Talk:Mellitus

Books

"...examination of the remaining manuscripts has determined that the only possible survivor of Mellitus' books is the St. Augustine Gospels, now Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 286.ref name=DNB/> " is contradicted, by I would imagine a stronger ref, in note 3 of St Augustine Gospels. with source online. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the "only possible" comes from Brooks' DNB entry from 2007, but the link you've given there is to Colgrave's work from 1968. I've compromised a bit and changed "only possible" to "one possible" and put the bit about the other in an explanatory footnote. IT's worth nothing that Oxford's listing of Hatton MS info gives a 700 (?) date for the respective MS (Oxford Bodleian Hatton 48). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that's fair enough. Per the Bodlean's bibliography it still seemed to rate 15+ pages in 1997 in:

David Farmer, 'St Augustine's life and legacy', in English Heritage Book of St Augustine's Abbey Canterbury, ed. Richard Gem, London: B. T. Batsford / English Heritage, 1997, pp. 15-32, at p. 23 and ill. 2 (fol. 29r) Johnbod (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I should get that article... but dang, I'm really NOT into manuscript studies! Really! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's clear from the chapter headings [1] it's about the whole subject, not just the MS, or this one - now I see it's only mentioned on p.23, but has a pic. Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I did resolve the picture concern with this, though, so I think we'll stick with the Gospels image, unless you have a better image from the Gospels? It's beautifully illuminated, probably much more exciting than the Rule. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course. The only other image is the lead one at the article. There were more miniatures but they have been lost. Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments towards FAC

Lead

• "Mellitus returned to England some time the following year, but he was unable to return to London, where the inhabitants remained pagan", yet later we're told that "there does not seem to have been any active persecution of Christians in the East Saxon kingdom". So why was he "unable" to return?

• We don't know why he didn't. It could have been political, since he refused a request by the new kings. Active persecution doesn't preclude somone not wanting to return. Unfortunately, we're very in the dark on this time period. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps "unable" is the wrong word then? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Brooks says in the DNB entry "Mellitus could not recover his see since the East Saxons remained pagan and the Christian Eadbald had no authority beyond Kent." He's pretty specific that it was a case of not being able to return. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• "... but after the death of his patron in 616...". I think we need to know who this patron was. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Clarified and expanded. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Journey to England

• "Along with the letter to Augustine, the returning missionaries brought a letter for Æthelberht ...". Why "returning"? None of them had been in England before had they? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, one of them was a returning missionary as Laurence of Canterbury had been sent by Augustine TO Rome before Gregory sent the next set of missionaries on. It's assumed that Laurence returned with the second group. I did, however, take out "returning" as it's too much detail to go into here. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "This traditional view that the Epistola represents a contradiction of the letter to Æthelberht has been challenged by George Demacopoulos ...". Who or what is George Demacopoulos? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• clarified. Here he is... he's sort a historian, sorta a theologian (he researches in both areas..) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Bishop of London.

• "After Augustine's death around 604 ...". Why does this say "around"? We know that Augustine died in 1604, don't we?

Typo. Weird, not sure how that crept in...Ealdgyth - Talk 19:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• "However, Mellitus did not return to London, because the East Saxons remained pagan." Are these two ideas related? Did Mellitus really not return to London because the East Saxons were pagan? Weren't they pagan when he originally arrived. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• They (the citizens) were pagan, but the king had been baptized. When Saebert died, his sons became kings and they were not christian, so the leadership changed. Similar to what happened in the Roman Empire with Julian the Apostate. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Archbishop and death

• "Other than the miracle, little happened during his time as archbishop, but Bede praised his sane mind ... Bede praised Mellitus, mentioning that he suffered from gout." Is Bede's praise so significant that it needs to be mentioned twice in the opening paragraph of this section?

• changed the second "praised" to "Bede also mentioned that ..."

• "Shortly after the Norman conquest of England, the Goscelin wrote a life of Mellitus, the first of several to appear around that time, but none shed additional light on Mellitus' life." Additional light to what? Do we need one of the source sections to outline what the primary sourcs of Mellitus' life are, if not these biographies?

• Clarified to "... but none of these contain any additional information not recounted in Bede's earlier works." Ealdgyth - Talk 19:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• "While archbishop, he received letters from Boniface encouraging him." Encouraging him to do what?

• Clarified to "... encouraging him in the mission." The letters, from the various accounts in secondary sources, appear to have been generic "puff" bits, saying "good job guy! keep it up!" Ealdgyth - Talk 19:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuorum 16:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Early life

• I can't make sense of "but whether this was a rank bestowed on Mellitus after his journey to England in order to help with the journey". How could a rank bestowed after the journey help with his journey? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Clarified to "... rank bestowed on Mellitus during his journey to England in order to help with the journey or if Mellitus was previously an abbot of a Roman monastery..." which makes it clearer, I hope. Basically, it's unclear if he got the rank prior to departing Rome or while on the way to England. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• "The papal register, a list of letters sent out by the popes, describes Mellitus as an "abbot in Frankia", however, even though the letter itself only says "abbot". The first time Mellitus is mentioned in history is in the letters of Gregory, and nothing else of his background is known." I find this confusing; first of all we have "the letter" (what letter?) and then we're told that Mellitus in mentioned in "letters". --Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Clarified to "The papal register, a listing of letters sent out by the popes, describes Mellitus as an "abbot in Frankia" in the description of the letter, but the letter itself only says "abbot"." which should make it clearer. The description OF the letter in the register says "abbot in Francia" but the letter itself, which is preserved separately, only says "abbot". Make sense now? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Epistola

I leave this here for your consideration. If you think it might be worth adding it to the article, maybe under External links, please feel free to do it. It is in latin though. Cheers Raystorm (¿Sí?) 20:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Refuge in Gaul [sic!]

it is stated in the article that 'Mellitus was exiled from London by the pagan successors to his patron, King Sæberht of Essex, following the latter's death around 616. King Æthelberht of Kent, Mellitus' other patron, died at about the same time, forcing him to take refuge in Gaul.' - well, the term Gaul would be anachronistic at that moment in European history, especially French history, as already former Roman province of Gaul has mostly been incorporated into the Merovingian Frankish kingdom, especially after the 500-540 AD conquests, so IMHO a proper name should be Merovingian kingdom and not Gaul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Frankish_Empire_481_to_814-en.svg DarioTW (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that the source used for the statement states "He fled to Kent, but the succession there of (the similarly still pagan) Eadbald caused Mellitus to flee to Frankish Gaul with Justus." That's N. P. Brooks in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry on Mellitus, written in 2005.

:Quite all right with the source, but that not a small part is missing in the body of the article's text - it cannot be referenced to Gaul but to Frankish Gaul or more historically Merovingian kingdom etc. The way this wikipedia article has it may lead to erroneous conclusion on a part of an unsophisticated, historically, reader.DarioTW (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Restitutus

I think it's generally accepted that Restitutus is the first bishop of London whose existence is adequately documented. I've inserted some more cautious wording to reflect that. I hope that others agree. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)