Damn! I wouldn't have minded getting my paws on those!
The Proclamations were pretty much equivalent to (US) Executive Orders -- they
tended to run in parallel to the Statutes, when something had to be passed
quickly, or bypass Parliament.
R.
>
> On 18 May 2017 at 14:08 David Bircumshaw
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> I don't know when the translations were made either, Rob, although your
> example feels very mid-to-late sixteenth century. On a side note, to share
> something that tickled me, in a Stamford bookshop I came across two
> volumes
> of 'Tudor Royal Proclamations'. Edited by two gentlemen named Hughes and
> Larkin :)
>
> On 18 May 2017 at 09:07, Robin Hamilton <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi, dave.
> >
> > Well observed -- the original Statute would have been written in
> > Anglo-Norman,
> > so what you have in my post is a later translation. Just when the
> > translations
> > were made, I haven't yet been able to work out -- you'd think someone,
> > somewhere
> > on the Web, would deal with this, but if they do, I haven't yet found
> > any
> > pertinent reference. Probably sometime in the mid-sixteenth century, at
> > a
> > guess, when the Statutes began to be issued in Collections. The
> > eighteenth
> > century collections (by Ruffhead and Pickering) are the easiest ones to
> > find,
> > and these usually print the original Anglo-Norman and the English
> > version
> > side
> > by side, with the English (presumably) derived from whichever version
> > was
> > first
> > produced.
> >
> > I came on it when I was trying to track down exactly which Statute
> > Thomas
> > Harman
> > refers to (both vaguely and disingenuously -- it's a long and peculiar
> > story) in
> > A Caveat for Common Cursitors in 1567. It's the 1383 Statute, for what
> > that's
> > worth, in Harman's case.
> >
> > "2 R. 2. st. 1. c. 5. [i.e. 1379]" -- this is the standard way the
> > bloody
> > things
> > are referred to: the year of the reign of the relevant monarch. So the
> > one
> > I
> > posted was issued in the second year of the reign of Richard II -- i.e.
> > 1379 --
> > and it's from the 5th chapter/section of the first Statute issued in
> > that
> > year.
> > Except, as I say, the original would have been written at that point in
> > time in
> > Anglo-Norman.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Robin
> >
> > >
> > > On 18 May 2017 at 04:00 David Bircumshaw
> > > <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Rob
> > >
> > > Very impressive, Although it seems more proto-Elizabethan or late
> > Tudor
> > > than Richard Two, who, although he might not have spoke English at
> > all,
> > > was
> > > contemporary with Chaucer, Gower and even the Pearl poet. And their
> > > versions of English.
> > >
> > > I did though enjoy the hyperbolic expansion of the
> > lingo-not-yet-by-jingo.
> > > Really liked it.
> > >
> > > dave
> > >
> > > On 17 May 2017 at 09:15, Patrick McManus <
> > [log in to unmask]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > haha nice
> > > >
> > > > Dunning-Kruger McManus
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 17/05/2017 02:47, Doug Barbour wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Oh okay, he was right at least on this: "[Trump] is thus the
> > all-time
> > > >> record-holder of the Dunning-Kruger effect, the phenomenon in
> > which the
> > > >> incompetent person is too incompetent to understand his own
> > > >> incompetence.”
> > > >>
> > > >> But with a compliant Congress, he may still get away with being
> > so…
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Doug
> > > >>
> > > >>> On May 16, 2017, at 7:20 PM, Bill Wootton <
> > [log in to unmask]>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Brooks may be a conservative ratbag, Doug but this article
> > seemed well
> > > >>> observed to me:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/opinion/trump-
> > classified-data.html
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Bill
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 at 11:10 am, Doug Barbour <
> > [log in to unmask]>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> It was right well found, Robin.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> A lengthy look back, & then at where we are ow (I think there
> > are a
> > > >>>> few
> > > >>>> more local PMs you might include…?).
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Bill: I wouldnt rally trust David Brooks as far as I could
> > heave him,
> > > >>>> but…
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Doug
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> On May 16, 2017, at 6:48 PM, Bill Wootton <
> > [log in to unmask]>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Yes, I kind of presumed as much, Robin about the majority of
> > it. I
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> thought
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> you had fiddled a bit to make the opening couplet. Amazing.
> > Love
> > > >>>>> 'him
> > > >>>>> of
> > > >>>>> whom the word was moved'. Words move so oddly in the current
> > term
> > > >>>>> limited
> > > >>>>> elected monarch. David Brooks on New York Times points out the
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> difficulties
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> 'trying to understand a guy whose thoughts are often just six
> > > >>>>> fireflies
> > > >>>>> beeping randomly in a jar'.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Bill
> > > >>>>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 at 10:04 am, Robin Hamilton <
> > > >>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Not my words, Bill, but an actual Act of Parliament passed in
> > the
> > > >>>>>> second
> > > >>>>>> year of
> > > >>>>>> the reign of Richard II.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Didn't turn out real well for him either, did it?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Came on it accidentally, and was quite disconcerted at how
> > apposite
> > > >>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>> is
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> to
> > > >>>>>> certain things being uttered by a current term-limited elected
> > > >>>>>> monarch.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Next down the line: the Divine Right of Presidents -- "I was
> > > >>>>>> elected
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>> by
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>>> people, and the people are the Voice of God, so anyone who
> > objects
> > > >>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>> what
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> I do
> > > >>>>>> is committing blasphemy, and will be dealt with accordingly."
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Robin
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On 17 May 2017 at 00:28 Bill Wootton <
> > [log in to unmask]>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Impressive accretion of moving words here, Robin.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Bill
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 at 6:20 am, Robin Hamilton <
> > > >>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Item, of Devisors of false News and of horrible and false
> > Lyes
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> of Prelates, Dukes, Earls, Barons, and other Nobles, and
> > great
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Men of the Realm, and also of the Chancellor, Treasurer,
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Clerk of the Privy Seal, Steward of the King’s House,
> > Justices
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> of the one Bench or of the other, and of other great
> > Officers of
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> the Realm, of things which by the said Prelates, Lords,
> > Nobles,
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> and Officers aforesaid were never spoken, done, nor
> > thought, in
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> great Slander of the said Prelates, Lords, Nobles and
> > Officers,
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> whereby Debates and Discords might arise between the said
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Lords, or between the Lords and the Commons (which God
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> forbid), and whereof great Peril and Mischief might come to
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> all the Realm, and quick Subversion and Destruction of the
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> said Realm if due remedy be not provided ; it is straitly
> > de-
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> fended upon grievous pain for to eschew the said Damages and
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Perils, that from henceforth none be so hardy to devise,
> > speak,
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> or to tell, any false News, Lyes, or other such false
> > things, of
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Prelates, Lords, and of other aforesaid, whereof Discord or
> > any
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Slander might arise within the same Realm, and he that doth
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> the same shall incur and have the pain another time ordained
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> thereof by the Statute of Westminster the first, which
> > will, that
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> he be taken and imprisoned till he have found him of whom
> > the
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> word was moved.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> 2 R. 2. st. 1. c. 5. [i.e. 1379]
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Douglas Barbour
> > > >>>> [log in to unmask]
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
> > > >>>> http://eclecticruckus.wordpress.com/
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Latest books:
> > > >>>> Continuations & Continuations 2 (with Sheila E Murphy)
> > > >>>> http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=962
> > > >>>> Recording Dates
> > > >>>> (Rubicon Press)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to
> > think
> > > >>>> little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking
> > and
> > > >>>> sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and
> > procrastination.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thomas De Quincey
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Douglas Barbour
> > > >> [log in to unmask]
> > > >>
> > > >> http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
> > > >> http://eclecticruckus.wordpress.com/
> > > >>
> > > >> Latest books:
> > > >> Continuations & Continuations 2 (with Sheila E Murphy)
> > > >> http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=962
> > > >> Recording Dates
> > > >> (Rubicon Press)
> > > >>
> > > >> If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to
> > think
> > > >> little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and
> > > >> sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination.
> > > >> Thomas De Quincey
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > David Joseph Bircumshaw
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> David Joseph Bircumshaw
>
|