Talk:Book of Kells

older entries
Some of the previous text was copied verbatim from http://www.tcd.ie/Library/kells.htm and http://www.tcd.ie/Library/Visitors/kells.htm and http://artemis.austincollege.edu/acad/english/jlincecum/jbl.bk.kells.page.html. I'll try to reformulate. AxelBoldt 12:52, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well spotted. FearÉIREANN 20:00, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This page seems to be under regular attack by someone who, perhaps quite rightly, wants to claim it for Kells and not Iona. My own feeling is that the article should reflect the fact that modern scholarship tends to lean towards a date of around 800 ( see here and her. I especially draw attention to the tcd.ie source as they own the damn thing!) and that the location of creation is almost entirely undecidable. Filiocht 15:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes I seem to concur with your sentiment. What country wouldn't want the Book of Kells as part of it's history! All the evidence goes to Ireland, but some modern revisionists who never even saw the damn thing assert that it's made in their neck of the woods. Well spotted, [IanB]

The Abbey of Kells was founded in 554 by Columba. An improper deleation, maybe?


 * Do you have asource for this? My source (Francoise Henry, The Book of Kells) reads "Since the seventeenth century the Book of Kells has been in the library of Trinity College, Dublin. It originally came from Kells (in Co. Meath), where a monastery had been established in the early ninth century, at the time of the Viking invasions, by the monks of the monastery of Iona off the west coast of Scotland." (pg.149 -150).  This volume is a standard reference for the Book of Kells, and is cited in every bibliography on the Book I have ever seen. Dsmdgold 00:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I've been doing a bit of research and there is an alternative view that Kells was founded in the 6th century and rebuilt in the early 9th (see Edmund Hogan's Onomasticon Goedelicum). So it's not as clear cut as I first thought. I also think that the article might expand on insular majuscule, as it is not covered in the linked majuscule article. Also, wasn't Iona effectively an Irish community abroad? Certainly generally considered a Celtic monastery and adhered to the Celtic rather than Roman law. I also found this, which might be useful. Filiocht 09:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It is certainly possible that the 9th century founding was a refounding, but that still makes the earlier founding inconsequential when talking about the Book of Kells. I agree that there needs to be more material on insular majuscule on wikipedia, but I would like to see it in its own article. (after all more than one manuscript uses the script, and I hope one day to have complete aticles for all of them.)  I may try to write the Insular majascule article, but I am neither a calligraphernor a paleographer.  Iona was effectively an Irish community abroad, however I have hesitated to call the monks themselves Irish because Iona was a missionary center and it is probable that some of the brothers were local converts, especially in the Book of Kells, era (200) years after its  founding).  This is certainly the case with Lindisfarne, which was a daughter house of Iona.  That is why a have used the adjective "Columban" to describe Iona and Kells.Dsmdgold 11:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

- Is it only me or are there others also who would find the spelling of medieval in the text and elsewhere repeatedly with the archaic "ae" letter disturbing. After all this is an article in "English" wikipedia where such a letter no longer exists. It looks quite snobbish.


 * The letter actually does exist in moderen British English. This article uses British spelling, rather than American.  You also not colour, rather than color, and several other differences. Dsmdgold 04:54, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Colour has two letters "o" and "u" after the letter "l", both are part of the alphabet used in English. The mediaeval in the text has a single conjoined letter "ae" following the "i", which I really do not believe appears in modern English, whether British, American, Australian or Jamaican. Hence I really do not see the point of the comparison you made. If you believe this is an acceptable spelling, why not use the long "s" which looks like $$\int$$ when speaking of medi(a)eval times? If you are writing about antic Greece, try spelling English words in Greek alphabet. That should be fun.


 * From Æ "Modern English still contains several words that can be spelled with æ, such as Encyclopædia, but it is falling into disuse." Note falling, not fallen. Dsmdgold 00:05, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * "æ" is used surprisingly frequently in modern English. (Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy is a nice example of the use of æ in modern writing) Personally, I think "æ" is much more æsthetically pleasing than "ae".Face-2-face 14:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Celtic monks????
"produced by Celtic monks around AD 800."????

What exactly is a Celtic monk? What makes a monk Celtic? I understand the reluctance to use modern terminology such as "Irish" or "Scottish" as these monks did not describe themselves thus. But neither would they have described themselves as Celts or Celtic. What about the term "Gaelic"? The creators of the Book of Kells spoke the Gaelic language, regardless of whether they lived on the island of Ireland or in what is now Scotland. --Damac 08:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Because we speak of the Celtic Church and not the Gaelic church. There was a difference between the Christianity they practiced and that followed by the rest of Christendom.  In particular the monastic system was different.  The Gospels in the Book of Kells are in Latin – not Gaelic.  Hoping that this helps --ClemMcGann 09:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I got an edit conflect coming here to make both of these points. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:16, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I accept your point about the Celtic Church, a term has has general currency. However, I think it is misleading to refer to the adherents of that Church (or brand of Christianity) as "Celtic monks". Likewise we don't refer to the adherents of the "Roman Church" as "Roman priests" or "Roman monks". As it stands, the "Celtic" mentioned in article leads on to a disambiguation page that does not help the average reader in establishing what is actually being referred to. tHow about replacing "Celtic monks" with "adherents of the Celtic Christian tradition" or something along those lines. --Damac 11:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "monks of the Celtic church" might be better. After all, many adherents were not monks. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:48, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * However, the people who made the Book of Kells were monks, not just adherents. We are not talking about all adherents of the Celtic Church, but the people who made the Book of Kells, who were monks. Dsmdgold 12:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the problem with the link from Celtic. I changed it to Celtic Christianity. I hope that helps.  Btw that ‘neutrality disputed’ tag is still there.  It was put by some who inserted material from a Baptist site, and took offence at its removal.--ClemMcGann 14:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Boston College Facsimile
During the recent run of this article on the main page, someone added a comment about a facsimile edition on display at Boston College. I assume that this is the 1990 facsimile. I don't doubt that BC has it on display. However, there were 1480 of these facsimiles made, with half of them being reserved for "Anglo-Saxon countries". The vast majority of these were bought by universities and colleges, and many of them put it on display. I would guess that there are dozens, if not hundreds of places with a facsimile on display. For this reason, I would propose that no place other than the church in Kells be listed in this article. (Kells, being the "original" location of the manuscript, is a special case.) Unless, there seems to be a consensus for keeping it, I will remove this statement in a few days. Dsmdgold 02:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Unless we add the locations of all 1480, I see no vlaue in retaining it. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

"Abbey of Kells" or Monastery?
The article refers to the 'Abbey of Kells'. I always thought Kells was a monastery, not an abbey. Did Kells have an Abbot? Is that sufficient distinction between an Abbey and a Monastery? In a related note, I'm removing the like to 'Abbey of Kells' as it seems to point to an early 20th-century Baseball player of that name...ferg2k
 * Abbeys are monasteries ruled by an Abbot. The other tyoe of monastery is a Priory, which was ruled by a Prior. Priories were originally "daughter" houses of Abbeys, and the Prior was appointed by the Abbot of the mother house. (These distinctions began to be lost in the late Middle Ages.) Kells was an Abbey. (As,I believe, were all Irish foundations of this period.) Dsmdgold 03:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * BTW, the Abbey of Kells baseball player article is a hoax. I've put it on VfD, once it clears that, I'll re-instate the link. Dsmdgold 04:00, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

medium of decoration not stated
what was it? Watercolour? All or mostly? The article should say & I can't see that it does. I am working on watercolour (guess what, not invented by Raphael after all) & would like to reference, if it was watercolour Johnbod 15:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I imagine it would have been egg tempera, right? Certainly not watercolor, at least not in the modern sense. It does look watery at times... --Vlmastra 00:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It most certainly would have been egg tempera, which was the dominant medium in painting, whether on parchment, vellum or wood panels until the 15th century, when oil paints began to be used. Plotdot 03:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 11:46:39 plotdot 19 may 1007


 * Actually, "egg tempera" was rarely, if ever, used by itself in manuscripts, as it gives too soft and fragile a surface for use in books. It was, however, occasionally mixed with other binders, and used particularly for reds as it brought out the lustre of them, which was especially important for rubrics. But, egg yolk (tempera) was far more commonly used on panels than vellum and paper, and even there it wasn't the only binder used.


 * In reality, a variety of different binding media, and mixtures thereof, were used in medieval painting, including illumination--various gums and resins, parchment size, glues, even ear wax. Different media were used because some pigments worked better with one than with another, or worked better for a given purpose, or with a given adjunct, etc. But the basic binding medium in early illumination was glair, which used the prepared white of the egg instead of the yolk.


 * Modern water color is just pigment mixed with gum arabic, which is then diluted with water for use. Gouache is the same, only the pigment load is much higher and the binder less (or in cheaper gouache a white agent, such as chalk, is added) to make it opaque. Since medieval artists did at times use pigments with various amounts of gum arabic by itself as a binder, one could certainly say that watercolors and gouache were used at times in medieval painting.


 * Some of us even today add other binders to our gouache and watercolor, including "medieval" ones like egg yolk, glair, etc. And all this is just speaking about binders--the stuff that binds the pigment to the surface--and not the various other adjuncts used to achieve different effects, nor the glazes, varnishes, grounds, etc. Whole books could be written. And have been, from medieval times to present.


 * Here is one such, and a good introduction to the subject: The Materials and Techniques of Medieval Painting, By Daniel Varney Thompson. ColmCille (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Good stuff! Since you have the book (?) perhaps you could add something - tempera and miniature (illuminated manuscript) would probably be the best places. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll try when I have some time. I have that book, and a few others.


 * I also wanted to add that Dr. Bernard Meehan (the keeper of manuscripts at Trinity College, Dublin), in his book "The Book of Kells: An Illustrated Introduction to the Manuscript in Trinity College Dublin" states that the primary medium used was egg white, i.e. glair. This corroborates what we already know of medieval painting in general from other sources. So, if someone wanted to add that information to this article, Dr. Meehan is certainly a verifiable source (not that he is above a minor mistake or two).


 * Dr. Meehan's book, btw, is an excellent one to have for anyone interested in the subject. It contains 110 full color illustrations from the book, along with much general information. It's worth it for the illustrations alone. Of course, there is a digital version of the Book of Kells which has the entire manuscript (and is a lot cheaper than the $24,000 facsimile edition), and it is worth having as well. But--not surprisingly, considering I'm an amateur paleographer, scribe and illuminator--I prefer the book format.

First Picture
I think that the first picture should be the Chi Rho page, as that is the most famous page of all and is more widely recognized than any of the other major pages. I realize that the image of it on here has issues with background showing on the edges, but it is definitely the page most representative of the subject. --Vlmastra 00:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I think that, even though the Chi Rho page is the most famous, it is not representative of the rest of the book. In my opinion, it was quite intentionally set apart from the other pages. Although there are may pages of decorated text, no other page, is limited to a single word. Add the poor quality of our image, and you come up with the reason I selected a different page. Dsmdgold 04:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Anglicanism
Our WikiProject reflects the desire to create and improve articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. The Book of Kells has been in the hands of Trinity for hundreds of years. By including it in our project I hoped to encourage work on related articles about the ancient Christian heritage of Great Britian and Ireland, as well as encourage work on Trinity-realted articles. This article falls in our area of study and I am little miffed that someone not involved with our project would decide that it is "not relevant" to our work. I have reverted. Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this further. -- SECisek 03:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of distinguished English and Continental medieval manuscripts in Oxford & Cambridge Colleges, not to mention Eton. Are you going to include all them as well? Inclusion by possession seems a very bad way to go to me. It would be ridiculous if every work of art in a Catholic church were claimed by the Catholicism project, and they have a far better claim to connection with most of them than Anglicanism does here. I notice the Anglican project does not even claim TCD - quite rightly in my view. I would ask you to remove this mistaken project tag.  Needless to say, the article itself at no point mentions Anglicanism, which is a basic criterion for inclusion in a project. Johnbod 03:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstood my tag of the article. I was not trying to suggest anything sectarian or make any real-world claim for the ownership of the book for one faith or another. I wasn't suggesting that any "Anglican" POV needs to be covered or that Anglican specific material needs to be added. The article is FA and is wonderful as is.


 * You spoke at length about "claims". The project banners do not "claim" any kind of ownership of an article, thatisn't allowed (WP:OWN) What the banners do is help editors find articles that relate to their projects. An editor tossed our project banner off of a 13th century saint stub the other day, with the reasoning that he "wasn't Anglican". The saint is commemorated as such in the calendar of the Church of England, why would he NOT be of interest to us?  There was a HUGE debate where somebody suggested that the Archbishops of Canterbury needed to be split along the lines of "ours" and "yours". With so many articles needing work, that kind of thinking is really poor.


 * What I WAS trying to do was draw the attention of the editors of our project to this well-known book in the hopes that somebody, someday, might pick up one of the red links and run with them or - my real goal - to get our editors more intrested in the early Churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Most of The Archbishops of Canterbury from that period are still just stubs - did they "belong" to the Anglican Communion? No not, really. Do they relate to our project? Yes, in fact, our editors have done most of the work on those archbishops thus far. Much more needs to be done. Articles concerned with Pre-Reformation Christianity in Britian and Ireland are typicaly not of high importance to our project, but they are still of some importance.


 * If seeing our project's banner on "your" Book of Kells talk page is totaly offensive to you, then, in the spirit of peace, remove it. I just think that doing so would be very petty: WP:OWN. I am sure your removal was done in good faith. My restoration was done as well as outlined above. -- SECisek 05:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You mistake my concerns - the "claim" I meant was purely in WP project terms, as you had (then) expressed the reason for the addition as being TCD's ownership. I have no objection to all the ABCs being tagged (in fact I think they should be), although I think saints with no special English connection should be covered by WP:Saints, not tagged by every denomination that celebrates them (Lets see: RC, Anglican, Lutheranism, EO, Methodism(?) - at least 4).  As with many articles, there are about twenty projects who could also add their tags to the Kells page; it just adds to banner-cruft.  You have to ask not: what does the page do for the project? but: what can the project do for the page?  The answer in your case is not obvious.  It is a member of WP books, & WP VA, which, apart from WP Ireland, are certainly the most obvious. I would be just as ready to remove a WP Catholicism tag. It is not a case of WP:OWN on my part - I've hardly edited the page except to link & revert vandals.  The fact that it is an FA, an aspect of WP you appear to be concerned with from your talk page, & that none of the many comparable articles on Insular MS have been tagged (or say The Benedictional of Saint Aethelwold), also struck me as maybe not coincidental.  When Andy Warhol's Soupcans went FA, a whole lot of US city projects with examples in the local museum piled in, until reverted.  So I will revert, but I hope you understand this is nothing to do with taking any position on the relationship between Anglicanism & the church within which the book was created etc. Johnbod 11:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not express any "ownership" of TCD. "Ownership" is a bad thing. I said I hoped adding the Book of Kells article to our project would encourage further project intrest in TCD.

Banner-cruft? I am unaware of any Wikipedia policy against so-called banner-cruft. If you are worried about so-called bannercruft, We should just nest the lot of them, as is done wherever several project wish to add an article. Your intrest in the integrity of a talk page strikes me as bizarre.

I will tell you in no uncertain terms that you are wrong to suggest that the tagging of an article by a project, such as "Saints", should preclude other groups from alerting their editors to an article by way of a Wikiproject tag. This is nothing more then WP:OWN:

''An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the revert altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it.''

This was already discussed elsewhere and consensus was in favor of multiple tags: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject

"Broadly speaking, the consensus (or gentleman's agreement among WikiProjects, really) has been: Properly-placed WikiProject tags are never removed; the only time they get taken off is if the article is deleted/merged/redirected/etc., or if it's not in scope of the project in the first place. It's perfectly normal for articles to have multiple WikiProject tags."

What is properly-place and who decides? Keep in mind that each project defines its own scope. Our's is Anglicanism, which includes the Church of Ireland. By removing our banner, what you have told me is that editors intrested in the Church of Ireland are not to be alerted to, or invited to edit, an article about an historic Bible created in Ireland. I don't know why you think that is so, or why you feel you should be able to make that call.

I was going to just let this go, but now I can see other editors dropping our tag from St. Augustine of Canterbury and Henry VIII, telling us that other projects have it in hand, and that they are not within the scope of our project. I am not spoiling for an argument, but you will have to make a better case then telling me that WP books, & WP VA have it hand and that is that. I hope you will yield to consensus, because I think we would both agree that putting an NPOV tag on a talk page would be down right silly. -- SECisek 19:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You quote one view expressed in the California discussion (actually about a rather different question), which I would not generally disagree with. Other remarks in that debate make much the same point that I made about saints above - not every denominational Project celebrating a saint in their calendar should tag every saint they can. Your remarks in the last paragraph above are frankly absurd. Naturally I have no objection to anybody editing the article, which, as I have said I have hardly done myself.  When you have been on WP rather longer you will come across many complaints of bannercruft, especially, as I said, on featured articles, and many tags removed after spats similar to this.  It is not as if the Book of Kells has any textual or liturgical significance in Church history, as many other illuminated MS do.  By "yield to consensus" you appear to mean "accept my personal view".  I repeat, projects exist to benefit articles, not the other way around.  Perhaps other editors would like to comment here? Johnbod 19:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I will assume good faith, yet the suggestion that I have not edited long enough on Wikipedia to have a valid opinion on this subject is not just a little insulting. Never the less, I have had several hours away from this "spat" and I resigned myeslf to consult the trusted Historical Dictionary of Anglicanism by Colin Buchanan. I decided if the Book of Kells wasn't listed there I would offer my apologies and reverse my position. On returning home, I found that the book IS listed and described in that work. It is therefore considered important by a secondary source and should be included in our project. The tag should stand. That said, I DO invite other editors to comment on the matter and I will respect a change in existing consensus, if one is made clear. Thank you for your understanding of my position. -- SECisek 05:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Image caption
An anon editor changed the image caption for Image:KellsFol027v4Evang.jpg from "Folio 27v contains the four evangelist symbols. lion, ox, eagle, and man" to "Folio 27v contains the four evangelist symbols. (Clockwise from top left: man, lion, eagle and ox)" which is a clear improvement as the previous order had no rational explanation. It is, however, clear to me that the original artist intended for the image to be read as two line read left to right (Man, Lion, Ox, Eagle) as this reading puts the symbols in the same order as the Gospels they represent. The clockwise reading can be explained more succinctly. Given that fanciful nature of the images, it is necessary to explain what each figure represents. So which is better, the intended reading which is more difficult to explain, or the anachronistic, but easily stated clock-wise order? Dsmdgold 15:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think clarity should rule the day. -- SECisek 15:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to change the date of the foundation of the monastery of Kells - NOT the date of the Book of Kells. Tradition has it - backed up by references in annals that there was a monastic settlement there from around 600 AD. The town of Kells to this day claims that the tradition includes a foundation of a monastic settlement by Colmcille. So there was a relationship between Iona and Kells which resulted in the monks from Iona fleeing there during the Viking raids and then establishing a larger community there. I am not very au fait with how to navigate my way around this talk format so I hope I have been able to explain what I am trying to do. I am a teacher and scholar of Irish history. 69.143.82.178 22:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)]
 * There is a discussion at the top of the page on this point. Please don't sprinkle the page with "Irish"s. Johnbod 23:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain what on earth you mean by "sprinkling the page with "Irish"s?69.143.82.178] —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three is a light sprinkling in my book. Johnbod 02:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

And your problem with this is? [Catriona1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catriona1 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something in this discussion? What is the issue with "Irish" - I see someone has gone in to the history of the page and changed "Ireland" to "County Meath" - County Meath did not exist as such in the Kells Book period. Is there some confusion here or just an issue with having to conform to some arbitrary Anglo centric position? If so, this is not scholarship. 69.143.82.178]
 * Wooah! I smell paranoia! All the Irish county categories are being clarified and reorganised by that twinkly-eyed colleen User:BrownHairedGirl - see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_6 and about 90 other nominations. You can sign your contributions properly by putting four tildes (~) at the end of your comment. Johnbod 15:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the county designation will lead to much confusion and has no long historical basis - county boundaries vary over time and were not even introduced until the late Elizabethan period as part of the Westminster Government's mapping of the island of Ireland. But my question remains about your previous post - I am not deferred by name calling - what is the issue with "Irish"? 69.143.82.178 16:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)]

Cú Chuimne
I recall reading somewhere that Cú Chuimne might be associated with the creation of the Book of Kells. I think it was an excerpt from Ó Cróinín's volume of the New History of Ireland on Google books. Does anyone have access to that book? Perhaps I'm imagining this. TIA, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since he died about 747 and scholarly consensus points to a later date for Kells (about 800), it seems doubtful to me. However, there is no firm evidence of Kells date, so it could be earlier, and it is much debated. There is no textual evidence in Kells itself that gives any direct information about its creators. No you recall the type of evidence provided for his association? I would think that the strongest possible evidence would be paleographical, assuming we hava an autograph manuscript from Cú Chuimne.  If someone has access to this source, it might be worth mentioning in the article as yey another theory for Kell's origin. Dsmdgold 14:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that I cannot. If I'm not imagining it, and I don't think I am, the argument was based on something he is known to have authored, but I do not recall that it was paleographical. Not to worry, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Date of theft
Historians date the theft to 1007, e.g., Ó Cróinín, Early Medieval Ireland 400–1200, p. 82: "...stole the Book of Kells from the sacristy of the church in AD1007, stripping of its priceless cover and burying it under a sod, where it was found again after eighty days"; Moody, Martin & Byrne, New History of Ireland, VIII: A Chronology ..., p. 48: "1007 ... Book of Kells stolen ...". Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Historians" presumably being the Annals of Ulster. Can Kafka Liz check the Henry ref? Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok - changed & ref to online edition added. Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good catch -- Henry confirms the 1007 date. I was focused on the quotation and missed it. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Better images
I am replacing some of the older Kells images in the Commons with higher resolution scans (shooting for file sizes that come in just under 5MB). - PKM (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes
I've made some changes, based on Dodwell, C.R.; The Pictorial arts of the West, 800-1200, 1993, Yale UP, ISBN 0300064934, though actually softening his view, which is that "all Iona" is "probable". Since he is the most recent of the major refs, and cites other recent articles, especially Meyvaert 1989 in the Art Bulletin, I think a shift of emphasis is due. But of course I'm happy to discuss. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sir Ed Sullivan argues for late 9th century, and supported by paleographers. Maybe should be offered. Purple Arrow (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That was a long time ago - Meyvaert goes for mid-8th century! Maybe we should add a range - the c.800 is not intended to be as precise as a later date would be, which may not be clear. Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to remove this edit, as the Annals do not say that. Purple Arrow (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As Dodwell says "Great book of Columba" very strongly implies this. Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * On that basis,that would imply that he wrote it too. It's not known whether it was written at the Irish Mission at Iona, or at Kells. Dodwell was often heavily criticized by his peers for drawing conclusions too readily. Purple Arrow (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They probably did believe he wrote it too. As stated by Dodwell, and restated by me, I don't see any conclusions being jumped to. I don't think he is alone in making this point. Johnbod (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why it's best to go with Henry and Sullivan. Purple Arrow (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, why? Are you sure they don't make this point also? Johnbod (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edit is: "The description in the Annals suggests that the book was believed at that time to have been made on Iona." The Annals don't support your edit. Purple Arrow (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarified, although I do not agree there was anything wrong in the first place. I'd be interested if you have an interpretation of what the Annals say that does not carry this suggestion. Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

We're still into WP:OR here, also here is a link to the relevant Annal page. The Annals do not state as to where the book was compiled, whether at Kells, or at the Irish Mission at Iona. Purple Arrow (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is far from OR, as it is exactly what Dodwell says (and doubtless others before him). As I say, if you have an alternative interpretation, it would be interesting to hear it, though as OR it could of course not be included in the article. Johnbod (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Errors section


This section doesn't back up its reasoning, and as such lists discrepancies, not errors. 130.209.6.41 (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.69 (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Since it differs from the accepted - it is in error ClemMcGann (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thats disingenuous and arbitrary. There are no two bibles before the 1200's or so which are identical. Hewhorulestheworld (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but on wikipedia we need statement to be verified. I reckon that you can't find a reliable source wp:rs which will say otherwise ClemMcGann (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

What are we talking about here? Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The article has a heading "Errors". Two instances are given where Kells differs from the accepted Gospels. Hewhorulestheworld questions the heading "Errors".  I am of the opinion that since no publication afaik considers these to be anything other than "Errors", that the heading is appropriate.  ClemMcGann (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I refined the title of this section to make it clearer. Interestingly this section has no citations which seems odd for a FA. Can anyone add one? ww2censor (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There should be a ref. afair it is discussed in Otto Simms's book - and there are many other errors.  There are two issues here - are there errors/differences - are there references.  Google books ("book of kells" errors) gives quite a few hits.  The fact that there are errors/variants is best illustrated by the itself (at risk of OR), see two pages of the genealogy.  Page one matches with Luke 3:23:  Jesus - Joseph - Heli - (3:24) - Matthat - Levi = Melchi - Janna - Joseph - (3:25) - Mattathias - Amos - Naum - Esli - Nagge (with the little illustration) - (3:26) - Maath - (now move to page two) here we expect another Mattathias, but we find two entries one for "Mattath" and another for "ias".  It seems that Mattathias was hyphenated in two and it was a transcription error which introduced "ias" as a extra ancestor.
 * But we really should have a cite. I don't have one to hand. ClemMcGann (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms??
How on earth does this article fall within the boundaries of "WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms"? I tried to undo this myself but it has to be done manually and I don't have the expertise to do that evidently. Maybe someone a bit more knowledgeable than myself could remove this daft thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.12.32 (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Why don't you ask Sadads who added that project's banner on May 8, 2010? ww2censor (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Text online
I Found the text oNline at a site called Questia. If it is the original text, please add the link to the article. THANK YOU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.255.95 (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

book of kell what was it? when was it ? how was it made? who made it? why was it so important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.113.135 (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Secret of Kells
This is 2010 animated movie and the ENTIRE THING is about the Book of Kells and it's creation/creators. Fictionalized, of course, but still it shoes some INCREDIBLE cg renders of the pages... Its like seeing the book when it was firt made, while the ink was still glistening. It should be mentioned somewhere, I think. I would do it, but every time I try to make an edit some jackass deletes it, so obviously I suck as editing. So, please, someone else please add that. 24.126.251.42 (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Secret of Kells has its own entire Wikipedia article. Chuck (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Since added at 'See also'. BTW, when did you attempt to add it? RashersTierney (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it the right section?
Christ Is Born! Am new here - Hi to all! Just added brief paragraph to "Errors & Deviations". Is it the right section? Happy Christmas to all! DacotaNash (talk) 07:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Book of Kells. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100721063204/http://www.slideshare.net:80/MarioKleff/ein-meisterwerk-a-masterpiece-book-of-kells to http://www.slideshare.net/MarioKleff/ein-meisterwerk-a-masterpiece-book-of-kells

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Book of Kells. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141006110009/http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/82nd-winners.html to http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/82nd-winners.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Book of Kells. 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/20150315013714/http://www.tcd.ie:80/Library/bookofkells/book-of-kells/ to http://www.tcd.ie/Library/bookofkells/book-of-kells/
 * Added tag to http://artemis.austincollege.edu/acad/english/jlincecum/jbl.bk.kells.page.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit on origin
I have deleted the statement referenced to Dodwell that the book may have been written at Iona and the illustrations added at Kells. Below, it is stated that this is the most popular theory, referenced to Henry, but he only said that that the most widely accepted theory is that it was started at Iona and continued at Kells. Someone who has access to both sources may be able to clarify further. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've mostly reverted this - both are specialists, but Henry (a she btw) had been dead for over a decade when Dodwell published. Dodwell cites a 1989 article by Patrick Meyvaert I'll try to look at. But Dodwell doesn't mention the pics being added in Ireland. I'm pretty dubious about the Pictish bit; the longish abstract to that article contains nothing remotely relevant. This article makes it clear there is general Insular/Irish influence on Pictish art, but doesn't suggest the Picts were producing gospel books. I'm tempted to remove that bit. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Does my edit at look OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The preceding one & edit summary doesn't - nothing about that on TCD's page, but Pictland is mentioned, so I'll leave that here. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not make myself clear. The edit I was querying is on Kingdom of Northumbria, which I added as I thought the preceding one was badly worded and unreferenced. My query above was asking whether the Northumbria article is OK now. I did think of deleting the comment entirely as there is no suggestion that the book was written in Northumbria, and I am still not sure whether the cultural influence of Iona on Northumbria justifies its inclusion. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not notice that you have revised the Northumbria article. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikilinks to full references?
The article's Notes section lists repeated citations of a small group of important references, listed in the Sources section. It seems to me that in a case like this, the article's citation formatting would be slightly but materially improved if wikilinks to full references were employed, using Template:Sfn and related tools. This would replace plain text with wikilinks, or "blue links" pointing to the source/full citation. The meaningful improvement consists in a reader having an easy link to the full citation as they scroll through the article (especially if they notice it's being cited repeatedly, oh, this one looks important, oh I can click on that). I think that if the source is important enough to the article to be cited repeatedly and to have its own bibliographical information, then it can warrant some ease-of-use formatting, which shouldn't be controversial, notwithstanding the below guideline and the current article's FA status.

Although I made recent edits along these lines, they were undone pursuant to (I believe) WP:CITEVAR. While I appreciate the general intent of the guideline (discourage pedantic/possibly unconstructive back-and-forth over this-or-that citation style), I maintain that the present featured article would be further improved if a citation formatting style along the above lines were implemented. It wouldn't be "just changing/permuting a citation style for the sake of changing it". Rather, it would be a small but manifest improvement to the article. So how about it? If the motion garners support, I'll do a mock-up for review. MinnesotanUser (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I appear to be the 2nd main contributor to the article, and the main one still editing. I have to say I loath sfn, and it would probably have the effect of preventing any further contributions from me. The benefits of linking notes (which I believe don't work on all software) are pretty tiny, imo. Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , what do you think of that inline URL at the end of the lead? I don't know where it came from, but it strikes me as odd for an FA. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - changed. I think it was well after the above. Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Most recently, it was an IP edit some time after my string of spring 2021 edits. Historically (the past 4-5 years or so) the article's lead concluded with a straight text web link along these lines to Trinity Dublin's digitized Book of Kells page, a central visual reference.  In the past year or two Trinity Dublin has migrated the thing from one page to another, which deprecated several detailed image caption links in the article (so I stripped them out in a recent edit).  It seems an IP editor put the lead-ending web link back after my spring 2021 edits, probably in reference to earlier states.  But yes, a citation is better.MinnesotanUser (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Usage of (Peter) Brown and Henry
Independently of the above section on citation formatting, I intend to make some unrelated edits using Henry and a small book by one Peter Brown (which largely buttresses Henry) as references. I want to distinguish the two points because I made a recent burst of edits to the article on both points, so that they may be confused. Generally, I'll proceed with edits on this latter point and refrain from changing citation formatting unless others go for it per the above section. MinnesotanUser (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , one Peter Brown, that's Peter Brown (historian), who's one hell of an expert. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a reasonable (and very tempting) inference, but it turns out not to be the case. I sort of remember considering it last spring, the last time I edited the article, but I couldn't pin it down so I left it alone (no author link/in-article bluelinks).
 * The minor Kells book identifies Peter Brown (or as I'll say: [Librarian]) as the (head) Librarian of Trinity Dublin starting in 1970 (no other personal details are given), and a later book review of a history of the library establishes that [Librarian] died in 1984 and was succeeded by Peter Fox. (392) P.R.L. Brown is alive (and his short C.V. doesn't mention actually being Librarian at Trinity Dublin besides), so we really have two different people of the same name and same period, who also share very similar milleus/published interests.
 * [Librarian] MAY be the same person as the recently-created Peter Douglas Brown, based upon this and similar library data pages, but it could be a false amalgamation of [librarian] with a third historian of 18th c. Britain which has propagated throughout the internet. There is also a disconnect on dates-some pages (and the article itself) have P.D. Brown alive, others, identifying him with [librarian], date his death in 1984.  At this point it's less a question for the present article than for that new stub article and the Peter Brown disambig page.MinnesotanUser (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think these are 3 different people. Oddly, Peter Brown (historian) (or PRL) was actually born in Dublin! Johnbod (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Popular Culture
There is a short story about a facsimile edition:

A Book of Kells [John Francis Cuddy], Mary Higgins Clark Mystery Magazine Summer 2000; by Healy, Jeremiah (F., III) (1948-2014)

reprinted in Murder Most Celtic, and later in Murder Most Confederate/Celtic/Merry.

In that story it is said that there were 1000 copies made. In the talk above it says 1480 copies. It would be nice to know what is correct.

In the story the prices paid to acquire a copy was $10,000. and up. It would be nice to know any recent public auction prices, and how frequently such sales occur.

agb

BTW: There are .pdf copies available on the internet [678 pages in full color]. I will not put a direct link, as doing that on wikipedia sometimes results in site explosion. That Trinity College link on the main page does not seem to get anything beyond a general description. Perhaps wikipedia could host a copy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.233.167.50 (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)