Henke 2022ek

Did William Tell Exist? Lundahl (2022n) Doesn’t Take the Issue Seriously and His “First Known Audience Rule” is a Failure

Kevin R. Henke

September 15, 2022

In Henke (2022a), I list four hypotheses to explain the Talking Snake story of Genesis 3. Hypothesis #3 compares the Talking Snake story to an ancient work of fiction or a “campfire story” that was mistakenly taken by the ancient Israelites as being real. I also cited William Tell and some Roman Catholic saints as other likely examples where works of fiction were eventually taken as being true. Here is the relevant section from Hypothesis #3 from Henke (2022a):

3. The Talking Snake of Genesis 3 was part of a made-up campfire story, a parable or based on a pagan myth that eventually was taken as fact by the ancient Israelites, like how President Reagan and his fans mistook fictional stories from World War 2 as real. William Tell (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/in-search-of-william-tell-2198511/ ) and a number of Roman Catholic saints (https://listverse.com/2014/05/17/10-beloved-saints-with-fictitious-biographies/ ) are probably also myths.

Lundahl (2022c) then responded to the William Tell section from Henke (2022a):

“Modern scholars dispute the historicity of William Tell and Protestant scholars dispute that of lots of Catholic saints (and the modern scholars you provide are culturally Protestant. I may take up separate posts when trying to deal with these links, but Smithsonian Mag is not my best academic resource for European History of the Middle Ages and Listverse is trusted when providing lists, but not quite as trusted with backing up each detail on each list with good scholarship.”

This statement is from an individual that relies on Wikipedia for “good scholarship” and deliberately avoids the peer-reviewed articles and books that I give him (e.g., Lundahl 2022d; Lundahl 2022o; also see Henke 2022at).

In Henke (2022b), I replied to Lundahl (2022c):

“In my discussions of Hypothesis #3 in Henke (2022a), I mentioned that stories about William Tell and some Roman Catholic Saints are additional examples of works of fiction that are now widely misinterpreted as historical fact. I linked to the following webarticles:

In Search of William Tell (Robert Wernick, Smithsonian Magazine)

Listverse: 10 Beloved Saints the Church Just Made Up by Larry Jimenez and fact checked by Jamie Frater.

Lundahl (2022c) complains about the reliability of my references (Smithsonian Magazine and Listverse). He also states that he may give a separate response on these topics later.

Granted, my preliminary links on William Tell and some of the Roman Catholic saints were not articles from peer-reviewed journals. They simply provided some background information on how these individuals were probably not historical. Nevertheless, Mr. Lundahl could consult Jean-François Bergier’s Guillaume Tell (1988), which is mentioned in the Smithsonian Magazine article, if he did not like the summary in the article. The Listverse article on the Catholic saints also contains links with additional information and documentation. Nevertheless, here’s a journal article that discusses more about the origin of William Tell:

Hughes, S.C. 2012. “The Limits of Cultural Nationalism: Italian Switzerland from a Risorgimento Perspective”, Nations and Nationalism, v. 18, n. 1, pp. 57-77.”

Because of his commitment to his “earliest known audience” scam, Mr. Lundahl doesn’t like the idea in Hypothesis #3 that a work fiction, such as William Tell and possibly Genesis 3, may have been mistakenly taken as historical fact by a large crowd of early people; that is, the “earliest known audience.”

In Lundahl (2022n), Mr. Lundahl further absurdly attacks the above article by Wernick (2004) in Smithsonian Magazine:

“Kevin R. Henke has now more than once linked to these two links, by Robert Wernick for one, and by Larry Jimenez, factchecked by Jamie Frater, for the other. My turn to make mincemeat of them:

Smithsonian : In Search of William Tell

Robert Wernick | August 2004

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/in-search-of-william-tell-2198511/

Problem 1:

Warnick (2004):

‘There is just one small problem: many historians doubt that Tell ever made those two famous arrow shots in 1307, and many are convinced that no such person as William Tell ever existed.’

No problem, what I expect of such people. Problem 2? Yes:

Warnick (2004):

‘For one thing, his story wasn’t set down fully until 1569-70, some 250 years after the events it describes, by historian Aegidius Tschudi…’

Would have been a problem in a better documented area of Europe, like Paris or London. Problem 3:

Warnick (2004):

“In 1758, nearly two centuries after Tschudi’s death, up turned a forgotten copy of the original Oath of Rütli made by the representatives of the three forest cantons, none of whom was named Tell. It was dated “the beginning of August 1291,” so the whole episode had to be moved back 16 years (only Uri remains stubbornly faithful to the old date of 1307).”

Solution, William Tell only represented Uri. And therefore only later signed the Rüetli Ääid - case closed, historic.”

Before Lundahl (2022n) actually has any basis to brag about making “mincemeat” of someone else’s ideas, he first needs to seriously look at the issue and not just unfairly and flippantly dismiss the claims of his opponents, like Warnick (2004), because they are “such people.” Of course, the general population of Ur canon in Switzerland are not objective historians and neither is Mr. Lundahl. The Swiss have strong nationalistic desires for the story about William Tell to be true. Mr. Lundahl also needs William Tell to be an historical figure. Otherwise, if William Tell is fiction, the account demonstrates that Hypothesis #3 of Henke (2022a) is possible. That is, the ancient Israelites also could have heard a fictional story about a Talking Snake, and mistakenly thought that the story was real.

Notice that Lundahl (2022n) never mentions Hughes (2012), the journal article on William Tell that I gave him in Henke (2022b), which is unfortunately typical of Mr. Lundahl (Henke 2022at). Instead, Lundahl (2022n) solely responds to a few statements from Warnick (2004). Warnick (2004) provides a nice overview of the William Tell story. However, because Warnick (2004) is largely unreferenced, I managed to confirm a lot of the claims in Warnick (2004) with the following peer-reviewed journal articles: Head (1995), Mitchell and Mitchell (1970), and Hughes (2012).

Although he states that we cannot “prove” or “disprove” that William Tell ever existed, Warnick (2004) presents compelling evidence that the William Tell story started out as the Bluetooth fable in Scandinavia. For more information on this Scandinavian work of fiction, see Mitchell and Mitchell (1970). Somehow, the story got to Switzerland, where it was locally transformed into the William Tell account set in 1307. By the time the William Tell story was recorded by historian Aegidius Tschudi in 1569-1570, it was taken as history, at least by the Swiss. Today, as Warnick (2004) summarizes, William Tell is very popular and often internationally mistaken for an historical account.

William Tell fully complies with Hypothesis #3, which states that a fictional story may eventually be mistaken as fact and then widely spread as an “historical account” among a population. If this myth-mistaken-as-history situation could happen with William Tell, then it could have happened with the Talking Snake of Genesis 3 and Moses in the Old Testament. The idea that the Talking Snake of Genesis 3 is a fairy tale taken as history is far more probable than the belief that Genesis 3 actually happened.

So, how does Lundahl (2022n) respond to the evidence and claims in Warnick (2004), and argue that William Tell was historical? The answer is not very well at all. Lundahl (2022n) flippantly states:

“Solution, William Tell only represented Uri. And therefore only later signed the Rüetli Ääid - case closed, historic.”

No, the case is not “closed” for Mr. Lundahl! Here, Lundahl (2022n) uses a begging the question fallacy to groundlessly speculate that William Tell later signed the Rüetli Ääid without first demonstrating that William Tell ever existed. Lundahl (2022n) doesn’t even try to explain why the William Tell story is so close in content with the Danish Bluetooth fable. Lundahl (2022n) simply rattles off worthless speculations, childishly declares victory, and feels that he’s demonstrated that William Tell was a historical figure. Mr. Lundahl has utterly failed to demonstrate that the William Tell story is history. Hypothesis #3 remains a viable explanation for William Tell and also for the origin of Genesis 3. Mr. Lundahl’s “first known audience rule” is a totally untrustworthy indicator of what is history.

References:

Head, R.C. 1995. “William Tell and His Comrades: Association and Fraternity in the Propaganda of Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Switzerland” The Journal of Modern History, September, v. 67, n. 3, pp. 527-557.

Hughes, S.C. 2012. “The Limits of Cultural Nationalism: Italian Switzerland from a Risorgimento Perspective”, Nations and Nationalism, v. 18, n. 1, pp. 57-77.

Mitchell, R.E. and J.P. Mitchell. 1970. “Schiller’s William Tell: A Forkloristic Perspective”, The Journal of American Forklore, January – March, v. 83, n. 327, pp. 44-52.

Warnick, R. 2004. “In Search of William Tell”, Smithsonian Magazine: August, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/in-search-of-william-tell-2198511/ (accessed July 24, 2022).