Talk:Simon Langham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Death on 22 July 1376[edit]

In the first English version of the 'Pied Piper of Hamelin' legend, 1605, printed at 'Antwerp' very soon after the death of Elizabeth I by 'Verstegan',the date is changed to July 22 1376. This is not an error but a deliberate falsification of the legend in order to make it apply to a totally different event. This was the death at Avignon of Simon Langham, Archbishop of Canterbury AND Cardinal of Avignon. He "drove the secular clergy from their college of Canterbury Hall, Oxford, and filled their places with monks". In the 1605 version, adopted in error by Robert Browning in his poem "The Pied Piper" various elements are introduced or the first time, e.g. rats are added."Pied" refers to his bicoloured dress, scarlet and purple, of these two warring appointments. It perhaps also signifies 'tainted' or 'spotted'. His death marked the end of the facetiously named 'Babylonian Captivity', or 70 year exile of the Papacy to France, after which his 'children', the 13 cardinals, danced back across the bridge from the Papal Palace (famous for its choral music) to Rome, 'toutes en rouge'. ("How many miles to Babylon? Threescore and Ten").The bridge was too narrow for dancing in a circle. The legend is further anglicised by 'Verstegan' in his specious and spurious version, by trying to confuse the original Hamelin with Hamelin Plantagenet,aka Hamblyn;he was the son of the first latin king of Jerusalem and married Isabella de Warrenne,from whom descends Richard "Copped Hat" Fitzalan, 3rd Earl of Arundel. Hence the peaked hat of the Piper, and the Kopped Hills.'Verstegan'(journalist Richard Rowlands) was a recusant Catholic with a secret press at Smithfield, with the later pseudo 'Verstegan'. Simon Langham incurred the displeasure of Edward III by accepting from Pope Urban V the appointment of Cardinal of Avignon without having obtained Royal permission.In retaliation, Edward took the extraordinary step of pronouncing the see of Canterbury void, and seizing the revenues; i.e. he declined to pay him for ridding the town of 'protestant rats'. It is hardly credible that a learned antiquary could have accidentally got the date so completely wrong; besides which, there is no record of any other important event occurring on that date.Colcestrian (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Colcestrian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colcestrian (talkcontribs)

I have re-added the above comment to this page, per a request by the user here. Please contact me if any clarification is required. Thanks, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 05:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)