Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
John Watson
Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
Since there has been a lot of rubbish and trollery posted to this
group recently concerning the subject. Here is the source for the
story that Duncan I was murdered by Macbeth:
From the Universal Chronicle of Marianus Scotus (c. 1028 - c. 1082)
MS. Vatican No. 830, as printed in Pertz. Mon. Germ. Hist. Script. v.
5, pp 556-558.
1040. Donnchad rex Scotiae in autumno occiditur (19 Kal Sept.) a duce
suo Macbethad mac Finnloech, cui successit in regnum annis 17.
"Donnchad, king of the Scots, was killed in the autumn, on 14 August,
by his dux Macbethad son of Findlaech; who succeeded to the kingdom
for seventeen years."
Source:
William F. Skene, , LL.D, ed., Chronicles of the Picts, Chronicles of
the Scots, and Other Early Memorials of Scottish History, (Edinburgh:
1867) p. 65
Regards,
John
group recently concerning the subject. Here is the source for the
story that Duncan I was murdered by Macbeth:
From the Universal Chronicle of Marianus Scotus (c. 1028 - c. 1082)
MS. Vatican No. 830, as printed in Pertz. Mon. Germ. Hist. Script. v.
5, pp 556-558.
1040. Donnchad rex Scotiae in autumno occiditur (19 Kal Sept.) a duce
suo Macbethad mac Finnloech, cui successit in regnum annis 17.
"Donnchad, king of the Scots, was killed in the autumn, on 14 August,
by his dux Macbethad son of Findlaech; who succeeded to the kingdom
for seventeen years."
Source:
William F. Skene, , LL.D, ed., Chronicles of the Picts, Chronicles of
the Scots, and Other Early Memorials of Scottish History, (Edinburgh:
1867) p. 65
Regards,
John
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
"John Watson" <WatsonJohnM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2e63146-d9ef-4642-811c-f70bbdeb5774@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
The trouble is that this written is conventional language that may or may
not have been meant literally - there are accounts, using the same or
similar terms, of persons being killed by someone who benefited from their
death but might not have been nearby or even present when this happened. In
other words, whether it meant "by the personal agency of" or just "in the
personal interest of" Macbeth is not certain - and in any case, it is of
course not a contemporary report.
Peter Stewart
news:c2e63146-d9ef-4642-811c-f70bbdeb5774@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Since there has been a lot of rubbish and trollery posted to this
group recently concerning the subject. Here is the source for the
story that Duncan I was murdered by Macbeth:
From the Universal Chronicle of Marianus Scotus (c. 1028 - c. 1082)
MS. Vatican No. 830, as printed in Pertz. Mon. Germ. Hist. Script. v.
5, pp 556-558.
1040. Donnchad rex Scotiae in autumno occiditur (19 Kal Sept.) a duce
suo Macbethad mac Finnloech, cui successit in regnum annis 17.
"Donnchad, king of the Scots, was killed in the autumn, on 14 August,
by his dux Macbethad son of Findlaech; who succeeded to the kingdom
for seventeen years."
Source:
William F. Skene, , LL.D, ed., Chronicles of the Picts, Chronicles of
the Scots, and Other Early Memorials of Scottish History, (Edinburgh:
1867) p. 65
The trouble is that this written is conventional language that may or may
not have been meant literally - there are accounts, using the same or
similar terms, of persons being killed by someone who benefited from their
death but might not have been nearby or even present when this happened. In
other words, whether it meant "by the personal agency of" or just "in the
personal interest of" Macbeth is not certain - and in any case, it is of
course not a contemporary report.
Peter Stewart
-
AaronParmenter@gmail.com
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
On Feb 15, 3:47 am, John Watson <WatsonJo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks,
aaron
Since there has been a lot of rubbish and trollery posted to this
group recently concerning the subject. Here is the source for the
story that Duncan I was murdered by Macbeth:
From the Universal Chronicle of Marianus Scotus (c. 1028 - c. 1082)
MS. Vatican No. 830, as printed in Pertz. Mon. Germ. Hist. Script. v.
5, pp 556-558.
1040. Donnchad rex Scotiae in autumno occiditur (19 Kal Sept.) a duce
suo Macbethad mac Finnloech, cui successit in regnum annis 17.
"Donnchad, king of the Scots, was killed in the autumn, on 14 August,
by his dux Macbethad son of Findlaech; who succeeded to the kingdom
for seventeen years."
Source:
William F. Skene, , LL.D, ed., Chronicles of the Picts, Chronicles of
the Scots, and Other Early Memorials of Scottish History, (Edinburgh:
1867) p. 65
Regards,
John
Thanks,
aaron
-
John Watson
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
On Feb 15, 5:13 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
What the entry in the chronicle of Marianus Scotus shows, is that the
story of Macbeth personally killing Duncan was already prevalent
within a few years of the event and it is not an invention of later
interpreters or historians. For the reasons you cite, I doubt that the
story is true, but it's one that's been around for a long time.
Regards,
John
"John Watson" <WatsonJo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2e63146-d9ef-4642-811c-f70bbdeb5774@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Since there has been a lot of rubbish and trollery posted to this
group recently concerning the subject. Here is the source for the
story that Duncan I was murdered by Macbeth:
From the Universal Chronicle of Marianus Scotus (c. 1028 - c. 1082)
MS. Vatican No. 830, as printed in Pertz. Mon. Germ. Hist. Script. v.
5, pp 556-558.
1040. Donnchad rex Scotiae in autumno occiditur (19 Kal Sept.) a duce
suo Macbethad mac Finnloech, cui successit in regnum annis 17.
"Donnchad, king of the Scots, was killed in the autumn, on 14 August,
by his dux Macbethad son of Findlaech; who succeeded to the kingdom
for seventeen years."
Source:
William F. Skene, , LL.D, ed., Chronicles of the Picts, Chronicles of
the Scots, and Other Early Memorials of Scottish History, (Edinburgh:
1867) p. 65
The trouble is that this written is conventional language that may or may
not have been meant literally - there are accounts, using the same or
similar terms, of persons being killed by someone who benefited from their
death but might not have been nearby or even present when this happened. In
other words, whether it meant "by the personal agency of" or just "in the
personal interest of" Macbeth is not certain - and in any case, it is of
course not a contemporary report.
Peter Stewart
What the entry in the chronicle of Marianus Scotus shows, is that the
story of Macbeth personally killing Duncan was already prevalent
within a few years of the event and it is not an invention of later
interpreters or historians. For the reasons you cite, I doubt that the
story is true, but it's one that's been around for a long time.
Regards,
John
-
AaronParmenter@gmail.com
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
On Feb 15, 4:13 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Peter, wake up, the resource cited the source, and the source is
contemporary
aaron
"John Watson" <WatsonJo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2e63146-d9ef-4642-811c-f70bbdeb5774@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Since there has been a lot of rubbish and trollery posted to this
group recently concerning the subject. Here is the source for the
story that Duncan I was murdered by Macbeth:
From the Universal Chronicle of Marianus Scotus (c. 1028 - c. 1082)
MS. Vatican No. 830, as printed in Pertz. Mon. Germ. Hist. Script. v.
5, pp 556-558.
1040. Donnchad rex Scotiae in autumno occiditur (19 Kal Sept.) a duce
suo Macbethad mac Finnloech, cui successit in regnum annis 17.
"Donnchad, king of the Scots, was killed in the autumn, on 14 August,
by his dux Macbethad son of Findlaech; who succeeded to the kingdom
for seventeen years."
The trouble is that this written is conventional language that may or may
not have been meant literally - there are accounts, using the same or
similar terms, of persons being killed by someone who benefited from their
death but might not have been nearby or even present when this happened. In
other words, whether it meant "by the personal agency of" or just "in the
personal interest of" Macbeth is not certain - and in any case, it is of
course not a contemporary report.
Peter Stewart
Peter, wake up, the resource cited the source, and the source is
contemporary
aaron
-
letiTiAflufF@gmail.com
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
On Feb 15, 7:25 am, John Watson <WatsonJo...@gmail.com> wrote:
aaron alerted me to your post, John, a true scholar like Richardson
and not a bananahead like My Asthma Returns and Peter Stupor
who thinks it was not contemporary, as a source, but confuses
resource/source, like many novice genealogy devotees
well done, and it confirms that my ancestor Duncan I The Gracious
King of Scotland was killed in battle as a warrior and he can rest
in peace knowing that this iconic tale used by William Shakespeare
fictionally can finally be put to rest with his bones
So, soc.gen.medieval members, please refrain from any more posts
on this subject as you will unlikely wake Peter Stupor from his long
Rip Van Winkle naps alongside all the van der(s) in the lower lands
finally, Duncan I The Gracious King of Scotland reigns historically,
my ancestor, alongside Robert I The Bruce and William I The Conqueror
and Charlemagne, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire
it's amazing to Americans over here how the power of William
Shakespeare
has confounded history with his dramas over there, even confounding
the Brits like MyAsthmasReturns, LittleMissKnowItAll and Peter Stupor
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
On Feb 15, 5:13 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"John Watson" <WatsonJo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2e63146-d9ef-4642-811c-f70bbdeb5774@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Since there has been a lot of rubbish and trollery posted to this
group recently concerning the subject. Here is the source for the
story that Duncan I was murdered by Macbeth:
From the Universal Chronicle of Marianus Scotus (c. 1028 - c. 1082)
MS. Vatican No. 830, as printed in Pertz. Mon. Germ. Hist. Script. v.
5, pp 556-558.
1040. Donnchad rex Scotiae in autumno occiditur (19 Kal Sept.) a duce
suo Macbethad mac Finnloech, cui successit in regnum annis 17.
"Donnchad, king of the Scots, was killed in the autumn, on 14 August,
by his dux Macbethad son of Findlaech; who succeeded to the kingdom
for seventeen years."
Source:
William F. Skene, , LL.D, ed., Chronicles of the Picts, Chronicles of
the Scots, and Other Early Memorials of Scottish History, (Edinburgh:
1867) p. 65
The trouble is that this written is conventional language that may or may
not have been meant literally - there are accounts, using the same or
similar terms, of persons being killed by someone who benefited from their
death but might not have been nearby or even present when this happened. In
other words, whether it meant "by the personal agency of" or just "in the
personal interest of" Macbeth is not certain - and in any case, it is of
course not a contemporary report.
Peter Stewart
What the entry in the chronicle of Marianus Scotus shows, is that the
story of Macbeth personally killing Duncan was already prevalent
within a few years of the event and it is not an invention of later
interpreters or historians. For the reasons you cite, I doubt that the
story is true, but it's one that's been around for a long time.
Regards,
John
aaron alerted me to your post, John, a true scholar like Richardson
and not a bananahead like My Asthma Returns and Peter Stupor
who thinks it was not contemporary, as a source, but confuses
resource/source, like many novice genealogy devotees
well done, and it confirms that my ancestor Duncan I The Gracious
King of Scotland was killed in battle as a warrior and he can rest
in peace knowing that this iconic tale used by William Shakespeare
fictionally can finally be put to rest with his bones
So, soc.gen.medieval members, please refrain from any more posts
on this subject as you will unlikely wake Peter Stupor from his long
Rip Van Winkle naps alongside all the van der(s) in the lower lands
finally, Duncan I The Gracious King of Scotland reigns historically,
my ancestor, alongside Robert I The Bruce and William I The Conqueror
and Charlemagne, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire
it's amazing to Americans over here how the power of William
Shakespeare
has confounded history with his dramas over there, even confounding
the Brits like MyAsthmasReturns, LittleMissKnowItAll and Peter Stupor
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
"John Watson" <WatsonJohnM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4deecaeb-be95-4cd3-aa57-0a8c21b9d91b@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
The story may well be true, as striking down the king himself might have
been left for Macbeth in case the whole venture turned pear-shaped, but a
report written in Germany over 40 years after an event in Scotland is not
the best authority for it.
The majority of countless stories of poisoning in the medieval era fall
inder a similar cloud of uncertainty for us. It's very unlikely that many of
these were based on anything more than suspicion because someone benefited
from the demise, or if they were better informed then each rumour was most
likely started _because_ the beneficiary did not personally do the deed -
secrecy would tend to be paramout if you set about this for yourself, but
much less easy to achieve if you had others do the dirty work for you. Yet
we are hardly ever told "X was poisoned (by Y) for Z", usually is it simply
"Z poisoned X".
Killing in broad daylight, especially in battle, would usually be seen by
others, though actual eye-witness accounts are rare. Monks who did most of
the writing were not often present in the thick of the action, unfortunately
for us if not for them.
Peter Stewart
news:4deecaeb-be95-4cd3-aa57-0a8c21b9d91b@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 15, 5:13 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"John Watson" <WatsonJo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2e63146-d9ef-4642-811c-f70bbdeb5774@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Since there has been a lot of rubbish and trollery posted to this
group recently concerning the subject. Here is the source for the
story that Duncan I was murdered by Macbeth:
From the Universal Chronicle of Marianus Scotus (c. 1028 - c. 1082)
MS. Vatican No. 830, as printed in Pertz. Mon. Germ. Hist. Script. v.
5, pp 556-558.
1040. Donnchad rex Scotiae in autumno occiditur (19 Kal Sept.) a duce
suo Macbethad mac Finnloech, cui successit in regnum annis 17.
"Donnchad, king of the Scots, was killed in the autumn, on 14 August,
by his dux Macbethad son of Findlaech; who succeeded to the kingdom
for seventeen years."
Source:
William F. Skene, , LL.D, ed., Chronicles of the Picts, Chronicles of
the Scots, and Other Early Memorials of Scottish History, (Edinburgh:
1867) p. 65
The trouble is that this written is conventional language that may or may
not have been meant literally - there are accounts, using the same or
similar terms, of persons being killed by someone who benefited from
their
death but might not have been nearby or even present when this happened.
In
other words, whether it meant "by the personal agency of" or just "in the
personal interest of" Macbeth is not certain - and in any case, it is of
course not a contemporary report.
Peter Stewart
What the entry in the chronicle of Marianus Scotus shows, is that the
story of Macbeth personally killing Duncan was already prevalent
within a few years of the event and it is not an invention of later
interpreters or historians. For the reasons you cite, I doubt that the
story is true, but it's one that's been around for a long time.
The story may well be true, as striking down the king himself might have
been left for Macbeth in case the whole venture turned pear-shaped, but a
report written in Germany over 40 years after an event in Scotland is not
the best authority for it.
The majority of countless stories of poisoning in the medieval era fall
inder a similar cloud of uncertainty for us. It's very unlikely that many of
these were based on anything more than suspicion because someone benefited
from the demise, or if they were better informed then each rumour was most
likely started _because_ the beneficiary did not personally do the deed -
secrecy would tend to be paramout if you set about this for yourself, but
much less easy to achieve if you had others do the dirty work for you. Yet
we are hardly ever told "X was poisoned (by Y) for Z", usually is it simply
"Z poisoned X".
Killing in broad daylight, especially in battle, would usually be seen by
others, though actual eye-witness accounts are rare. Monks who did most of
the writing were not often present in the thick of the action, unfortunately
for us if not for them.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
<AaronParmenter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:262aa119-393b-4bf9-acfe-c50f5203fb64@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Um, no it wasn't - the writer was 12 years old at the time by his own
account, and in Ireland when Duncan was killed in Scotland. Marianus wrote
about this 42 years afterwards, in Germany. And he got other things closer
to home and to his own day demonstrably wrong.
Peter Stewart
news:262aa119-393b-4bf9-acfe-c50f5203fb64@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Peter, wake up, the resource cited the source, and the source is
contemporary
Um, no it wasn't - the writer was 12 years old at the time by his own
account, and in Ireland when Duncan was killed in Scotland. Marianus wrote
about this 42 years afterwards, in Germany. And he got other things closer
to home and to his own day demonstrably wrong.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
<letiTiAflufF@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c08cafa5-edd9-4b14-b910-179198d73269@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
He even talks amongst himself, apparently.
And how exactly do you work that out? Marianus doesn't actually say that
Duncan was even awake at the moment he died; there is nothing in his account
that contradicts Shakespeare. "Occiditur" does not necessarily mean the king
was slain in battle: if you are going by this one source, he might have
tripped over the comatose Macbeth on his way to bed and fallen down stairs
for all you know.
Peter Stewart
news:c08cafa5-edd9-4b14-b910-179198d73269@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
aaron alerted me to your post, John, a true scholar like Richardson
and not a bananahead like My Asthma Returns and Peter Stupor
who thinks it was not contemporary, as a source, but confuses
resource/source, like many novice genealogy devotees
He even talks amongst himself, apparently.
well done, and it confirms that my ancestor Duncan I The Gracious
King of Scotland was killed in battle as a warrior and he can rest
in peace knowing that this iconic tale used by William Shakespeare
fictionally can finally be put to rest with his bones.
And how exactly do you work that out? Marianus doesn't actually say that
Duncan was even awake at the moment he died; there is nothing in his account
that contradicts Shakespeare. "Occiditur" does not necessarily mean the king
was slain in battle: if you are going by this one source, he might have
tripped over the comatose Macbeth on his way to bed and fallen down stairs
for all you know.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
On Feb 15, 5:10 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Just to amplify Peter's point, in the abbreviated format of such a
chronicle entry, 'X killed Y' could mean anything from X sneaking into
Y's bedchamber and personally stabbing him, to X personally crossing
swords with Y in a battle and ending up fatally victorious, to X
ordering some toady to murder of Y, to X and his army defeating Y and
his army in a battle in which Y was killed by any of X's thousands of
men. You just can't tell, and hence this entry fails to resolve the
question.
A separate issue is what might have been read into this entry by later
historians (in other words, Marianus may represent the origin of the
murder theory, without himself ever meaning to imply it).
taf
"John Watson" <WatsonJo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
From the Universal Chronicle of Marianus Scotus (c. 1028 - c. 1082)
MS. Vatican No. 830, as printed in Pertz. Mon. Germ. Hist. Script. v.
5, pp 556-558.
1040. Donnchad rex Scotiae in autumno occiditur (19 Kal Sept.) a duce
suo Macbethad mac Finnloech, cui successit in regnum annis 17.
"Donnchad, king of the Scots, was killed in the autumn, on 14 August,
by his dux Macbethad son of Findlaech; who succeeded to the kingdom
for seventeen years."
Source:
William F. Skene, , LL.D, ed., Chronicles of the Picts, Chronicles of
the Scots, and Other Early Memorials of Scottish History, (Edinburgh:
1867) p. 65
The trouble is that this written is conventional language that may or may
not have been meant literally - there are accounts, using the same or
similar terms, of persons being killed by someone who benefited from
their
death but might not have been nearby or even present when this happened.
In
other words, whether it meant "by the personal agency of" or just "in the
personal interest of" Macbeth is not certain - and in any case, it is of
course not a contemporary report.
Peter Stewart
What the entry in the chronicle of Marianus Scotus shows, is that the
story of Macbeth personally killing Duncan was already prevalent
within a few years of the event and it is not an invention of later
interpreters or historians. For the reasons you cite, I doubt that the
story is true, but it's one that's been around for a long time.
The story may well be true, as striking down the king himself might have
been left for Macbeth in case the whole venture turned pear-shaped, but a
report written in Germany over 40 years after an event in Scotland is not
the best authority for it.
The majority of countless stories of poisoning in the medieval era fall
inder a similar cloud of uncertainty for us. It's very unlikely that many of
these were based on anything more than suspicion because someone benefited
from the demise, or if they were better informed then each rumour was most
likely started _because_ the beneficiary did not personally do the deed -
secrecy would tend to be paramout if you set about this for yourself, but
much less easy to achieve if you had others do the dirty work for you. Yet
we are hardly ever told "X was poisoned (by Y) for Z", usually is it simply
"Z poisoned X".
Just to amplify Peter's point, in the abbreviated format of such a
chronicle entry, 'X killed Y' could mean anything from X sneaking into
Y's bedchamber and personally stabbing him, to X personally crossing
swords with Y in a battle and ending up fatally victorious, to X
ordering some toady to murder of Y, to X and his army defeating Y and
his army in a battle in which Y was killed by any of X's thousands of
men. You just can't tell, and hence this entry fails to resolve the
question.
A separate issue is what might have been read into this entry by later
historians (in other words, Marianus may represent the origin of the
murder theory, without himself ever meaning to imply it).
taf
-
letiTiAflufF@gmail.com
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
On Feb 15, 8:13 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Um, er, ego, ergo, numbskull, don't you read anybody's posts?
John Watson found this, not you,
Peter, Nerd of Stupid/Stupor, Nerdumberland
QUOTE: What the entry in the chronicle of Marianus Scotus shows, is
that the
story of Macbeth personally killing Duncan was already prevalent
within a few years of the event and it is not an invention of later
interpreters or historians. For the reasons you cite, I doubt that
the
story is true, but it's one that's been around for a long time.
Regards,
John WatsonUNQUOTE
peter's persiflage, peter's persiflage, peter's persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:262aa119-393b-4bf9-acfe-c50f5203fb64@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Peter, wake up, the resource cited the source, and the source is
contemporary
Um, no it wasn't - the writer was 12 years old at the time by his own
account, and in Ireland when Duncan was killed in Scotland. Marianus wrote
about this 42 years afterwards, in Germany. And he got other things closer
to home and to his own day demonstrably wrong.
Peter Stewart
Um, er, ego, ergo, numbskull, don't you read anybody's posts?
John Watson found this, not you,
Peter, Nerd of Stupid/Stupor, Nerdumberland
QUOTE: What the entry in the chronicle of Marianus Scotus shows, is
that the
story of Macbeth personally killing Duncan was already prevalent
within a few years of the event and it is not an invention of later
interpreters or historians. For the reasons you cite, I doubt that
the
story is true, but it's one that's been around for a long time.
Regards,
John WatsonUNQUOTE
peter's persiflage, peter's persiflage, peter's persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
-
letiTiAflufF@gmail.com
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
On Feb 15, 9:03 am, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
who invited you to Duncan I The Gracious King of Scotland's party?
you lost us all in your muckymuckmath XYXYXYXYXY=Zebra
get lost, taffy duck
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
On Feb 15, 5:10 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"John Watson" <WatsonJo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
From the Universal Chronicle of Marianus Scotus (c. 1028 - c. 1082)
MS. Vatican No. 830, as printed in Pertz. Mon. Germ. Hist. Script. v.
5, pp 556-558.
1040. Donnchad rex Scotiae in autumno occiditur (19 Kal Sept.) a duce
suo Macbethad mac Finnloech, cui successit in regnum annis 17.
"Donnchad, king of the Scots, was killed in the autumn, on 14 August,
by his dux Macbethad son of Findlaech; who succeeded to the kingdom
for seventeen years."
Source:
William F. Skene, , LL.D, ed., Chronicles of the Picts, Chronicles of
the Scots, and Other Early Memorials of Scottish History, (Edinburgh:
1867) p. 65
The trouble is that this written is conventional language that may or may
not have been meant literally - there are accounts, using the same or
similar terms, of persons being killed by someone who benefited from
their
death but might not have been nearby or even present when this happened.
In
other words, whether it meant "by the personal agency of" or just "in the
personal interest of" Macbeth is not certain - and in any case, it is of
course not a contemporary report.
Peter Stewart
What the entry in the chronicle of Marianus Scotus shows, is that the
story of Macbeth personally killing Duncan was already prevalent
within a few years of the event and it is not an invention of later
interpreters or historians. For the reasons you cite, I doubt that the
story is true, but it's one that's been around for a long time.
The story may well be true, as striking down the king himself might have
been left for Macbeth in case the whole venture turned pear-shaped, but a
report written in Germany over 40 years after an event in Scotland is not
the best authority for it.
The majority of countless stories of poisoning in the medieval era fall
inder a similar cloud of uncertainty for us. It's very unlikely that many of
these were based on anything more than suspicion because someone benefited
from the demise, or if they were better informed then each rumour was most
likely started _because_ the beneficiary did not personally do the deed -
secrecy would tend to be paramout if you set about this for yourself, but
much less easy to achieve if you had others do the dirty work for you. Yet
we are hardly ever told "X was poisoned (by Y) for Z", usually is it simply
"Z poisoned X".
Just to amplify Peter's point, in the abbreviated format of such a
chronicle entry, 'X killed Y' could mean anything from X sneaking into
Y's bedchamber and personally stabbing him, to X personally crossing
swords with Y in a battle and ending up fatally victorious, to X
ordering some toady to murder of Y, to X and his army defeating Y and
his army in a battle in which Y was killed by any of X's thousands of
men. You just can't tell, and hence this entry fails to resolve the
question.
A separate issue is what might have been read into this entry by later
historians (in other words, Marianus may represent the origin of the
murder theory, without himself ever meaning to imply it).
taf
who invited you to Duncan I The Gracious King of Scotland's party?
you lost us all in your muckymuckmath XYXYXYXYXY=Zebra
get lost, taffy duck
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
-
letiTiAflufF@gmail.com
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
On Feb 15, 8:30 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
yes, Leticia Cluff, there is your alter ego, taffy duck in the wings,
writing fiction, again, are we, Peter Stupor?
stop being so self-effacing, remind us of that best seller of yours
again?
I want to review it on Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com?
the title, please,
and please, please, please, please, please, please, please,
stop writing about Duncan I The Gracious King of Scots,
and calling his contemporaries resources!
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
He even talks amongst himself, apparently.
yes, Leticia Cluff, there is your alter ego, taffy duck in the wings,
well done, and it confirms that my ancestor Duncan I The Gracious
King of Scotland was killed in battle as a warrior and he can rest
in peace knowing that this iconic tale used by William Shakespeare
fictionally can finally be put to rest with his bones.
And how exactly do you work that out? Marianus doesn't actually say that
Duncan was even awake at the moment he died; there is nothing in his account
that contradicts Shakespeare. "Occiditur" does not necessarily mean the king
was slain in battle: if you are going by this one source, he might have
tripped over the comatose Macbeth on his way to bed and fallen down stairs
for all you know.
Peter Stewart
writing fiction, again, are we, Peter Stupor?
stop being so self-effacing, remind us of that best seller of yours
again?
I want to review it on Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com?
the title, please,
and please, please, please, please, please, please, please,
stop writing about Duncan I The Gracious King of Scots,
and calling his contemporaries resources!
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
<taf@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:09c6e4e3-f5d6-4748-8e75-0d93c4e6f593@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
I think the account by Marianus is not only the earliest to say that Duncan
was killed by Macbeth - without setting any particular scene for this, as
noted - but probably also the most influential over some centuries. His
chronicle was used by many other medieval compilers, especially of
"universal" histories rather than concetrating on Scotland, and his
reputation was very high.
It's a pity that some readers habitually take in a version of written words
that is spun by preconceptions as it passes their eyes. It's a further pity
that some are so lacking in moral fibre as to go into a cowardly panic
whenever their limited understanding is challenged, spraying hysterical
piffle over the Internet.
But then, Bill Arnold IS a pity. All four of him, so far.
Peter Stewart
news:09c6e4e3-f5d6-4748-8e75-0d93c4e6f593@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
A separate issue is what might have been read into this entry by later
historians (in other words, Marianus may represent the origin of the
murder theory, without himself ever meaning to imply it).
I think the account by Marianus is not only the earliest to say that Duncan
was killed by Macbeth - without setting any particular scene for this, as
noted - but probably also the most influential over some centuries. His
chronicle was used by many other medieval compilers, especially of
"universal" histories rather than concetrating on Scotland, and his
reputation was very high.
It's a pity that some readers habitually take in a version of written words
that is spun by preconceptions as it passes their eyes. It's a further pity
that some are so lacking in moral fibre as to go into a cowardly panic
whenever their limited understanding is challenged, spraying hysterical
piffle over the Internet.
But then, Bill Arnold IS a pity. All four of him, so far.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
On Feb 16, 10:16 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Too many for the aged Professor to take a ride with Emily Dickinson in
Death's snug little carriage, it seems.
By the way, I think they're up to five, if we include the curious
'Dugless Dickson' attack on the troll Richardson, using the 'Fluff'
email address. No honour amongst trolls, and all that.
MA-R
t...@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:09c6e4e3-f5d6-4748-8e75-0d93c4e6f593@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
snip
A separate issue is what might have been read into this entry by later
historians (in other words, Marianus may represent the origin of the
murder theory, without himself ever meaning to imply it).
I think the account by Marianus is not only the earliest to say that Duncan
was killed by Macbeth - without setting any particular scene for this, as
noted - but probably also the most influential over some centuries. His
chronicle was used by many other medieval compilers, especially of
"universal" histories rather than concetrating on Scotland, and his
reputation was very high.
It's a pity that some readers habitually take in a version of written words
that is spun by preconceptions as it passes their eyes. It's a further pity
that some are so lacking in moral fibre as to go into a cowardly panic
whenever their limited understanding is challenged, spraying hysterical
piffle over the Internet.
But then, Bill Arnold IS a pity. All four of him, so far.
Too many for the aged Professor to take a ride with Emily Dickinson in
Death's snug little carriage, it seems.
By the way, I think they're up to five, if we include the curious
'Dugless Dickson' attack on the troll Richardson, using the 'Fluff'
email address. No honour amongst trolls, and all that.
MA-R
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:8a9a843e-6039-4190-9531-dbf5455619dd@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Well, since the various Bill Arold personalities seem to be indulging in a
collectively deranged "Iron John" sentimentality about the supposed honour
of dying in battle, perhaps he will take a hint from another early source
and do himselves in.
The annals of Tigernach, contemporary with Marianus, state only that the
young king Duncan was killed by his own men ("Donncadh mac Crínan, aird-rí
Alban immatura etate a suis occissus est"), see
http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/G100002/index.html. (T1040.1).
It's past time for the extremely immature Aaron, Fluff and others to be
killed off by one of their own.
Peter Stewart
news:8a9a843e-6039-4190-9531-dbf5455619dd@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 16, 10:16 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
t...@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:09c6e4e3-f5d6-4748-8e75-0d93c4e6f593@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
snip
A separate issue is what might have been read into this entry by later
historians (in other words, Marianus may represent the origin of the
murder theory, without himself ever meaning to imply it).
I think the account by Marianus is not only the earliest to say that
Duncan
was killed by Macbeth - without setting any particular scene for this,
as
noted - but probably also the most influential over some centuries. His
chronicle was used by many other medieval compilers, especially of
"universal" histories rather than concetrating on Scotland, and his
reputation was very high.
It's a pity that some readers habitually take in a version of written
words
that is spun by preconceptions as it passes their eyes. It's a further
pity
that some are so lacking in moral fibre as to go into a cowardly panic
whenever their limited understanding is challenged, spraying hysterical
piffle over the Internet.
But then, Bill Arnold IS a pity. All four of him, so far.
Too many for the aged Professor to take a ride with Emily Dickinson in
Death's snug little carriage, it seems.
By the way, I think they're up to five, if we include the curious
'Dugless Dickson' attack on the troll Richardson, using the 'Fluff'
email address. No honour amongst trolls, and all that.
Well, since the various Bill Arold personalities seem to be indulging in a
collectively deranged "Iron John" sentimentality about the supposed honour
of dying in battle, perhaps he will take a hint from another early source
and do himselves in.
The annals of Tigernach, contemporary with Marianus, state only that the
young king Duncan was killed by his own men ("Donncadh mac Crínan, aird-rí
Alban immatura etate a suis occissus est"), see
http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/G100002/index.html. (T1040.1).
It's past time for the extremely immature Aaron, Fluff and others to be
killed off by one of their own.
Peter Stewart
-
letiTiAflufF@gmail.com
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
John Watson wrote:
Since there has been a lot of rubbish and trollery posted to this
group recently concerning the subject. Here is the source for the
story that Duncan I was murdered by Macbeth:
From the Universal Chronicle of Marianus Scotus (c. 1028 - c. 1082)
MS. Vatican No. 830, as printed in Pertz. Mon. Germ. Hist. Script. v.
5, pp 556-558.
1040. Donnchad rex Scotiae in autumno occiditur (19 Kal Sept.) a duce
suo Macbethad mac Finnloech, cui successit in regnum annis 17.
"Donnchad, king of the Scots, was killed in the autumn, on 14 August,
by his dux Macbethad son of Findlaech; who succeeded to the kingdom
for seventeen years."
Source:
William F. Skene, , LL.D, ed., Chronicles of the Picts, Chronicles of
the Scots, and Other Early Memorials of Scottish History, (Edinburgh:
1867) p. 65
On Feb 15, 6:16 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Previously, we had this analysis of the word "occiditur" (he is
killed) from none other than Peter Stupor/Stupid at SGM:
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Subject: Re: 'William de Warenne' - An Apparent Plantagenet
Descendant
Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 07:56:14 GMT
Another rough possibility has just occurred to me:
The mysterious entry in the Chester annals is placed at the end of
the
events for 1200, maybe not because that is when "W. de Waren" was
actually killed but rather by the accident that there was blank space
available there at a later time when this took place.
It is worth noting that the verb in this odd entry, "occiditur" (he
is
killed) is in the present tense, most unusual in formal writing of
this
kind but not in occasional jottings that are sometimes interpolated
in
annals. These can be extremely cryptic and highly abbreviated,
intended
as reminders to the scribe more than lasting records for others.
There are few enough documented connections of any known Warennes to
Chester. One indirect link around this time involved William de
Warenne,
lord of Wormegay, son of Rainald. He was still living in 1208 but
dead
by Michaelmas (29 September) 1209 [see Clay, _Early Yorkshire
Charters_
vol 8 p 33]. I don't know of any report of his death or whether he
was
killed.
It seems a remote chance that this line in the annals might have been
something like:
"W. de Waren, Moun'ch., fil. Reg'i, occiditur"
lumping together in a kind of shorthand William de Warenne,
Mountfichet,
filius Reginaldi, and the news thhat he had been killed (the text as
transcribed by the editor reads "W. de Waren meunch fil Regis
occiditur").
In other words, it is the understanding of translators that
"occuditur" is
in English translation "he is killed" according to John Watson! Then
it
is also the same "he is killed" by Peter Stupor/Stupid. But NOW that
Peter Stupor/Stupid wishes to defend Pope Leo the Saint and taffy duck
he changes his neo-modern translation to "he is murdered." And in
the same breath he denies the contemporary original source as a
source and as contemporary. Stupor is stupid, or else Stupid is
stupor(ed)!
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
Since there has been a lot of rubbish and trollery posted to this
group recently concerning the subject. Here is the source for the
story that Duncan I was murdered by Macbeth:
From the Universal Chronicle of Marianus Scotus (c. 1028 - c. 1082)
MS. Vatican No. 830, as printed in Pertz. Mon. Germ. Hist. Script. v.
5, pp 556-558.
1040. Donnchad rex Scotiae in autumno occiditur (19 Kal Sept.) a duce
suo Macbethad mac Finnloech, cui successit in regnum annis 17.
"Donnchad, king of the Scots, was killed in the autumn, on 14 August,
by his dux Macbethad son of Findlaech; who succeeded to the kingdom
for seventeen years."
Source:
William F. Skene, , LL.D, ed., Chronicles of the Picts, Chronicles of
the Scots, and Other Early Memorials of Scottish History, (Edinburgh:
1867) p. 65
On Feb 15, 6:16 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
I think the account by Marianus is not only the earliest to say that Duncan
was killed by Macbeth - without setting any particular scene for this, as
noted - but probably also the most influential over some centuries. His
chronicle was used by many other medieval compilers, especially of
"universal" histories rather than concetrating on Scotland, and his
reputation was very high.
Previously, we had this analysis of the word "occiditur" (he is
killed) from none other than Peter Stupor/Stupid at SGM:
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Subject: Re: 'William de Warenne' - An Apparent Plantagenet
Descendant
Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 07:56:14 GMT
Another rough possibility has just occurred to me:
The mysterious entry in the Chester annals is placed at the end of
the
events for 1200, maybe not because that is when "W. de Waren" was
actually killed but rather by the accident that there was blank space
available there at a later time when this took place.
It is worth noting that the verb in this odd entry, "occiditur" (he
is
killed) is in the present tense, most unusual in formal writing of
this
kind but not in occasional jottings that are sometimes interpolated
in
annals. These can be extremely cryptic and highly abbreviated,
intended
as reminders to the scribe more than lasting records for others.
There are few enough documented connections of any known Warennes to
Chester. One indirect link around this time involved William de
Warenne,
lord of Wormegay, son of Rainald. He was still living in 1208 but
dead
by Michaelmas (29 September) 1209 [see Clay, _Early Yorkshire
Charters_
vol 8 p 33]. I don't know of any report of his death or whether he
was
killed.
It seems a remote chance that this line in the annals might have been
something like:
"W. de Waren, Moun'ch., fil. Reg'i, occiditur"
lumping together in a kind of shorthand William de Warenne,
Mountfichet,
filius Reginaldi, and the news thhat he had been killed (the text as
transcribed by the editor reads "W. de Waren meunch fil Regis
occiditur").
In other words, it is the understanding of translators that
"occuditur" is
in English translation "he is killed" according to John Watson! Then
it
is also the same "he is killed" by Peter Stupor/Stupid. But NOW that
Peter Stupor/Stupid wishes to defend Pope Leo the Saint and taffy duck
he changes his neo-modern translation to "he is murdered." And in
the same breath he denies the contemporary original source as a
source and as contemporary. Stupor is stupid, or else Stupid is
stupor(ed)!
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
<letiTiAflufF@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e068cbb8-5e82-4cfe-b865-4a5778310747@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
<snip>
<snip>
Note that I gave EXACTLY the same translation for the verb "occido" both
times, that is "occiditur" means "he is killed". It can equally mean "he is
felled" or "he is slain", etc, or indeed, if the context supports the
undersatanding, "he is murdered". But in both cases above there is no
contradiction from me, as plainly I wrote "killed" both times.
What? You quoted me saying "the account by Marianus is not only the earliest
to say that Duncan was killed" and then accused me of somehow changing this
to "Duncan was murdered".
Are you so desperate as to imagine that anyone here will believe your rabid
contrariness?
I wrote "the account by Marianus is not only the earliest to say that Duncan
was killed by Macbeth..." The first to say something is the "source" for
that information. A "resource" for it, however, might be found in any
repetition of it by anyone else. Do you begin to get the meaning now? Can
you discern a glimmering of the difference?
Do you realise that you can't simply make up the English language - in which
of course you have no skill whatever - as you go along, to suit your
rancorous need of the instant?
The chronicle of Marianus was NOT contemporary with the death of Duncan. The
killing (note the word) took place in 1040: Marianus stated that he was born
in 1028, and he wrote about this in 1082. HE was a contemporary of Duncan
and Macbeth, as their lifespans overlapped, but his ACCOUNT was not
contemporary with this event. Also he could have no direct knowledge of it:
he was born in Ireland, then lived as an adult and wrote his works in
Germany - not in Scotland.
You might find it quicker and less exhausting to take out an advertisement
in the Miami newspapers to let everyone know that you are helplessly
cantankerous, stupid and delusional.
Peter Stewart
news:e068cbb8-5e82-4cfe-b865-4a5778310747@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
On Feb 15, 6:16 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
I think the account by Marianus is not only the earliest to say that
Duncan was killed by Macbeth
<snip>
Previously, we had this analysis of the word "occiditur" (he is
killed) from none other than Peter Stupor/Stupid at SGM:
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com
Subject: Re: 'William de Warenne' - An Apparent Plantagenet
Descendant
Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 07:56:14 GMT
<snip>
It is worth noting that the verb in this odd entry, "occiditur" (he
is killed)
Note that I gave EXACTLY the same translation for the verb "occido" both
times, that is "occiditur" means "he is killed". It can equally mean "he is
felled" or "he is slain", etc, or indeed, if the context supports the
undersatanding, "he is murdered". But in both cases above there is no
contradiction from me, as plainly I wrote "killed" both times.
In other words, it is the understanding of translators that
"occuditur" is in English translation "he is killed" according
to John Watson! Then it is also the same "he is killed" by Peter
Stupor/Stupid. But NOW that Peter Stupor/Stupid wishes to
defend Pope Leo the Saint and taffy duck he changes his
neo-modern translation to "he is murdered."
What? You quoted me saying "the account by Marianus is not only the earliest
to say that Duncan was killed" and then accused me of somehow changing this
to "Duncan was murdered".
Are you so desperate as to imagine that anyone here will believe your rabid
contrariness?
And in the same breath he denies the contemporary original source
as a source and as contemporary. Stupor is stupid, or else Stupid is
stupor(ed)!
I wrote "the account by Marianus is not only the earliest to say that Duncan
was killed by Macbeth..." The first to say something is the "source" for
that information. A "resource" for it, however, might be found in any
repetition of it by anyone else. Do you begin to get the meaning now? Can
you discern a glimmering of the difference?
Do you realise that you can't simply make up the English language - in which
of course you have no skill whatever - as you go along, to suit your
rancorous need of the instant?
The chronicle of Marianus was NOT contemporary with the death of Duncan. The
killing (note the word) took place in 1040: Marianus stated that he was born
in 1028, and he wrote about this in 1082. HE was a contemporary of Duncan
and Macbeth, as their lifespans overlapped, but his ACCOUNT was not
contemporary with this event. Also he could have no direct knowledge of it:
he was born in Ireland, then lived as an adult and wrote his works in
Germany - not in Scotland.
You might find it quicker and less exhausting to take out an advertisement
in the Miami newspapers to let everyone know that you are helplessly
cantankerous, stupid and delusional.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
On Feb 15, 3:16 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
His/her/its posts are not even good stream-of-consciousness.
t...@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:09c6e4e3-f5d6-4748-8e75-0d93c4e6f593@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
snip
A separate issue is what might have been read into this entry by later
historians (in other words, Marianus may represent the origin of the
murder theory, without himself ever meaning to imply it).
I think the account by Marianus is not only the earliest to say that Duncan
was killed by Macbeth - without setting any particular scene for this, as
noted - but probably also the most influential over some centuries. His
chronicle was used by many other medieval compilers, especially of
"universal" histories rather than concetrating on Scotland, and his
reputation was very high.
It's a pity that some readers habitually take in a version of written words
that is spun by preconceptions as it passes their eyes. It's a further pity
that some are so lacking in moral fibre as to go into a cowardly panic
whenever their limited understanding is challenged, spraying hysterical
piffle over the Internet.
But then, Bill Arnold IS a pity. All four of him, so far.
Peter Stewart
His/her/its posts are not even good stream-of-consciousness.
-
letiTiAflufF@gmail.com
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
On Feb 15, 11:38 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Peter Stupor, how do you know? and your point is what, Stupid?
you are not a contemporary and by your own stupid logic if one
is not a contemporary one cannot know anything? you claim a man
living
a thousand years ago during the same days as Duncan I The Gracious
King of Scots, my ancestor, and that man was a writer and wrote, is
less
reliable as a source than Pope Leo the Saint as a source? also by
your
twisted logic he is not even a source now? you cite in posts after
posts
that your twisted logic, ergo conclusions, are more reliable than a
1,000 year
old source? man, O man, you and Homer Simpson share the same house
of inane beliefs! so Peter Stupor, members of SGM, who read your
attacks
on real authors, are still waiting for you to tell of the name of your
bestseller
book? Hmm..., Peter Stupor, are you still awake? you attack, but you
can't defend yourself? your Achilles heel hurting?
I have acknowledged John Watson, scholar, for scholarship. Peter,
Stupor/Stupid, the day you and taffy duck and Leo the leotard learn to
leave your lapping tongues silent in your silly mouths, you might earn
some respect around here. and killfile your alter ego, the lost
chicken
coop/pooper
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
The chronicle of Marianus was NOT contemporary with the death of Duncan. The
killing (note the word) took place in 1040: Marianus stated that he was born
in 1028, and he wrote about this in 1082. HE was a contemporary of Duncan
and Macbeth, as their lifespans overlapped, but his ACCOUNT was not
contemporary with this event. Also he could have no direct knowledge of it:
he was born in Ireland, then lived as an adult and wrote his works in
Germany - not in Scotland.
Peter Stupor, how do you know? and your point is what, Stupid?
you are not a contemporary and by your own stupid logic if one
is not a contemporary one cannot know anything? you claim a man
living
a thousand years ago during the same days as Duncan I The Gracious
King of Scots, my ancestor, and that man was a writer and wrote, is
less
reliable as a source than Pope Leo the Saint as a source? also by
your
twisted logic he is not even a source now? you cite in posts after
posts
that your twisted logic, ergo conclusions, are more reliable than a
1,000 year
old source? man, O man, you and Homer Simpson share the same house
of inane beliefs! so Peter Stupor, members of SGM, who read your
attacks
on real authors, are still waiting for you to tell of the name of your
bestseller
book? Hmm..., Peter Stupor, are you still awake? you attack, but you
can't defend yourself? your Achilles heel hurting?
I have acknowledged John Watson, scholar, for scholarship. Peter,
Stupor/Stupid, the day you and taffy duck and Leo the leotard learn to
leave your lapping tongues silent in your silly mouths, you might earn
some respect around here. and killfile your alter ego, the lost
chicken
coop/pooper
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
-
letiTiAflufF@gmail.com
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
On Feb 15, 8:30 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
He even talks amongst himself, apparently.
yes, Leticia Cluff, there is your alter ego, taffy duck in the wings,
well done, and it confirms that my ancestor Duncan I The Gracious
King of Scotland was killed in battle as a warrior and he can rest
in peace knowing that this iconic tale used by William Shakespeare
fictionally can finally be put to rest with his bones.
And how exactly do you work that out? Marianus doesn't actually say that
Duncan was even awake at the moment he died; there is nothing in his account
that contradicts Shakespeare. "Occiditur" does not necessarily mean the king
was slain in battle: if you are going by this one source, he might have
tripped over the comatose Macbeth on his way to bed and fallen down stairs
for all you know.
Peter Stewart
writing fiction, again, are we, Peter Stupor? might, might, might?
and that is history, Peter Stupid?
stop being so self-effacing, remind us of that best seller of yours
again?
i forgot the title? is it something like *Charlemagne ancestry*?
it would have my lineage in it then, the Fluffs? you know, your alter
ego,
the Cluff/fluff line?
or was it the title? is it something like *Duncan I The Gracious
King of Scots ancestry*?
it would my lineage in it then, the Fluffs? you know, your alter
ego,
the Cluff/fluff line?
or was it the title? is it something like *William I The Conqueror
King of England ancestry*?
it would my lineage in it then, the Fluffs? you know, your alter
ego,
the Cluff/fluff line?
or was it the title? is it something like *Robert I The Bruce
King of Scots ancestry*?
it would my lineage in it then, the Fluffs? you know, your alter
ego,
the Cluff/fluff line?
so, surely, indubitably, your bestselling book is on genealogy like
SGM's sterling author Richardson, world famous, the King of all
the realm of medieval genealogy, fount of the Mother Church
of recorded ancestral history in the world? you do have such
book(s), at least one, a teensy weensy leetle small monograph
one i, poor humble me, can review?
I want to review it on Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com?
the title, please?
and please, please, please, please, please, please, please,
stop writing about Duncan I The Gracious King of Scots,
and calling his contemporaries not contemporaries and his
sources mere Pope Leo the Saint 1,000 year later resources!
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbingAncestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
O how tedious....
If there is ANYONE else reading this thread who does NOT think that Bill
Arnold, including ~Bret, letiTiAflufF and all the rest of him, is a
hell-bent lunatic, please speak up.
Otherwise I can't see why there should be further responses to his ongoing
brainsickness and his evidently permanent conniptions.
Peter Stewart
<letiTiAflufF@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:450c98c9-5813-49ea-8c2f-e06978313fda@41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
If there is ANYONE else reading this thread who does NOT think that Bill
Arnold, including ~Bret, letiTiAflufF and all the rest of him, is a
hell-bent lunatic, please speak up.
Otherwise I can't see why there should be further responses to his ongoing
brainsickness and his evidently permanent conniptions.
Peter Stewart
<letiTiAflufF@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:450c98c9-5813-49ea-8c2f-e06978313fda@41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 15, 11:38 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
The chronicle of Marianus was NOT contemporary with the death of Duncan.
The killing (note the word) took place in 1040: Marianus stated that he
was
born in 1028, and he wrote about this in 1082. HE was a contemporary of
Duncan and Macbeth, as their lifespans overlapped, but his ACCOUNT was
not contemporary with this event. Also he could have no direct knowledge
of
it: he was born in Ireland, then lived as an adult and wrote his works
in
Germany - not in Scotland.
Peter Stupor, how do you know? and your point is what, Stupid?
you are not a contemporary and by your own stupid logic if one
is not a contemporary one cannot know anything? you claim a man
living a thousand years ago during the same days as Duncan I The
Gracious King of Scots, my ancestor, and that man was a writer and
wrote, is less reliable as a source than Pope Leo the Saint as a source?
also by your twisted logic he is not even a source now? you cite in
posts after posts that your twisted logic, ergo conclusions, are more
reliable than a 1,000 year old source? man, O man, you and Homer
Simpson share the same house of inane beliefs! so Peter Stupor,
members of SGM, who read your attacks on real authors, are still
waiting for you to tell of the name of your bestseller book?
Hmm..., Peter Stupor, are you still awake? you attack, but you
can't defend yourself? your Achilles heel hurting?
I have acknowledged John Watson, scholar, for scholarship. Peter,
Stupor/Stupid, the day you and taffy duck and Leo the leotard learn to
leave your lapping tongues silent in your silly mouths, you might earn
some respect around here. and killfile your alter ego, the lost
chicken coop/pooper
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
-
Gjest
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
On Feb 16, 11:21 pm, "letiTiAfl...@gmail.com" <letiTiAfl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Ah, the descent to scatology. Not long til rock-bottom now [no pun
intended].
MA-R
wrote:
and killfile your alter ego, the lost
chicken
coop/pooper
Ah, the descent to scatology. Not long til rock-bottom now [no pun
intended].
MA-R
-
Gjest
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
On Feb 16, 11:32 pm, "letiTiAfl...@gmail.com" <letiTiAfl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
'Mein Kampf' also sold. Care to lionise its author?
MA-R
wrote:
so, surely, indubitably, your bestselling book is on genealogy like
SGM's sterling author Richardson, world famous, the King of all
the realm of medieval genealogy, fount of the Mother Church
of recorded ancestral history in the world? you do have such
book(s), at least one, a teensy weensy leetle small monograph
one i, poor humble me, can review?
'Mein Kampf' also sold. Care to lionise its author?
MA-R
-
Gjest
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
On Feb 17, 12:34 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Ah, you're right, Peter. It's been fun while it lasted, but it's time
for the kill-file, to join 'Aaron' and the rest of his cracked pseudo-
personalities.
Let him/her/them micturate into the wind...
MA-R
O how tedious....
If there is ANYONE else reading this thread who does NOT think that Bill
Arnold, including ~Bret, letiTiAflufF and all the rest of him, is a
hell-bent lunatic, please speak up.
Otherwise I can't see why there should be further responses to his ongoing
brainsickness and his evidently permanent conniptions.
Ah, you're right, Peter. It's been fun while it lasted, but it's time
for the kill-file, to join 'Aaron' and the rest of his cracked pseudo-
personalities.
Let him/her/them micturate into the wind...
MA-R
-
Renia
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
Peter Stewart wrote:
I've already said he's off his trolley, asked him if he's in an
institution and implied he should keep to his medication.
You never know who you're talking to out there.
O how tedious....
If there is ANYONE else reading this thread who does NOT think that Bill
Arnold, including ~Bret, letiTiAflufF and all the rest of him, is a
hell-bent lunatic, please speak up.
Otherwise I can't see why there should be further responses to his ongoing
brainsickness and his evidently permanent conniptions.
Peter Stewart
I've already said he's off his trolley, asked him if he's in an
institution and implied he should keep to his medication.
You never know who you're talking to out there.
-
letiTiAflufF@gmail.com
Re: Source for Murder of Duncan by Macbeth
On Feb 17, 5:43 am, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Mirror, mirror, on the wall
who's most stupid of all?
Nerdy Goil, Stupored Nerd,
MissKnowItAll surpasses all~
hear-all, hear-all, hear-all~
stand ye, & cursey, cometh HM the Queen~
LittleMissKnowItAll~
<G., <G>, <G>
merci, merci, merci
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
Peter Stewart wrote:
O how tedious....
If there is ANYONE else reading this thread who does NOT think that
Peter Stupor, Nerd of Stupid, Goil of Nerdumberland and all the rest of
him, is a hell-bent lunatic, please speak up. Otherwise I can't see why
there should be further responses to his ongoing brainsickness and his
evidently permanent conniptions.
I've already said he's off his trolley, asked him if he's in an institution and
implied he should keep to his medication. You never know who you're
talking to out there.
Mirror, mirror, on the wall
who's most stupid of all?
Nerdy Goil, Stupored Nerd,
MissKnowItAll surpasses all~
hear-all, hear-all, hear-all~
stand ye, & cursey, cometh HM the Queen~
LittleMissKnowItAll~
<G., <G>, <G>
merci, merci, merci
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval