Talk:Julian of Norwich

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 February 2021 and 18 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Echinkle22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

I really think that a lot more extensive coverage could be given of a woman who is popularly regarded as one of England's greatest mystics. For a start, the article could discuss whether she actually came from Yorkshire, as some scholars hold, but later moved to Norwich and adopted Norfolk as her homeland. ACEO 20:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

link spam

Jclerman said in his/her revert edit summary: "not really - explain before deleting". According to the spam1 template, which I did place on User:AJokinen's Talk page, "Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia." and it's his/her own personal website. -- JHunterJ 19:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Saint?

The Britannica reference says that she was never beatified. Is she actually a saint? Michaelsanders 15:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

She was commemorated as a Saint in the Church of England, on May 8 1980[1][2][3][4] See also Calendar of saints (Church of England) Devious Viper 09:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Without something official along the lines of being named a Doctor of the Church or being officially canonized, it is incorrect to say that she is "Honored in the Catholic Church" even if many individual Catholics do honor her. 71.39.202.111 (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The linked reference for May 13 actually does not give that date nor mention her as a Catholic saint. Without a reference or further information this should be altered here. It's been over 3 years, I'll wait a few days. 134.153.3.99 (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

This has article improved - but there is still some work to do

This article has improved greatly since May 2006. However, why is the book by Carol Walker Bynum, referred to in the paper, not give a reference in the end list of references? ACEOREVIVED 19:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

universal salvation "chimerical"?

Either I don't properly understand the use of chimerical in describing the theology of universal salvation, or a better word is needed. I find chimerical defined as "wildly imaginative, improbable." I would prefer an adjective like merciful to replace chimerical. but thought it best to ask first if I am ignorant of a specialized meaning in use here. JerryCS (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryCS (talk • contribs) 13:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess you'd have to ask the original poster, but my guess is the idea of universal salvation was very out-of-step - chimerical - with the theology of that era.--Dan (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

from your definintion of chimerical, it sounds like that word has been used as vandalism, or an opinionated view. 124.197.0.158 (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree "chimerical" doesnt has right sound here. Wrong synonyme. It could be OK for a thing, but not for an idea. "Fata Morgana" is better if so (spelling in english?). Perhaps a simple "far reached" or something such...213.64.48.129 (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)/StefanZ

Anchoress

The description of what an Anchoress is totally bizarre! Walled up behind the altar during a mass for the dead?!? Hardly! : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoress ThePeg (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Move notification

move request at Talk:Julian_the_Apostate#Requested_move_2 to move Julian the Apostate to Julian. Since this involves the question whether that Emperor is the primary (much more used than any other) meaning of Julian, the views of watchers of this page would be welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Anchoress

Following an early comment, the explanation of the role of an Anchoress is completely misleading. A fuller explanation of the role is given on the website of the shrine of Julian of Norwich, here

http://www.julianofnorwich.org/julian.shtml

However the Oxford English Dictionary gives the following definition of Anchorite:

1. a. A person who has withdrawn or secluded himself from the world; usually one who has done so for religious reasons, a recluse, a hermit. (Appl. to both sexes, though the special fem. is ANCHORESS.)

However, if the claim is that she was actually walled up rather than resident in a cell, then some kind of reference should be given for this.

---

not2late —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not2late (talk • contribs) 10:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

London; Norwich

After London, Norwich was the largest city in East Anglia in the 11th century. This gives the impression that London is a city in East Anglia, which it isn't. It also suggests that Norwich isn't any longer the largest city in E. Anglia, which it is. Is there any reason not to delete this sentence? Costesseyboy (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong date listed for Anglican feast day —Church of England and The Episcopal Church (USA)

This article says her feast day in the Lutheran ad Anglican tradition is May 13. This is wrong. The Church of England celebrates her feast day on May 8th. see: http://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/texts/the-calendar/holydays.aspx Akso see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_of_saints_(Church_of_England) Tomandzeke (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

According to the Book of Common Prayer, The Episcopal Church (USA) celebrates Julian of Norwich on May 8th. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_of_saints_(Episcopal_Church) Tomandzeke (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, I came here from the Wiki entry for May 13, where her name has the rubric (Roman Catholic) after it. a) May 13 is not a "holiday or observance" of her in the Roman Catholic Church, and b) in this article only the Anglican Communion and Lutheran Church are mentioned in the template. I think it would improve the article if someone who knows of a Catholic or Roman Catholic sanctoral with her listed would provide that information. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Hannah Malcolm did Thought for the Day today (Wednesday May 11 2022) and said her feast day was last Sunday. This would make it May the eighth. YTKJ (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Accuracy and neutrality of article need checking

This article inclines towards a hagiographic point of view which is not suitable to an encyclopedia.

For instance, very strong claims are made for Julian of Norwich's originality as a theologian, but these are not supported by references to her writing, but rather by references to a recent book, Frances Beer's Women and Mystical Experience in the Middle Ages.

The fact is that the essential vision and the plan of composition of Julian's book Revelations of Divine Love is based on a very classic "typological" juxtaposition of Christ and Adam, found first in St. Paul, and developed extensively in the Patristic period (e.g. see the ancient homily composed in the 7th c. A.D., which is used in the Roman Catholic Liturgy for Holy Saturday). This juxtaposition was taken for granted in medieval times (e.g. see an artistic depiction on the Hildesheim cathedral doors).

Some acknowledgment needs to be made of this prior history and of its incorporation by Julian of Norwich.

The bias on this page, currently, is that Julian of Norwich was some kind of renegade feminist who defied the patriarchal authorities of her day. But, quite to the contrary, Julian was a humble recluse who evidently taught a very classic form of the Pauline theology of the parallelism of Christ and Adam. Wwallacee (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Have adjusted some statements attributed to D.Graves which appear to be an interpretation rather than anything that actually appears in the work cited. Mannanan51 (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Patron of cats?

I saw somewhere Julian is often mentioned as a patron of cats. Is that correct? IF so, what are the base and proofs for it? AND - IF so, it would be nice to write it in clear in the main article. Either there IS a base, or if there isnt, to refute the rumors. Of course, I do notice Julian of Norwitch is sooner a local british saint than an universally accepted Catholic saint./StefanZ78.69.228.145 (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)/StefanZ

Theologian

I don't know why calling her a theologian in the lead should be controversial, as an entire section (about a third of the article) is devoted to her Theology. Jonathunder (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Good point, Jonathunder, but I'm not an expert. Others will be able to voice more educated opinions.  – Corinne (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd say we already list educated opinions in the sources. Two of the books in the bibliography section are Julian of Norwich: Mystic and Theologian (Jantzen, 1987) and Julian of Norwich, Theologian (Turner, 2011). Jonathunder (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

O.K. I guess I'm wrong. I'll undo my edit.  – Corinne (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Please, can a paleographer and Julian's editor of the definitive 2001 SISMEL Florence edition be allowed to correct the text as transcribed. The first letter is T, then an H nested within it and the reading is 'There es Avisioun. Schewed Be the goodenes of go to Ade/ uoute womenn, and hir Name es Julyan that is recluse atte/ Norwyche and 3itt. ys oun lyfe. Anno domini millesimo. CCCC/ xiij', not 'Here es a visioun . . .' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.34.159.148 (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

ruthless restoration?

the GA review mentions that there was no explanation of what "ruthless" restoration means. a note was added, with the quote that i'm assuming the term was taken from, but this quote only explains why restoration was needed, not what made it "ruthless", which is still entirely ambiguous. --Kingnixon (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

To expand on note 3, I learned this from Victorian restoration

As an example of the type of work undertaken in one church, in 1870–71 the Church of St Peter, Great Berkhamsted was the subject of a restoration programme by William Butterfield, whose other works included churches such as All Saints, Margaret Street in London. Butterfield’s restoration involved the removal of some original features, including the obliteration of paintings on the pillars. The most substantial structural changes involved raising both the roof and the floor of the chancel, raising the roof of the south transept to its original pitch, removing the vestry, incorporating the south porch into the south aisle and removing the door...

And "From a 20th-century perspective the process of Victorian restoration has often been viewed unfavourably, with terms such as "ruthless", "insensitive" and "heavy-handed" being commonly used to describe the work done." Partridgefoot (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Margery Kempe

the margery kempe quote given in the article was highly misleading and didn't accurately reflect its given source, leaving out the beginning and two bits inside the text, making it sound like julian showed kempe "the grace that god put into her soul" etc, as her "good counsel" to kempe of general spiritual advice. a note gave the quote accurately as per the source, where it's kempe who showed julian the grace etc, because kempe had received it as divine revelation and wanted julian's expert counsel (presumably as one known for her own divine revelations) on whether the revelations had "any deceit in them" (ie that an evil spirit had sent the revelations). i took out the note, and removed most of the quote, as the specifics of what kempe was saying to julian isn't relevant here, leaving in only her seeking julian's expertise. --Kingnixon (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for new WikiProject

I have made a proposal at Wikipedia: WikiProject Council for a new WikiProject - WikiProject Mysticism. I wonder whether any readers of this article would be interested in joining? Vorbee (talk) 06:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Mysticism

It looks as if Wikipedia: WikiProject Mysticism has now been started, so does any one know how to put the tag at the top of this article saying this would be of interest to this WikiProject? Vorbee (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Errors of fact, and hagiography in lieu of description.

I stopped reading after the following 2 passages, which raise doubt that the author is qualified to contribute an article on this subject at all. Probably they wrote this as a young student?

1. “Uniquely for the mystics of the Middle Ages, Julian wrote about her visions.[19]”.

  What?!!?  Well, whatever that footnoted source actually says, if it claims this, it’s of no value as a source. 
    Fact: MANY medieval mystics wrote about their visions. Nicholas of Cusa, Jakob Boehme, Hildegard von Bingen, Mechthild von Magdeburg, and on and on and on, seriously. It is much harder to name medieval mystics who did NOT write about their visions (Eckhardt, maybe, and maybe Angelus Silesius? That may be it, if they even qualify.). Don’t say I need a source — this qualifies as common knowledge, in that anyone who looks even for a second at any information about mysticism or any of these names will see how preposterous it is to say Julian was “unique” in this way. Look for yourself. 

2. “She was an anchoress from at least the 1390s,[20] and was the greatest English mystic of her age”

Is this what Wikipedia thinks makes a “good article,” dubbing people “the greatest,” as if we were advertising them for sale rather than transmitting knowledge about them?

Thanks for reading. I am a professor but not in this field, so I’m not able to repair the piece myself. (See also my more global comment flagged as “GAR”). 2fennario (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

You need a source, and common knowledge, absent a source for it, will not suffice.

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources..." Wikipedia:Reliable sources# Dgndenver (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

"Anchorite cell" or "anchorage"

@Amitchell125: I've completed the requested copy-edit and fixed some of the citations that had specialised templates available. I did have one question about phrasing – "anchorite cell" is used in some parts of the article and "anchorage" in others. Would these be equivalent, and if so, is there a preference for one or the other? Thank you! ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 12:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh: many thanks for your work, it's greatly appreciated. I'd go for anchorite cell, as anchorage may confuse more nautically-minded readers. I'll amend the text to make the use consistent. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Strange lacuna: Nothing about the language?

Any vernacular 14th-century text is of linguistic interest. Why nothing about the language here, not even an excerpt? Until there's some treatment of the language, this should not be a featured article, and it most definitely is not "one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community." 75.134.24.212 (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)