candles of his churching were indeed lighted in the burning streets of Mantes. The picture of William the Great directing in person mere brutal havoc like this is strange even after the harrying of Northumberland and the making of the New Forest. Riding to and fro among the flames, bidding his men with glee to heap on the fuel, gladdened at the sight of burning houses and churches, a false step of his horse gave him his death-blow. Carried to Rouen, to the priory of Saint Gervase near the city, he lingered from August 15 to September 7, and then the reign and life of the Conqueror came to an end. Forsaken by his children, his body stripped and well nigh forgotten, the loyalty of one honest knight, Herlwin of Conteville, bears his body to his grave in his own church at Caen.
His very grave is disputed--a dispossessed ANTECESSOR claims the ground as his own, and the dead body of the Conqueror has to wait while its last resting-place is bought with money. Into that resting-place force alone can thrust his bulky frame, and the rites of his burial are as wildly cut short as were the rites of his crowning. With much striving he had at last won his seven feet of ground; but he was not to keep it for ever. Religious warfare broke down his tomb and scattered his bones, save one treasured relic. Civil revolution swept away the one remaining fragment. And now, while we seek in vain beneath the open sky for the rifled tombs of Harold and of Waltheof, a stone beneath the vault of Saint Stephen's still tells us where the bones of William once lay but where they lie no longer."
Cyrus, the author of the above, whilst a pretty good poet, fails to mention the really sick end of William, who was most likely known most commonly as "the Bastard!" Other accounts describe the "mis-step of his horse", as a wound to his lower body, that burst his bowels, etc., and furthter desciriptions show how his lower body swelled so much that he could not be pressed into a regular coffin, and upon pressure being applied, his body literally burst forth in a spray of vile gasses and revolting innards! He literally blew up!
Further information, that should be contained in the above account can be presented if asked!
Further more, his remains, like so many of the reamains of the great kings, and potentates of his era and later, seem to have disappeared!! How about the reamains of Caesar, or Muhammed, or hundreds of other? IN Florence, there exists the stoyr of a great flood that brought the bones / remains of many of Italy's greats out of their crypts, and thereby these bones of greatness where intermingled with the bones of but ordinary men!
Pray tell me, just where the real ramains of most of histories greatest men reside? I really mean those who ruled before the 17th century CE! Just name me ten? Or five? And if any of you think you are correct, then show us some proof?
You might even find out that during the French Revolution most all of the resting places of the ancestors of the French, were supposedly dis-enterred, or eradicated, or hidden!, as well most all Catholic churches, and monastaries were also attacked and destroyed! In truth, if we believe the eye-witness accounts, most all of the history, in the ground within France was destroyed!
Given enough time and my patience (as well as yours), I might well have also disagreed with the esteemed author about other chapters?
Regards,
Edited by opuslola - 20-Oct-2009 at 18:54
|