Talk:Baldwin (abbot of Bury St Edmunds)

DYK nom

Template:Did you know nominations/Baldwin (abbot) - Ealdgyth - Talk 23:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Title

The title seems odd. There were many abbots named Baldwin. In fact, we already have a Baldwin (abbot and physician). —Srnec (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I picked the smallest disambiguator I could find... I used to do things like "Baldwin (Abbot of Bury St Edmunds)" but then someone would come along and move them to something like this title... so I gave up even trying, honestly. Seems no matter what I choose - someone's going to object. I like the fuller disambig myself but I keep getting told that's wrong. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I just realized that this Baldwin and the physician Baldwin are the same Baldwin... Srnec (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

And it's basically the old DNB with no citations. Make it a redirect to this? Or something else? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I like "Baldwin (abbot of Bury St Edmunds)" as a title. I think the two articles should be merged and histmerged, for which we need an admin. It doesn't matter if the old material is kept, although the new ODNB article may be useful. It says flatly that Baldwin died in January 1097. I've added it to the article for now. Srnec (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I have to dig out a couple of packed books - there is enough to flesh this article out more (plus a detailed journal search, etc). The article still has a bit to go. If you think a history merge is best, that's fine. I do have it set for DYK right now.. if that impacts things. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that Baldwin (abbot) and Baldwin (abbot and physician) should be merged as they are the same person Hugo999 (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Baldwin (abbot of Bury St Edmunds)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seraphim System (talk · contribs) 05:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Clearly written, concise, well-sourced. There are some details that can be added from DNB, including links to Herfast and Lanfranc, and according to DNB he did receive writs that protected the abbey's lands from forfeiture to the Norman lords, but the major aspects are covered. Will leave open for comment, but leaning towards a clear pass. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comments
  • ...the right to have any bishop of the abbey's choice perform episcopal functions for the abbey

  I'm assuming these are ordinations? Other than ordinations, what other episcopal functions would be needed. If the source doesn't say, that's fine, but its unclear to me. If it was just ordinations, I'd say that, if it also involved ecclesiastical governance, it might be good to spell it out.

  • once by a miraculous cure of a knight injured in the crowd

  Unclear to me whether the night was injured while in the crowd or if it was an injured knight who happened to be in the crowd.

  • The bishop of Thetford, Herbert Losinga, protested

  Make it clear what he was protesting. This goes back to the episcopal functions clarity I mentioned above.

  • This isn't in there, but did he ever receive sacerdotal ordination? If so, I think it would be important to mention it. Listing the year would be ideal (though I know this can be tough, even for clerics ordained significantly later).

@Ealdgyth: I'm not the reviewer, so I didn't do a too in depth view, but the above are just some things I noticed/had questions about while doing a once over. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This is what DNB says about it

With the appointment of Lanfranc as archbishop of Canterbury in 1070, the ecclesiastical landscape changed dramatically as he wished to implement the plans of the reforming papacy, which called for sees to be located in the major towns and for abbots to be subject to diocesan control. To protect Bury from this threat Baldwin travelled to Rome in 1071 where he secured a privilege which placed his abbey under the protection of the papacy. Neither letters of criticism from Lanfranc nor the testimony of jurors from nine counties persuaded Herfast, the bishop of Thetford, to abandon his claim to Bury. According to the Liber de miraculis sancti Eadmundi, when Herfast damaged his eyes in a riding accident, Baldwin agreed to save his sight only if he agreed to give up his claim. Orders from Rome, oral memory, and oaths made under duress did not, however, resolve the dispute, and at Easter 1081 the rival parties assembled in front of the king and the royal council in London. Baldwin defeated his opponent by producing four spurious charters in which English kings forbade the bishop of East Anglia from interfering with Bury Abbey in any way. Subsequent attempts to move the see to Bury were easily disposed of, as Baldwin not only kept the writ which enforced this decision but also had the foresight to forge a diploma in which William I expressly forbade Herfast and his successors from seeking to revive their claim to Bury. Baldwin's actions ensured that Bury was not chosen as the new ecclesiastical capital of East Anglia, and the documents which he collated guaranteed the monastery's independence until the dissolution.

So from DNB the emphasis is not on the episcopal functions, but the independence of the monastary in general, if I've understood it correctly — I did read these as being the same thing, but perhaps it could be stated more explicitly Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of what the emphasis is in the text, whether it is juridicial or sacramental (or both, as the article currently suggests), it should be clarified in the prose as to what specifically the abbey needed in terms of episcopal functions. The first thought that jumped to my mind would be that bishops would be needed for ordinations of clerical monks (if this abbey had them). If it was more political (in the ecclesiastical sense), then that would need to be made more clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

THe specific incident involved the consecration of a church, but the exemption was for all episcopal functions. Unfortunately, the sources just call them "episcopal functions". Church consecrations would be included as well as possibly confirmations of any child oblates. The monks definitely used this exemption (as well as the forged chaters/etc) to keep the bishops from forcibly taking over their monastery as a site of a new cathedral for the diocese, but that happened later. I checked Barlow's English Church 1066-1154, and he deals with the various instructions from Lanfranc to Herfast but doesn't get into the details of what episcopal functions were specifically. (Lanfranc's basically annoyed that Herfast was ignoring Lanfranc's instructions...)

On the knight - I double checked and clarified a bit - it's now "injured by the large crowd", as Barlow says "who had been injured by the surging crowd".

On the protests - it's now "The bishop of Thetford, Herbert Losinga, protested this usurpation of his normal right to consecrate the church, but his protests were countered by the papal privilege of 1071 and the royal confirmation of that papal document.", which hopefully is a bit clearer.

No source comments on whether he was ordained or not. We have few records of ordinations for the period - usually it is only mentioned if it was unusual for lateness/unusual events/etc - such as how late Geoffrey (archbishop of York) took to get ordained. Even for prominent bishops, we don't have ordination dates - see Stigand, Thomas of Bayeux, William de Longchamp]], Alexander of Lincoln, or Hubert Walter for examples. From a later period, Roger Norreis we don't know if he was ordained or not. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense re: episcopal functions. Confirmations were also the other thing I was thinking along with the consecration of the church mentioned. We certainly don't want to go into original research here or speculation , so I think it is fine as is especially after adding the line about the bishop protesting. Thanks for the clarification edits. Understood on ordinations: it can be tough to find records of dates of sacerdotal ordination even for cardinals of much later periods even if we have the date of episcopal consecration, so I certainly understand the the frustration. Thanks for answering the questions :) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I have a couple comments. Firstly, is there really no way we can get an image? Secondly, if the Anglo Saxon Chronicles give the YOD as 1098, why is it given in the article as 1097? What makes the source that gives 1097 more reliable than the one that gives 1098? If there is no clear difference in reliability, we should say "1097/1098," or use some similar format to convey that it could have been either. Display name 99 (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, since he's been dead a long time, I'm pretty sure we can't get a photo of him. The problem with manuscript illustrations is that most manuscripts aren't digitized and the various libraries and archives that hold them are ... jealous of losing imaging rights. The outside of the abbey has been extensively remodeled - it's very much Gothic, which is not how it would have looked in Baldwin's time. I can't see any interior shots of the abbey on Comons, which is what would have been what was contemporary. We dont even have any good images of William I or II, but even those would be just window dressing and not really connected to him. As for the death date - we go with "circa 1097" in the lead and "1097 or 1098" in the infobox, so I'm confused here about why you're saying we should do "1097/1098" ... since we already do basically, just not in that particular form. Btw - it's the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" at this period - there is only one version but they are conventionally called just a "chronicle" by historians. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

A quick other bit on the images - the ODNB doesn't list any surviving images, so its not likely that there is a manuscript portrait. ODNB is usually very good about listing any images/effigies/etc for medieval figures. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Even a painting or sketch of him made centuries after he died, and not much like him physically at all, would look nice. I won't insist on it though if there are copyright issues. My concern d=about the YOD is with the article stating that "he died around Christmas 1097." Presumably "around Christmas" would mean that he did in the days or weeks surrounding it. But if the Chronicle says he died in 1098, it could have been many weeks or months after. Display name 99 (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Most sources say he died around Xmas 1097. ASC is an outlier, so we note it. That's typically what we do when sources conflict. As for including a centuries later image ... that'd be misleading to the readers, since it's very unlikely to be at all anything other than a guess at what he looked like. I'm very opposed to using those sorts of imaginative images for articles, unless it's something like Lady Godiva, where there are lots of cultural depictions that form part of the impact of the article subject. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Alright then. Display name 99 (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Ealdgyth A few questions:

• Did Baldwin ever surrender the lands of those who had fought in the resistence to William?
• Why was Bury St. Edmunds so important?
• Was Baldwin successful because he was the King's physician? Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Upon reviewing additional sources that are available, I think this article does not sufficiently cover the major aspects. While we don't require that GA articles be complete or include every detail, the current article is missing quite a lot particular in its treatment of the power struggles over the abby, about which much has been written, and the treatment in this article is somewhat hurried. There are also a number of sources that discuss why Baldwin may have enjoyed such royal favor. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Well...

I had just got done with my work for the day and was going to address the issues brought up in the GA review in the last day, but I see it got closed. Whatever. Personally, the article is decent enough and I frankly don't really care that much to bother. (A hint, not everyone has traditional days off - Mondays and Tuesdays are my hubby's days off so we do other stuff and I edit less on these days.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

"(Baldwin (abbot and physician)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect (Baldwin (abbot and physician) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 4#(Baldwin (abbot and physician) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)