6 ms·

Reminds me of the fact that for 500 years everyone graduating with a BA from Oxford had to swear that they would never agree to the reconciliation of Henry Syme

by bb123 1y ago

Reminds me of the fact that for 500 years everyone graduating with a BA from Oxford had to swear that they would never agree to the reconciliation of Henry Symeonis, despite no one having any idea who he was for most of that time.

jgrahamc 1y ago
Yes! I was disappointed to learn when I graduated with my BA that this oath was no longer required. However, I continue refuse to reconcile with Henry Symeonis. It's only been 800 years, you never know when it might be important. After all, the Anglo-Portuguese is still in force 650 years on!
- avhception 1y ago
  Clearly a case of Chesterton's Fence. Who knows what eldritch horrors might result from the removal of that oath!
  - throwup238 1y ago
    Someone outside of Eton might get elected.
    - zeristor 1y ago
      But then we wouldn’t be in a Mess.
- jvvw 1y ago
  Looks like it was removed in 1827. I don't actually remember having to say anything at any of my graduation ceremonies there (BA, MA, DPhil), just walking on to the stage. I do wonder if at matriculation we all had to make some oath together but I think I would have remembered if that had been the case. I have a strong feeling though I might have had to make an oath when I became a scholar - there was definitely a ceremony we had to go to - but that would have been college-dependent.
  - pmyteh 1y ago
    You'll have collectively said "do fidem". The rest is read by the official at the table, not the graduands. The question as to whether this constitutes swearing an oath or making a simple promise was an interesting one for me as Quakers traditionally refuse to do the former.
    - throwawaymaths 1y ago
      "i give my trust". i believe that would be a promise or affirmation as it does not invoke a god. Unless it's the accusative of the goddess of faith (unlikely).
eleveriven 1y ago
Bureaucratic tradition at its finest
- fsckboy 1y ago
  Chesterton's fence
  - dijit 1y ago
    The man cannot be living, ergo there can be no reconciliation, ergo the promise/oath can only exist because nobody bothers to remove it; not because we don’t know the reasons for its existence. Though largely it wouldn’t matter in this case.
    - fsckboy 1y ago
      >The man cannot be living you still don't know why the curse was put in place, vampirism, reincarnation, Devil incarnate, there are myriad possible reasons.
moomin 1y ago
Had to look this one up. Apparently the answer is he was a rich *hole who murdered a student, got fined £80 (which might have been a lot of money, but he was rich), stayed away from Oxford a few years and then The Powers That Be told everyone to get over it. I can kind of understand the statute, tbqh.
- M2Ys4U 1y ago
  According to the Bank of England's inflation calculator, £80 in 1242 is worth £119,600 today.
  - Projectiboga 1y ago
    The fine was against multiple men. That makes me speculate the death was part of a drunkin bar fight and the victim was comnected but the King was neutral and only banned him until the King returned. Ahew, what a nest of rabbit holes to follow.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
mrweasel 1y ago
I was reading some stories and notes made by my grandfather, they where written sometime in the 1980s. He's recalling stories and people in the area where we lived, out in the country side. Apparently my family has feud with a priest from the late 1700 hundreds. The priest complained that people (my family included) wouldn't travel the 7 - 8 kilometers to the church during the fall and winter. The area is in between would flood and freeze, becoming dangerous to travel. The priests refusal to understand the danger (and long travel time, during the winter), caused the feud, which apparently lasted at least until the 1920s.
- fakedang 1y ago
  Understandable, in my experience, because priests and clergymen of whatever religion tend to be the most obnoxious backbiters.
adolph 1y ago
Which reminds me of The Cagots were a persecuted minority who lived in the west of France and northern Spain [0] The origins of the Cagots remain uncertain . . . . Despite the varied and often mythical explanations for their origins, the only consistent aspect of the Cagots was their societal exclusion and the lack of any distinct physical or cultural traits differentiating them from the general population. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cagot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cagot
triclops200 1y ago
Thanks for that, looked it up and was a interesting rabbit hole: Basically, that oath was Oxford University saying "fuck you" to a request of the King (1200s England) officially after he effectively tried to order them to break their collective line and accept a rich fuck who murdered a scholar in the past. Feels kinda like a proto-union-action to me https://blogs.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/archivesandmanuscripts/2023/12/13/the-persistence-of-tradition-the-curious-case-of-henry-symeonis/ https://blogs.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/archivesandmanuscripts/2023/...

by bb123 1y ago

jgrahamc 1y ago

Yes! I was disappointed to learn when I graduated with my BA that this oath was no longer required. However, I continue refuse to reconcile with Henry Symeonis. It's only been 800 years, you never know when it might be important. After all, the Anglo-Portuguese is still in force 650 years on!

avhception 1y ago
Clearly a case of Chesterton's Fence. Who knows what eldritch horrors might result from the removal of that oath!
- throwup238 1y ago
  Someone outside of Eton might get elected.
  - zeristor 1y ago
    But then we wouldn’t be in a Mess.
jvvw 1y ago
Looks like it was removed in 1827. I don't actually remember having to say anything at any of my graduation ceremonies there (BA, MA, DPhil), just walking on to the stage. I do wonder if at matriculation we all had to make some oath together but I think I would have remembered if that had been the case. I have a strong feeling though I might have had to make an oath when I became a scholar - there was definitely a ceremony we had to go to - but that would have been college-dependent.
- pmyteh 1y ago
  You'll have collectively said "do fidem". The rest is read by the official at the table, not the graduands. The question as to whether this constitutes swearing an oath or making a simple promise was an interesting one for me as Quakers traditionally refuse to do the former.
  - throwawaymaths 1y ago
    "i give my trust". i believe that would be a promise or affirmation as it does not invoke a god. Unless it's the accusative of the goddess of faith (unlikely).

eleveriven 1y ago

Bureaucratic tradition at its finest

fsckboy 1y ago
Chesterton's fence
- dijit 1y ago
  The man cannot be living, ergo there can be no reconciliation, ergo the promise/oath can only exist because nobody bothers to remove it; not because we don’t know the reasons for its existence. Though largely it wouldn’t matter in this case.
  - fsckboy 1y ago
    >The man cannot be living you still don't know why the curse was put in place, vampirism, reincarnation, Devil incarnate, there are myriad possible reasons.

moomin 1y ago

Had to look this one up. Apparently the answer is he was a rich *hole who murdered a student, got fined £80 (which might have been a lot of money, but he was rich), stayed away from Oxford a few years and then The Powers That Be told everyone to get over it. I can kind of understand the statute, tbqh.

M2Ys4U 1y ago
According to the Bank of England's inflation calculator, £80 in 1242 is worth £119,600 today.
- Projectiboga 1y ago
  The fine was against multiple men. That makes me speculate the death was part of a drunkin bar fight and the victim was comnected but the King was neutral and only banned him until the King returned. Ahew, what a nest of rabbit holes to follow.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

mrweasel 1y ago

I was reading some stories and notes made by my grandfather, they where written sometime in the 1980s. He's recalling stories and people in the area where we lived, out in the country side. Apparently my family has feud with a priest from the late 1700 hundreds. The priest complained that people (my family included) wouldn't travel the 7 - 8 kilometers to the church during the fall and winter. The area is in between would flood and freeze, becoming dangerous to travel. The priests refusal to understand the danger (and long travel time, during the winter), caused the feud, which apparently lasted at least until the 1920s.

fakedang 1y ago
Understandable, in my experience, because priests and clergymen of whatever religion tend to be the most obnoxious backbiters.

adolph 1y ago

Which reminds me of The Cagots were a persecuted minority who lived in the west of France and northern Spain [0] The origins of the Cagots remain uncertain . . . . Despite the varied and often mythical explanations for their origins, the only consistent aspect of the Cagots was their societal exclusion and the lack of any distinct physical or cultural traits differentiating them from the general population. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cagot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cagot

triclops200 1y ago

Thanks for that, looked it up and was a interesting rabbit hole: Basically, that oath was Oxford University saying "fuck you" to a request of the King (1200s England) officially after he effectively tried to order them to break their collective line and accept a rich fuck who murdered a scholar in the past. Feels kinda like a proto-union-action to me https://blogs.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/archivesandmanuscripts/2023/12/13/the-persistence-of-tradition-the-curious-case-of-henry-symeonis/ https://blogs.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/archivesandmanuscripts/2023/...