Monstrous Regiment Discussion *Spoilers*

Moderators: Jason, Toothy, Tonyblack

Postby The Mad Collector » Wed Sep 15, 2010 4:24 pm

Jan Van Quirm wrote:Or af Tony fayf an ecfotic verfion of Igor-fpeak :twisted:


You missed a trick there Jan, the s letter is just as common than the long-s if you look at any printed pages from the time and the sentence you gave would actually be printed as

af Tony sayf an ecfotic verfion of Igor-speak

because you cannot start a word with the long-s. It is not just a printing convention either, handwriting of the time also uses this character and the same rules so it will not have anything to do with print degredation.
One of those? Oh I'm sure I have one somewhere..

http://www.bearsonthesquare.com
User avatar
The Mad Collector
Member
 
Posts: 10487
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 6:48 am
Location: Ironbridge UK

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Wed Sep 15, 2010 5:08 pm

:lol: I wasn't worried about the grammar usage, just why they did it like that and looking at it from a production viewpoint. Also I said that they could do perfectly good esses in the larger sizes at least - maybe an ess at the start of sentence doesn't get so clogged up with ink? :P

Carolingian (lower case) lettering isn't entirely consistent, in the same way as spelling wasn't either all over the place in medieval into fairly modern times (up to the end of the 18th C into the 19th in some places) and the 'long s' wouldn't have been needed as a solution to the problem for handwritten docs such as the Book of Kells for instance (so any illuminated Latin manuscript of that type) as there's no carved element of course and quill & ink is very flexible indeed :wink:

That Wiki article on the long S format's pretty interesting as well especially for the double-esses :lol:
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10633
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Postby poohcarrot » Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:06 am

To all those people who have misquoted Knox during this discussion. :lol:

Not being picky (well, yes I am :twisted: ) but John Knox didn't write about a "Monstrous RegimenT of women".

He wrote about a "Monstrous Regimen of Women".

The word "Regimen" has a totally different meaning to the word "Regiment".

Regimen = "a fixed plan to improve ones health."
You will notice that using the correct word, the Knox quote still makes sense.

I'm sure you all knew this, anyhoos. 8)

PS That wiki quote is wrong Jan coz it says "Regiment".
"Disliking Carrot would be like kicking a puppy."
"You kicked a puppy," Lobsang said accusingly.
User avatar
poohcarrot
Member
 
Posts: 10425
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 12:11 pm
Location: NOT The land of the risen Son!!

Postby swreader » Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:53 am

Indeed John Knox was talking about the Monstrous Regimen (meaning governance or ruling) of Women. And before getting back on track, one oddity about Bloody Mary and Elizabeth I-- Mary executed a about 284 protestants. She had Parliament reinstate the heresey laws and made England Catholic again. Thus, they were executed for heresy not treason, and turned over to the secular authorities who burned them at the stake.

Elizabeth had a new Act of Supremacy passed, by which she became Supreme Govenor of the Church (ie Church of England), and although she did not persecute the Catholics as openly as her sister had the Protestants, because the Catholics were plotting to supplant her with the Catholic Mary Stuart (Queen of Scots), Elizabeth executed 750 of the participants for treason--hanging, drawing, quatering. She eventually had to execute Mary, who had fled to England but continued to try to overthrow Elizabeth, in 1587 Elizabeth had her executed as a traitor (by beheading at Fotheringay Castle where she had been imprisoned for years).

It has always struck me as amusing that Elizabeth executed more Catholics by far than Mary did Protestants.
User avatar
swreader
Member
 
Posts: 808
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:39 pm
Location: Tucson, Arizona, U.S.A.

Postby swreader » Thu Sep 16, 2010 2:21 am

Getting back to Pratchett--it seems to me that probably Nuggan was a god--much like other gods (including the Christian god?) who in the past had decreed (somewhat like Knox) that under Nuggantic law 1) Men could inherit "the Things of Men," such as land, buildings, money and all domestic animals except cats; 2) Women could inherit "the Things of Women," which were most small items of personal jewelry and spinning wheels and cats. As Polly knows--she can't inherit the inn (The Duchess), so while she's trying to find her brother Paul (partially because she's always looked after him) her real reason (though she deludes herself about this is to save the inn. She stopped believing in Nuggan when her mother - who was basically a nice if devout woman, tore Paul's painting of the wren out of his hand and burned it because Nuggan said no pictures of living creatures.

But Nuggan seems to have gotten less and less belief, and simultaneously issuing Abominations that made less and less sense. By the time of the novel, as the Duchess tells Wasser, Nuggan is Dead. But, if belief makes a god, and the people turn to the Duchess as a kind of Virgin Mary figure, she gradually has become a kind of minor god.

This novel is the clearest anti-religious stance that Pratchett has taken. (Interestingly enough, a few days ago Steven Hawking & his co-author have published The Grand Design which basically says there is no need for a god to begin the creation. So there is no meaningful government (Borogravia apparently never had a parliament) because the Duchess has retired in seclusion leaving the governance of the country apparently to the military who have kept the state at war forever.
User avatar
swreader
Member
 
Posts: 808
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:39 pm
Location: Tucson, Arizona, U.S.A.

Postby Tonyblack » Thu Sep 16, 2010 5:46 am

poohcarrot wrote:To all those people who have misquoted Knox during this discussion. :lol:

Not being picky (well, yes I am :twisted: ) but John Knox didn't write about a "Monstrous RegimenT of women".

He wrote about a "Monstrous Regimen of Women".

The word "Regimen" has a totally different meaning to the word "Regiment".

Regimen = "a fixed plan to improve ones health."
You will notice that using the correct word, the Knox quote still makes sense.

I'm sure you all knew this, anyhoos. 8)

PS That wiki quote is wrong Jan coz it says "Regiment".


Just to be even more picky. :P

Knox was hardly noted for his perfect spelling as can been seen from this extract:

For who can denie but it repugneth to nature, that the blind shal be appointed to leade and conduct such as do see? That the weake, the sicke, and impotent persones shall norishe and kepe the hole and strong, and finallie, that the foolishe, madde and phrenetike shal gouerne the discrete, and giue counsel to such as be sober of mind? And such be al women, compared vnto man in bearing of authoritie. For their sight in ciuile regiment, is but blindnes: their strength, weaknes: their counsel, foolishenes: and judgement, phrenesie, if it be rightlie considered.


As you can see - he actually does use the word "regiment" in the tract.

He seems to spell like Carrot.
"Goodness is about what you do. Not what you pray to."
User avatar
Tonyblack
Moderator
 
Posts: 29321
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:29 pm
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Postby poohcarrot » Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:52 am

...but that could be because he meant the word "regiment" in the tract. :roll:
Maybe he was doing a Pratchett and making a pun on the words regimen/regiment? :? Maybe that's how TP got the idea for the title of his book? :?

I mean, he's hardly going to get the Title wrong, is he? :P
"Disliking Carrot would be like kicking a puppy."
"You kicked a puppy," Lobsang said accusingly.
User avatar
poohcarrot
Member
 
Posts: 10425
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 12:11 pm
Location: NOT The land of the risen Son!!

Postby poohcarrot » Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:58 am

swreader wrote:This novel is the clearest anti-religious stance that Pratchett has taken.


Like I said, Nuggan is God of the OT and the Duchess is Jesus. TP states that the vindictive and spiteful OT God no longer exists, and then the Duchess pops up for a final appearence saying that people have been twisting her words and should live in peace. :P
"Disliking Carrot would be like kicking a puppy."
"You kicked a puppy," Lobsang said accusingly.
User avatar
poohcarrot
Member
 
Posts: 10425
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 12:11 pm
Location: NOT The land of the risen Son!!

Postby Tonyblack » Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:05 am

As the Wiki article says - "The title is often erroneously given as regiment of women however the original uses regimen meaning government or regime."

So I'm sure you're right. But that doesn't alter the fact that 'monstrous regiment' has become the most used title of the tract - rightly or wrongly.

It's like Terry and Neil Gaiman using the word 'ordinance' instead of 'ordnance' survey in Good Omens. It's a common mistake, but the two words have very different meanings. Whether this was a typo, a printing error or a deliberate reference to something is something we may never know the answer to. :D
"Goodness is about what you do. Not what you pray to."
User avatar
Tonyblack
Moderator
 
Posts: 29321
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:29 pm
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Postby raisindot » Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:45 am

swreader wrote:Getting back to Pratchett--it seems to me that probably Nuggan was a god--much like other gods (including the Christian god?) who in the past had decreed (somewhat like Knox) that under Nuggantic law 1) Men could inherit "the Things of Men," such as land, buildings, money and all domestic animals except cats; 2) Women could inherit "the Things of Women," which were most small items of personal jewelry and spinning wheels and cats.

[...Good stuff cruelly edited out for brevity's sake, but to connect ideas...]

But Nuggan seems to have gotten less and less belief, and simultaneously issuing Abominations that made less and less sense. By the time of the novel, as the Duchess tells Wasser, Nuggan is Dead. But, if belief makes a god, and the people turn to the Duchess as a kind of Virgin Mary figure, she gradually has become a kind of minor god.


Pterry's attitude toward religion really evolves over time. At the beginning of the DW series, Rincewind's survival is based on the outcome of dice games between Lady Luck and other gods, who presumably always existed. As he moves through the series, it becomes clearer that gods are really little more than tiny little 'belieft seeds' that only grow in stature and power when people believr and them, and that people's cultural traditions and superstitions shape what the gods ultimately become. Think of the evolution of the Church of Anoia from a shared countertop to a full-blown temple with thousands of believers, all based on Moist Von Lipwig's phony attribution of a miracle to her guidance.

Perhaps Granny in "Lord and Ladies" explains this theory best when she tells the Queen that people create gods from the dreams and beliefs and memes that are around them, and, when they're no longer needed, they break them up and make others ones as needed. Borogravia is a perfect example of this god-making in action. Nuggan is a product of the cultural traditions of the Borogravians, a 'small god' made powerful by superstition. Nuggan's ever-increasingly crazy 'edicts' represent the growing fanaticism of a weary, paranoid, and crushed civilization. Even the Duchess herself is the theological creation of a people looking for meaning, and Wazzer's channeling of her presence is another example of one person--aided by the belief of others--can create a god.

J-I-B
raisindot
Member
 
Posts: 3249
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:28 pm
Location: Boston, MA USA

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:57 am

poohcarrot wrote:PS That wiki quote is wrong Jan coz it says "Regiment".

Which is why I did this - Regimen[t] - with it in my quote which Tony had already linked to :roll: Plus the article was about Knox's censorious opinions not the flipping spelling :twisted:

Always willing to play the pedant game with you darling smartypants :P
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10633
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Postby poohcarrot » Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:31 pm

You always beat me hands down at that game, dearest. :lol:
"Disliking Carrot would be like kicking a puppy."
"You kicked a puppy," Lobsang said accusingly.
User avatar
poohcarrot
Member
 
Posts: 10425
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 12:11 pm
Location: NOT The land of the risen Son!!

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:45 pm

:lol: But I love you for trying smartypants Image

swreader wrote:It has always struck me as amusing that Elizabeth executed more Catholics by far than Mary did Protestants.

Yes she did but Mary wasn't Queen for as long as Elizabeth was she? Just 5 years as opposed to 44 years - so Mary (with Philip II of Spain as her co-monarch and very much under his thumb) would have possibly been a lot more Bloody if she'd not died so young. :wink:

The thing with heresy in England from the time of establishment of the Church of England (with the monarch as Pontiff not the Pope) is that at the time it was treason. Thomas Wolsey as de facto religious head of the C of E only just avoided execution (by falling gravely ill and dying) for messing up the Catherine of Aragon divorce/mishandling the Anne Boleyn substitution and various other little anomalies like having a 'wife' that Henry didn't like too much... In practice Henry remained catholic throughout his entire reign, but without the Pope being able to meddle in dynastic matters, which is what the whole multiple wife thing was all about.

With the politics of the time too, Mary saw Protestant plots against her everywhere almost as soon as her father died in fact. Whilst her little brother reigned (he would have in fact been the most rational Tudor monarch had he lived poor little guy) she had to keep a very low profile as Edward's guardians (the Seymour brothers were only a smidge less ruthless than the Borgias) were eager to hang a heresy/treason label on her for Catholic plots to take the throne. When Mary became Queen the same thing happened to Elizabeth (only in reverse of course) as different Protestant factions tried to rebel against the Catholic rule and put Elizabeth on the throne instead. :roll:

Both Mary and Elizabeth trod the same path politically and a lot of the so called Protestant 'heretics' that Mary had burned were said to have schemed to remove her as Queen (which was of course treason).

With the execution of Mary Queen of Scots, this again was purely political and in fact Elizabeth resisted the death penalty for her cousin (through her father's sister, also a Mary) for a very long time. This again fits with the constant political infighting in England that had battered the treasury and forced Elizabeth's strident foreign policy orientation. In the Scottish Queen's case she would have been Elizabeth's heir had she renounced Catholicism and her son James would have inherited both England and Scotland whatever happened. Elizabeth resisted signing the death warrant for almost 20 years and I think that was simply because she didn't want to antagonise King James (he had succeeded his mum to the Scottish crown when he was barely a year old when the Protestant faction in Scotland (helped by the English) forced mary to abdicate in his favour) any more and hoped that Mary would see sense and accept Protestant rule in both kingdoms. She wouldn't and so she too was the judas goat who had one too many conspiracies in her 'interest' to sweep her into Elizabeth's place and so, in the end she had to be executed to permanently stop up one route to the catholics getting the power back...

See - your religion can kill you in interesting and very painful ways! :roll:
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10633
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Postby pip » Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:20 pm

Mary did manage to massacre a lot of catholics by wiping out the O'Moore and O'Connor Clans and there related groups in the Plantaion of Laois and Offaly in Ireland.
Much more vicious than anything experienced under Elizabeth who stopped the Land grabbing due to the excessive blood letting involved.
'There is no future for e-books, because they are not books. E-books smell like burned fuel.'
Ray Bradbury (RIP)
User avatar
pip
Member
 
Posts: 9385
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 11:20 am
Location: KILDARE

Postby raisindot » Thu Sep 16, 2010 2:17 pm

Jan Van Quirm wrote:

[J-I-B edited out lotsa great content edited for brevity's sake.]

...Elizabeth resisted signing the death warrant for almost 20 years and I think that was simply because she didn't want to antagonise King James (he had succeeded his mum to the Scottish crown when he was barely a year old when the Protestant faction in Scotland (helped by the English) forced mary to abdicate in his favour) any more and hoped that Mary would see sense and accept Protestant rule in both kingdoms. She wouldn't and so she too was the judas goat who had one too many conspiracies in her 'interest' to sweep her into Elizabeth's place and so, in the end she had to be executed to permanently stop up one route to the catholics getting the power back...


According to Allison Weir, who seems to come out with a new book about the Tudors every week, Elizabeth resisted offing Mary's head because she didn't want to kill her relative and also set a precedent for monarchs killing competing monarchs (her dad would probably not have had such an issue), since doing so might suggest that it was okay for someone to try to do the same to her. Elizabeth only finally gave in when incontrovertible proof that Mary was involved in an assassination plot against her forced the issue. Elizabeth probably have been fine to let Mary rot away and die in the Tower. It seems like she gave Mary many chances to either abdicate or renounce her conspiracies, and Mary just never did.

Well, that's what Allison sez, anyway. We'll really never know the truth because the producers of "The Tudors" aren't going to make up a follow up miniseries about Elizabeth (just not enough sex, I suppose).

:D

J-I-B
raisindot
Member
 
Posts: 3249
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:28 pm
Location: Boston, MA USA

PreviousNext

Return to Discworld novels

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron