Talk:John Knox/Archive2004-2006

Knox and Queen Mary

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Knox#Knox_and_Queen_Mary

What does this mean?

           |
           |
           V

== Knox and Queen Mary == . They did fuck at one time Queen Mary returned to Scotland in Aug., 1561, thoroughly predisposed against Knox; while he and the other Reformers looked upon her with anxiety and suspicion. Fundamental differences of character and training made a keen encounter between the two inevitable. Five personal interviews between Knox and the queen are recorded (each at Mary's invitation).

It was vandalism which has now been removed. - Mark 02:34, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am having trouble understanding this phrase: The last time he stood in her presence, Knox put it to her if he had ever spoken an offensive word in any one of their interviews. The Queen, thus appealed to, could not, and did not say that he ever had. Can someone with a better knowledge of what their relationship was like, please re-write this passage? Thanks --Julien Deveraux 17:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

whom John Calvin described as suavissima?

I don't understand this line: "whom John Calvin described as suavissima". I can't find the term "suavissima" in my dictionary and a google search only reveals scientific (bird species) or several non-English usages. A link to a definition should be given.

opening paragraph

I created an opening paragraph which tries to follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) - in particular I spelt out what he did and therefore why he is significant. I moved most of the existing opening paragraph - discussion of date and place of birth - to Early Life.

Overall I find the style of the article dated and somewhat non-NPOV. Consider this description of his final illness:

"all the noblest and best men of Scotland hung about his house for tidings of the progress of his malady, in the vain hope of his being longer spared."

Is there someone with a better knowledge of Scottish and Presbyterian history who could update it?

This article is not only somewhat, but wholly lacking in NPOV. It's a sample of apologetic, not of information, and is quite unsuitable for Wikipedia.

--Cje 08:49, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

not yet divested himself of Roman orders

A line in the first section read "It that in 1543 Knox had not yet divested himself of Roman orders;". I have taken a guess at the intended meaning here and changed it to "It seems that in 1543 Knox had not yet divested himself of Roman orders;". Anyone with better knowledge of the topic please correct if necessary.

A sentence under "Conversion to Protestantism" reads "According to Calderwood, Thomas Guillaume, a native of East Lothian, the order of Blackfriars and for a short time chaplain to the Regent Arran in 1543, was the first "to give Mr. Knox a taste of the truth."" Should this instead read something like "...a member of the order of Blackfriars..."? I have no idea what the "order of Blackfriars" might be, but it doesn't sound like a title given to a single person.

Lastly, in the section "Knox and Queen Mary," the last sentence is rather mystifying to me. It currently reads: "Later his heart became wholly hardened toward the adulterous accomplice, as he believed, of her husband's murderer." I have read over the entry for Queen Mary, and am guessing this is just referring back to Queen Mary in regards to James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell possibly killing her husband. --Jarsyl 03:06, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

Language used

I have made a stab at updating some of language, it was very 1911EB I'm guessing. If nobody objects I'll try and do the same with the other sections, over time, eventaully. Grinner 12:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wishaw or Wishart?

It is somewhere written Wishaw instead of Wishart here - why? --193.179.187.70 08:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh aye. It looks like Wishaw comes from the oringinal 1911 text, Since the wiki article in the guy is at Wishart, I'll ammend it. Grinner 10:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Knox and Queen Mary (2)

What was the source for this section? It disagrees with a history of Scotland I've recently read. It's called The History of Scotland, and was published in 1888 by T. Nelson and Sons. Here is what it has to say:

The very first Sabbath after her arrival in Scotland, Mary had mass performed in the Chapel of Holyrood. A people who had scarce had time to breathe freely since they were in death-grips with the bloody tyranny of Popery, were alarmed to see such open encouragement given to the dreaded and detested thing in the Palace of the Sovereign. John Knox spoke of it from the pulpit, and his words, to be sure, were plain and strong. As he said himself, he had "learned to call wickedness by its own name, a fig a fig, and a spade a spade." The Queen hears of it, and sends for Knox. Possibly she thought to exercise some influence over the intrepid Reformer; perhaps she was only curious to see a man of whose fame she had heard long before leaving France. The John Knox who conversed with Queen Mary was no rude, unpolished man, such as he is in the vulgar idea of him. The life of Courts was familiar to Knox. Chaplain during four years to Edward VI., he had been the daily companion of the first nobility of England. The leading nobles of Scotland were his familiar friends. The Lord Ochiltree, who had the ancient blood-royal of Scotland in his veins, being descended from the second son of Robert II., was his father-in-law. A rude, uncourtly man Knox certainly was not.

Obedient to her summons, Knox stood in the presence of the Queen. She began by accusing him of various grave offences. He had raised her subjects against her mother and herself; he had written a book against her authority; he had been the cause of great sedition and slaughter in England; he got his power and wrought his purposes by magical arts. Knox defended himself with freedom and boldness. Should a man have done less? For three hundred years or thereby, abuse has been pouring its vials over his grave for the way he spoke to Queen Mary. Whether he ever forgot in her presence the respect due by a subject, whether he was ever rude or offensive in his language to her, may be referred to an unexceptionable witness—Mary herself. The last time he stood in her presence, Knox put it to her if he had ever spoken an offensive word in any one of ther interviews. The Queen, thus appealed to, could not, and did not say that he ever had.

Of course, this is hardly written from a neutral point of view; the author was The Rev. James Mackenzie, who wrote in the second paragraph of the preface "The religious element in Scottish History, from the Reformation to the Revolution, is well-nigh everything. It is hard to understand how any man not sympathizing with the religion of Scotland could write her history fairly."!

However, it should be noted that he doesn't claim Knox never upset Queen Mary. Later, the book talks about Knox denouncing Mary's plans to marry Don Carlos, son of Philip II. of Spain, allegedly to secure a foothold for Spain in Scotland, so that Scotland, Spain, and France could invade England and put down Protestantism there. The Queen summoned Knox, and clearly expressed her anger.

Knox waited till the storm [of her anger] spent itself, and then calmly gave his reasons in justification of what he had done. As a preacher of God's Word, he was bound, he said, to speak plain truth, to tell his hearers their sins and their duties, and to flatter no flesh on the face of the earth.

"But what have you to do," said she, "with my marriage? or what are you within this commonwealth?"

"A subject born within the same, Madam. And albeit I neither be Earl, Lord, nor Baron within it, yet has God made me, how abject soever I be in your eyes, a profitable member thereof."

...

Knox then proceeded to repeat to the Queen what he had said in public. This brought down a new storm of tears and yelling. Erskine of Dun, in his kind and gentle way, tried to soother her. He praised her beauty and her excellence, and said that all the princes of Europe would be glad to seek her favour. It was to no purpose. The fury of the Queen's passion had broken all bounds, and was not to be stayed. Knox stood still, a silent spectator of the pitiful exhibition.

At last he said, "Madam, in God's presence I speak. I never delighted in the weeping of any of God's creatures; yea, I can scarcely well abide the tears of my own boys whom my own hand corrects, much less can I rejoice in your Majesty's weeping. But seeing that I have offered unto you no just occasion to be offended, but have spoken the truth as my calling craves of me, I must sustain, although unwillingly, your Majesty's tears, rather than I dare hurt my conscience, or betray the commonwealth through my silence."

Also, as I think someone else mentioned, there is still the problem in the current article of the unintelligibility of the last sentence of the section on Knox and Queen Mary. T J McKenzie 10:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I note that some people seem to have assumed that the "old encyc" from which the original version of this article was copied was the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. However, as you will see here, the EB entry was much more comprehensive, and bears little resemblance. It was, in fact, copied from The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge; specifically, this page, as far as I can tell. This gives us at least one thing to attribute opinions to when making this section (or, indeed, any of the rest of the article) NPOV. T J McKenzie 04:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any link between Knox and the Covenanters?

Was Knox an influence on the Covenanters~~There does seem to some overlap in time~~ but neither mentions the other ~~, either of support or opposition~~ -- Paul foord 02:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Cockburn

The link, in the early life section, to his pupil John Cockburn is incorrect. It leads to one of his descendants (1700s).

Sexuality debate

Many articles state that he was very very close to Thomas Guillaume before he died and also George Wishart and tales that he was infatuated with Richard Ballantyne,also that he hated women and that he regulary insulted the Blessed Mary and also Queen Mary. Was he an out Homosexual? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.70.113 (talk • contribs)

Not that I'm aware of. Can you supply reliable sources to back up those claims? If so, they might be worth a mention in the article. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 12:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh; what debate? I have never heard anything about Knox being a homosexual, and considering he was married, had children and was a hard line reformer I find it rather unlikely he was a closet one. Do you have any close friends at all? It is disappointing that a man can not be friends with another man without some people inferring that there was more to the relationship than a strong friendship.

AJ Balmforth (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]