|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Sept 12, 2020 0:19:30 GMT -5
Briefly paused to poke into the source checking this author. But I at least know I don't get to sneer at some of the stuff she's saying - which I hadn't planned on, she's making interesting connections that make for a wonderful story - but she seems to have an extensive history of writing these sorts of things and teaching at a university.
So ya know, I'll take it. Wild stuff in this article though.
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Sept 13, 2020 2:29:38 GMT -5
So today I have no done much research for the most part. I did sort through a lot of what I found yesterday though.
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Sept 14, 2020 21:52:30 GMT -5
Today's goals should probably be looking into alchemy more.
//flops// I ... am learning that I'm stumbling into most of what I've been writing by chance and as much by chance it isn't too far off.
In other news, if you keep wondering whether windows were invented in the 1600s, then you might need to do more research into the time period. Just a tip.
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Sept 15, 2020 13:48:40 GMT -5
Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum.
What to do, what to do today.
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Sept 16, 2020 14:23:04 GMT -5
I ... totally did not stay up way to late raiding my college for articles again. Nope. Not me. I know how to search for them better now.
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Sept 17, 2020 23:54:19 GMT -5
I feel like I should keep reading one of these articles, but I'm waiting for Clo.
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Sept 17, 2020 23:54:58 GMT -5
I need to find a text rendition of Arthur's book. I don't want to read the original manuscript just yet.
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Sept 18, 2020 1:43:59 GMT -5
Tonight's quote is [regarding Arthur's book]:
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Sept 18, 2020 1:48:29 GMT -5
History research is ten times more difficult when two historians say two completely different things. And have two completely different valid resources to back them up. It becomes sad. I need more sources on this man's personal life and friends.
In related news, the sore lack of information we have on his wife makes me sad.
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Sept 18, 2020 3:04:00 GMT -5
When one of the books Arthur might as well have cited from is: An easie introduction to the Philosophers Magical Gold Well. Okay. What he cited from was a unknown manuscript and then later the only surviving bits ended up in an 17th century generation copy of "Magic for Dummies" but the fact that this old manuscript they don't know about has a legacy that is ... this greatly amuses me.
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Sept 18, 2020 3:04:52 GMT -5
Tonight's nightly addition of: Find out which bit of alchemy Arthur was quoting to find out just how badly behind you are on researching the job he had.
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Sept 18, 2020 4:25:25 GMT -5
Why we do research: Written excerpt from "The Science of Homosexuality in Early Modern Europe" about Arthur Dee: (text regards distasteful views) imgur.com/a/xTQQWEWNo. No, this isn't him. :/ And I just spent several hours checking and rechecking. Even if this was even from Fasciculus Chemicus - which it isn't - then Fasciculus Chemicus is basically just a collection of quotes anyway. But this quote is miss-represented. It isn't even in Fasciculus Chemicus. It's from The Hermetic Arcanum (assumed to be by Jean D'Espagnet). It was also translated by Elias Ashmole. Both works were placed into a sort of 2 for 1 deal. There's no records Arthur Dee knew about the Hermetic Arcanum and I've seen no mention of Jean D'Espagnet having ever known or associated with him. In fact, they were in two separate countries when both likely wrote their respective books. Arthur only had his limited library of 40 or so alchemical text in Moscow. He also carefully cited all sources in Fasciculus Chemicus and the The Hermetic Arcanum was not one of them. Elias Ashmole, however, was translating French alchemical works at the time. Arthur Dee published Fasciculus Chemicus in 1631 (note Jean only lived til 1637). It was his only literary work. The full sources for Arthur Dee's works can be found in "THE SOURCES OF ARTHUR DEE'S FASCICULUS CHEMICUS (1631) By LYNDY ABRAHAM." And I just read through it and even the book which the Hermetic Arcanum cites this quote is from isn't on Arthur Dee's source list. The writing styles and formatting are also vastly different (check Archive.org if you're up for reading some very old English). Further, the original Latin text does not include this second book (you might have to search til you find the scanned copy that looks like complete jibberish, but it's also there.) Sorry "The Science of Homosexuality in Early Modern Europe." You have a bone to pick with Jean D'Espagnet not Arthur Dee. At least in this particular quote. And thus ends today's addition for Why Mint Does Her Own Research and Doesn't Always Trust Authors.
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Sept 18, 2020 4:27:35 GMT -5
Why do I care?
Because someone will ask me if I keep writing what I'm writing and I'm going to have a damn good answer for them.
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Sept 18, 2020 4:40:35 GMT -5
Also, by the way, I found this by just opening up anything regarding Arthur Dee's name popping up anywhere. He's got a whole conspiracy theory around him to. Which has to do with Russia and him working for Ivan the Terrible. Fine and dandy until you realize that would have placed Arthur Dee in Russia when he was 5. Considering his proneness to accidents, the only thing he might have helped anyone with was how to scrub the latest blood from whatever nick or scrape he just got off their shoes.
Arthur worked with Michael I of Russia. Just to be clear. Ivan had been gone for something close to ten generations of tsars (all of them only lasted about 3 years each at best).
So I checked out all books where his name popped up. This was just another one that proved to have ... nothing to do with him and literally no help in the scheme of things. Other than giving me a headache and an eyeroll at the same time.
Some of this can be placed on Elias Ashmole's shoulders though. But seriously? Both books have separate title cards? Didn't notice that or something, authors?
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Sept 28, 2020 2:19:48 GMT -5
Article acquired.
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Sept 30, 2020 10:25:41 GMT -5
Hum, hum. What should I read article wise? I have many thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Gold on Oct 1, 2020 17:53:32 GMT -5
One day in the future someone will try to attempt to research the historical domain character of Mintedstar, spend untold time attempting to research her in the most unlikely of places, and uncover what appears to be a focused series of ramblings on a cat forum on the wayback machine or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Oct 1, 2020 23:01:01 GMT -5
Not only will I be flattered someone was researching me, but also that they find this I will laugh so hard. They'll hear me beyond the grave.
Also, that would require someone to back it up on the Wayback Machine, and honestly that alone would impress me.
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Oct 4, 2020 23:05:13 GMT -5
I've been researching far too much about Edward Kelley. @.@
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Oct 4, 2020 23:12:30 GMT -5
So, like, he would literally find John Dee's private diary and write in it. Like ... make comments in the margins about how he was a liar and scratch things out. It's very impressive.
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Oct 5, 2020 0:48:29 GMT -5
So, I wrote this for an RP, but also to get an idea for the voice of John Dee and Edward Kelley (Talbot)
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Oct 5, 2020 17:55:32 GMT -5
I am too much muse please help.
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Oct 5, 2020 20:58:59 GMT -5
Updated the timeline again.
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Oct 5, 2020 21:23:28 GMT -5
I made the front fancy.
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Oct 10, 2020 15:14:20 GMT -5
Huum. The same month that Jane (Arthur's mom) died was the same month that Arthur's second kid was born. And he named her Jane. Why do I only now notice this? ;-;
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Oct 10, 2020 15:21:30 GMT -5
Jan 13th: Entry: D denied failing to answer the College's summons. Asked what authority he had to practise, he replied that 'medicine was his profession and that as he could make a business out of it, he ought to follow it'. He claimed that the College connived at others, e.g. Dr Moore, Dr Turner. Initiator of the complaint: college member Attitude of the accused: defiant Action taken: Ordered to refrain from practice. Shown mercy because of his family
Feb 3rd: Entry: D showed letters patent from University of Basle, 4 May 1609, within a month of his previous appearance. Action taken: ?
May 6th: Entry: D claimed that he practised medicine by royal prerogative. Attitude of the accused: made an excuse Pressure applied by College: yes Action taken: Dismissed. Verdict: case not completed
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Oct 10, 2020 23:28:16 GMT -5
Alright, but this is REALLY cool. 19th century painting of John Dee 19th century painting of John Dee under x-ray Bonus this thing:
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Oct 16, 2020 2:57:42 GMT -5
I caved, bought World Anvil, and started working on a timeline there too.
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Oct 17, 2020 2:30:04 GMT -5
Higher mathematics is discovering the month Arthur Dee was married based on when his first kid was born. Like, it's simple subtraction, but for the life of me I was like ??? what the heck is 5 - 12. He married Isabella literally the month he turned 24. It's the only way my sources and her pregnancy matches. I love when I work something out that other researches weren't just by ... math. Or they just never bother to mention the month. They're just 'ah yes, he was 24' And I'm like 'please. dates. dates please.'
|
|
|
Post by mintedstar/fur🦇 on Oct 17, 2020 3:26:13 GMT -5
"Not much in 1605" That just hurts. Like. That's just painful. That's the year Arthur lost 4 family members to plague.
|
|