Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Justus/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deacon of Pndapetzim's comments

[edit]

Deacon's obnoxious comments:

  • Justus was an Italian and a member of the Gregorian mission sent to England by Pope Gregory I. He probably arrived in England with the second group of missionaries, sent at the request of Augustine of Canterbury in 601, although some sources describe him as one of the original missionaries who arrived with Augustine in 597...
  • Don't like this sentence at all. If you are talking about primary sources, then it should be stated what sources say what, what modern historians think, and why. If you are talking about secondary writers, then I don't think you should describe them as "sources". And you should if possible (sometimes it isn't, as my quest to get the name of Ranulf le Meschin's mother has taught me) say what their reasoning is. This is not a gigantic topic! :)
It's one lone modern source, so clarified. He doesn't give a reason WHY he says that either, but in the interests of inclusion, I've included it (it's not like I'm lacking space for information on Justus...) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The choice of Rochester was probably not because it had been a Roman-era bishopric, but rather because of its importance in the politics of the time
    To me this is a rather dubious assertion [in the sense that it can NEVER be proven true or false, and it's presenting false distinction], and I think you should state who says this rather than presenting it as fact. And compare
  • Because Justus was probably not a monk, unlike most of his fellow missionaries
    The article would be better if the reader was informed why it is thought he was not a monk.
  • A charter purporting to be from King Æthelberht, granting Justus land in Rochester, is of dubious authenticity.
    This sentence appears intrusive. Why is this charter being mentioned? Does the charter purport to be the foundation charter? [And does it, btw, have a Sawyer number?]
  • This comes from the ONDB, which doesn't give the exact Sawyer number. It appears to be S1 - here. It's being mentioned because it's one of the few pieces of non-Bedan information purporting to be from his life, although it doesn't appear to be completely authentic. Suggestions on how best to integrate it? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Justus signed a letter written by Archbishop Laurence of Canterbury to the Irish bishops, urging the Celtic Church to adopt the Roman method of calculating the date of Easter.
    Haha ... no he didn't. As you know, there was no such thing as "the Celtic church" ;)
  • (Pokes) Well, yeah, there isn't something totally "celtic" but I point out the title of Corning's recent work The Celtic and Roman Traditions (grins). I've kept the link, and changed the piped text to "native church" Ealdgyth - Talk 19:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • abbot of St. Augustine's Abbey in Canterbury
    Probably best not to call it this. Augustine's body was scarcely cold at this point, and the monastery was dedicated [like the Roman church] to St Peter and St Paul
  • A pagan backlash against Christianity followed Æthelberht's death in 616, forcing Justus and Mellitus to flee to Gaul.[10] The pair probably took refuge with Chlothar, hoping that the Frankish king would intervene and restore them to their sees,[20] and by 617 Justus had been reinstalled to his bishopric
    This lacks some of the detail of the ODNB article on the topic, which says "On the relapse into paganism which followed the accession of Eadbald in Kent in 616 or 618, he fled with Mellitus into Francia, and remained there a year until he was recalled to his bishopric by the king". Is there reason for this? :)
  • I think the article would benefit fromt he following additions:
  • You should state explicitly at the beginning that his origins are unknown. The average reader tends to assume WE know everything about everything, and might therefore wonder why nothing is said.
  • Heh. But.. no one SAYS his origins are unknown! This is the frustrating part of working with these obscure Anglo-Saxon guys. Do Anglo-Saxonists just have this thing against saying "We don't know where he came from"? The ONDB comes closest, with the "Almost everything that is known about him derives from Bede's Historia ecclesiastica." and then goes on to talk about his arrival in England, but I always worry about taking that and going out on a limb of OR-ness saying that we don't know his origins. I could say "Nothing is known of him prior to his arrival in England." and source it to the ONDB.. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As he is the founding bishop of DRorchester, the article probably requires more about this bishopric[-ette] and its context.
  • Yeah, but we don't know much about the bishopric at this point in time. We're not even sure if it was staffed with secular clergy or regular clergy, although secular clergy appear most likely. Smith's article basically says "We don't know much until 676" although he manages to spend three pages almost doing so (laughs). Ealdgyth - Talk 20:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should summarise the content of the charter (the shorter ODNB even kinda does this)
  • There is a lot of material on the translation and commissioning of the vita in the 1090s. The article would benefit from more on this topic.
  • I might add that this article is about a saint, as well as a real figure. I.e. this is a topic rather than just a biography. I assume the vita is packed full of miracles and such. Some might argue that to be comprehensive the article would need to cover this more, and his cult in general.
  • I might be more inclined that way if the lives were at all contemporary, but as they are at least 400 years past his lifetime, we're probably dealing with nothing even close to being truly about him, rather just typical hagiographical accretions. I'm not sure he ever HAD much cult, but again, if you can add information from sources I don't have (mainly I'm missing Rollason's work on the cults and shrines), please do. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't think people would disagree and claim that the info from Goscelin should be treated as plausible and interspersed through the biography. Justus however is not just a 7th century bishop, he is also a later medieval saint, and thus some might argue this kind of stuff is part of who he is. I'm planning to do up the Cuthbert article some time this year. Now while his origins as a Lauderdale shepherd and life as a bishop and hermit are important, it is far more important that he was the centre of medieval England's largest cult and subject to so many hagiographies. Now Justus did not have Cuthbert's profile it is true, but he had some kind of cult [otherwise he wouldn't be a saint], and it was important enough for Canterbury to desire his relics and commission a vita. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did check out earlier this month (and mine for details on these obscure Gregorian bishops and archbishops) Nilson's Cathedral Shrines of Medieval England which did not contain one tiny bit of information past what's already in the article, or I would have added it. There may be something in Rollason's Saints and Relics, but given how little I found in Nilson... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you know if I see or think of anything else. As always, good work! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have my sympathies. It is possible that coverage of Justus' Vita will be limited. There doesn't appear to be any modern edition of the life, let alone a translation (which means few are in a position to talk about it). Has it ever been printed? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing shows up in Graves' Bibliography as printed about Goscelin's Vita. Nothing shows up in Gneuss' Handlist. Hardy's Descriptive Catalogue v. 1 here entries 600, 601, 602 concern the Vita, and this lists the MS as parts of Cotton Vesp B.xx, Harl. 105, Harl 652, Cotton Tib. E.1, Bodl. Tanner 15, Bodl 240, and Lambeth 159. Taking those: Cotton Vesp B.xx -BL catalog entry which is for the entire MS, which includes quite a lot of non-Justus material. Cotton Tib. E.i - BL catalogue here which seems to have been a casualty of the fire in 1733. Harl and Bodl aren't online yet that I can see... but given the lack of entries in Graves and the lack of listing of the Vita at the bottom of the ODNB entry, I'm guessing they haven't been translated yet. It appears that some extracts may have been published in the 1600's, but nothing recently. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a recall correctly, Richard Sharpe was (is, hopefully) preparing an edition of the Lives written for Canterbury, so that would include the one about Justus. Cavila (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if we're lucky, we'll see that someday! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeedie. His vita of St Laurence incorporates a foundation legend for the church of Conveth in the Mearns, which appears to have been taken from Scotland. So it might be interesting. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just one bit, surely you mean that he's the founding bishop of Rochester, not Dorchester? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, of course [not the first time in my life I've done that].Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon's Comments continued

  • It appears to be S1 - here. It's being mentioned because it's one of the few pieces of non-Bedan information purporting to be from his life, although it doesn't appear to be completely authentic. Suggestions on how best to integrate it?
  • Yes, here too, which has a bibliography of discussions. I think the article would really be much more comprehensive with some kind of summary of these discussions (if you think about it, it's a really important part of Justus as a scholarly topic). I'd suggest, if you can work out the abbreviations, pinch the topical summary found here (reworded of course).
  • Deanesly 1941/1, pp. 53-69; Deanesly 1942, p. 110, authentic; Levison 1946, pp. 174, 223-5, suspicious features; Ward 1949, on topography; Campbell, Rochester, pp. xv, xxii, fabricated, partly based on S 266; Brooks 1974, p. 217, possibly some authentic basis; Tatton-Brown 1984, p. 14, cited in discussion of topography; Scharer 1982, pp. 59-60, spurious; Morris 1995, pp. 89-98, authentic.
  • The discussion summary, if accurate, seems to indicate that the article probably needs to be more balanced on the topic of the charter's accuracy too ... the last one cited [most up-to-date?] thinks it is actually accurate, and if anything the balance seems to favour some kind of historical basis. Obviously, it'll help a lot if you have access to the sources.
  • Corning's recent work The Celtic and Roman Traditions (grins).
  • *Sighs* ;)
  • Heh. But.. no one SAYS his origins are unknown! ...I could say "Nothing is known of him prior to his arrival in England." and source it to the ONDB.
  • Add that then. The Brooks article also says "Almost everything that is known about him derives from Bede's Historia ecclesiastica", and that should be said too. If you then say something about Bede, where and when he was writing [I guess I added this] and what his sources were for this matter, that should cover this. :)
  • "regular"=monks. Secular=everyone else (i.e. those who deal with the laymen, secular society.) They are linked in the article.
  • I'm still not sure I understand. Regular is really supposed to be for churchman with a monastic rule, and since it's not exactly clear that most monks had one, I'm not sure that such a distinction is not anachronistic.
  • Nothing shows up in Graves' Bibliography as printed about Goscelin's Vita. Nothing shows up in Gneuss' Handlist. Hardy's Descriptive Catalogue v. 1 here entries 600, 601, 602 concern the Vita, and this lists the MS as parts of Cotton Vesp B.xx, Harl. 105, Harl 652, Cotton Tib. E.1, Bodl. Tanner 15, Bodl 240, and Lambeth 159. Taking those: Cotton Vesp B.xx -BL catalog entry which is for the entire MS, which includes quite a lot of non-Justus material. Cotton Tib. E.i - BL catalogue here which seems to have been a casualty of the fire in 1733. Harl and Bodl aren't online yet that I can see... but given the lack of entries in Graves and the lack of listing of the Vita at the bottom of the ODNB entry, I'm guessing they haven't been translated yet. It appears that some extracts may have been published in the 1600's, but nothing recently.
  • Some of this in the article might be good, if you can cite it of course. :) Forget Rollason btw. I went and got the book out the library. It has nothing. :(

I'm close to supporting. I'd like more on Bede/sources, but the charter bit I think is the only major thing left with regard to comprehensiveness (and possibly balance). :) I'm kinda curious myself about the formation of the Rochester diocese, why tiny Kent got two bishoprics so close to each other, with minuscule Rochester so close to London too, if it had anything to do with something in the period and so ion, but I guess if no secondary writers talks about it then neither can wiki. Btw, what ever happened to the old background sections? Has this fallen out of fashion with the FAC crowd, or is it just that now they're all experts on the Gregorian mission? ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the charter I replied above and am awaiting your input ... Smith seems to be the only person who's written anything about the early years of Rochester in any detail. Background sections are now in the Gregorian mission, which is why I wrote that article and got it up to FA status, so I could quit repeating myself in every Gregorian missionary article. So much simpler! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The top comment really was my input. In the mean time I got the Morris book, and it is very interesting. It also addresses my curiosity about the Rochester diocese to some extent (Rochester got this bishopric because it was the centre of his son Eadbald's sub-kingdom). Anyway, to add to my comments above, I would two paragraphs from the texts at each end of sentence "A charter purporting ... dubious authenticity.", putting a new paragraph about the charter in between. I suppose I can write a bit up for you if you can't get the Morris book ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About that charter, Sawyer no. 1, if I may barge in again. W. Levison branded Æthelberht's charters as forgeries and thought they were the work of an Anglo-Norman guy called Guerno of Soissons, but several scholars have since tried to vindicate their status as possibly having an authentic basis or at any rate, they haven taken issue with some of Levison's arguments against the authenticity of the charters - which does not really settle things, unfortunately. I haven't seen Morris, but I can send you a brief discussion in Barnwell's Kings, Courtiers & Imperium (and prolly Scharer, which is in German though). Cavila (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Send me the Barnwell? Don't bother with the German unless it's needed in the article, and if it is, you'll have to add it as I don't read German and my son's German isn't up to those standards yet. (I barely manage Latin, I'm horribly monolingual any more). And sorry to any other FAC readers, for the horribly technical and detailed discussion that probably makes most folks' eyes glaze over. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had a couple of things badly memorised, apparently! Forget Guerno, whom Levison believes to have forged the Canterbury charters (Sawyer 2, 3 and 4), not Sawyer 1. Barnwell, not a specialist on AS charters I might add, is solely interested in the Canterbury charters and the titles used in their witness lists (e.g. referendarius). Scharer doesn't add a whole lot to what has been said. I'm not sure which arguments if any you would like to be brought to the table. Some of the issues discussed by a number of scholars, such as the possible relation (or lack thereof) of the charter to late Roman deeds or papal records and what little is available of Frankish material (e.g. Marculf's Formulary), do not easily lend themselves to a quick summary It may be mentioned though that the whole discussion suffers from a lack of Merovingian charters or related material, which is usually attributed to the use of papyrus rather than parchment. The argument I thought was worth picking out is the possibility that the greeting and (ad)monitio to Eadbald was inspired from Bede's reference to his late conversion, which came about with a little help from Justus. I don't know about Campbell's suggestion, which I can only infer from second-hand references, that Sawyer 1 draws on Sawyer 266 (also from Rochester, issued by Æthelberht of Wessex and using a similar boundary clause). But the vernacular boundary clause certainly raises eyebrows. Cavila (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you added yesterday is enough to show why folks are arguing over the charter's authenticity, without overloading the poor general reader with too much detail that's only going to confuse people who only came to the article to see what saint their church is named for or similar stuff. It's a hard balance to strike, giving enough to hopefully suck draw the reader in without going into too much specialist informaiton. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added in the "nothing is known" part, and an explanatory footnote that nothing about Gosclin's life has been published in the last 200 years, sourced to the ODNB, which gives a source listing showing that nothing's been published recently, thankfully. Waiting on the Morris stuff. On the regular/secular, that's the distinctions that Smith draws, and he doesn't go into the discussion of whether or not the monks would have had a "rule". I think we can both agree that there was a distinction between monks and non-monks at this point in time, whether or not monks lived under a "rule", so I'm not that concerned that it's anachronistic. Now, I am open to suggestions on better wording. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if monks vs. non-monks is meant, then that's the wording we should go with. I added this, and I added the assertion that Bede is almost our only source, which is important for the reader to realise as the article isn't saying very often were we get the info. I also added some of the Morris stuff. I'll leave it to yourself to integrate it stylistically (I see you did some of this to the refs!). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC) + If Cavilla finds any useful stuff in Barnwell or Scharer, the article would probably benefit. I couldn't get access to either. And incidentally, Morris died some while before 1995 ... the assertion of copyright on the book is "Susan Morris", who I can only presume is his widow or daughter. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Justus/archive1&oldid=335633804"