Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/English Benedictine Reform/archive1

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2016 [1].

English Benedictine Reform[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The English Benedictine Reform was the most important religious movement in later Anglo-Saxon England. It was also very significant politically, artistically and for the development of the Old English language. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I'll leave comments below; it might take me a couple of days to get through the article.

  • Do we need the longish quote from D.H. Farmer in the first paragraph of the body? The quote provides a definition and background information, and doesn't represent an opinion of Farmer's. I'd think this would be better off in Wikipedia's own words.
  • I used the quote because I could not see how to convey the information without plagiarism, but I will have another think. Dudley Miles (talk)
  • How relevant is the translation of the Rule into Old English? If the translation has no particular connection to the reform movement, I don't think it needs to be mentioned.
  • I think it is relevant as an early achievement of the reform, but in the wrong place, so I have moved it. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "led to increasing preference for pastoral clergy": should be "to an increasing preference, I think.
  • Not really a FAC comment, but I was interested to see that the transfer of property went from the church to the crown; I am sure I recall someone (Wormald, I think) saying that at some relatively early date some of the A-S kings were finding that there so much had been given to the church that they had less available to grant, both to kings and nobles. I imagine the point at which this reverses is before the start of this narrative, so probably it doesn't need to be mentioned.
  • I think it started with Alfred. There were earlier disputes over property - e.g. between Coenwulf and Wulfred - but no significant transfer of property so far as I know. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have the sources you use for saying that Alfred deplored the decline in monasticism, but a look through the relevant chapter in Abels' Alfred the Great found this: "There is absolutely no reason to believe, however, that Alfred planned a systematic monastic reform". You don't say he did plan reform, but are you sure Alfred is worth mentioning in this context? Abels points out that Asser praises the two foundations, Athelney and Shaftesbury, but that Alfred was generally happy to take lands from the church as well as endow it.
  • I was trying to make the point that the revival of the church and learning dates back to the end of the ninth century, but it only becomes specifically Benedictine in the middle of the tenth. I will look at whether I can make this clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think another sentence or two on the continental reform movement would be good, either towards the end of the background section, or near the start of the early development section. You mention a disagreement between Wormald and Cubitt about where it started, but then say that links existed with Fleury Abbey, and that Louis the Pious's reforms of the 810s were studied in England, neither of which point gives any information about the reforms on the continent. Not much is needed, perhaps just a date and name or two, and a sense of when the movement began and when it gained strength.
  • I have revised the continental origin as I am not sure there is a disagreement. Wormald says that it started at Cluny, but it seems to be generally accepted that Fleury was more influential. I have added the reason that Louis the Pious was influential, but I do not think I can say more about the continental movement. I would need to get hold of sources on this, and I am not sure it is sufficiently relevant for the work it would require. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What you've done works well, and is all I was looking for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where they met monks from the European reformed houses which provided the inspiration for the movement": does "movement" refer to the existing continental or nascent English reform movement?
  • Clarified English movement.
  • I'd suggest switching the order of the first two sentences in the paragraph about the Regularis Concordia, in order to get Edgar's motivation followed by the result, rather than the reverse.
  • "who stated that he had sought advice": any reason not to shorten this to "who had sought advice"?
  • "Some aristocrats founded new monasteries, such as Æthelwine, Ealdorman of East Anglia, who founded Ramsey Abbey in 969": needs to be rephrased, since Æthelwine is not a monastery.
  • "He did not merely attempt to revive the historical church, but improve it": suggest "He did not attempt merely to revive the historical church, but also to improve it".
  • 'Blair describes the basic aim of the movement, both in England and on the Continent, "to establish and disseminate high liturgical, spiritual and pastoral standards".' I think you need another word or two before the quotation; perhaps "as being".
  • The "Aftermath" section mentions the decline in bishoprics held by monks at the end of the quote from Blair, then discusses it again in the middle of the following paragraph. Can you combine these two in one place?
  • Deleted first mention and tweaked arrangement.
  • Suggest replacing "in my opinion" with "..." in the quote from Nicola Robertson, as you already say this is her "view".
  • Tweaked wording.
  • "music by Continental and English composers, many written hermeneutic Latin": presumably should be "written in"?

-- I've completed a pass; only very minor points. I'll look through some of my sources and see if I can find anything else to say, but this looks comprehensive to me. Great work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A fine article. I have a couple more comments, but these don't affect my support. As I thought, most of my sources focus on the earlier period and aren't much use here. These are all very much suggestions; no need to incorporate them unless you feel they are beneficial.

  • Peter Hunter Blair, in his Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England, in discussing the effects of the reforms, says that "not least in importance [was] the training of a second generation in centres so widely scattered that much was able to survive the second Scandinavian onslaught". (p. 176, 1960 reprint of the 1956 edition, though if you have the new revised edition it would be interesting to see if a similar comment remains in the text.) That might be a point worth adding, particularly if you can combine it with Alfred's comment that on his accession in 871 there was nobody south of the Thames who could understand divine services or translate from Latin (mentioned in Lapidge's article on "Monasticism" in the Blackwell Encyclopedia). Though that might be synthesis, so perhaps not.
  • I am doubtful on both points. On the training of a second generation, more recent histories emphasise the decline in the second generation rather than continuity. Alfred's comment is often quoted, but I thought a general reference to the ninth century decline was sufficient in the background section. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blair also suggests that the fact that biographies of the three main protagonists were written within a few decades might have obscured the role of some of their contemporaries. He singles out Oda as a candidate and gives a paragraph of argument for the case (p. 173-4). You do mention Oda already, so it might not be necessary to expand on this.
  • I think this is covered by a quote from Wormald in 'historiography': "The main sources for the reform are the lives of Dunstan, Oswald and Æthelwold, and this creates the risk of exaggerating the role of these three men at the expense of the many lesser-known men who contributed to the process". Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't mention the "near monopoly" of monks on bishoprics till near the end of the article; Blair says that the methods of election of bishops in the Regularis Concordia "led in practice to a predominantly monastic episcopacy". Whether you pick up this point or not, it might be worth mentioning the increasing frequency of monks as bishops early in the article, before you say it declines later.
  • Lapidge's article on "Monasticism" in the Blackwell Encyclopaedia, in discussing the expulsion of the secular clergy from the Old Minster, says parenthetically "thus depriving them of their wealthy benefices". I think it's a point worth making; the discussion in the article is mostly about the religious consequences, and this is a good opportunity to show other consequences of the reform.
  • Another point often made which I will look at again. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blair spends some time describing the influence of Ramsey (p.177), which, he says, sent monks to Winchcombe, Pershore and Evesham; and adds "It was from these areas and particularly from Evesham that late in the eleventh century monasticism was carried to the north of England and even farther afield to Denmark, but this was not until some years after the Norman Conquest." This is later than the period you're focusing on, but might go in the aftermath section.
  • The question of whether the movement led to any missionary activity is one I never managed to clarify. In an early draft I had a quote from Farmer saying that one of its achievements was inspiring missionary activity in Scandinavia, but I deleted it as I never found any source discussing this supposed activity. I am not well informed on the post-Conquest period, but my impression is that the establishment of Benedictine monasteries in the north was a Norman initiative. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks very much for your support and very helpful comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't strike anything above, since my support's not contingent on any of these points. Per your comment above about not being well informed on the post-Conquest period; I'm pinging Ealdgyth, who I'm sure is well informed. Ealdgyth, any thoughts on the comments above? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barlow English Church 1066-1154 doesn't mention much about the reform movement's influence after the Conquest, but does say that one aspect was the veneration of Mary, including the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary and the Feast of the Conception. Barlow notes that although Lanfranc supressed the Feast after the Conquest at Canterbury, it continued at Ramsbury and was even exported from Ramsbury to Fecamp when Herbert Losinga (who was from Fecamp) was in charge of Ramsbury. OTher than that - there is not a lot of the influence of the Benedictine reforms of the late 10th century on the Church after the Conquest. In general, historians tend to see the period prior to the Conquest as a "slack period" of reform/etc in the English Church. There was a lot of change after the Conquest, but that change is mostly linked to the incoming Normans, not to the 10th century reform movement. Keep in mind that there was a strong monastic reform movement in Normandy during the 1040s and 1050s, and that many of the new bishops/abbots/monks in England who came from Normandy were involved in the Norman monastic reforms. Will try to review shortly, although the Benedictine Reform of the 10th century isn't a strong point for my knowledge. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikki. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'll certainly be supporting this impressive and enjoyable article. A few small points first:

  • Eleven sentences in the piece start with "However,...", which I find a little obtrusive. Once one notices such repetitions they begin to distract one's attention from the content.
  • I have eliminated most of them. Curious that the Oxford Thesaurus does not have one satisfactory synonym for "however", but according to an Oxford blog Fowler says that it is OK to start a sentence with "But". Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The latest (4th) edition of Fowler says (p. 125), "The widespread public belief that But should not be used at the beginning of a sentence seems to be unshakeable. Yet it has absolutely no foundation in grammar or idiomatic usages, and examples are frequent in good literature." And I agree. Tim riley talk 09:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early development
    • Fleury Abbey on the Loire, which had great prestige because it held Saint Benedict's body, and was more conservative." – a possible ambiguity here. Was its prestige for two reasons – the saint's body and the conservatism? If not, perhaps reverse the ingredients: "Fleury Abbey on the Loire, which was more conservative, and had great prestige because it held Saint Benedict's body" or even "England's closest links were with the more conservative Fleury Abbey on the Loire, which had great prestige because..."
Done.Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Æthelstan's cosmopolitan intellectual court" – I'd be inclined to put a comma after "cosmopolitan".
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saints and relics
  • "more prominent location in order to them more accessible" – a word missing here; I'd make it "more prominent location to make them more accessible", thereby losing the otiose "in order".
  • Second para: Alan Thacker gets his forename on both mentions of him; once would do, I think.
  • Aftermath
    • I think (but am never confident when tangling with Anglo-Saxon material) that "Abbery" is a typo.
  • Importance of the reform movement
    • The MoS bids us rationalise punctuation within quotations, and I'd change the spaced hyphens in the Ryan block quotation into spaced en-dashes.
  • I'm not sure there is an ASCII code for an en-dash, but at the bottom of the WP editing page, below the Save page, Preview etc buttons is a box offering a choice of Insert, Wiki markup etc. If you have it on Insert (to which it defaults, I think) the en- and em-dashes are to its right – just click on either while your cursor is at the appropriate point of your text. I've done the necessary in the article. Tim riley talk 09:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So is the short dash immediately right of the insert box an en-dash, and the long one an em-dash? A spaced en-dash would presumably then be with a space before and after? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's it exactly. The MoS calls for either en-dashes with a space either side – thus – or alternatively for em-dashes with no space—thus—on either side. Neither form is officially preferred over the other, though from casual observation I'd guess that a majority of regular nominators of FACs opt for unspaced em-dashes. I, quelle surprise!, am in the minority, if so. I'll leave a note on your talk page about how to do en- and em-dashes in Word, which you may find useful if, like me, you do a fair bit of your drafting offline before pasting into WP. Tim riley talk 11:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy
  • "appealing to pre-Conquest charters, and forging new ones if necessary" – "forging" conveys fakery to me, and unless that's what you have in mind (but perhaps it is) I'd be inclined to find another verb.
  • Definitely fakery, and I have amended to make this clear. Medieval monks faked charters to support their claims on an industrial scale. I have not seen any figures, but I have the impression that most surviving charters are fraudulent. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good grief! Well worth emphasising. I had no idea: nice goings on! Tim riley talk 09:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can find to quibble about. – Tim riley talk 11:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. To my lay eye this article seems comprehensive and authoritative, and it is certainly a pleasure to read. As far as I can judge it meets all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 09:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Just a few quick thoughts I'm afraid:

  • I think "learnt" is a bit informal and I would certainly expect to see "learned" here – second paragraph in the lead – but maybe I'm just being old fashioned!
    • Fowler (3rd ed) says that learned is usual in AmE and learnt in BrE. Tim riley talk 16:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is that not "usual" in the sense that "learnt" is usually found not in AmE but in BrE, rather than that it's the usual form in BrE? I'm not overly fussed either way – I was taught not to use "learnt" in a formal context, but I'm also fond of breaking rules! Not that there is one ... Nortonius (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now I look again, I think you're right, Nortonius. The current edition of Fowler expresses a mild approval of "learned" on the grounds that it is common Anglophone currency whereas "learnt" isn't. And a swift online search of the complete works of the Bard throws up only five learnts to sixty-one learneds, and there are no learnts at all in the King James Bible. I'll shut up now. Tim riley talk 13:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed. I rather like learnt, but if Fowler prefers learned, what can I do but submit to a Higher Authority? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 963 Edgar appointed Æthelwold Bishop of Winchester": I think "as Bishop of Winchester" might be an improvement to flow.
  • "[K]ings from Æthelstan onwards [were enabled] to see themselves as heirs of the Carolingian emperors": the only problem there is that none of Britain was ever part of that empire. Maybe just qualify as "spiritual heirs" or similar.
  • The problem is that the source says "heirs", and I think changing it to "spiritual heirs" would be too far from what the source says. The fact that English kings could not literally be the heirs of the Carolingians does not mean that they did not see themselves in that light. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember being struck by how Pauline Stafford and others saw royal enthusiasm for the reform as strongly political, besides spiritual, taking the line that reformed monasteries were engines for pro-royal, i.e. pro-Wessex, centrist propaganda. I've only scanned through very quickly and I see that line mentioned, e.g. in the longish quotation from Keynes under "Importance of the reform movement" and once or twice elsewhere, but I don't see it developed. I know you'll be working from your sources, Dudley, and I haven't kept up to date on this issue. Also I'm still too pre-occupied to go digging in sources myself, so I'm afraid I'm not being very helpful. I just wonder what you might think of it, as I once came to see the political aspect as a central strand myself.
  • There obviously has been a change of approach in the last thirty years. Historians of the reform up to the 80s, some of them Catholic priests, were instinctively sympathetic to the reformers. Modern historians are much more sceptical, a point I have brought out, for example, in the section on 'The reform and the crown'. Nevertheless I think the political aspect can be pushed too far. After all, the reformers - and their supporters - unquestionably believed that they were doing their religious duty. But they were also aristocrats aligned with family factions within the aristocracy, which greatly influenced their actions in practice, a point I have tried to bring out. Of course I am happy to look at any points you bring up from your sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm not being more helpful, maybe I'll be around more in a week or so, fingers crossed. Nortonius (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

  • Obviously most of the way there, but I had some issues.
  • The lead should prepare the reader for the fact that (I think this is right) it will be a long time before anywhere north of the diocese of Worcester is mentioned. The situation in the north, or lack of it, is mentioned at the end, but was there really so little effect there? Oswald was Archbishop of York for 20 years. Durham is not mentioned at all.
  • I have added the lack of success in the north to the lead. Although Oswald was A of Y, he did not have to power to dispossess local elites to establish Benedictine monasteries without the king's support, and the king was not powerful enough in the north to impose his will. As discussed above, it was only after the Norman Conquest that the Benedictines were able to establish themselves north of Burton-on-Trent. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination promises "It was also very significant politically, artistically and for the development of the Old English language", but there is little beyond a few anodyne comments on art and literature (and nothing on architecture, always a big monastic priority). All the references are from general/political/church historians as far as I could see. Nor are there links to what relevant articles we have - Beowulf (the MS), Cædmon manuscript (prob c. 1000, Canterbury), Old English Hexateuch (more the text) or other works of Ælfric. No doubt others.
  • I have not found sources establishing the relevance of Cædmon and the Hexateuch. More could be said about Ælfric in view of his importance, and I will look at this further. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The one specific ref to an artistic work says "The Benedictional of St. Æthelwold, written for him by a monk called Godeman,..." and says nothing else at all about beyond it being the "outstanding work of art to have survived from this period" - for entirely unspecified reasons. This should be "scribed", as he was certainly not the author, and may well have had nothing to do with the illumination. It would be more useful to say something about the scale and style of the illumination rather than just naming the scribe.
  • Dunstan actually was an artist, whose work probably survives. You might mention this, and use the famous (probable) self-portrait with Christ.
  • Simon Keynes in pp. 14-15 of his Introduction to: Backhouse, Janet, Turner, D.H., and Webster, Leslie, eds.; The Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon Art, 966–1066, 1984, British Museum Publications Ltd, ISBN 0714105325 (the key work on the art) has things to say about Edgar's purely practical motives for promoting the reform which don't seem to be said here.
  • I will check Backhouse for anything Keynes adds there to his general remarks quoted in 'Importance of the reform movement' Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keynes makes some useful points which I have added, but I do not see that he does on Edgar's role. The article says "the regulation of monasteries by a uniform Benedictine rule was designed to unite the kingdom ideologically and enhance royal prestige.[35] The monks depended on the king in a way that the local ealdormen did not, so their loyalty could be trusted and they could act as a counterbalance to powerful local families." This covers most of Keynes's points. He also says that Edgar aimed to extend his influence in recently conquered areas where his authority was weak, but John Blair argued in 2005 that this was an area where the reformers failed, and his point has been generally accepted. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An individual would patronise the same foundations that other family members and allies supported, but despoil the lands of houses associated with his political adversaries. Æthelwine of East Anglia and Ælfhere, Ealdorman of Mercia were the leaders of the two rival factions. Ælfhere despoiled Æthelwine's Ramsey and was an enemy of Archbishop Oswald and an ally of Bishop Æthelwold. Æthelwine, a friend of Oswald, sometimes despoiled Æthelwold's Ely." Lots of "despoiling", not a word that conveys much to the modern reader! It would be useful to give an idea of what this involved.
  • Revised to make clear that despoiling was seizing land belonging to monasteries. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The reformers aimed to enhance the Christian character of kingship, and one aspect of this was to raise the status of the queen; Edgar's last wife, Ælfthryth, was the first king's consort to regularly witness charters as regina.[41] Æthelwold was close to Queen Ælfthryth, and supported the claim of her son Æthelred (978–1016) to be king against his elder half-brother, Edward (975–78). Dunstan supported Edward, who succeeded on Edgar's death in 975. Æthelred became king on his half-brother's murder in 978, and Æthelwold was then a powerful figure at court until his death in 984.[42]" - it's not clear where, after the first sentence, this leads us. Doesn't regina need italics or quotes, or both?
  • Rearranged to hopefully make it more logical.
  • I must say I prefer "nobles" to "aristocrats" in talking of AS matters.
  • A search of Google Scholar shows that historians often use "aristocrat". I use both interchangeably. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from names and places there are relatively few links; I may suggest some.
  • "Ealdorman Byrhtnoth of Essex gave Ely Abbey "thirty mancuses of gold, twenty pounds of silver, two gold crosses, two lace palls containing precious works of gold and gems, and two finely made gloves".[43]" - so he did, but after his death his widow also gave them a (lost) narrative hanging depicting his deeds, which is a key and much-discussed work in AS art history, which you might mention. He is also reasonably well-known as the hero of The Battle of Maldon, which you might say.
Thanks for your helpful comments. I did not find much on artistic aspects, but I will get hold of The Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon Art in the next few days and follow up your suggestions. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can add bits if you would like that. I have that and:
  • Webster, Leslie, Anglo-Saxon Art, 2012, British Museum Press, ISBN 9780714128092
  • Wilson, David M.; Anglo-Saxon Art: From The Seventh Century To The Norman Conquest, Thames and Hudson (US edn. Overlook Press), 1984.

- both standard accounts, plus other stuff. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have ordered the other two books you mention from the London Library, but I should be very grateful if you would add to the article as you of course know vastly more about Anglo-Saxon art than me, and will do a much better job of improving it. I have also ordered Insular & Anglo-Saxon art and thought in the early medieval period, edited by Colum Hourihane. The LL also has Anglo-Saxon art : a new perspective, C.R. Dodwell, but this is already out on loan. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I have Dodwell, who is good and full on noble donations in particular. There is also a recent survey of AS art by Catherine Karkov, The Art of Anglo-Saxon England (Boydell, 2011), which I don't know (nor the Hourihane). But the ones I have should provide plenty (though not much on monastic architecture, where there are precious few remains). Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your additions, which have greatly improved the article. I will look at Backhouse, mainly for Keynes's comments, but I do not think I need to look at other sources as you have covered the artistic aspect so fully. Is there anything else you think I should cover? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the moment, other than what you've said above. I will look again & probably tinker with what I've added a bit more. I see the relevant chapter of another of Dodwell's books is mostly online, btw, here; I also have a hard copy of that. That has (first page) a factoid on monastic bishops that might be relevant to a point above. I can add quickly on Byrhtnoth's hanging and other noble gifts from the first Dodwell, and a sentence or two on architecture. Perhaps not for a few days. Sorry I can't do the sfn refs. Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to deal with the sfn refs. I still struggle with en-dashes, but Tim Riley has kindly given me advice on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's the one thing I run a tool/script for - it seems to keep everyone happy, though I can't remember where I got it. I'll run it now, so revert if you don't like. Johnbod (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Johnbod. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod I checked out the books in the London Library today. The Hourihane does not seem to have anything relevant to the Benedictine Reform, but Karkov discusses it extensively, so I will read (or skim) her book. If I add anything to the article which is not right, please correct it. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She comes from a different angle to Dodwell & Wilson, as her intro says (I've only read what google gives you. Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your recent edits Johnbod. Could you please advise the page numbers in Dodwell, as sfn does not allow for a citation of chapters. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the page numbers relating to architecture, which also contrast with the other contents of churches and their fittings. I don't really like "Fittings in Æthelwold's churches were richly decorated with gold and silver, but only a few minor pieces survive.[84]" refed to the non-specialist Yorke. This implies Æthelwold's churches were unusual or original in this respect, which they certainly were not. All A-S churches blinged up to the maximum they could afford, or get given, and had done since the days of Wilfrid, which Dodwell emphasises throughout; "Golden Age" catalogues the little that remains. Webster 194-205 gives a compact account of church art beyond manuscripts, or Wilson 190-200 (not so good). We do actually have an article on the Brussels Cross, one partial survival. But the period of and after the reform saw very lavish fittings, mostly from donations, which do need a quick mention, perhaps better here than higher up. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please do delete anything you are not happy with - and add text on the lavish fittings. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the caption to the Dunstan portrait to make clear that it is of him - in Karkov's words - "as a monk prostrate in humility before an imposing figure of Christ". She says it is not by Dunstan: "While neither the drawing nor the inscriptions on the book and rod are in Dunstan's own hand, his addition of the distich to the page makes it clear that the image was to be 'read' as a self-portrait. Indeed, as Dunstan added elements of both text and drawing to the page, the final image can be understood as his own work, and the distinction between the hands more the concern of modern scholarship and its pursuit of the 'authentic' than of the Anglo-Saxons". (p.171) Dudley Miles (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The other sources, including Webster 2012, think, after discussions, he probably did at least the monk's figure himself (also Dodwell "Perspective", which has a lot on Dunstan as artist).
How about adding a citation of Webster's comments to the caption? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, will do. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article could do with more illustrations. Do you think would be suitable for the 'Monks and clerics' section? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, though the colour is rather flat - compare "Golden Age" colour plate IX (and p. 60). The "lion mask B" had quite a future, & I think this one of the earliest. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have scanned it. OK now?

Yes, much better - you saw we have Ramsey Psalter? Johnbod (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS See also comment above on changing anything you are not happy with. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the image. It is a bit confusing that in Commons it is in "Category:Psalter of Oswald (c.975-1000) - BL Harley MS 2904" and "Category:Ramsey psalter - ca1310 - MorganLibM302-Lavantthal" is a 14C ms. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is - I have added "This is not to be confused with another Ramsey Psalter in the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York (MS M. 302), made between 1286 and 1316." to the Psalter & Ramsey Abbey, and moved one image in the wrong category. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not get much from Karkov - I did not want to get into the application of post-colonial theory to Anglo-Saxon art! - but she was interesting on Swithun. I think I have dealt with all your points now, but please advise if not. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, well that is the modern way! None of that in Webster (2012). I think I have finished tinkering now, and am very happy to Support this excellent article. Do let me know if there are any issues on my edits (refs need sfn-ing as usual, I'm afraid). Btw, I have found links to this one missing at most related articles that mention the reform; I've added them where I've seen this, but no doubt there are many more. It all helps to drive views. But very nice work. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Johnbod. Your contributions have greatly improved the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I made some small tweaks. Otherwise, it looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Hi all, I can see there's been some discussion of sources above but has anyone signed off formatting and reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several images have been added since Nikki kindly checked them. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can attest to the reliability of the sources, but I have not checked formatting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Mike, I went through the citations and fixed a few formatting anomalies, so I'm ready to wrap this up now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2016 (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/English_Benedictine_Reform/archive1&oldid=1136458789"