Talk:Hugh Candidus

Hugh Candidus received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

A fact from Hugh Candidus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 August 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Hugh Candidus (c.1095 – c.1160), a Benedictine monk, wrote a history of Peterborough Abbey from its foundation as Medeshamstede in the mid 7th century up to the 12th century?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/August.

Wikipedia

"Anglican priest" category

It seems to me that Hugh Candidus could just as well be described as a Catholic priest as an Anglican one... what is the best way of categorizing priests from that period? Are there any guidelines somewhere? TheGrappler (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd - I've no idea why the article has a category with "priest" - he was a Roman Catholic Benedictine monk...! Personally I think the first three categories - birth year, death year and priests - should be deleted entirely: no evidence for the years, and he was a monk, not a priest (AFAIK). Direct answer to your question re priests, in English Christianity at the time of Hugh Candidus, the only priests were Roman Catholics, ultimately answerable to the Pope; "priest" and "monk" were two different things; but a monk could also be a priest - as I recall! Hope that helps. Nortonius (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall meeting some Episcopalians who regarded what I would see as medieval Catholics, as "Anglicans who just didn't know it yet" :-) I think their argument ran on the basis that they were part of the Church of England, and all Henry VIII changed was the head of the Church of England (after all Henry didn't have to build an entire new church movement from scratch, recruit a new clergy and build new places of worship). Anyway I agree with you and have lopped off the "English Anglican priests" category. I added "Benedictines", "English Chroniclers" and "Medieval Latin-language writers" - hopefully I got those more accurate than the last categorizer did! Birth and death year are probably okay if there is only slight uncertainty, but if they are only roughly known, how about "1090s births" and "1160s deaths" instead? TheGrappler (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC) [As an aside: had Hugh Candidus lived a century earlier, we might even have to discuss whether you could technically be "Roman Catholic" before the Great Schism! So at least we're spared that dispute....][reply]

Aye - thank goodness for that! ;-) About dates, I'll try to check up on them, I have some good sources to hand but may take a while, or not find much...! Nortonius (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund King (2010) ODNB gave the dates as (c.1095–c.1160) and used the following sources, if that helps (well, it may save you digging in the same sources anyway)

The chronicle of Hugh Candidus, a monk of Peterborough, ed. W. T. Mellows (1949) [Lat. text; also prints and trans. La geste de Burc, ed. A. Bell]
The Peterborough Chronicle of Hugh Candidus, trans. C. Mellows and W. T. Mellows, 2nd edn (1966)
C. Clark, ed., The Peterborough Chronicle, 1070–1154, 2nd edn (1966)
A. Gransden, Historical writing in England, 1 (1974)
private information (2004)
E. King, Peterborough Abbey, 1086–1310: a study in the land market (1973)

--Senra (Talk) 19:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes, I've got all of those, except the "private information (2004)"! But, if that's what King says in the 2010 DNB, then I'd say maybe go with TheGrappler's suggestion of "1090s births" and "1160s deaths"...? Seems as good as anything, just can't really go pinning HC down to specific years, categories can be misleading enough as it is... Nortonius (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

As a separate discussion - is an image of a generic Benedictine monk the most appropriate? We have hundreds of articles on Benedictines, most of whom we lack a particular image for, so I am a bit wary of giving them all a generic early 20th-century picture! Perhaps a more topical image would be of Peterborough, particularly medieval Peterborough? TheGrappler (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go along with that - Peterborough Abbey tho, rather than just Peterborough - he was historian of the abbey, & said little about the town, except when the natives were restless, or the abbot was fiddling with it - as I recall, again! Nortonius (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First glance I parsed the above sentence incorrectly. I thought you were suggesting that the abbot was fiddling with the natives. My bad. I need my eyes testing --Senra (Talk) 17:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick - Peterborough Abbey seacrh. Not much to choose from --Senra (Talk) 17:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I did mean the abbey not the town. There is actually Commons:Category:Peterborough Cathedral and its subcategory Commons:Category:West facade of the Peterborough Cathedral, but I can't spot anything better than what has been suggested. TheGrappler (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Given his dates and the need for a picture of the same period, this will be hard. As I understand it, Norman arches are single centred (i.e. round) compared with later two-centred arches. Thus this suitably licenced view inside the cathedral may be ok? It is a view, of probably the north transept looking east, showing typical Norman architecture on the ceiling, ground, tribune and clerestory levels (would really need to look this up to check as I know later restorers copied older styles). There are also some nice etching in George S Philips (1881) that may be suitable too although I am not certain of copyright on project gutenberg stuff --Senra (Talk) 21:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like that flickr one, though maybe it's got too much modern stuff going on, like balloons - and things like this and this - HC will have seen this building going up, and walked among the Norman columns... Nortonius (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, this is hard. Agreed about that flickr one; had considered photoshoping out the norice board, christmas tree; child; erm - too much. This view along the nave through the chancel is too modern (IMHO) and this is nice. We can crop the two congregation members out and it will look (almost) Norman :) Not sure about the ceiling though. Checking ... (you didnt like the etchings in G S Philips (1881) then? Not even the one of the decaying cloister?) --Senra (Talk) 22:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

according to Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England the ceiling is 1220 though this pic (File:Peterborough_Great_Rood.JPG_ is captioned as "Norman interior of Peterborough" which is probably as close as we will get even though the crossing arch and the chancel windows are clearly not Norman --Senra (Talk) 22:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally butting in ... but you can also use a pic of a manuscript of his works, if you can find one. That's always a good choice. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ealdgyth, butt in any time - I was thinking those 1881 etchings give more a flavour of 1881 than of things to do with HC, but that's just me - I was also thinking it'd be nice to have something medieval of HC at work, if any such images exist, and free copies can be found - there's stuff like that for Bede, for example, but I don't know of any for HC...? But yes, a quality shot of the opening of his text would probably be the best thing we could hope for, preferably from the earliest surviving copy - trouble is, that was burned in 1731, and its version of the text only survives as a transcription of 1652...! A bit late... The version in Swaffham's Book might do, as it dates c. 1250, less than 100 years after his death, but getting a photo might be problematical, i.e., money...? Don't suppose there's a stained glass image of HC at Peterborough Cathedral, that someone could get a photo of...? Or something similar, like a wood carving? I noticed there are wood carvings of people there... Just, not a modern image, I'd say. Nortonius (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MS British Library Cotton Otho A. xvii.: Does this help to locate an image? This British.Library.MS.Add.3324.jpg is a touch early but at least Norman :) Or what about the Magna Carta - copyright free images of that must exist and it is close to the time of Hugh? --Senra (Talk) 00:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... That's an interesting find, the list of Cotton mss., but no, no help for images - a/c to Mellows, H.C., 1949, p. xviii, ms. Cotton Otho A. xvii is the earliest version of HC's history which was burned in 1731; then the Lansdowne mss. are transcripts from Cotton Otho A. xvii (see here and here), and my guess is that they are unlikely to include any illustrations (unless you fancy going to the British Library and having a look, I think you need accreditation for that, getting a photo would cost you, & you'd have to arrange permission to use it in WP, which could be problematical - I bought a photo from them once, I think it cost me 70 quid, and there were fairly strict conditions on using it, as I recall!); and the only other ms. listed is the transcript of 1652 - which Mellows used as his earliest version of HC's history (Mellows, H.C., 1949, p. xx).

About the other suggestions for manuscript pictures, I really think we'd need to stick with something directly related to HC, if we could find anything - the Encomium Emmae Reginae is (believed to be) Norman, but written in the Normandy of the 1040s, so British.Library.MS.Add.3324.jpg belongs to a different world to the one in which HC was writing (1066 and all that!), and Magna Carta would be a bit of a leap in the opposite direction, IMHO - would we want people to go away thinking there was some connection between HC & Magna Carta? Really, I think best to go with pictures of HC himself or of medieval copies of his manuscript work if available, or buildings he will have been familiar with and worked in (i.e. Norman elements of Peterborough Cath.)... In the meantime, a generic 20th c. picture of a Benedictine monk is fine by me, until something else is picked...? I think my current preference from what's available is for this, where the architecture is overwhelmingly (in two senses!) Norman - and, come to think of it, e.g. the decorated ceiling seen there belongs to the period between HC and Robert of Swaffham, whose Book (c. 1250 or earlier) includes the earliest surviving ms. version of HC's history, though the Peterborough Cathedral article is a bit confusing about it. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much none Norman visible in the Cathedral photo. On balance, I would prefer British.Library.MS.Add.3324.jpg to the existing monk image, given all the above discussion. The MS image, suitably captioned, would fit better in the article. How about A manuscript, written c. 1040, similar to those written by Hugh Candidus for a caption? --Senra (Talk) 22:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider also this image: British Library Harley MS 526, the opening page of the Vita Ædwardi Regis, 11th-century biography of King Edward the Confessor which strikes me as both close in date and style of writing to HC? --Senra (Talk) 22:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a sudden attack of boldness and replaced our benedictine monk image with this image --Senra (Talk) 22:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Many of the sentences here appear to be direct copy/paste from a Korean Facebook entry. See: ko-kr.connect.facebook.com/pages/...Candidus/116399821740814

However, I am unable to ascertain both authors, so they may be the same; in which case no plagiarism. CJ_WeißSchäfer 18:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ3370 (talk • contribs)

I think you will find it is the other way around. I think the Korean Facebook pages has copied the wikipedia entry according to the below (Babel-fish translated) source information:

The dignity explanation brought from the up height all branches of knowledge Hugh Candidus articles, in compliance with CC-BY-SA the use was permitted. The list of the people whom contributes in this article is a possibility of seeing from here. The community page relates with a corresponding subject and does not have a cooperation relationship or a right.
— http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fko-kr.connect.facebook.com%2Fpages%2FHugh-Candidus%2F116399821740814&lp=ko_en&btnTrUrl=Translate

--Senra (Talk) 18:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it. You can always trace an edit through the search link at the top of the history page, [1]. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See original sandbox history which was moved to main-space 8 August 2010. Also note the image in the Korean article which is the same as the image that was added to the main-space article 28 August 2010 following the thread Picture above --Senra (Talk) 20:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sentences removed

The following sentences were removed as we cannot find a reliable source. If you have a RS source for these sentences, by all means re-insert them

However, while Hugh used the Peterborough Chronicle in compiling his history, it has been remarked that he mistranslates some of the English words in a way that shows little familiarity with the English tongue. This, if substantiated, would be conclusive against his authorship of the greater work.
— Thomas Frederick Tout, Hugh (fl.1107?-1155?) (DNB00)

--Senra (Talk) 17:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Edmund King (subscription required), author of the ODNB (2010) entry for Hugh Candidus (subscription required), makes no mention of this conjecture --Senra (Talk) 18:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-worked the latter part of the article, partly per the above. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hugh Candidus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091101160847/http://www.shef.ac.uk/history/staff/edmund_king.html to http://www.shef.ac.uk/history/staff/edmund_king.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]