21 October 2011

Forum # 11 (okt. 18 - 21, 2011)

Posted 18 October 2011 - 09:55 AM
Otharus, on 31 August 2011 - 11:47 AM, said:
Knul's website (in Dutch) about his Oera Linda hoax-theory, starts with:

"In 1867 kwam het Oera Linda Boek aan het licht. Tien jaar later bewees J. Beckering Vinckers op taalkundige gronden dat er sprake was van een mystificatie. Daarna begon de zoektocht naar de schrijver van het bijzondere boek..."

Translated:
"In 1867 the Oera Linda Book came to light. Ten years later J. Beckering Vinckers proved on linguistic grounds that it had to be a hoax. After that the quest for the author of the remarkable book started...


So Knul believes that Beckering Vinckers' gave sufficient proof in 1876 that OLB has to be a hoax.

Here is BV's article, in dutch: http://www.oeralindaboek.nl/pdf/OLBVinckers.pdf

Can any of the Dutch readers (Knul, Abe, ?) point out or summarise the proof to me, because I never found it.

### Posted 18 October 2011 - 01:28 PM
Abramelin, on 18 October 2011 - 10:26 AM, said:
Well, it was nothing like a summary, but I talked about it here:
...
It's kind of hard to summarize, but that is how *I* understood Beckering Vincker's analysis.


Yes, thank you. So this was your post:

Abramelin, on 19 September 2011 - 10:47 PM, said:
We have discussed Vincker's early analysis of the OLB, and Otharus said that this Dutch, 19th century linguist was wrong with his conclusion that the OLB was written in a something resembling bad Old or phony Frisian.
But today I read his whole analysis more attentively, and came - through my meager knowledge of linguistics - to the conclusion that Vincker was right about the OLB language all along.... but also.... that Halbertsma is ruled out as a possible suspect. ...


And these were my questions about it (that were not answered yet):

Otharus, on 15 October 2011 - 01:13 PM, said:
Can you give one example from the OLB of a "linguistic error"?
And if you can, how would this prove that OLB cannot be authentic?


### Posted 18 October 2011 - 05:15 PM
Alewyn, on 17 October 2011 - 05:11 AM, said:
http://home.nordnet....heemstra02.html

Enfin la clé de l'Oera Linda Boek / Finally the key to the Oera Linda Boek

... Raubenheimer paints a convincing picture and well illustrated with numerous maps of the Frisian confederation to which humanity owes so much, and the disasters, including natural, which led to its decline. It thus adds to the history of Europe and makes a famous chapter in the Oera Linda Book’s legitimacy; while the criticism of the nineteenth century Calvinist fundamentalists belittled Friesland, and the Netherlands denied it.
... Raubenheimer’s book finally restores poor Ottema; who was right, but who was so jeered, reviled and ridiculed that he ended up committing suicide.


### Posted 18 October 2011 - 07:00 PM

"Het O.-L.-B. is een van de allerwonderlijkste boeken, die ooit ter wereld zijn verschenen."
The OLB is one of the most amazing books, that were ever found in the world.

"Het merkwaardige boek vond manhafte verdedigers. Drie mannen vooral sprongen kloekmoedig voor de eer van het O.-L.-B. in de bres:
primo: Dr. J.G. OTTEMA,
secundo: Dr. ANNE TJITJES REITSMA,
tertio : Prof. Dr. VITRINGA."
"The remarkable book found brave defenders, three men in particular:
Dr. J.G. Ottema, Dr. A.T. Reitsma, Prof. Dr. Vitringa."


"Zoo even wordt mij bericht dat ook wijlen Mr. DE HAAN HETTEMA de taal van 't O.-L.B. verklaard heeft voor Friesch, ouder dan dat der O.friesche wetten!! 't Is haast niet te gelooven."
"I was recently informed that the late Mr. De Haan Hettema also declared the language of the OLB to be Frisian, older than that of the Old-Frisian laws!! It's almost incredible."

"Die voor-Christelijke Oera-Linda's houden er zeer bedenkelijke, uiterst geavanceerde denkbeelden op na."
"Those pre-Christian Oera-Linda's have a very worrying, utterly advanced paradigm."

"De voorchristelijke, schrijfzieke familie lijdt in een zeer erge mate aan etymologiseerzucht, een ziekte waaraan onze landgenooten reeds zeer vroeg hebben gelaboreerd."
"The prechristian write-sick family suffers of a severe form of etymolegomania, a dis-ease that has been an epidemic of our countrymen since the old times."

"Kostelijk is vooral de verklaring van Gedrosia als het land der gedrosten. (...) Volgens Grimm's wet moest het land Ghetrosia of Gethrosia heeten."
"Most delicious is the explanation of Gedrosia as the land of the 'gedrosten'. According to Grimm's law, the land was spelled Ghetrosia or Gethrosia."

"Dat Friesche geleerden in den jare onzes Heeren 1876, dat is 60 jaar nadat Grimm het 1ste deel zijner Deutsche grammatik heeft in 't licht gegeven, nog zulke vreemdelingen in de grammatica van de kostbare letterkundige overblijfsels der Friesche oudheid zijn, dat zij een afschuwelijk taalkundig knoeiwerk als het Oera-Linda-boek, na langdurige studie, voor een echt gedenkstuk van overoud Friesch hebben aangezien, ja, de barbaarsche wartaal waarin het is geschreven voor ouder en zuiverden verklaren dan de zoo zuivere taal der Oudfriesche oorkonden, dat is inderdaad een zeer betreurenswaardig verschijnsel."
"That Frisian scholars in the year of our Lord 1876, that is 60 years after Grimm published the 1st part of his German Grammar, are such strangers in the grammar of the most precious linguistic remains of Old-Frisian, that they declared a horrible linguistic corruption to be overold Frisian, yes they declare the barbaric gibberish in which it was written to be more old and pure than the very pure language of the Oldfrisian Records... that is very sad indeed."

The above quotes are from J. Beckering Vinckers (1876), who was not able to prove that the OLB is a hoax.

### Posted 18 October 2011 - 09:06 PM
(re.post)
Some quotes from J. Beckering Vinckers' (1876) 'critical review' (my translation).

It's title:
"The falseness of the Oera Linda-Bôk, as proven by the the gibberish in which it was written"

"Gibberish, no better than Negro-English; gibberish, that makes the OLB a mark of infamy in the collection of most illustrous remains of old-frisian language."

"Another example of a clownish anachronism. But why do I say 'another anachronism', - the whole OLB is one single colossal anachronism from beginning to end, which for example is revealed in its long train of words, that only slowly emerged in the French and Dutch language in the Middle ages as degenerated Latin. Behold a mess, susceptible for expansion."

"I have reached my goal; I aimed at ridiculing the language of the OLB."

"But that some Frisian scholars in the year of our Lord 1876 ... are still so ignorant of the grammar of precious literary remains of Frisian antiquity, that they accept a repulsive linguistic botch job like the OLB, after long term study, to be a true remains of overold Frisian, that they indeed, declare the barbaric gibberish in which it was written to be more old and pure than the flawless language of the Oldfrisian certificates, that is indeed an utterly deplorable phenomenon."

- - -
Original quotes in Dutch:

"De onechtheid van het Oera Linda-Bôk, aangetoond uit de wartaal waarin het geschreven is"

"een wartaal, geen haar beter dan Neger-Engelsch; een wartaal, die het O.-L.-B. maakt tot een schandvlek in de rij der hoogst gewigtige overblijfselen van O.friesche taal."

"Dit is dus weer een potsierlijk anachronisme. Doch wat praat ik van ‘weer een anachronisme,’ - het geheele O.-L.-B. is van 't begin tot het einde één enkel kolossaal anachronisme, dat zich onder anderen ook openbaart in dien langen sleep van woorden, welken we eerst in de middeleeuwen langzamerhand door verbastering van 't Latijn in den mond van Franschman of Nederlander in de wereld zien komen. Zie hier een zootje, dat voor veel vermeerdering vatbaar is."

"Het doel dat ik mij voorstelde is bereikt; ik heb de taal van het Oera-Linda-Boek belagchelijk willen maken."

"Maar dat Friesche geleerden in den jare onzes Heeren 1876 ... nog zulke vreemdelingen in de grammatica van de kostbare letterkundige overblijfsels der Friesche oudheid zijn, dat zij een afschuwelijk taalkundig knoeiwerk als het Oera-Linda-boek, na langdurige studie, voor een echt gedenkstuk van overoud Friesch hebben aangezien, ja, de barbaarsche wartaal waarin het is geschreven voor ouder en zuiverder verklaren dan de zoo zuivere taal der Oudfriesche oorkonden, dat is inderdaad een zeer betreurenswaardig verschijnsel."

### Posted 19 October 2011 - 07:11 AM
Abramelin, on 18 October 2011 - 09:33 PM, said:
Yeah, the guy turned sarcastic having to deal with something that was too hilarious for him to even discuss.

The following scholars had a different opinion:
Dr. J.G. Ottema,
Dr. A.T. Reitsma,
Prof. Dr. A.J. Vitringa and
Mr. M. De Haan Hettema (1796-1873).

They declared the OLB language "to be more old and pure than [that] of the Oldfrisian Records".

Some significant publications by Mr. M. de Haan Hettema:
1830 The Emsiger Landlaws of the year 1312
1830 Short guide to Oldfrisian
1832 Friesche Spraakleer (study of Frisian oral language), with R.Rask
1832 Frisian Dutch dictionary
1834 Jurisprudentia Frisica, or Frisian law studies. A manuscript from the 15th Century. Part 1
1834/35 Idem - Part 2
1835 Idem - Part 3
1841 The Fivelingoër and Oldampster Landlaws. An Oldfrisian Manusctript from the 14th Century
1846 Old Frisian Laws - Part 1 (Hunsingoër regt. Rustringer regt. Broekmer regt. Emsiger regt (1st and 2nd codex))
1847 Old Frisian Laws - Part 2-1 (Jus municipale Frisonum)
1851 Old Frisian Laws - Part 2-2 (Boetregisters. Geestelijke regten. Willekeuren. Lex Frisionum)

### Posted 19 October 2011 - 08:21 AM
Beckering Vinckers (1876) about the OLB and its language:

"dit gedrochtelijke onding"
"this monstrous absurdity"

"taalkundige krankzinnigheid"
"linguistic madness"

"... honderd maal schandelijker [...] dan een opstel in een vreemde taal van een jong mensch, dat zich taalkundig volkomen onbeslagen op het gladde ijs van een eindexamen heeft gewaagd."
"...hundred times more scandalous [...] than essay in a foreign language by a student, who dares to step on the slippery ice of a final exam without any linguistic preparation."

"De taal waarin dit product is geschreven, [is] een allerverfoeilijkst mengelmoes, een wartaal, gevloeid uit de pen van een zeker in andere opzigten niet onkundig, maar in de allereerste gronden van de spraakkunst der verwante Duitsche talen in 't algemeen, en van de O.friesche taal in 't bijzonder volkomen onbedreven persoon; een wartaal, geen haar beter dan Neger-Engelsch; een wartaal, die het O.-L.-B. maakt tot een schandvlek in de rij der hoogst gewigtige overblijfselen van O.friesche taal."
"The language in which this product was written, is a most detestable mishmash, gibberish, made by someone not ignorant in other topics, but absolutely unaware of the primal grounds of the linguistics of related German languages in general, and of the old-frisian language in particular; a gibberish, nothing better than Negro-English; a gibberish, that makes the OLB to a disgrace in the line of most weighty remains of the oldfrisian language."

"Een ellendig zamenraapsel van oud en jong, zulk een bajert van spraakverwarring, die op elke bladzijde, neen, in elken regel van de 126 pagina's druks die het beslaat, voor 't oog van den kenner zijn onechte geboorte door onmiskenbare bewijzen zelf bloot legt."
"A miserable hodgepodge of old and young, such a misfit of babel, that on every page, no in every line of the 126 printed pages, reveils its fake birth to the eye of the specialist through indisputable proof."

~ ~ ~
Mr. Montanus de Haan Hettema was a specialist alright (see list of his publications).
Howcome he did not see all this "indisputable proof"?
Can anyone who takes Beckering seriously give an example of this "indisputable proof"?

### Posted 19 October 2011 - 08:48 AM
Beckering Vinckers (1876) saw his method as "... an infallible tool to judge age and purity of the most ancient remains of German language, including Oldfrisian of 558 BC."

(original quote: "... een onfeilbaar middel om over de oudheid en zuiverheid van de alleroudste Duitsche taaloverblijfselen, ook over Oudfriesch van 558 jaar voor Christus geboorte, met grond een oordeel te vellen.")

He used strong terms, but was not able to produce "the most abundant and convincing evidence" ("de meest overvloedige en overtuigende bewijzen") as he called it.

I asked Knul several times, but he is not able to reproduce Beckering's 'proof' that OLB cannot be authentic.

~ ~ ~
Imagine:
A man dies.
Agent 1 says: "he was murdered".
Agent 2, 3, 4 and 5 say: "no, he died a natural death".
Agent 6 and 7 go try and find a murderer.
~ ~ ~

Jensma and Knul have made theories of who could have made the OLB, without first giving a sufficient answer to the question:
Why can OLB not be authentic?

### Posted 19 October 2011 - 11:42 AM
Knul, on 19 October 2011 - 10:59 AM, said:
As I have stated before, the OLB is a word-for-word translation of a Dutch text, which follows Dutch grammar, conjugations and declinations. Beckering Vinckers compared the result with Oldfrisian and found that the text did not match that standard.

That the text did not match the Oldfrisian standard, does not mean the text can not be authentic.

What if the chosen standard was old-fashioned and in need of revision?

What if "Dutch" (Westfrisian!) is actually more similar to the original language of our ancient ancestors, than what is called "old-Frisian" (from laws that were noted and copied by Christian, Latin-schooled monks)?

What if old-Frisian expert Mr. Montanus de Haan Hettema was right?

### Posted 19 October 2011 - 01:00 PM
Language can be spoken and written.

Written language is not always a reflection of spoken language.

In formal documents, other words and syntax are used than on the street.

The oldest known documents in Dutch and Frisian from the Middle-Ages were written by monks, who had learned to read and write in Latin.

They were not schooled to write down the spoken language.

In rural areas in The Netherlands (including Flanders), dialects have survived in uncultured, sometimes illitterate families.

Those families had lived in those areas for hundreds of years, without mixing much with outsiders.

Modern Dutch is not very much different from these raw dialects.

Modern 'Frisian' is an attempt to standardise all various dialects in the Dutch province Friesland.

When the language of the OLB is compared to various different rural dialects in North-Western Europe, more likeness will be found, than when it is compared to Medieval texts.

What does this prove?


### Posted 19 October 2011 - 03:12 PM
Abramelin, on 19 October 2011 - 02:39 PM, said:
If the OLB is true, then the further we get back in time (in Europe) the more these Nordic and German languages should resemble eachother. And what we get then should be very similar to the language used in the OLB. It isn't.

The modern versions of English, Dutch, Frisian, German, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian are STILL similar to eachother.

The written varieties of those languages have become more a reflection of oral language, than they used to be (written text used to be more formal and mostly from authorities).

Through the ages there will have been countless varieties.

Schools in Holland have only been regulated since the last 200 years.

The more people stayed in the same area, without mixing much with newcomers, the more their language remained unchanged.

The language of the OLB is relatively similar to the aforementioned languages.

If it would have been a product of the 19th century, the language of the OLB would be the perfect reconstruction IMO of the proto-Frisian language.

I agree with
Dr. de Haan Hettema,
Dr. Reitsma,
Prof. Dr. Vitringa and
Dr. Ottema
that the language of the OLB is NOT:

a "monstrous absurdity",
"linguistic madness",
"scandalous",
"a most detestable mishmash",
"gibberish",
"a disgrace in the line of most weighty remains of the oldfrisian language",
"miserable hodgepodge of old and young" or
"a misfit of babel" (terms used by J.Beckering).

Quote
The reason the Icelandic language didn't change that much in a 1000 years is because the people there lived and live rather isolated, and the language is taught in schools.

The school system is not very old.

Language was taught from generation to generation.

People in rural areas of the low countries also lived rather isolated.

Their language will have changed more in the last hundred years, than in the many hundreds of years before that.

### Posted 19 October 2011 - 03:18 PM
Abramelin, on 19 October 2011 - 02:46 PM, said:
OK, here's my problem.
The OLB is written in a language that resembles the language used in the Frisian Law texts of the 13th century. Gramatically correct or not, let's forget about that for a minute.
The OLB was first put on paper in the 7th century BC.
More than thousand years later we find texts (runes) in the area where most of the OLB took place, and the language has changed considerably.
Then - let's say 500-700 years later - people suddenly start again using the language as used in the OLB.
Weird, eh?


So you think those runes that were found represented all the different languages and dialects of that time, both spoken and carved? (BTW They may have been made in coded script; very clever in times of war.)

And do you believe that in the 13th century all people in our lands spoke just like in the few Law texts that have survived?

### Posted 19 October 2011 - 03:26 PM
Abramelin, on 19 October 2011 - 03:19 PM, said:
You must have missed that last post of mine, where I ended with "Weird, eh?".

No, I didn't miss that.
I understand that it is weird to someone who believes that those few runes are a representation of the spoken language of the people who lived here.
I claim that the language can not have changed that much in the last millennium, because of the similarities (to date) in the various N-W European languages and dialects.

### Posted 19 October 2011 - 03:42 PM
Abramelin, on 19 October 2011 - 03:33 PM, said:
Yes, and that's because they are still rather close to the language spoken in the 10-13th century AD, and very probably far away from the language spoken 2000 years before the 10-13th century.

What is your assumption based on?
What do you know of "spoken language" of the 10-13th century?

Quote
Those 'few runes' as you call them (like 200 short old Anglo-Frisian inscriptions) should contain a language even closer to the language of the OLB.

Why?

### Posted 19 October 2011 - 04:27 PM
In the OLB, "JRTHA" is earth and "WR-ALDA" means over-old-one, world or universe ('god').
The German word for universe is "Weltall" which means: world-all
(the Dutch word is heelal, meaning: whole-all)
As I have suggested before, it's not unthinkable that "WR-ALDA" or "ALDA" evolved into "Allah".

### Posted 19 October 2011 - 04:40 PM
Me:
I claim that the language can not have changed that much in the last millennium, because of the similarities (to date) in the various N-W European languages and dialects.

You:
Yes, and that's because they are still rather close to the language spoken in the 10-13th century AD, and very probably far away from the language spoken 2000 years before the 10-13th century.

Me:
What is your assumption based on? What do you know of "spoken language" of the 10-13th century?

You:
I base my assumption on the fact that the European peoples didn't live isolated, and even those who lived 'relatively' isolated (rural areas) and spoke a language/dialect a few centuries older than what was spoken around them, would never have been able to withstand the impact of this newer language/dialect eventually.

What "newer language/dialect"?

###
You:
More than thousand years later we find texts (runes) in the area where most of the OLB took place, and the language has changed considerably.

Me:
So you think those runes that were found represented all the different languages and dialects of that time, both spoken and carved?
(...)
I understand that it is weird to someone who believes that those few runes are a representation of the spoken language of the people who lived here.

You:
Those 'few runes' as you call them (like 200 short old Anglo-Frisian inscriptions) should contain a language even closer to the language of the OLB.

Me:
Why?

You:
The 'why' is easily answered: the further back in time, the less time the language had to deviate and the more it would resemble the older language.
It's not like the Jews spoke Hebrew 3000 years ago, then 2000 years later their language started resembling Swedish or something, and then a thousand years after that it again looked like the Hebrew they spoke 3000 years ago.

The problem is, that we don't know if those runes represent the language of our Dutch or Westfrisian ancestors.

It is possible that those 'Fryans' only used wood and paper for writing, not stone.

It's possible that those stone-runes were left by intruders.

To use your example:

3000 BP - Jews spoke Hebrew
1000 BP - language starts to resemble Swedish
present - Jews speak Hebrew again

What if the sources of 1000 BP do not represent the actual language that was spoken, but resembled Swedish because of temporary influences from abroad?

### Posted 19 October 2011 - 07:57 PM
cormac mac airt, on 19 October 2011 - 07:21 PM, said:
... it's "Lego-linguistics to the rescue".

Since Wr-alda in OLB refers to what we call "God", and other cultures use(d) a similar word in the same context ("Veraldar God", "Weralden Olma"), it is not so far-fetched to relate it to Allah and it sounds almost the same as Alda. I also mentioned the German "Welt-all" (world-al) for Universe, which is in more natural cultures associated to (if not the same as) "God".

This was a good post:
Otharus, on 10 November 2010 - 04:00 PM, said:
There has been talk about how much of what is in OLB was already known to the 19th century elite.
I do not agree with Abram that they knew that much and certainly not "everything Puzzler posted"; what a nonsense.
Also, it was said that other sources with the same script are needed to prove that OLB contains old information.
Script basically represents sound. For most of history and for most people there was no script, only oral tradition.
If we find words that are used in other cultures that sound similar and have similar meanings, and when these words were not known to the 19th century Dutch/ Frisian elite, this is most interesting and can help increase the credibility of OLB being a genuine source of old information.
In the following I'd like to introduce an example to the discussion.

Jensma (p. 92-93 of "De Gemaskerde God"):

"WR.ALDA is the most explicit character in the whole OLB. His name, that is used 96 times, is a great find in itself. 'Wralda is Oldfrisian for 'world', but the point in the word makes it possible to read the name as 'Oer.alda' - the 'over-old one', and possibly also as 'Oeral.da' - 'where-all there' (omnipresent)." (improvised translation by me)

(original text:) "WR.ALDA is het meest uitgewerkte personage uit het hele Oera Linda-boek. Zijn naam, die maar liefst 96 keer wordt genoemd, is op zichzelf al een vondst van formaat. 'Wralda is Oudfries voor 'wereld', maar de punt in het woord (in het OLBees staat WR.ALDA) maakt dat de naam ook kan worden gelezen als 'Oer.alda' - de 'oeroude', en mogelijk ook nog eens als 'Oeral.da' - 'Overal aanwezig'."

What Jensma did not know - or maybe he deliberately ignored it - is that varieties of the word Wralda exist in old Nordic archaeology, mythology, poetry in a similar context; and it does not only mean world...

1. Frey or Freyr, the twin-brother of Freya (and associated with fertility) is refered to as "Veraldar God".
2. In old-Laplandic the term "Weralden Olma" refers to what we would call God or Allah.
3. The creation myth of the poetic Edda starts with "Ar Var Alda"; first was old-one (or big wave, see video).
(4. I even dare suggest an etymological relationship between 'Alda' and 'Allah', but I don't even need this here to make my point.)

Prof. Dr. H. Wirth mentioned 1. and 2. in a newspaper article in 1925 (Leeuwarder Courant 31 october) and added:

"... the Ingvaeonic name for God, Wralda, that was not known to science in the time that the manuscript supposedly would have been created, and partly still isn't!" (improvised translation by me)

(original:) "... de Ingvaeonische naam voor God, Wralda, die in den tijd waarin het handschrift vervalscht zou moeten zijn, aan de wetenschap onbekend was en ten deele nog is!"

So if it takes almost 50 years for Dutch scholars to notice that Wralda does not only mean World, but in other old cultures was also used to refer to the oldest or most important deity or spirit, it is not likely that a few conspirors knew this and used it for their hoax. I find it reveiling that even present day Frisian expert Jensma did not seem to know this when he wrote his publications (or he ignored it, which would be even more suspect).


### Posted 20 October 2011, 06:51 AM
cormac mac airt, on 19 October 2011 - 09:19 PM, said:
And just because one word, or part thereof, "sounds" like a similar word doesn't mean they're connected.

If there would only be sound similarity, I'd agree with you.
But since they have the same meaning too, it's not irrational to consider the possibility.

### Posted 21 October 2011, 08:51 AM
Knul, on 20 October 2011 - 10:42 PM, said:
It leaves the question, why they were used in the OLB. Did someone intend printing ? I can hardly imagine that. So there must be an other reason.

Notaries in the 18th century also used tildes (~~~) to fill up empty space, without intending printing. The reason was to prevent that someone else would add text later and pretend it was part of the original text.

In chapter 14 of "The Masked God" (p.255), Goffe Jensma shows that Cornelis Over de Linden in his notebooks sometimes placed comma's in the beginning of a new line, instead of at the end of a line. For him, this was proof that C.O.L. must have been the assumed copyist.

See my post:
Otharus, on 12 April 2011 - 04:44 AM, said:
The next 'proof' for the 'fact' that Cornelis must have held the pen from which the OLB-ink flowed, is that he sometimes placed a comma in the beginning of a new line, something we also see in the manuscript.

Example:
This is an example
, of comma's placed
in the beginning
, instead of at the
end of the line.

There's other explanations possible for this.
1) It's a peculiarity that his grandfather, who loved the manuscript, passed on to his descendant.
2) Cornelis, studying the manuscript and identifying more and more with it, copied the habit. He only had primary school education and was mostly a self-educated, and educated by family.

Did Cornelis make the manuscript, or did the manuscript - directly or indirectly - make Cornelis?

No comments:

Post a Comment