Talk:Hygeberht

Comments
I'll add comments as I go through the article. A couple of initial points:
 * I don't see the first reference, "Williams Kingship and Government" in the list of references.
 * Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why the "presumed" in the caption to the map of dioceses? Kirby's very definite about the list.
 * Ah, I see the note on Brooks. Interesting; I should add something to that effect in the article on Offa. Mike Christie (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything else on this one? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the comment about William of Malmesbury settles this. Mike Christie (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Any reason not to link the 781 charter to anglo-saxons.net in a footnote? I assume that's a reliable source, right?  I don't always do this myself, but it seems like a nice touch.
 * I'm kinda indifferent to linking to the charters, as they often are more confusing for the laypeople and the folks who will be interested already know how to find them. I'll ponder this one a bit more. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, here's our issue here. Godfrey cites this to C. S. I, 241 (Councils and Synods by Stubbs and Haddon, which I don't own) and E.H.D. I, 466-7 (English Historical Documents, which I also don't own). Godfrey claims these were witnessed at Brentford for the church at Worcester. Anglo-Saxon.net, however, has only two charters from the period that were from Offa done at Brentford 116 and 118, neither of which mention Hygberht. The two from the time period that Hygberht IS mentioned on are 120 and 121, which are done at Tamworth. ARGH! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have EHD but not Stubbs and Haddon; EHD's charter no. 77 on p. 466 is CS 1257 on ascharters.net. It's not actually from Offa which is probably why you couldn't find it; it's from Hathored to Offa.  Not too worried if you don't want to link to it; I agree it's marginal. Mike Christie (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The note about a planned invasion is interesting; I hadn't noticed that comment in Kirby. When I looked it up it apparently is cited to Brooks' The Early History of the Church of Canterbury, and it might be worth citing directly from that, especially if Brooks gives whatever the original source is.  Kirby also says this was a "later" belief, and probably fanciful; I think it would be worth pointing that out, if only with a parenthetical word or two.  (I don't have a copy of Brooks, I'm afraid.)
 * Expanded this a bit, as well as an explanatory note Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good; I tweaked the note a tiny bit. Mike Christie (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Both Stenton (whom you cite) and Kirby talk about Offa's enmity with the "men of Kent" rather than the region, and I think that makes more sense. If I get as far as a copyedit I'll try to rephrase that part.
 * "After Offa's death, his successor Coenwulf told the papacy that the move was also motivated by Offa's hatred of Jænberht and the Kentish people": I'd cut "also"; it's the only reason Coenwulf gives.
 * fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Second paragraph of Council of Chelsea: the phrasing of the last sentence makes it seem as though seeing the donation as the beginning of Peter's Pence is in opposition to interpretation that it was a gift in return for splitting the archdiocese. Does Godfrey say it that way?  It seems it could be both -- it started as a gift/bribe, and evolved into Peter's Pence.
 * Reworked to make this a bit clearer Ealdgyth - Talk 22:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "...the community at Canterbury Cathedral seems never to have accepted Hygeberht as an archbishop": you cite this to Kirby, who says "cf Brooks Early History p. 119" in his notes; does Brooks have anything to add to this?
 * Added a bit more as an explanatory footnote. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a helpful addition. Mike Christie (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mike, I should get to most of these within the next few days.. (Weddings, what a PITA). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Think I got it all but the one bit you'd said something about a copyedit for ... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I still have to do a copyedit pass, but in looking through I found another question:
 * Per this page, it seems Hartleford may be Hartlebury in Worcestershire. I certainly can't find any other Hartleford.  Does your source give any more info on this?
 * Godfrey specifically says "Hartelford in Gloucestershire" - possible it's a victim of the change of counties but I cannot be sure. He's got it sourced to Stubbs' Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland vol. 3 p. 437, 446. Godfrey calls this a "mercian witenagemot", if that helps any. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not in Stenton's list of place names in ASE. I found this online copy of Stubbs but it doesn't help; nearly all the other references I can find online seem to refer to this.  It's not in Google maps so it must be an old name for a place that has either disappeared or changed its name.  I did find this: "       E. F. Eales, Naunton upon Cotswold (Oxford, 1928), 9. The place called Iorotlaforda where a Mercian Council was held in 779 is apparently identified as Harford in F. M. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England (1947), 200, and the same identification is given by Eales, Naunton upon Cotswold. The form suggests, however, that its identification as Hartleford in Hartlebury (Worcs.), given in Stubbs and Hadden, Councils and Eccl. Documents, iii. 437, is more probable." which is footnote 9 on this page.  I think you can ignore all this and leave it the way you have it; this is a red herring for Hygeberht, but maybe someone will come along with the answer to this one day.  Sorry for the digression!  Back to copyediting. Mike Christie (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see how you're sourcing "He remained an abbot until his death"; you cite Stenton but my edition doesn't say that, though the pages you cite (227-8) do cover Hygeberht. If you do have a source, that's great; either way I think you could add something like "Hygeberht does not appear in the historical record after Clovesho; which abbey he ruled, and the date of his death, are both unknown", and cite the first half to this PASE page -- I think primary sources are OK for stating that he's not recorded in primary sources.
 * That bit about "remaining abbot" may have been a legacy from the old DNB text, not sure. Anyway, it's removed. The ODNB does say that "Hygeberht attested the proceedings as abbot, but the location of his monastery and the date of his death are unknown." so that last sentence is fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Any reason why you quote both the Canterbury and Peterborough chronicles when there's little difference between the text? I'd suggest shortening it to quote the F ms and mention that the Peterborough version describes it as contentious.
 * shortened the second quote - the main point was that the second quote mentions a "full" council and the first quote says "contentious". Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it would be better to discuss the suggestion that Offa wanted a new Archbishopric because Jaenberht wouldn't consecrate Ecgberht in the "Background" section, which discusses the other motives.
 * I actually prefer it with the council, as we've got the quotes that explicitly link the two events, which lends credence to Brooks' argument that the two events were linked. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 18:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks to me as if you're asserting that the contentious synod at Chelsea was attended by the papal legates, but Stenton is very definite that this can't be the case. I think it needs to be clarified that this is at least disputed. I would guess that the comment about the matter being discussed in 786 is a reference to the papal legates too, at least judging by Stenton; if so that's definitely not consistent with them being at the Chelsea synod.
 * I've nixed this part, as the legates aren't mentioned again in this article, and whether they attended or not is probably best left to the council's own article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I also just noticed that the sentence about Offa hating the men of Kent and Jaenberht is sourced to Stenton, who is simply quoting Coenwulf's letter; that letter is mentioned again at the end of the section. (I know I said something about this above but I hadn't properly read Stenton's comment; sorry.) I think this means that the current presentation looks like a reinforcement of the source when really there's only one source here.  How about:
 * "Perhaps as early as 786 the creation of a Mercian archbishopric was being discussed at Offa's court. Among Offa's motives may have been his dislike of both Jaenberht, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and of the men of Kent; a letter to the papacy by Coenwulf, who succeeded Offa's son Ecgfrith, claimed that the move was motivated by Offa's hatred of Jænberht and the Kentish people.  The historian Nicholas Brooks suggests that another reason: Ecgfrith was consecrated as king within a year of Hygeberht's elevation, while Offa was still alive; if Offa had been unable to get Jænberht to agree, this would have given Offa another reason to create a separate archbishopric.  A justification that Offa may have used was that Jænberht was plotting with the Frankish king, Charlemagne, to allow Charlemagne a landing site in Kent if Charlemagne ever invaded, although this is only known from a 13th century writer, Matthew Paris. Another concern was probably that of prestige, as having the main Mercian diocese held by an archbishop rather than a bishop would raise the kingdom's status."
 * That's probably a good paragraph break, and then the council stuff could come after that. What do you think?  If you agree I'll go ahead and make the change and see if I can work the other comments in too.
 * that looks fine to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, done, except that per your comment above I did not expand on Higham's comments here -- I left those in the Council section. Mike Christie (talk – library) 18:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * How about adding something based on Stenton's comment (p. 218) that there's no evidence Jaenberht ever made a formal complaint.
 * done. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Further bits...
Here Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hrm.
Truth be told, I'm surprised this article made FA, let alone become the daily featured article. It doesn't strike me as much better than B-class, even without the hard truth that much of it isn't about the subject at all, but about the geopolitics of the bishopric. Too much coatrackery to approach FA.   Ravenswing   03:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Bad FA
This would have to be one of the worst featured articles I've seen on the front page. Less than half the article is actually about the article's subject – instead, just historical background. No images, either, except for a semi-relevant map. I'm happy for this to be a good article, but front-page material? No way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.86.150 (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Textus Roffensis
Hygeberht's name in a charter can be found at here at Cityark. This might be a useful link within the article, but I'm not sure where to put it. Hel-hama (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the TR dates from the 12th century, so it's hardly a contemporary mention. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracies
The map is wholly wrong, for example it shows the post 1974 border with Wales rather than the border from Offa's time, dioceses seem to mostly match current lieutenancy areas such as in Suffolk, Cornwall, Nottinghamshire etc.

The article is riddled with false details such as someone died in July and someone else 141 days later. It uses the term "perhaps" to suggest a possible date for something etc. If something is not known and unsourced it should not be in the article.

Frankly I can only find Wikipedia when searching for the Province of Lichfield, have we actually got any verifiable evidence of it's existance or boundaries or timespan? Thanks 188.28.185.119 (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)