This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Revelations of Divine Love is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
My understanding, from a long ago graduate course in Chaucer, was that unlettered could mean simply "unable to read and write IN LATIN," that is, literate only in the vernacular. If a medievalist could confirm this, that section might be easily cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.25.127 (talk) 04:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no expert credentials, but the same thought occurred to me. In any case, if it is suggested she may have been unable to read and write, how did she produce her work? Is it assumed therefore that she dictated all her writings? Orlando098 (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The book is remarkable for being the earliest surviving example of a book in the English language known to have been written by a woman. — Is this really its primary significance? In the body, this fact is treated more as trivia than anything else.
It is notable for the quality of its prose, but is definitely notable for being the first book written by a woman in English, I have emphasised this a bit more in the text. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the visions appeared to her over a period of several hours in one night, with a final revelation occurring the following night — These details aren't in the body of the article.
she wrote an account of each vision, producing a manuscript now referred to as the Short Text. She developed her ideas over a period of decades, whilst living as an anchoress in a cell attached to St Julian's Church, Norwich, and wrote a far more extended version of her writings, now known as the Long Text. — Ditto.
The lead seems to stop in 1670, and not discuss what happened afterwards, or (other than being the first English book known to have been written by a woman) why the work is relevant.
Lead section expanded accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Julian of Norwich
(late 1342 – after 1416) — This should probably be cited, especially since the Julian of Norwich article is inconsistent about the year of birth; the infobox and lead say 1342, but the article says 1343. Also, this section (i.e., the one in the Revelations of Divine Love article) should probably include the evidence for the 1342 (or 1343) and 1416 dates in the text.
The English antiquarianFrancis Blomefield incorrectly wrote in the second volume of his History of the County of Norfolk that Julian was still alive in 1443 — Why is this incorrect? She would have been 100 at the time, which—based solely on life expectancy—is unlikely but possible. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your question is explained in Note 1 (newly added). Blomefield misread a manuscript and got the year wrong. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is the first book in English known to have been written by a woman. — This probably belongs in the following section instead.
Julian referred to herself in her writings as "a simple creature unlettered", a phrase perhaps used to avoid antagonising or offending her readers — In what ways would not doing so offend readers?
Sentence simplified to omit that readers were offended. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The term unlettered in the Middle Ages might have meant that she did not receive a formal education, rarely available to laywomen. — Is there anything else it might have meant?
Julian's true name — Meaning her full name? Or is even the name "Julian" in doubt? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another minefield for the unwary! I've expanded the section to show that her name can't automatically be assumed to have originated from St. Julian's Church. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Julian's writings
The historian Janina Ramirez has suggested that their use of Middle English was a sensible choice, considering the inexplicable nature of what they were attempting to describe. — Perhaps I'm just missing it, but why would writing in Middle English make more sense for describing the inexplicable?
Explanation provide (with a quote included). Amitchell125 (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Julian's writings were not mentioned in medieval bequests, as often happened for male authors. — Does this mean that her writings weren't included as part of personal libraries that were distributed in wills?
That's right, according to Rolf p. 8 (here), her writings are not mentioned at all in any publicly recorded medieval 'book bequests', as opposed to the works of her male counterparts. I've amended the relevant sentence to clarify this. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[note 1] — Perhaps add what some of the other titles are.
In recent decades a number of new editions and renderings of her book into modern English have appeared, as well as publications about her. — Citation?
This section is nicely handled. One minor follow-up comment: In recent decades could be a bit more specific, e.g., "starting in 19##" --Usernameunique (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A single manuscript of the earlier Short Text — Does "earlier" just mean that the manuscript is from the 15th, rather than the 16th, century, or does it mean that the Short Text was actually composed earlier?
The Short Text was the first to be written by Julian, I have added a sentence to clarify this. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A lost manuscript... — This paragraph needs a citation.
Is it known a) what this was copied from, and/or b) whether it was copied from the long or short text? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Section expanded to cover these points. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's the provenance (if known) of each manuscript?
I've expanded the section to cover the provenance of the manuscripts. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused by the purpose of the second and third paragraphs in this section. The second paragraph, about the Amherst Manuscript, would seem to fit most naturally of "The Short Text", "Centuries later the same copy was seen by the antiquarianFrancis Blomefield (1705–52)". And the third paragraph would seem to fit in the bulleted list of "Provenance of the Long Text manuscripts". In place of these paragraphs, I think you could say something along the lines of "The Short Text is known from a single manuscript. Three complete copies of the Long Text survive, alongside ## partial copies. Additionally, ## copies of the Long Text are known to have existed, but are now lost." (I think that covers all variations, but it might not—e.g., there aren't any partial or lost Short Text manuscripts, right?)
Text removed (as it can't be verified). Amitchell125 (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the mid- to late-fifteenth-century Westminster Manuscript — Where is it held? Also, if Westminster Manuscript gets the italics treatment, "Amherst Manuscript" (above) probably should also. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Westminster Manuscript is discussed here, and then several sections later pops up again. Why not make it a subsection of this section? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
a manuscript consisting of the Long Text of Julian's Revelations — Does it consist only of the Revelations, or is anything else in it also? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's just her revelations, sentence amended accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The manuscript, dating from c.1450, and once thought lost, was found in a collection of contemplative medieval texts. — So a second, and earlier, copy than the one from the 1470s? What collection was it found in?
The British Library holds a copy of the manuscript used by Cressy in the 1670s, written by an unknown copyist and now known as "Stowe MS 42". — The chart suggests that Stowe MS 42 was based on Cressy's version, not the other way around. Also, Stowe MS 42 is a manuscript, not a book, why is it not discussed in the above section, and why is it termed a book in the below chart?
My apologies for not being clear in explaining Stowe MS 42 clearly enough in the text, I'll make some amendments asap. In summary: (i) it's a book (but I referred to it as a manuscript because the British Library does); (ii) according to the BL, "(Stowe MS 42) is thought to be a copy from an exemplar manuscript for a edition published in 1670 by Serenus Cressy"—Cressy gained access to a manuscript in Paris, made a copy, and got the copy published in England, and then someone else published a book from Cressy’s exemplar. (source: here); (iii) I could perhaps amend the chart by placing Cressy and Stowe MS 42 together without a joining line. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only one other complete version of the Long Text appeared between 1902 and 1958 — Looks like plenty of versions appeared after 1958. Why aren't they discussed?
[note 2] — Needs a citation. (Added - (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)) Also, the differences between the long and short texts aren't really dealt with in this article. The lead hints at it, and this footnote gives a sense of the size (but not content) difference—although saying it is about 11,000 words long means a lot less without knowing how many words are in the long version. Somewhere in the article—perhaps as a subsection of "Contents"—the difference between the long and short texts should be discussed, and then the speculated reason why (per the lead, the short text was written shortly after the illness, and the long text was written over a lifetime) could go in the suggested "Analysis" section (see comment under "Overall").[reply]
There's a significant amount of overlap and repetition between the second and third paragraphs; it's confusing, and for a moment I thought these were referring to two different manuscripts. These should be placed in chronological order, and possibly combined. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
an edition by Frances Beer, Revelations of Divine Love, (Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 1978) — The chart says 1998. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The chart is correct - text amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any particular reason some of the 21st-century works aren't in the chart? Of course, it would probably be unwieldy to include them all. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Short Text was first published in English by Reverend Dundas Harford, the vicar of Emmanuel Church, West Hampstead, in 1911, shortly after its discovery. — The chart includes another version, "Beer (1978)". Is this the same work mentioned two works above? If so, why is it mentioned with the other Long Text works, rather than here? And if so, what's "Beer (1998)"?
This section seems to treat the actual contents of the book as an afterthought. The book comprises 86 chapters, but only three are discussed in anything more than a list; it took me some time to realize that the 16 revelations comprise the remaining 83 chapters, yet these are listed without any discussion. There's also no analysis whatsoever of the contents of the book; surely some of the modern sources include critical appraisal?
In the third chapter, which concludes the introduction — But it sounds above as if the intro is limited to one sentence.
Sentence amended to avoid the confusion. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Long Text of Revelations of Divine Love is divided into eighty-six chapters. — It would be helpful to have a sentence after this along the lines of "The first three chapters comprise the introduction. The remaining 83 chapters describe Julian's revelations, each of which is given between one and 23 chapters." (I'm not positive that those numbers are right, by the way.) --Usernameunique (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it was 86 chapters, why does the chart list an 87th? --Usernameunique (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence amended to state that a final chapter (included for instance by Warrack) is a postscript written by a scribe, and not by Julian. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Revelations
Odd that chapter 13 is mentioned as being long, while the length of chapter 14 (which the chart says is even longer) is not mentioned. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, neither am I. I'll look for another citation. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found where this came from, ref replaced. The source was self-published using Lulu.com, but it is by an accredited author (is on Worldcat, has a Wikpedia article, has had lots of books published) and the text is not controversial, so I think the citation is fine to use. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's going on with 70–79, 106–107, and 127? Aren't these (mostly) in "Sources and printed versions of the book", and if so, why not link there with short cites? --Usernameunique (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amitchell125, #128 (which I think used to be 127) still needs a short cite. Also, I believe #65 should use the {{cite news}} template, not the {{cite journal}} template. Once those are addressed this will be ready to go. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Creddy 1670 — Retrieval information not needed since you're citing the underlying work.
*Dutton, Elisabeth. A Revelation of Love (Introduced, Edited & Modernized). Rowman & Littlefield, 2008 — Is this supposed to be "iv"?
Beer 1998 — "New York" is spelled out elsewhere.
Colledge 1978 — ISBN not hyphenated.
Del Mastro, M.L. — Other works have full names, not initials; year is missing; NY not spelled out; ISBN not hyphenated.
Hudleston 1927 — NY not spelled out; ISBN not hyphenated
Spearing 1998 — ISBN not hyphenated
Warrack 1907 — OCLC not needed, given that you have a link to a free version of the work.
Wolters 1966 — Whereas here there's no link, so an OCLC or other identifying number should be provided.
John-Julian 2009 — Is "Father" actually the author's first name? Also, ISBN not hyphenated.
All sorted (Del Mastro's full name appears not to be available, so M.L. Del Mastro may be a pen name). Amitchell125 (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Baker 1993 says registration required, but has no link. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amitchell125, this is a really interesting article. I think it does a good job of describing the nuts and bolts of the work—its history, the extant copies, the publication history, etc.—but could use some work in describing 1) the actual contents of the work, and 2) it's reception (both past and present) and modern analysis. (It's possible that a section on analysis/appraisals might also cover some of the missing information about the content.) Given the strong start here and your excellent work on other articles, I'm sure this will come together nicely. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernameunique: I've completed addressing the point you raised, please let me know what else is required. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay with this, Amitchell125. This generally looks good. I've left some additional comments above; the main one is that the "Surviving manuscripts" section could use some tightening up. Once those comments are addressed I think this should be ready to pass. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering if "shewings" might be a middle-English form of "showings." Just a thought, b/c if so we might wanna remark about that too. Augend (drop a line) 16:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amitchell125, the Armstrong book is published by Lulu.com which is a self publishing platform. WP also black lists it (I spotted it by using User:Headbomb/unreliable) – you may want to remove it or switch it out :) Aza24 (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
