GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0987454091


From: "D. Spencer Hines" <>
Subject: Re: End of Tomlinson discussion
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:48:11 +0100
References: <43.13acd849.280c951b@aol.com>, <20010416160125.00845.00000825@ng-fc1.aol.com>


"Rather than spreading furher [sic] misinformation, how about letting
this subject drop? (I've spent far too much time on it.)"

PCR
-----

No, that would be a cop-out.

See the issue through.

Had you been more careful about presentation and articulation
*initially*, this entire thread would be over by now ---- and you would
NOT have wasted so much of YOUR time and OURS.

Mr. Finton seems to have a choplogic, incorrect, out-of-period
understanding of the definition of "yeoman" ---- probably because he is
simply dictionary-punching ---- and he's not using the OED.

That's the crux at this point in the debate.

Deal With It.

You could wrap up this entire issue with a good, solid, EDITED post of a
few well-chosen short, clear factual bullets.
----

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]

"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." _La Trahison des clercs_ [The Treason of the
Intellectuals] (1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)

All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.

All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.

Vires et Honor

"Reedpcgen" <> wrote in message
news:...
| [Ken wrote:]
| >Charles Hansen's conclusion in the TAG article is in serious question
at this
| point.>>
|
| Not among credible scholars.
|
| >How did these come to be in the possession of John Bagley if he were,
| >as Paul Reed wants us to believe, simply a yeoman most of his life? >
|
| Um, through normal process of grants and leases? Not only do I want
you to
| believe he was simply a yeoman, I want to you believe it is the
simplest
| conclusion, given that he had such holdings.
|
| >It does
| >not take a rocket scientist ...>
|
| I seem to remember that the last time you used this phrase was when
some great
| new interpretation was made concerning Amie de Gaveston, you published
the
| article, believing that I and others had somehow all missed
fundamental
| interpretations of the evidence and logic.
|
| That did not turn out to be the case.
|
| It may not take a rocket scientist here (and better not to rely on
one, where
| interpretation of Early Modern documents and people are concerned--you
would
| use a plumber to drill your teeth?). I think it would be safer to
rely on
| people with a great deal of experience in the records and the period.
You can
| judge the experience of people like me, Charles and others on the
basis of
| articles they have published (which they themselves wrote).
|
|
|
| >Yeoman do
| >not often accumulate 6 houses and other lands to pass on their
descendants,
| >nor perpetual leases for a thousand years for the benefit of their
children. >
|
| Upon WHAT do you base this? Give us a study of the yeomen you have
profiled.
| [!]
|
| >Since yeoman generally means a small landholder who works his own
land, >
|
| Um, what then is a husbandman? A yeoman of decent standing did not
have to
| work his own land, so much as over see servants who did.
|
| >Yeoman can also mean a trusted servant in a noble's employ. >This
definition
| _can_ apply to John Bagley.>
|
| Huh? Are you taking the medieval meaning of men in a noble's retinue
and
| misapplying it to a local landowner of the Stuart period?
|
| Ken, you have not shown the slightest willingness to learn about the
procedure
| and practice of this period throughout this discussion, and have
continued in a
| 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' style of reasoning, making one assumption
after
| another, treating them as fact, and then drawing further assumptions
and
| conclusions.
|
| I am committed to attempt to help others learn about the people and
records of
| this period, and to maintaining the highest levels of scholarship
reasonable.
| Others have let me know privately that they have learned from some of
this
| discussion, and that it has been valuable to them.
|
| Rather than spreading furher misinformation, how about letting this
subject
| drop? (I've spent far too much time on it.)
|
| If I had one suggestion to help you at this point, it would be, rather
than
| rambling on and on churning up new theories, how about doing some
ORIGINAL
| research (or having it done on your behalf) to test and resolve some
of your
| theories?
|
| You posted a false and misleading assessment of the amount of research
Charles
| Hansen did (or had done on his behalf) in ORIGINAL record sources on
this
| problem. WHAT exactly have you done, or are you doing, in ORIGINAL
records to
| resolve the issues you think are problems? A fair question?
|
| Paul C. Reed, FASG
|



This thread: