Talk:John Davies (poet, born 1569)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Davies (poet). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060830092056/http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/%7Erbear/davies1.html to http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/%7Erbear/davies1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

'True Causes' well written but polemical?

Hello there, Thank you for this page. I have just read True Causes (at Archive.org) https://archive.org/stream/irelandundereliz00morliala#page/334 and it is indeed well written and polemical but only in the sense of being controversial which today, I hope you can agree, is not really what we mean by a polemic.

I am writing only because it might put some readers off from reading it and that would be a shame. Controversial yes but thorough and largely water-proof.

What he does achieve is to show at least this reader that efforts like, for example, the Statutes of Kilkenny were intended to curb the Anglo-Irish 13th century settlers from England and not 'the mere Irish' who Davies seems to have written off as a race apart and beyond redemption though he does relent when they appear(ed) to start behaving themselves when Crown protection was extended to include them; i.e. What began as failings of character transmuted by about page 333/334 to the belief that just laws and protection would bring about a more civil state of affairs, which it did.

It is absolutely compelling as a read, Davies' classical training surfacing every so often, as he (unlike Spenser who also appears in the volume linked above) comes to the empirical conclusion that 'good fences make good neighbours', (something any English or Irish schoolboy or girl could have told him). Davies begins in the 12th Century and eloquently works his way forward to the 17th.

The work is important because for the first time in this reader's lifetime, the behaviours of settlers are identified as 'the true cause' of a centuries old failed policy where successive monarch's footed the bill for the poor behaviour of those who foraged in the monarch's name. The early Norman settlers did not want the monarch to offer protection to the Irish and so lacking his/her protection they saw the King or Queen's writ for what it was, a double standard of justice, though, as mentioned, no fault of the monarch. Soldiers sent over to prevent trouble between the two weighed heavily on the settler's who had to feed them (coign and livery) which just made the situation worse. Anyway, thank you for reading this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.127.24.137 (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)