WILLIAM TELL AND THE NAME "WILLIAM"
====================================
(A Critical Examination by Roman Piso)

[ From some of my earlier notes, compiled and updated 03/24/2000 ]

Thought it is supposedly (and may well be) based upon actual historic events,
the story, at least parts of it, may have originated in a passage from the works
of Flavius Josephus (Ref. Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVI, Chap. VIII, the
middle of Verse 4, or page 348 of Whiston’s Translation). That particular
passage goes;

"Now, there was a certain person among the many that was tortured, who
said he knew that the young man had often said, that when he was commended
as a tall man in his body, and a skillful marksman, and that in his other
commendable exercises, he exceeded all men, these qualifications given him
by nature, though good in themselves, were not advantageous to him, because
his father was grieved at them, and envied him for them; and that when he
walked along with his father, he endeavored to depress and shorten himself,
that he might not appear too tall; and that when he shot at anything he was
hunting, when his father was (near) by, he missed his mark on purpose; for
he knew how ambitious his father was of being superior in such exercises."

EXAMINATION:

(1) The name of the young man is not given, he is called a "certain person."
However, a person is named in the prior verse as "Gemellus". As we have
discovered, names in ancient history changed and were developed according
to phonetics as well as other ways. The name "Gemellus" appears to those
who may read Royal Language (which is needed to understand these things
fully), that this name is what the later Frankish name of "Guillume" was
derived from. It is not simply a matter (in this case) of switching letters
around, but of phonetics exposing ‘sounds’ and therefore, letters that are not
seen as present in the written word.

The ‘Goo-wheh’ has a faint and nearly silent ‘l’ sound at the end of it in the
name "Gemellus". But the natural pronounciation of this name forces the mouth
towards making this sound. So, that one might occasion to say it as
"Goo-wheh-l-em-us", even though the ‘l’ is not present in the written form.

And so, now we look at the ‘real’ base letters of the name "Gemellus" and we
see it as "Gemellu(m)". Knowing these things we can now see and know how
it is that "Gemellus" became the later Frankish name of "Guillume", and that
Frankish name is the name that became the name that is recognizable to us as
the modern day "William".

So again, just to make sure that this is clear to the reader, let’s make the
comparison between the names of "Gemellus" and "Guillume". The phonetic
version of Gemellus as was stated was pronounced "Goo-wheh" (or "Gheh")
with the "l" sound, rendering "Guill(u)" with the "m" sound the short "e" sound
of "eh" to replace the "us" at the end of "Gemellus". And this is how the name
went from "Gemellus" to the Frankish "Guillume", which, as was stated, became
the name "William" that we know of today.

(2) The emphasis on the young man is that he is "tall". It may be that in the old
English of the time (in the early 1300’s) when the William Tell story was
written, the words for ‘tell’ and ‘tall’ may have been virtually the same. Of
course there will have to be much more research done on this as a whole in
order to reach definitive conclusions. I’ll try to outline more of what is needed
regarding this in my end notes.

(3) Both father and son in both stories were "marksmen". And this is just
another of the several similarities that caught my attention and drew me to
‘see’ the connections and probable connections between the two stories. But
mainly, that is something that is attributable to a) my familiarity with the
works of Flavius Josephus, and b) my understanding of Royal Language.

(4) There was "turmoil" surrounding father and son in both of the stories,
which, in and of itself is rather flimsy ‘evidence’, but taken as one of the
component parts that total up in the comparison can call in the higher
measure of probability - and so, should be counted.

(5) The father and son in both stories were very close to each other. This
too, should be noted.

(6) The son is the more skillful marksman. More examination must be
done on the overall story comparison.

(7) The son possessed a highly virtuous nature.

(8) Other items may relate to this when this is further examined.

Perhaps, when all is told, the real and true reason for the story of William
Tell was so that when the time comes where the focus of the world turns
to analyzing these ancient texts by use of the knowledge of Royal
Language, that the author knew that the world would eventually find out
through critical examination, the very things that are being stated here.

Most particularly though, the true origin and development of the name
"William", for the reason that it is an example to follow in our
understanding of the origin and development of other names as well.
Another words, as kind of a "public service". Interesting.

Now, as some readers may be wise enough to have already concluded,
there is a particular reason for pointing the reader towards the name
"Gemellus" as the origin of the name of "William" - and that is because
that name too, is really another one.

In our examination, we have apparently accidentally stumbled upon the
true origin of the name "William" as deriving from "Camillus". And this
is so in the following manner;

(1) Camillus was the name of the famous Roman general who destroyed
the Etruscan capital city of Veii.
(2) In Royal Language, "C" and "G" are interchangeable and vowels are
"fluid"; meaning that the name "Camillus" may easily be seen as having
been changed to "Gemellus" (in phonetic fashion). As a matter of fact,
someone who is trying to say "Camillus" with a cold would most likely
say it as "Gemellus". And these are the things that we need to realize
when it comes to understanding how Royal Language works. The name
Camillus pre-existed (in history), so Camillus would be the original that
was changed to "Gemellus".
(3) Later, "Gemellus" became "Guillume".
(4) And Guillume then became the familiar "William" as we know it today.
This is easily checked by the study of both history and genealogy.

End Notes:
========

Regarding Camillus, Plutarch wrote about Camillus. That name can be seen
in use then circa 400 BCE, and this Furius Camillus died in 365 BCE. It may
well be that the name "Camillus" (which is a Roman name, but more
importantly, a Royal name), might be derived from "Camuel" (Kamuel), who
was the son of Nahor, one of the two brothers of Abraham. And, in our
understanding of ancient genealogy, we can see this as a good possibility
because of claims of various royals to descend from kings of ancient Troy.

When one knows the genealogies of those kings, it is found that those kings
in turn, were descended from what we think of today as "Jewish" lines. Of
course, this is knowledge that the public is not yet privy to. And so, back to
Nahor… Nahor was one of the two brothers of Abraham. Nahor married
Milcha and had eight sons by her; Uz and Buz (who may have been twins),
and Kemuel (Camuel), Chesed, Azau, Pheldas, Jadelph and Bethuel. (Ref.
Josephus, pg. 32). So, knowing all of this, it is entirely possible that the name
"Camillus" actually derives from royal Jewish ancestors. Not only does one
need to understand Royal Language, but also the Royal Supremacy theory.

Now, the "Gemellus" that was written about by Josephus supposedly lived
in the time of Augustus Caesar and king Herod of Judea, which would make
him alive circa 30 BCE. And the name of "Guillume" is seen in the person of
one "Guillume de Gellone", who figures importantly in many genealogies
to take their lineage back to certain Merovingian kings of France. This person
lived circa 750 CE (AD) and was the count of Razes as well as holding other
important titles, etc. Many of his descendants carried the name "Guillume"
(or "Guillaume") as well.

As for the first of those named "William", we can see the example in that first
English King whom was named "William". Is it now seen as a coincidence that
he chose the title "The Conqueror" when we realize that "William" is the same
as "Camillus" (the conqueror)? This was, of course, William I, king of England,
who was the Duke of Normandy (France) and invaded England in 1066. He was
born in 1028, in Normandy, France. And he acceded to the thrown of England
at Westminster Abby, London, England on Dec. 25th, 1066. He died on Sept.
9th, 1087 at Hermentrube, near Rouen, France. And so, we can see the that
Guillume name came from France to England to change from the Frankish
spelling to the later English spelling of "William".

Incidentally, I have often wondered who the true author of Aesop’s fables may
have been. Then it occurred to me that because of the mention in Josephus of
Aesop, that it may have been him. He mentions an Aesop in his works (Ref.
pg. 316; Antiquities of the Jews, Book XV, Chapter III, Verse II). And…
I also wondered just how many later day stories have had their basis in the
works of Flavius Josephus? Like the story of "William Tell" for example.

As for the issue of Aesop, one may note the way in which Josephus mentions
Aesop as being in a very ‘casual’ manner, much the same way in which he
mentions "Jesus", and this also recalls Josephus mention of Philo of
Alexandria in his works (as Flavius Josephus) and it has been found that he
was also the author of the works attributed to Philo of Alexandria (read our
work on this).

As for the story of William Tell, I have more notes that I have not yet been
able to locate. But I do have a note that says, "Possibly something similar may
be in the Illiad (by Homer). I found what I did in Josephus about this because
of my great familiarity with these works and in the fact that I have made
notations throughout my copies of his works. I actually have what may be
called an ‘annotated’ copy of Josephus. My hope is to be able to get this same
thing out to the public so that they will be able to ‘see’ all that is there, but is
presently missed by many readers.

FUTURE EXAMINATION:

(1) Find out and determine [ using ‘royal language’, etc. ] who the "certain
person" is who is mentioned/described by Josephus (i.e., if he is indeed means
"Gemellus") when he is telling this story about the ‘tall’ young man.

(2) Look into the name "Tell" for William Tell in the story of William Tell.

(3) Examine the William Tell story fully in the historic sense with regards to
persons and events contemporary with it (i.e., in the time in which it was
written and just prior to that time).

(4) Examine this by using the original or oldest example of the text in that
original language. Do a translation of it using ‘royal language’ in order to
understand the full meanings contained within that text.

Copyright 2000, The Roman Piso Homepage
(All Rights Reserved)