Interesting entry from State Papers Online - had no idea the Turks were into Carthage...

482. 1542. Cheke to Gardiner
Haverkamp's Sylloge Altera, 361. Cheke's De Pronunciatione (ed. 1555), 218.
The letter sent by his Vice-chancellor's son makes it easier for Cheke to answer him. Protests that he has been deferential to Gardiner's authority as bishop and chancellor, adding "Quid enim amplius me facere voluisti? Literis tuis sum publice accusatus: moderate tuli. Scripsisti edictum: ut debui, obtemperavi. Dedisti ad me literas: diligenter respondi. Interdum lapsus es: occupationibus tuis concessi." Defends himself from the charge of arrogance, and argues at great length upon the expediency of introducing the corrected pronunciation. Shows that his opponents at Cambridge are not learned, and foreign scholars favor a reform of pronunciation, as Smith,* who made much progress abroad in civil law, can testify. Fears that the Bishop has been swayed by the sole opinion of Robert Radcliff. Thinks that when the Mahometan Turks are reported so to cultivate the Arabic and Punic tongue that all Eastern nations are fired by their industry, we ought to spend some labour upon the Christian tongues, Greek and Latin. Begs him to remit the severity of his edict.
Lat.
* Thomas Smith, afterwards Secretary of State.

Don't know anything about the "Turks being into Carthage", but what is interesting about the exchanges between Gardiner and Cheke is Cheke's insistence that the Turks - and their scholarship - be taken seriously. It made sense. Francis I, now allied with Suleiman the Magnificent, was certainly taking the forces who had advanced into Europe - Rhodes 1522, Hungary 1526, very nearly Vienna 1529 - seriously!

And *French* scholars - have a google about Guillaume Postel, a *fascinating* man, linguist and scholar - were getting there first! Postel was official interpreter during French/Turkish negotiations.

PS The fuss over the new pronunciation of Greek was not just a silly Oxford versus Cambridge spat. Cheke's impatience with Gardiner - and with the influence of the likes of Robert Radcliffe (Radcliffe, born around 1483, belonged to a dying world; Radcliffe in fact died in 1542) - was surely the frustration of the brilliant younger generation reacting against the ageing conservatives - men who viewed the study of anything new - especially Greek - as a kind of heresy.

The world was moving on. The future belonged to the new academic elite from Cambridge: Cheke was to become Prince Edward's tutor. Another of his pupils - a great favourite - was Roger Ascham, the man who would teach the Princess Elizabeth.

Technically the claim was accurate in Gardiner and Cheke's time in that the Ottomans had taken direct control of Algeria/Tunisia a decade or so before and "Punic" was still a language there, though not spoken by the coastal communities which made up the bulk of its population.

Punic has a strange history in that, by decree, it had no history at all for about 400 years. The Romans claimed to have expunged it completely and this official version seems to have persisted right up until the time of St Augustin. Its first mention in any records is when he wrote that he had to divest himself of his native tongue when he decided to embark on the career of rhetorician, in which it appears that not being able to be understood except by your mother and pet cat was apparently judged to be a slight handicap.

Under the Vandals the language apparently revived, or maybe was simply allowed to be referred to again, and though it never asserted itself again as a major tongue in the area, to this day the inhabitants of south western Tunisia and adjoining Algeria speak a variant of it.

Temperance wrote:

PS The fuss over the new pronunciation of Greek was not just a silly Oxford versus Cambridge spat. Cheke's impatience with Gardiner - and with the influence of the likes of Robert Radcliffe (Radcliffe, born around 1483, belonged to a dying world; Radcliffe in fact died in 1542) - was surely the frustration of the brilliant younger generation reacting against the ageing conservatives - men who viewed the study of anything new - especially Greek - as a kind of heresy.

Hmmm... hard to see that in Oxford v. Fen Poly terms - see, eg, the foundation of Corpus Christi (Oxford ) specifically as a 'newfangled', humanistic, rather than monastic, institution.

Temperance wrote:

The future belonged to the new academic elite from Cambridge: Cheke was to become Prince Edward's tutor. Another of his pupils - a great favourite - was Roger Ascham, the man who would teach the Princess Elizabeth.

...except that the future lasted well beyond 1603, my little, Tudor-obsessed hip-flask, and Oxford soon reasserted itself as the royal fave thereafter...

Just like the grotty, parvenu Tudors to favour a naff 'new university', and just like the Evil Tabs (Cambridge University mindset) to try and pose as 'traditional' by, eg, dragging their feet over the admission of gurls...

Catigern wrote:

...except that the future lasted well beyond 1603, my little, Tudor-obsessed hip-flask, and Oxford soon reasserted itself as the royal fave thereafter...

Catigern, my little jellied eel, my remark was in no way meant as a criticism of Cowley Tech. But isn't it true that the University of Cambridge has always been the more radical of the two universities - the hotbed for reformers, revolutionaries, Marxist spies and other rather silly youthful idealists? They're all Cartesian snobs there anyway, obsessed with doing dead hard sums.

Oxford, on the other hand, has always struck me as being a thoroughly sedate and respectable place - produces such *dependable* people.



Your reference to my being a "hip-flask" is too obscure for me. Probably just as well.

I think that's too general a generalisation, Temp - who is to say whether Hooke or Newton was more of an original thinker, and was Oliver Cromwell a radical or a conservative...?

As for the likes of Tony Blair:x and Dan Snow being '*dependable*'...

nordmann wrote:

Technically the claim was accurate in Gardiner and Cheke's time in that the Ottomans had taken direct control of Algeria/Tunisia a decade or so before and "Punic" was still a language there, though not spoken by the coastal communities which made up the bulk of its population.

Punic has a strange history in that, by decree, it had no history at all for about 400 years. The Romans claimed to have expunged it completely and this official version seems to have persisted right up until the time of St Augustin. Its first mention in any records is when he wrote that he had to divest himself of his native tongue when he decided to embark on the career of rhetorician, in which it appears that not being able to be understood except by your mother and pet cat was apparently judged to be a slight handicap.

Under the Vandals the language apparently revived, or maybe was simply allowed to be referred to again, and though it never asserted itself again as a major tongue in the area, to this day the inhabitants of south western Tunisia and adjoining Algeria speak a variant of it.

Nordmann,



before I left for Copenhagen I did some two hours research on the net not to control your sayings;) but to add something if I could...

I found a lot about the history of the Berbers. And on the Punic (Canaanite) language a bit the same as you say, but nothing substantial to add to what is already said. But in the meantime I learned a lot about the Berber indentity and their history. Seems to be as I learned on the French forum a bit of a "hot" item in the Maghreb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maghreb

And found also this:

http://books.google.be/books?id=oYWnSUaslXYC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=maghreb+languages+punic+berber+latin&source=bl&ots=JaZfBj4KO6&sig=AcgcXh6WgiJaIeMW8XPT-rHWLH4&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=QRJET-jDFoGZ-wa6y-nQBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CGAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=maghreb%20languages%20punic%20berber%20latin&f=false

Berbers - neo-Punic?


Are you speaking about the neo-Punic language then?

Kind regards and with high esteem,

Paul.

Addendum to previous message.

Found also this:

http://phoenicia.org/semlang.html

It seems to be an American based Libanese international related site when you look to the "about us". I am always a bit on my "qui vive", when entering on such sites . Remember the "Macedonian" debate as now again rages on the Historum forum, but on this Lebanese site there seems some impartiality on the first sight...? And some scientific approach?

Cheers, Paul.

Hi Paul - can I offer some advice regarding posting links and especially ones with the results of a google search in them? To avoid pasting in such really long link names (which can disrupt the format of the entire thread sometimes) use the link button over the message box, the one with a small picture of a chain on it, to create a pseudonym for the link.

This opens a panel with two fields. In the first field paste your link. In the second field write a "friendly name" for the link.

To demonstrate the difference I have placed such a friendly link name in your post above about Berber language (the neo-punic one) immediately after your own pasted link. Both redirect to the same website but you can see how my version is not only smaller and therefore less likely to cause format problems but also contains a little piece of info which hopefully interests the reader and encourages him or her to click on it.

nordmann wrote:

Hi Paul - can I offer some advice regarding posting links and especially ones with the results of a google search in them? To avoid pasting in such really long link names (which can disrupt the format of the entire thread sometimes) use the link button over the message box, the one with a small picture of a chain on it, to create a pseudonym for the link.

This opens a panel with two fields. In the first field paste your link. In the second field write a "friendly name" for the link.

To demonstrate the difference I have placed such a friendly link name in your post above about Berber language (the neo-punic one) immediately after your own pasted link. Both redirect to the same website but you can see how my version is not only smaller and therefore less likely to cause format problems but also contains a little piece of info which hopefully interests the reader and encourages him or her to click on it.

Nordmann,

sorry for the late reply. Reading the long "Russian" threads on the "Historum" forum. Reading also some interesting stuff on the French Passion Histoire...

Thank you very much for the hint and will apply your recommendations in the future wherever I can.

Kind regards and with high esteem,

Paul.

PS: Did search a bit further on this subject, among others to publish a Google book along your guidelines, to show my good intentions , but didn't find any substantial to add...it turns down nearly on all sites to the same book I first mentioned. That has really to be a "standard" work...found also something about Tripolitania (Lybia) and neo-Punic..but that is more a side theatre...I suppose?