zodiac27 Jan 2004

You might also consider the new _Compleat Annotated Jodhpur Manuscripts_ (in folio with -=darkangel=-'s original marginal notations and squiggle-pen doodlings: www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/jodhpur.html) with a fascinating forward by Sir Hilary Wainscotting of the Cumberland Gazette Enquirer and Sunday Book Supplement entitled "The Mistress' Jodhpurs: Proto-feminism and Authorship Issues in the Manuscripts" in which the author argues (cogently, I believe,) that the near-complete absence of women (ie, Lady Proud-Stocking) in the so-called 'Proud-Stocking Canon' belies a nascent proto-feminist sympathy (ie, the Lady has indeed been 'liberated' from the text itself.) He goes on to suggest (compellingly) that Lord Proud-Stocking (who notoriously denengrated his estranged wife) did not possess the degree of sophistication which is evident in the careful layering of imagery and allusion in the Manuscripts, concluding that the 14th Duke of Northumberland, Percy Cackering (who notoriously shagged Proud-Stocking's wife,) is the most likely real author. This is, you should know, considered heresy by many Judhpur scholars. Wainscotting supports his argument (assiduously, I should add,) with a fascinating reading of the Jodhpur Sequence in light of Northumberland's own close studies of the early hymns of Caedmon, in which he reads the old English 'Geæfpðhr' (ie, husk,) as 'Jodhpur'. The rest of the essay is more difficult to decipher, consisting mainly of (seemingly) drunken tirades against the aforementioned Jodhpur scholars and random speculations on the possibility of wearing husks instead of woolens. The editors also provide an extensive concordance, none of whose entries (which are all distinctly scatalogical, I should add,) lead to real pages. I hope this helps you on your search.