Talk:Gesta Herewardi

Hugh Candidus, "Gesta Herewardi"

Why has "a Latin edition" of Gesta Herewardi been attributed in this article to Hugh Candidus? The information given is fairly detailed, but not directly sourced, and I can find, and personally know of, no reason for this attribution, beyond the fact that HC wrote about Hereward in his history of Peterborough Abbey, and I'd suggest looking here, where it is attributed elsewhere. On another note, that last source refers to the subject of this article as "Gesta Herewardi", as opposed to "Gesta Herwardi" - on the basis of which, I propose the article be moved to Gesta Herewardi. As I understand it, other versions of the title, including "Gesta Herwardi", are later variations. I may make this move fairly speedily... Nortonius (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've moved the article - obviously...! Nortonius (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Since this article is not about Hereward but about a text, it may be seen as a compliment to its author, whoever he was, if we were to use the form of the name which he used, rather than insisting that we know better.That form may be seen here. (RJPe (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 07:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC).

I take your point, and I've struck the word "later" in my earlier comment. But, I'm not suggesting that "we know better", and have no intention to slight the author. As I've indicated here, my view is that ""Gesta Herewardi" simply means "(the) deeds of Hereward", so really it's a "catch-all" description anyway", on the basis that "this manuscript (new italics) was written long after the event by an Anglo-Norman, and even Anglo-Saxons gave themselves plenty of latitude in how to spell personal names": bearing in mind that the "Gesta Herewardi" as it survives is a copy, perhaps as late as 1250 (for which see Martin, Janet D., Cartularies and Registers of Peterborough Abbey, pp. 7-8, 12), we don't actually know if the original version even had "Herwardi", or "Herewardi"; and, "about [the opening] sentence [of the Gesta Herewardi]: later "titles" for the work have simply lifted some or all of the words "de gestis Herwardi incliti militis" from this sentence, and some have added words of their own, and so have no special authority". I also put my view here that "Medieval writers didn't necessarily give their work titles — this is the case with Hugh Candidus' history of Peterborough Abbey, for example, which begins instead with a description of what follows" - and the same is true of the "Gesta Herewardi". Hope that helps. Nortonius (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It does: the last observation is an interesting one. (RJPe (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC))

OK - I've found the answer to my question above, in the EL given in the article - but this is speculative, isn't aware of the Anglo-Saxon England paper I indicated above, from 1999, and even cites Wikipedia! I think some revision of the article is due...? Nortonius (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the (thankfully brief) edit history of this article, in its current state it seems frankly to be about as clear an example of WP:COI as you can get, by editor RJPe. Sorry, but that's how I see it: from the editor's talk page, his/her comments on another talk page, and a comparison with website "Bourne Archive", "RJPe" seems clearly to be "R.J. Penhey", author of the website; also, "information" in the article is otherwise only to be found at the Bourne Archive website - i.e. the identity of the author of a version of "Gesta Herewardi" being given as Hugh Candidus here (see footnote 2), where "RJP" accepts an unsubstantiated, 19th century antiquarian's assumption, and subsequently incorporates it into his or her work; and, the article doesn't have a single WP:RS inline citation. Also, the above website is clearly a self-published source, and, I would argue, is little different to a personal blog, the citation and linking of both of these being generally deprecated in WP; so, at the very least, the EL pointing to it should be removed. Having said that, the creation and existence of the article are useful contributions to WP, and I propose that it could reasonably be copy edited for WP suitability. Nortonius (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I note that this source "hugh+candidus"&hl=en&ei=w8RrTNGKMcaU4gbH28TGAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Gesta%20Herewardi%20%22hugh%20candidus%22&f=false

suggests the author's name was Richard someone, and this "hugh+candidus"&hl=en&ei=w8RrTNGKMcaU4gbH28TGAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Gesta%20Herewardi%20&f=false suggests it was Richard of Ely. But whatever we say, the article needs to make it clear that we do not know the author. Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just removed ELs added in this diff, per the above. (later:) BTW, looking at the latter work indicated, that would be a different "Richard (of Ely)". Nortonius (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is about a text. Why are people to be deprived of an opportunity to read the text for themselvs? (RJPe (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC))

I for one am not depriving people of this opportunity - e.g. do a Google search for "gesta herwardi text", or just "gesta herwardi" - it's true that a search using "herewardi" instead of "herwardi" doesn't produce the same result, but I would suggest that this supports the use of "Herewardi" here (though I'm not a believer in Google searches being the "be-all and end-all"), and perhaps The Bourne Archive could be tweaked in some way to alter Google search results. What I mean by "support" is, I would suggest that people are more likely to hear something about "Hereward the Wake", than they are about "Herward The Wake", let alone a medieval text about him, so, while using "Herewardi" here agrees with recent, scholarly usage, happily it also provides an "in" for the general reader; especially note, however, the existence of the redirect "Gesta Herwardi", which points to this article, and that Miller and Sweeting's edition De Gestis Herwardi Saxonis The exploits of Hereward the Saxon is (currently) the first item in the Bibliography here, so that title is available to the general reader, who can then search for it in Google. But, as I've said a number of times now (e.g. above, and here), what I've seen of The Bourne Archive indicates that it's not suitable for WP; and I, albeit that I've been expressing my opinions, haven't seen anything that changes my view. Hope that helps. Nortonius (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The Bourne archive is full of his RJPe's personal research, which however good is still his personal research and it carries a definite pov about Candidus. If we want a link to an English translation, why not use Swanton's? [1] - another source we might use which is also by Swanton is "deeds+of+hereward"&hl=en&ei=qSBtTK6zFMWA4QaJ1Zn8Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=swanton%20%22deeds%20of%20hereward%22&f=false which links to a readable version (at least some pages) of Medieval outlaws: twelve tales in modern English translation By Thomas H. Ohlgren, Thomas E. Kelly, Shaun F. D. Hughes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed - I'd say the first of those two is an excellent online text, as it's properly published! So, I think that should go in as an EL, well done for finding it, if I may say so! :-) Same goes for the second URL you give, but it's more expansive, given Swanton's intro etc., so I imagine it could be a second EL, or perhaps it should go in a ref somewhere. BTW, and just for the record, I note that Elisabeth van Houts says here (in footnote 3), that Swanton's translation of 1984 (i.e., an earlier version) "needs to be used with caution". Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just added an EL to the article, per the above. Nortonius (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with Swanton's version, as shown in the above link at least, is that it is in English alone, as are nearly all such examples. It offers no way of judging how it compares with what the original author actually wrote. In the first section for example, he follows almost everyone else in equating ‘putrefactus’ (this is mediaeval Latin) with 'rotten' (perhaps guided there by the English word ‘putrefied’) and ‘stillicidium’ with ‘damp’ so that he gives an impression of damage owing to damp storage. The reality is that ‘putrefactus’ means ‘softened’ (whether by rot or other means) and ‘stillicidium’ means explicitly, dripping water. This taken in conjunction with his ‘partly damaged by tearing’ as a translation of ‘partim abscisione divisis’; which could as well or better, be translated as ‘partly divided by the breaking off of pieces’. The ‘damp conditions’ can now be pictured as exposure to fire and attempts to put it out. In the context of the 1116 fire at Peterborough, this might make a big difference to our view of the document’s history (and, dare I say it, of its authorship). (RJPe (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC))

(←) It might, but would that not be OR? Not that I'm unsympathetic, I've struggled with avoiding OR myself in the past; and, not that I don't like your thinking, which seems to make sense to me, though I haven't reached for my Latin dictionary or Medieval Latin word list yet to check for myself! On the other hand, whatever the means by which the early ms was damaged, trying to place its origin by that would be pure speculation, I think, as the text says nothing(?) about where the ms had been: "exposure to fire and attempts to put it out" could have happened anywhere, surely? If that's all as I've put it, and assuming that what you say about Swanton's (1997) translation is true, has anyone published a RS commenting on that translation where relevant to this - or even published an alternative RS translation that might be more accurate? WP could use that, I'm sure! I also sympathise with the lack of modern (i.e., more freely-available) editions of the Latin text, but, unfortunately, for WP accessibility of sources isn't an issue. Maybe it's time someone organised such a modern edition, published by e.g. Cambridgeshire Records Society...! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

About "putrefactus" and "stillicidium"... My Cassell's Latin Dictionary is undated, but is at least as old as me(!), and I would think in fact it's a lot older; there's an electronic version of Lewis & Short's dictionary accessible here; and, my copy of Latham, R.E., Revised Medieval Latin Word-List, OUP is a 1989 reprint of the 1965 edition. So you might well be using later, "improved" sources compared to mine...? Anyway - Cassell's has classical Latin "Putrefacio" as (paraphrasing carefully here!) 1. to make or become rotten, and 2. to make pliable or soften; Lewis & Short only differ in that they have "friable" instead of "pliable" (if that isn't a typo!); and Latham (1965), under the root "putr/", has examples translated as variations on putrefaction, rotting, filth, and mouldering. For "stillicidium", Cassell's has this as 1. dripping or dropping moisture, and 2. rain-water falling from the eaves of houses; Lewis and Short only differ in that they add "falling rain"; and Latham (1965), under the root "still/" (including a variant "stellicidium"), has examples translated as variations on gutter, spout, drop (e.g. is (a drop) "of nectar"!), and shower.

So, I think - yes, it's just my opinion - that "rotten" or "putrefied" are acceptable translations of Medieval "putrefactus", and I don't really see how you mean translating it as "softened" to help: in the end, doesn't it amount to pretty much the same thing, in this context? It's in bits... And, I don't have an issue with your interpretation of "stillicidium". I also think "partim abscisione divisis" needs no further elaboration. Maybe you've seen it for yourself, but rotted parchment is horrid stuff! Bits turn to dust, bits drop off, holes appear, corners curl up - sometimes looking like a burn, but it's just the way it's dried out. Though, the ink tends to fade, washed out, rather than run - lots of fun to be had there under a UV lamp, showing up stuff that can't be seen, let alone read, with the naked eye! Anyway, medieval writers saying that a previous version of their work was rotten or lost seems to have been a commonplace way of making it up as they went along, and it's often difficult, if not impossible, to say now whether it's true or not, though one can have one's suspicions: see for example Dumville, D.N., Wessex and England From Alfred to Edgar (etc.), Boydell, 1992, p. 33, n. 15, where Dumville says that the 12th century Abingdon Abbey chronicler 'has the impudence to insist both on the destruction of the abbey [in the 9th century] and on the preservation of its charters and relics!' By that, I don't mean that the present text is a fairy story! No, I think it's great: I'm just trying to indicate some problems of interpretation, in the hope that it's some help... Nortonius (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)