Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert of Jumièges

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:07, 25 October 2008 [1].

Robert of Jumièges

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk


Another month, another bishop. This one is Stigand's predecessor at Canterbury, and he's a much more shadowy figure. We don't know when he was born, we don't know when he died. He got chased out of England because he quarrelled with the wrong family. He may (or may not) have been involved in getting William the Conqueror thinking about invading England. An important figure, but very obscure, I present you with Robert of Jumièges, who has been the subject of much bother lately by me. Constructive criticism always welcome! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I'm going to be on the road from the 19th through the 27th, but will still get access to the internet and will be taking a rather large pile of books with me, so the only concern is that I won't be replying as quickly as usual. Also, today (the 18th) I'll be getting ready to go so less than usually prompt replies. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The full reference in the References section has the access date (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 02:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, indeed it does. Thanks for clarifying that for me. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have my own special style of referencing... (hums) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the grounds of scholarship and generally immaculate referencing. I don't approve of the "Abbey, abbeys" conjunction in the lead. And I think that "Finally" beats "In the end..." But these are quibbles. Good stuff. Brianboulton (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: in case anyone thinks this was a "soft" support, I left an exhaustive review on the talk page. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. DONE Disappointingly little on the Missal, surely the thing he is now best remembered for? Since we don't yet have a separate article it should be better covered. Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A point ... the missal wasn't commissioned by him, it's a c. 1000 Anglo-Saxon manuscript that he basically looted while he was bishop of London. There is very little to actually connect it with him, he found it and sent it to Jumieges. That's pretty much it. If he'd commissioned it, I would have discussed it a bit more, but considering the slight time it was in his possession, I don't really think there is much more to say. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says the following "He had made valuable gifts to Jumièges, notably the so-called missal of Robert of Jumièges (now Rouen, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS Y.6), a finely illuminated manuscript of the Winchester school, written before 1023, which he sent while bishop of London." Certainly we should have an article on the missal, it's a wonderful piece, but the connection between Robert and it is slight. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonethless, it is probably what he is mostly remembered for, with the other Rouen Ms, & has an inscription apparently in his own hand. That 1023 date is not as certain as the DNB suggest, though it seems clear it was pre-owned in his hands. Imo comprehensiveness requires rather more, especially as the episode sets the trend for what was to happen to most English church treasure over the following decades. Johnbod (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One reason I don't have more is that it's not treated in anything connected WITH Robert that I have. It might be in art history works on the missal itself, but no one in the works I consulted discussed it any further than what the ONDB did, which is one reason it's not discussed more in the article. I just don't have the information on it. (And yes, I've done JSTOR and other database searches on Robert.) There may be stuff I can't access, but I think that information on the missal should properly be in an article on the missal, perhaps you can write that? As far as it setting the trend on what happened to church treasures, the couple of articles on that subject I've consulted don't mention the missal either. (I read a lot on that for Stigand). If you have information, of course you're welcome to add it, but nothing I've consulted does more than mention it in passing, and most don't even mention it at all. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have rather the opposite problem, in that the many books I have mentioning Robert only do so in the context of his - well "patronage" is not exactly the right word. The "comprehensiveness" requirement would suggest both sides of the coin should be covered. I am working up some stuff on this, including his heist of St Valentine. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On another matter, the article implies he ceased to be Abbot of Jumièges at some point "while Abbot ... his old abbey" in the last section, but is this the case? I think not. The great size, importance and close links with the ducal family of the Abbey should really be mentioned, and this article linked from and aligned with that one, which credits the rebuilding to the Duke of the day.
Hm. Maybe, but Robert was appointed in 1037, which was during William the Conqueror's minority as duke. The refoundation of the abbey predated the building of the church which Robert started. I certainly wouldn't object to more information on the abbey being added, and if you don't get to it, I will. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will get to this tomorrow, I'm just now seeing my hotel for the night and I'm suddenly been told I'm grooming tomorrow at 6am... ugh! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit in about Jumieges. The article on Jumieges itself seems to be from the 1913 Catholic encyclopedia and probably could use updating... ugh. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first external link does not seem much use, short, deriving from a work of 1908, & giving a very variant death date from modern scholars. Is this really an RS?
It was there when I started editing, I believe. Or was added later. If it disappeared, I wouldn't care, honestly, but I've found on other articles that people will just reinsert it sooner or later. External links don't have to necessarily be as reliable as a source, so I tend to not worry too much about them. Feel free to remove it. The PASE link, I did add, however. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE The lead comes down on one side of the rather open question of the direction of the architectural inflence between Westminster and Jumièges abbeys, somewhat contradicting the last section. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE Richard Gem, who is the top man in English Romanesque architecture studies, specifically denies in Zarnecki, George and others; English Romanesque Art, 1066-1200, 1984, Arts Council of Breat Britain, ISBN 0728703866, p.27, that "the church built in Westminster for Edward the Confessor, now known as Westminster Abbey, ... influenced subsequent English ecclesiastical building styles." He sees the Early Romanesque style at Westminster and Jumièges as a cul-de-sac before the development of "Anglo-Norman High Romanesque" at Caen and Canterbury under Lanfranc. His fuller thoughts are in Vol 2 here, which I've not seen. In another book, Westminster Abbey, Bell & Hyman, 1986, p. 13, he describes Robert as "a great patron of the arts and a famous builder in his native Normandy", who may well have arranged for some of the recorded masons with foreign names to work there. Johnbod (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE Further on that, on the passage "It has been argued by several historians, including Frank Barlow and Emma Mason, that Robert brought the new style to England, and that it influenced Edward the Confessor's rebuilding of the church at Westminster Abbey in a style previously unknown in England.[49][52]" - neither Barlow nor Mason seem to have special expertise in architectural history, and the sentence is a bit confusing. In what way did he bring the "new style to England" before Westminster, as the sentence implies? Gem & all other art historians I've seen put Westminster as the first known Romanesque building in England, as does William of Malmesbury. Gem says (p.13, Westminster Abbey) Edward and Abbot Eadwine were "perhaps encouraged" by Robert, and on the question of whether Westminster influenced Jumièges or vice versa says W "may ...have" influenced J,(Zarnecki, p. 27) and his fuller and perhaps later thoughts are in the book linked to above. Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to resource and rewrite that. Both Barlow and Mason are "regular" historians, and generally get their architectural history from the experts. If you have the sources, I'm glad to defer to the art historians in this matter. My plain history books run me enough money, I don't dare start getting into art history! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a section on artistic patronage, which of course please edit as you like - I'm afraid I don't speak citeweb. I have also expanded Spearhafoc and added some online refs which might be useful here - the introduction to the OUP Abingdon Historia especially. The architecture section would still benefit from someone looking at Gem's paper on Westminster (in further reading) or better yet his collected papers linked there. I still strongly suspect that Robert remained Abbot of Jumieges to his death, and clarification on this is the only thing I think the article needs before support. Johnbod (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I have covers whether he did or not. I'm not sure that a comprehensive work on Norman ecclesiastical and abbatial heads (like the Heads of Religious Houses for England) has been done. All I can say is that the ONDB is silent on whether he stayed abbott or not. If I had to guess, I would guess he did not, since he was given a pallium by the papacy at a time they were starting reform, and popes began to require bishops and archbishops to no longer hold offices in plurarity. But that would be OR, so at this point, all I can say is that I don't know. If you have another source that says yay or nay, that'd be great, I just don't have anything that comes down one way or another. I'll have time tomorrow to fix any references, but things looked pretty nice when I glanced at iit quickly tonight. I guess I know who to go to for anything connected with art history now! Yay! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of refs saying he was "Abbot from.." etc, but no termination dates. Gem says he "before and after his period of office in England was responsible for the rebuilding of Jumieges" which isn't conclusive of course. If we really can't establish the facts either way the lead should be tweaked slightly to leave the question (silently) open. Did an abbacy and a bishopric count as pluralism? I'm not sure. Johnbod (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It did for Henry of Blois, when he held Glastonbury and Winchester concurrently. Of course, he got a dispensation from the papacy to do so, so it was legal in his case. I know that in 1060, Aldred was deposed for attempting to hold Worcester and York, and Stigand was ruthlessly denounced for controlling several abbeys as well as Winchester and Canterbury. I reworded the lead to say "He had previously served as prior of the Abbey of St Ouen at Rouen in France, before becoming abbot of Jumièges Abbey, near Rouen, in 1037." which hopefully leaves it a bit more open ended. Tweak to suit, if needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's all it needs I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This short French bio says he "finit sa vie dans son abbaye de J", again not quite conclusive. He seems to have been the 28th Abbe, with the 31st appointed 1078, from the French article, who date his abbacy as ending in 1045, but give no source, or successor. The Italian have him Abbot until 1050, it seems!Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't read French, so I don't really have a way to evaluate that source for reliablity. I'll tweak the lead tomorrow, I'm dead dog tired after being a horse show groom all day today ... tomorrow I don't have to! And thank you, Johnbod, for your help and attention to the article, it's very much appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I peer reviewed this and have followed it since - it has been improved considerably since, and I find it meets all the FA criteria now. My only quibble is that the lead still says he died between 1053 and 1055 in the first paragraph, and 1052 and 1055 in the second. I am not an expert on the missal, so I will not weigh in on that. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comment. A fine piece of work. I look forward to supporting, but I do have some quibbles.
    • I don't really like the sentences in the lead starting "His main activities" but I had some trouble recasting them in a way that I could be sure was faithful to the sources. How about: "Robert's time as archbishop lasted only about eighteen months. He had already come into conflict with the powerful Earl Godwin of Wessex, and while archbishop made attempts to recover lands lost to Godwin and his family. He also refused to consecrate Spearhafoc, Edward's choice to succeed Robert as Bishop of London. The rift between Robert and Godwin culminated in Robert's deposition and exile in 1052." What I don't like about the current sentences is that they're not chronological; we get the exile and deposition before we get the activity. Then "His main activities were" is a numbing way to start a sentence.
      Took your wording. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sequence in the second background para seems odd: "Edward and his brother Alfred were sent to Emma's relatives in Normandy" follows the mention of Canute's ascension to the throne in 1016, but according to the WP article Edward goes to Normandy in 1013. I think it would be worth mentioning Edward's date of arrival in Normandy, in any case, since it puts an earliest date on his acquaintance with Robert (unless Barlow, your source here, is more specific about that).
      The supposition is that it was the mid 1030s. I've clarified. The general inferance is that he became abbott because his relative was abbott, not because of Edward. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Life of Saint Edward, a hagiographical work on King Edward's life": presumably a contemporary or near-contemporary hagiography? If so I think it would be good to say so; a casual reader of this sentence might think it a modern work.
      It is, and so clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The evidence shows that" is a redundant phrase; if it shows it, you just need to say what it shows.
      Taken out. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have both Eadsige and Edsige; not sure which is better but please be consistent.
      Went with Edsige, which is what he's named in our article. Whether that is correct, is another story. (I hate Anglo-Saxon names, I really do). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      You mean, names like "Ealdgyth"? I know what you mean, though; if there were enough interested editors it would probably be worth putting a Wikiproject policy in place on which spellings to use. Mike Christie (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "probably on the strength of Archbishop Edsige having also held the office": the point being that Edsige was his predecessor in the office? If so I would say so explicitly: perhaps "probably on the strength of Edsige, his predecessor as Archbishop, having held the office." "Also" is redundant, I'd say (it often is; it's a good one to look for when you're trimming).
      Took your wording. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In refusing to consecrate Spearhafoc, Robert was following his own interests against the wishes of both the king and Godwin": either I'm missing something (very possible) or this needs a bit of clarification. Later you say that Robert wasn't really interested in the papal reform movement and that he cited it to find an easy excuse; if it was an excuse, what was his real reason that was sufficiently in his interest that he defied the king? You give a possible explanation later in the suggestion that Spearhafoc's appointment was a bone thrown to Godwin to appease him for the failure of his candidate for the archbishopric, but you present that as an historian's theory, not as a definite statement of Robert's interest.
      Walker, who puts forth the theory that Robert was doing his own thing here, implies that it was because Robert wanted his own candidate. I've clarified this a bit, let me know what you think. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that works. I copyedited it slightly to get "a Norman" closer to "candidate". Mike Christie (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "publicly pronounced" is unpleasantly alliterative; how about just "proclaimed", or "announced"? Is "publicly" necessary?
      He wasn't just outlawed, he was rather publicly proclaimed it at a council. I'm open to other wordings, but I would like to retain the flavor of the sources, which make it clear that it was a council that oversaw his outlawing. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually I meant to refer to this sentence: "In 1049 Leo IX publicly pronounced that he would take more interest in English church matters". I assume you're talking about this: "Robert was declared an outlaw"? If so I'd suggest you add the detail about the council, which is indeed interesting. Mike Christie (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure of the fix, but I think "post-Norman Conquest" is not the right hyphenation. I suspect "post-Norman-Conquest" would be better, but double hyphens are ugly and you might want to rephrase.
      Changed to "... complicated by propaganda claims made by Norman chroniclers after the Norman Conquest in 1066."
    • That same paragraph discusses the same chroniclers and assertions that you mention in the paragraph about Robert's archbishopric, earlier. I don't think there's a problem in general with having the same material covered in two sections, but I'm not clear what your reason for it is here. I was initially confused, thinking that this must be another set of chronicler comments, but it seems to be the same.
      Hopefully clarified this a bit more. This is part of the fun of writing about him, he's delightfully obscure. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that does it. The additions you made make it clearer to the reader that the uncertainties in the record make it necessary to reference them in a couple of different contexts. Mike Christie (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Note that May 1052 is probably wrong, as it is prior to the September 1052 date when Robert fled England. However, most historians agree that he died in exile after his flight from England in September 1052." If I understand this correctly; it's a lengthy way of saying what you want to say. How about "Note that May 1052 is probably wrong, as it is prior to the September 1052 date when, according to most historians, Robert fled England."
      Took your wording. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to get to these in the morning. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, not necessary for FA: personally I dislike having both a succession box and a template at the bottom of the article. The succession box just duplicates the information in the template, so I'd suggest deleting the succession box. And as it happens I just noticed that the succession box for Bishop of London is wrong, anyway; it lists Spearhafoc as Robert's successor! Mike Christie (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He actually was, we list "bishops-elect" as well as ones that got consecrated. I'd rather get rid of the templates, actually, but folks will edit war to put them in. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I don't really like either the templates or the succession boxes myself, but as you say they have passionate defenders, though I'm not sure why. If the succession box policy is to include bishops elect I guess Spearhafoc is OK. How about putting something parenthetical in the sbox with his name to indicate he never actually became bishop? "(never took office)" or something similar?
That just leaves the "publicly pronounced" point and its derivative point above as my only remaining concerns. Mike Christie (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caught the two bits above and about the box. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Changed to support above. Mike Christie (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did my usual, write the gist and let copyeditors work over the text, so there is a possibility that links got lost in the CE. Feel free to link what you feel needs linking, I'm very much a non-linker, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment
  • 1)Background and Life in Normandy: Did Robert accomplish anything else besides beginning the construction of the Abbey Church? Did the monastery engage in some kind of notable activity that could be mentioned here? I think this is an important abbey that was known for its school, that could flesh out this section a little more and give Reader a sense of what Robert's responsibilities were. Abbots are like little kings, even more so in that era, they are and were very important and mostly respected people. This is just a suggestion, I will not oppose the article for FAC if it is not included.
The only thing I could include besides the bit that John's wonderfully expanded about building would be general stuff on what all abbots of the time did. Nothing *I* have covers anything special that he did, and nothing is mentioned in the ONDB that he did beyond the building. He became abbott in 1037 and went to England in 1042, so he wasn't abbott very long. I'm not saying there isn't something out there, but I haven't found it yet. I don't read French, so anything in French I don't have access to.
  • 2)This statement "However, the Life is a hagiography, written soon after Edward's death to show Edward as a saint. Thus it stresses that Edward voluntarily remained celibate, something unlikely to have been true and not corroborated by any other source." is unreferenced and really needs one.NancyHeise talk 23:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is referenced. Everything is covered by the next footnote in my articles. Sometimes that means a few sentences will be referenced to the footnote at the end of the series of sentences. In this case, it's referenced to the phrase in the sentence starting "Modern historians..." which is to Walker's Harold II p. 35 and 36. If it bothers you, I can slap a footnote on the sentence in question, but generally I don't do sequential footnotes to the same source unless there is a quotation involved. But, I'm glad to footnote it explicitly if you like. Like I said above, I'm on the road, and it'll be tomorrow before I can really attend to anything serious, just wanted to let everyone know I did see the comments and where things stand. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh OK, as you know I am used to working on the RCC where every single sentence has to have a reference or we get hammered over it being unsourced ;). I am fine leaving it the way you have it. Also, not a big deal on the expansion of info in my first comment. I think it would make the section more interesting if there were a little bit about what abbots of the time were doing to keep busy but its absence should not necessarily keep this from being FA. Changed my comment to support. Thanks. NancyHeise talk 18:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know you have special issues over there on RCC, I quit watchlisting the FAC a while back, honestly. Thanks for the support and the copyediting! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Robert_of_Jumièges&oldid=1088204552"