Talk:Robert of Melun

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 22:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert of Melun/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

• "... and show him to have been strictly orthodox." Orthodox what? Jewish? ;-)

clarified to "strictly orthodox in Christian doctrine"... (whaps Malleus) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• "He probably owed his bishopric to both Pope Alexander II and Thomas Becket, who urged King Henry II of England to make the appointment." After reading this I'm unclear whether it was Becket who urged the king, or bothe Pope Alexander and Becket. The "both" is redundant in either case.

Changed to "Henry II of England appointed him to the see, or bishopric, and was influenced by in his decision by Pope Alexander II and Thomas Becket." which hopefully is clearer.

• ".. at the university in Paris". Should this be the University of Paris?

changed to the link. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Porrée was forced to repudiate his views on the Trinity, which took place in a small consistory court held after the ending of the council's deliberations, and was attended by Bernard of Clairvaux and Suger of St Denis, besides Robert and Peter." I'm not certain what this means at all, or how best to rewrite it. Who or what were Bernard and Suger attending? The court, or Porrée?

changed to "A small consistory court was held after the ending of the council's deliberations, and was attended by Bernard of Clairvaux and Suger of St Denis, along with Robert and Peter. This court forced Porrée to repudiate his views on the Trinity." which is hopefully clearer. I can get especially muddled with intellectual history... it's not my strong suit. (I don't like philosophy either!) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• "He taught in Paris for over forty years, as a master of arts." This sentence seems out of place in the second paragraph of Early life. Couls it usefully be moved to the opening of Appointment to Hereford, as in something like "After having taught in Paris for over 40 years, Robert was recalled to England by Henry II in 1160"?

Removed from the early life section, now reads "After teaching in Paris for over forty years[14] as a master of arts,[15] King Henry II recalled Robert to England in 1160. The king then appointed Robert as Bishop of Hereford in 1163...." at the start of Appointment. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Robert's theology is expressed in his three surviving works, the Quaestiones de divina pagina, Quaestiones de epistolis Pauli, and Sententiae, which he did not finish." Which of them didn't he finish? All of them, or just the Sententiae? Assuming it's just the Sententiae, probably better to say something like "and the unfinished Sententiae".

Took your suggestions.

• "... the first two works were composed between 1145 and 1157". Why "composed" instead of the more obvious "written"?

Because I'm trying to avoid plagarizing my source which said "written" as I recall (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 02:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Robert is the first commentator St Paul to say that resistance to a tyrant might be vindicated by the Bible." Don't understand that at all.

Basically, Robert's commentaries on St Paul's writings express the view that the Bible might support resistance to a tyrant. It's all tied into the whole "turn the other cheek" and "render unto Ceasar" stuff. Most Christian theology states that God appointed whoever rules you and you better just suck up and deal because it would be going against god's will to overthrow a tyrant. Unfortunately, that's not exactly something my source comes out and says this, it's all in theological shorthand. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• "... a key connection in theology between Robert's own teachers' works". If this is a reference to Abelard wouldn't it be easier to say so?

Robert had two teachers, Hugh of St Victor and Abelard, not just Abelard. I don't mention St Victor in the lead because he's not as well known as Abelard (everyone remember Abelard because he got some important bits cut off...) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• "In October 1164, Becket was tried at a council held at Northampton, and was found guilty ...". Guilty of what? In the previous sentence we're told that he'd submitted to the king and had sworn the oath required of him.

"In October 1164, Becket was accused of denying justice to a royal vassal, tried at a council held at Northampton, and was found guilty although he did not accept the sentence." is how it reads now. I'm trying to avoid going into too much detail .. Robert was only peripherally involved with Becket's disputes with the king. (Unlike poor Gilbert Foliot who you'll meet soon...) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Early in Becket's exile ...". we weren't told earlier that that was the verdict in the trial, so it comes somewhat out of the blue.

"Shortly after the trial, Robert interceded with the king to order that no injury be done to Becket, who went into voluntary exile." (You mean everyone doesn't know every twist and turn of the Becket dispute??? (snickers)) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• "John of Salisbury, a supporter of Becket's, sent two French academics to Robert in order to criticize Robert for hypocrisy." That reads very strangely. They went expressly to criticize him, not to discuss with him, or attempt to change his mind? Why would Robert have been inclined to listen to their criticism?

It's a very strange episode. This is the whole of the information from my source "And in August 1166, prompted by John of Salisbury, two leading Paris scholars, Ernis abbot of St Victor and his prior Ricahrd, admonished Robert for having reneged on the principle he had held and taught when he himself was in the schools." I guess rereading this that it implies they went to Robert, but doesn't explicitly state that (checks the ONDB to double check) Nope, ONDB says they "wrote" so will rewrite. "John of Salisbury, a supporter of Becket's, prevailed upon two French academics to write Robert in order to criticize Robert for hypocrisy." is how it now reads. (I think I was half awake when I did that bit before. Or was just plain SICK of dealing with Becket stuff.) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's it. Review now on hold. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• That'll do for me, job done. This article has now been listed as a GA. Another nice piece of work Ealdgyth. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alexander II/Alexander III: A Confusion of Popes?

This article refers to Robert being supported by Alexander II. However, surely this should be the 12th century Alexander III, rather than the 11th century Alexander II? Rtmisst (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)