Talk:Mathilde, Abbess of Essen

Title
"Matilda" seems to be more common in English than "Mathilde", at least per Google Books searches. Srnec (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There was a related discussion already, preparing the article, copied here:
 * I wonder if the lady ought to be Matilda II, Abbess of Essen (to match, e.g. Matilda, Abbess of Quedlinburg). I tend to produce full translations, but sometimes they take a while. I might start with Otto and Mathilde's cross and you could start with the lady? Furius (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's think about it. You see above that I started both articles mentioned. Or do you mean start expanding? For expanding, I would prefer the lady, as the technical terms of goldsmith work is not what I would know in English. Name: I would support Mathilde, 1) because I like names untranslated in general for the original flavour, 2) because the two crosses are named after her, 3) because a German article I saw today distinguishes her from her niece Matilda, - it would be nice to be able to do the same, 4) because the many German sources will have that name. - Is Abbess a title that would be capital? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes, I meant start expanding (I mean, if you want to do that - please don't feel obliged!). Your arguments in support of Mathilde are good. Capitalising "Abbess" feels more natural to me. Furius (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Great stuff everybody! I think there was only one Mathilde, Abbess of Essen, which is what I'd favour, but we should probably continue this on the talk there. That is what Lasko (Lasko, Peter, Ars Sacra, 800–1200, Penguin History of Art (now Yale), 1972 (nb, 1st edn.) ISBN14056036X) calls her. I may not be able to add much until the weekend. Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

(End of copied section)


 * Name: I vote for Mathilde, reasoning above
 * Numeral: we can probably do without "II" because the former one of the same name - who's existence is not certain - will probably have no article in English, and if, she could get a "I" without a "II" for this one.

I conclude that Johnbod's suggestion is good, I will move, and if we arrive at a different solution, we will move again, - it's a good redirect at least, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see Essen Abbey had in fact had Abbess "Mathilde I (907–910)" but until she gets an article I think the new name is fine. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added a note on the numbering, but the first Matilda's existence is not certain, that should probably be added too. Srnec (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for such a brilliant article! You were clearly impressed with this lady. I would have to disagree with the name choice, however. Srnec is right; "Matilda" is definitely more common among English language sources, and in line with all her Ottonian and Salian namesakes. Furthermore, the "original flavour" is not really original, as 1) the contemporary German form of her name was "Mathilda", 2) the Latin form (which she would have used not only as an abbess but also as a literate person) of her name is Mathildis. I am also not sure how this form of the name distinguishes her from her niece, since both women are known as Matilda in English language sources and as Mathilde is German language sources. Using one form for the aunt and the other for the niece is thus only arbitrary. As for the capitalization, common nouns such as "abbess" should not be capitalized per WP:JOBTITLES, but offices such as "Abbess of Essen" should be. "Abbess" should also be capitalized when referring to a specific person rather than to a position. Surtsicna (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The many English sources I have predominantly use "Mathilde". I don't know where you are getting this from. The only extended treatments of her are in art history, which is the sort of source I have. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Mathilde of Essen vs Matilda of Essen; the latter is four times more common. It is used, among others, in The New Cambridge Medieval History, the biography of her aunt Theophanu, and various gender study and art history works. Furthermore, 21st century sources appear to be much, much more in favour of Matilda, using it 20 times more than Mathilde. Surtsicna (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you notice that almost all the examples from the "Mathilda" search which actually show the name appear to be citations of Van Houts 1992 article "The Case of Abbess Matilda of Essen and Aethelweard" used as reference here? Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. Does that prove anything other than general willingness to follow Elisabeth van Houts' example? After all, Van Houts seems to be very authoritative (if not most authoritative) when it comes to the biography of this abbess, so it is hardly surprising that historians from other fields followed her lead. Surtsicna (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * They mostly seem to be citing rather than "following", so of course use her spelling. She is mainly interested in Aethelweard and history writing I think, though I can't access her paper. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words. I'm not quite done yet, but as per discussion above, I'm not particularly fussed about whether it ends up being Mathilde or Matilda (or Mathildis/Mechtildis). Of Gerda Arendt's arguments earlier I was most swayed by (2). (3) as you say is arbitrary, but also exceptionally convenient. I agree with (1) but suspect it is against an official policy of some sort. (4) doesn't really hold much weight with me. Johnbod's point about the use of the name in scholarly literature (which seems to affirm Gerda Arendt's point (2)) weighs quite strongly - I don't know whether google stats ought to overrule that. Furius (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But Johnbod's point is debatable. He argues that the name Mathilde is used in scholarly literature regarding art history, but historians almost always call her Matilda - certainly influenced by the historian who wrote about her more than anyone else. Assuming art historians do favour the name "Mathilde", the question stands whether they overrule historians. As a whole, the name "Matilda" is certainly more common and is becoming increasingly more common. Surtsicna (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * All the "historian[s] who wrote about her more than anyone else" have done so in German, where they all use "Mathilde", whether anachronistically or not. I have found a text-semi-scrambled preview of van Houts here, and it is clear enough that she is only concerned with narrow aspects of her life, related to her subject. Next to nothing on the art patronage. Since we don't I think have a single word actually written by Mathilde and her only recorded intervention in dynastic politics was a flop, but the objects she commissioned get mentioned in every art history of the period, it should be no surprise that most English coverage is in art history - Lasko gives her and her objects 4 pages (excluding pictures).  I note van Houts also uses "Edith" for Eadgyth, against the grain of modern sources I would have thought. Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * German historians naturally use one of the German versions of her name. We should use the one most commonly used in English language sources. According to de.wiki's FA about her, she used the name Mechtildis. It is thus incorrect to say that "Mathilde" is the original name. In any case, you have not shown that the name "Mathilde" is the one most commonly used by art historians in the first place. You believe it is, but the numbers appear to contradict you. Surtsicna (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that German sources prefer "Mathilde" would seem to be an argument in favour of "Matilda" in English. I would think art historians are as concerned with "narrow aspects of her life, related to [their] subject" as van Houts. Srnec (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but at least they have material to talk about! Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox
Of course, in most good article the infobox is redundant. That's an argument against infoboxes in good articles. Who really needs to quickly reference Matilda of Essen? Not every article needs one of these. Srnec (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The opposite seems to be true - the vast majority of biographies which are Featured Articles have infoboxes. "Who really needs to quickly reference Matilda of Essen?" - you might as well ask who really needs to know about Matilda of Essen at all. If people are interested in knowing about her, there will be people interested in knowing the basic contextual details quickly. Furius (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what the introductory paragraph is for. If you only want the basics, don't read beyond that. The infobox competes with the article. None of the the three other editors who made substantial edits to this page saw a need for one of these things. I reverted its addition. Why doesn't BRD seem to apply to infoboxes? Srnec (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I probably should have BRD'ed, in retrospect. I had simply assumed that everybody thought that infoboxes were something articles should have. Note in addition to my previous arguments that infoboxes also have an important role in producing article metadata: WikiProject Infoboxes. Furius (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mathilde, Abbess of Essen. 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/20130515154300/http://unvergessene-mathilde.com/ to http://www.unvergessene-mathilde.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)