1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Maddening how the Web is full of people repeating each other's (purported) quotes, and none of them saying which piece of writing it came from.

I've also found the following, attributed to Plato, in two variants: "Who tell the stories also rule society"

A CNN story of Sept. 12, 2000, shows Clinton using that one in a speech, attributing it to Plato. With a "Those" in front.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is, in some ways, the newest of issues, and in some ways the oldest of issues. Plato said,
thousands of years ago, "Those who tell the stories rule society."
Someone else, a writer named Dr. Jack Sheehan, says it's in Plato's Republic . I'm glad to have that much of a tip, because there are over
40 works by Plato at the Online Books Page.

However, I checked two versions of Republic that are on-line for both of these statements (above and below), and neither was in either. It could be a variation in translation, of course. Plato does talk about the importance of stories in education and shaping public opinion.
and "Those who hold the power also tell the stories."

Best Donna Richoux
However, I checked two versions of Republic that are on-line for both of these statements (above and below), ... a variation in translation, of course. Plato does talk about the importance of stories in education and shaping public opinion.

and "Those who hold the power also tell the stories."

I've done some searches, too, with digital versions of Plato (in English of course), and I don't find anything that matches the Clinton quote.
As you say, Plato goes on at length about what kinds of stories should be permitted in his ideal republic. It seems that if he'd had his way, the Homeric stories would have been seriously damaged: he'd have removed all the humour and passion and eveything that makes them fun to read. I suppose he would have liked Virgil's Aeneas, who is humourless and about as entertaining as an hour with Fulton J Sheen. But I digress.
We seem to have no very good answer to the mystery.
Michael West
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
My Spanish ancestors are the one I want to trace next. If what I found is true, they appear to have lived for generations on the Canary Islands. That's unusual.

Why unusual? Canary islands inhabitants had to emigrate, since the islands were poor and could not support a large population. After the Spanish conquest in the 14 and 15th centuries, receiving inmigrants from mainland Spain and other European countries, the population grew so much that in the 18th and 19th centuries Canary islands had a high rate of emigration. South America was their favourite destination, both it is not rare that some ended in Louisiana.

Saludos cordiales
The right of the people to keep and arm bears shall not be infringed.
Strange stuff, Donna.

Sorry. I suppose my knowledge of times that far back is about as sketchy as what a lot of Brits know about US history.

As we're apologising, I'll apologise for the lack of clarity in my response. My post didn't do a very good job of indicating what I found strange. The strangeness was such that I was incapable of putting it into words at the time. But here goes ...
Amplifying my ignorance without doing any digging myself:

Squires giving up their daughters?

Who did all of the arriving Normans marry, then? They weren't all monks. Did entire families arrive and they only ... they not start marrying into the land-owning Anglo-Saxon families? We know they did, eventually, but how long did it take?

Not very long. That question was a jocular objection to your jocular use of 'squires'. It was a first, flailing attempt to pin the tail of deconstruction on the donkey of strangeness, if you will. (I know you meant 'squire' in the 'country gent' sense but, in passing: Pre-Conquest England wasn't feudal so there wouldn't have been any squires in the literal sense - squires of the shield-bearing variety.)

The strangeness I found in your post was not so much rooted in any ignorance as in a confusion of terms. I'm sure you know as much about that period as I do but, after implying that the modern French aren't Northern Europeans (which they aren't in some ways), you give as an example of non-Northern Frenchness the, er, Normans - the Northmen, cousins of the Northern antiassimilationists (allegedly) of the Danelaw.

I also sense a lack of clarity on your part about whether you mean noblemen or commoners (the ruling classes of all the named groups employed inter-group marriage as a political tool) but I might be wrong about that.
Danes keeping to themselves?

The Danelaw the drawing of a boundary, you stay on your side, we'll stay on our side, prevent more ... up and went home, didn't they, and the rest must have been assimilated by the English. When? The Norman years?

I don't know when assimilation can be said to have been complete. The Danelaw existed for less than a hundred years (last bit reconquered 955) but the Danes played a part in England for much longer than that. There were constant new arrivals, so the process must have been continuous and uncompletable until the supply of fresh Danes dried up. (1041?)

Apparently, the Danes kept pretty much to themselves in Ireland but not in England, where (plebeian) intermarriage seems to have been common. This is interesting:
And not just because of this extract:
In central and eastern England, it seems both migrant and local populations were prepared to integrate and reforge new community identities, albeit under the influence of the dominant political powers. A degree of linguistic similarity may have fostered both political and kin-based assimilation, and this may have assisted the decline of the Scandinavian languages, which appear to have dwindled away after only a few generations even in the most heavily settled areas.
The Normans welcomed and assimilated by the French French?

What do you mean by 'French'?

When the Normans invaded France, obviously there was conflict, but then didn't they get (were given) the area of Normandy, ... from the French in more central regions, but it was still French. They didn't form a separate little Norse-speaking kingdom.

No, they seem to have adopted the local version of Latin quite quickly.
I really should look that up because I don't know that era well enough, and I forget when people stopped being Franks and Frankish and started being the French of France.

The kingdom of France was founded in 843 ( I think) but it didn't mean very much until the 12th century.
And that's my objection to 'Had not the Norman French been welcomed and assimilated by the French French a couple of centuries before?'. The Northmen set up raiding bases in what would become Normandy at least fifty years before France existed in any sense at all, and even when France finally arrived it was a very weak entity, little more than a sham hierarchy of fancy titles. The king was nominally at the top but the real wealth and power remained in the hands of the same old bully-boys, titled or otherwise. Temporal allegiances would have been very local and probably not very voluntary, especially for the peasants. So how much would the non-Scandinavian inhabitants of Normandy have considered themselves French, or even West Frankish? Not very much, I suspect.
The Christian identity was probably far more important. The Northmen didn't convert until 911 (part of the deal that gave them their dukedom). So if you had said 'Had not the pagan Normans been welcomed and assimilated by the Christian Franks 150 years before?' I might have ...
What? Agreed? Nooo. 'Welcoming and assimilating'? What choice did the local people have? Or the French kings, for that matter?

But I ramble.