Talk:Robert de Bethune/GA1
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Ealdgyth in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Commencing review edit
I hope to review this article in the next few days. I have reviewed this article.
The article appears neutral, stable and generally well-written. It has excellent references. The only image used appears to have no licence etc issues. My points relate mainly to the article's coverage and clarity, however they are made in the context of what is already good work.
Specific points edit
Infoboxes
- Is it necessary or desirable to have Bethune's predecessor and successor named in both the top right infobox and the template at the end of the article?
Lead
- "...but Bethune died there in April 1148".
The image of Hereford Cathedral indicates he is buried at the cathedral, whereas the sentence just quoted suggests he died at Rhiems. That's quite a trip for a body in 1148. Is that right?(Yeah, it's right, I just needed to read the article. Talk about going off half-c***ed. Sorry). I think it should say "and" rather than "but".
- "...but no other evidence of cult being paid to Bethune survives." This is, to this lay reader, a very wierd turn of phrase. I've never head of "cult being paid". Should this sentence read something like "A hagiography is the only surviving evidence of Bethune's cathedral chapter's attempts to promote him as a saint"?
Bishop of Hereford
- Do we know why Bishop Urban initially refused permission for Bethune's elevation? This would be of interest.
- Similarly, why was he thought of as one "godly bishop"? What was it about Bethune that set him apart in the mind of Henry I, and why were the others, by implication, 'worldly'? Sounds like there's a bit of ecclesiastical politics going on that the reader of this article would be interested in.
- Added a sentence explaining that most of Henry's bishops were royal officials, and not particularly pious. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps related to this is the remark "Bethune was known as a strict Augustinian canon." To a lay reader, this has no particular meaning. I do not know what an Augustinian canon is, and perhaps more importantly, with what this is being contrasted (what other sorts of canons were there?) This might help us understand Bethune's career and why he was being appointed a judge by the popes (eg. were there are other sorts of canons out of favour with Rome?)
- Linked to Augustinians and canons, with a quick explanation. We're really not sure WHY Bethune was chosen as a judge delegate. Probably, it had to do with his learning, but at this stage in history, there was no developed lawyer profession, things were a bit more fluid. Probably (and this is all OR, from my knowledge of things) he was used as a judge by the papacy because he wasn't beholden to the king as much as the other bishops, and because of his location on the frontier between England and Wales. This is just speculation though, nothing secondary says that, unfortunately. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Stephen's reign
- The first sentence of this section appears unrelated to the material that forms the rest of the paragraph.
- This section may need a bit more background to be clear to the lay reader. Two examples:
- Why would the landing of someone with the title Empress (Empress? In the UK?) have anything to do with a King called Stephen?
- If Bethune is a Bishop, how would conflict with a local magnate, later an Earl, drive him from his Diocese (I understand that is the realpolitik of the time, but it reads slightly strangely to a contemporary reader), and more to the point, how would a secular figure like Miles manage to control an ecclesiastical diocese, even if he had managed to chase away its bishop?
- "...leaving Bethune to work in Shropshire". This makes him sound like a journeyman tailor. :-)
- "Bethune's standing as a holy bishop..." OK, now I'm confused. Clearly there's another kind of bishop... ?
- Yes, there is. Most bishops of the time were beholden to the king for their elevation and had been royal officials before becoming bishops. They weren't especially regarded as independent of the king. I've reworded to "Bethune's standing as a bishop known for his piety and independence of the king..."
- True, there's more than two sides to any mediaeval conflict, but it might deserve some comment (if any is possible) on why Bethune was in conflict with Miles of Gloucester in 1142, when he had switched 'sides' and was now on the same 'side' as Miles.
- The continuity of the article is a bit odd from where the death of Miles is mentioned. First, there's a sentence about the work on Hereford Cathedral that appears unrelated to the para in which it is embedded; second, and more significantly, somewhere in here Stephen went back to being King (I mean actually ruling; I realise he would always have regarded himself as crowned). Bethune changes faction, Matilda is proclaimed 'lady of the English' (a truly evasive term), but two paras later Bethune is attending Rheims "with the permission of the King (Stephen)...". Can this gap get filled in?
- I've added a bit on the whole Stephen-Matilda thing. I'm trying to avoid bogging the article down in the details that are unrelated to Bethune's life (The period between 1135 and 1154 in England is often known as The Anarchy for good reason). Did the expansion help? My problem is that I know the history so well, it's hard for me to know what others don't know... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Death and legacy
- What is a Papal legate?
- The very last sentence is a bit out of the blue, and very tantalising: "The historian Avram Saltman called him "the model bishop of his time""... This should be the first sentence of a full para, that explains Saltman's comment, and includes any other useful analysis of his legacy. Well, for GA, Saltman at least.
- I'm afraid that there isn't much else to add. Saltman's comment came in his biography of Theobald of Bec, and it's all of two sentence long. I've expanded it a bit, but there really isn't much else to add. Bethune's a rather... mysterious .. figure. Not much treated in our sources, and he predates the truly explosive growth in historical material that came about later the the century. He was also outside the court circle around the kings, so he is mentioned less in the sources we do have. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Concluding comment edit
This is a good article about an interesting figure, and, to someone completely unfamiliar with the field, I have no reason to believe any particular thing is missing. Some of the points above I think are suggesting that, if the sources will sustain it, there should be a stronger understanding of Bethune's place in the ecclesiastical and secular political life of the time. I just never quite got a sense of why anything happened, or why Bethune was regarded in the way(s) that he was by his contemporaries. However, I accept that it may not be possible to ascertain such detail from the extant sources. Excellent work, and I will pop in in coming days / weeks to see how things are going. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)