Talk:Heraclius of Jerusalem

Untitled
The section on the Defense of Jerusalem notes that Heraclius' letter to Urban III survives but provides no citation. It goes on to discuss Urban's death as found in the Chronicle of Ernoul. If these are separate thoughts they should probably be cited separately.

Untitled
I have a dating problem here. According to Roger of Hoveden, Heraclius is still meeting Henry II of England and Philip II of France in early May 1185. According to Runciman (vol. 2 p. 444), he's back in Jerusalem before Baldwin IV dies in March 1185. I notice Runciman has date conflicts elsewhere in this chapter (vol. 2 pp. 436-440): is this another? Andrew Dalby 15:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that the general trend of the article (Heraclius was a much more reasonable choice as Patriarch than the biased sources suggest) is right. One or two sentences sound like special pleading, none the less.

However, clerical concubinage was hardly rare in the 12C. Well, OK, but it would still have been a reasonable objection. You weren't supposed to do it, and it sounds as though Heraclius was blatant about it.

Ralph (unaware of the influence of Byzantine dress and form on the court of Outremer) ... But Ralph is reporting a widespread opinion (apparently), and it's the opinion that mattered. Heraclius and his companions knew the West, and if they gave people in the West the impression that they were quite rich enough already, that would have been foolish of them.

Perhaps others disagree with me here? Andrew Dalby 13:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No-one else he met in the West comments on Eraclius's style in the way that Ralph Niger does, which suggests he was perhaps more ascetic than most. Peter of Blois, Gerald of Wales, Herbert of Bosham and Rigord all refer to him being a "holy man" - "vir sanctus et prudens", "vir sanctus", "vitae sanctitatae non inferior", & c. As to concubinage - there was still debate on the issue in 12C. Clerical celibacy was comparatively new, and there was no guarantee it would be a permanent feature. The remarks made against Eraclius's domestic situation all come from 13C sources, when the restrictions had been tightened. Have you read the Kedar and Edbury articles? Silverwhistle 17:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Kedar yes. Edbury no. I will now! Thanks. Andrew Dalby 21:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Name
Is it really "properly" Eraclius? Adam Bishop 20:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes - Kedar explains this (pp. 180, 184). The spelling has been affected by the 'prophecy' in the OFC linking him with the Emperor Heraclius. His own seals and letters are always 'Eraclius', with no H. The name, taken from the Bishop of Sens said to have been at Clovis's baptism, is found in the family of the Viscounts of Polignac, but there's nothing definite to tie him to that family. Silverwhistle 20:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess so...but they didn't spell the emperor Heraclius with an H either. So to be consistent, we should either keep the H spelling in this article, or move it so the title matches the E spelling. Adam Bishop 00:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest moving to an E. The Emperor, in Greek, would have had a rough-breathing which gives an H before the E. The Patriarch, being Occitan, doean't have that. Silverwhistle 09:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that Calgacus has moved it back to Heraclius, I thought I should attempt to discuss it here before moving it again...Heraclius is the spelling in Runciman and Setton, the big old histories that are probably accessible to more people, while as we can see from Kedar's article the Eraclius spelling has been in use for over 20 years. As above, Heraclius is influenced by the Old French Continuation of William of Tyre which links the patriarch with the emperor, although in Old French of course these are both spelled Eracles, so that doesn't really help. Whatever spelling we use, I should also point out Naming conventions (Western clergy), which says "For patriarchs, whether the Ecumenical Patriarch, Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, or otherwise, use the format "Patriarch {papal name} {ordinal if more than one} of {episcopal see}". It's just an accident that I named it that way originally though, and I can think of plenty of examples where this is ignored. So anyway, Silverwhistle, Calgacus, have at it... Adam Bishop 02:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would go with Kedar. "Heraclius is the spelling in Runciman and Setton, the big old histories that are probably accessible to more people" seems to me a dubious argument: by the same argument, you might as well suggest removing all the historiographical advances since them.Silverwhistle 09:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Vir Sanctus et prudens
I'm almost 100% certain that line was never applied to Heraclius but is a line pinched from the Carmina Burana reference to Conrad of Montferrat. Besides which, it is not referenced, which is pretty poor considering it is quite a fundamental notch on Heraclius's belt if it was ever truly said by a monarch or noble.Iamlondon (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Should be easy to check, among the European chroniclers who mention his visits. The English ones have a lot to say about him. It doesn't sound implausible but it may have been a formulaic description fitting a major cleric. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)