Talk:Pope Adrian IV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The article includes some discussion which should appear here, not there. JackofOz 02:32, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Question: was Pope Adrian IV a Norman or a Saxon? This is a way of asking whether anyone was really an <Englishman> at this moment in history?

"One probably can trust 19th century English historians on feudal law, but when it intersects with Ireland...." - possible poor attempt at humour, but could be interpreted as politically charged. Should be deleted: I think the amendment covers this now. 20:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Similarly, I'm removing the inline discussion included in parentheses as shown below, and replacing with a [dubious - discuss].

From 1152 to 1154 Nicholas was in Scandinavia as papal legate, establishing an independent archepiscopal see for Norway at Trondheim, a place he chose chiefly in honour of St Olaf, whose relics reposed in its church (?construction of the cathedral began in 1070 [it was dedicated to Olav already then]?).[13]

M-1 (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Adrian and Ireland[edit]

It seems that what most people are interested in with regards to this pope is his granting of the "Kingship" of Ireland. Looking at his background he was a papal man rather than a Frankish puppet of England so he wouldn't feel obliged to give Henry Ireland.

Also as far as I know Henry was made Lord of Ireland not King. Could someone please confirm this to me.

  • I deleted the following from the main page, as it is biased, completely disregarding any will of the Irish People, Sorry but I must interrupt!..The will of the Irish people they would not submit to English overlordship!!!

The idea of people in 1159 knowing THEIR country is nonsensese..People belonged to their local Lordship ..not one in a a hundred could read or write or ever travelled outside their village. One of the reasons there has been so much trouble with Ireland is complete ignorance over this invasion etc Saxon England was completely conquered by the French Mormans in 1066.For three hundred years England and Ireland were French speaking French ruled nations..the Laws of England and Ireland were written in French until 1485 the so called Engish Kings were usually born and educated in France or were proud of being French.. The idea of the English invading Ireland is as insane as suggesting the Jews were in the German army in 1942... All the nonsense whether Irish or Scottish ..(about William de Wallace or Robert de Bruciage is merely about Frenchmen fighting each other like a mafia trying to be top man ...its complete nonsense. England and Ireland were the same French ruled Catholic nations until the end of the 1480s three hundred years after the French invaded them ..The suggestion that Ireland was occupied or invaded by the English is insane nonsense..The problems between the two countries began only in the 1550s when Protestant England/..population 2,000,000 found itself surrounded by huge states like Catholic France pop 16,000,000 Catholic Spain 12,000,000 and the Catholic states of Italy and Germany..Sorry..

if they would simply submit to English Overlordship. At any rate, this information should be at least paraphrased, so as to make it at least less offensive, and preferably made unbiased all together before being put back into the article:

The following is an unaltered paragraph from the Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 edition, but the state of research on this is unknown. In view of prevailing English attitudes towards Ireland at this time, the article may not be unbiased.

A controversy exists concerning an embassy sent by Henry II of England to Adrian in 1155. According to the elaborate investigation of Thatcher, the facts seem to be as follows. Henry asked for permission to invade and subjugate Ireland, in order to gain absolute ownership of that isle. Unwilling to grant a request counter to the papal claim (based on the forged Donation of Constantine) to dominion over the islands of the sea, Adrian made Henry a conciliatory proposal, namely, that the king should become hereditary feudal possessor of Ireland while recognizing the pope as overlord. This compromise did not satisfy Henry, so the matter was dropped; Henry's subsequent title to Ireland rested on conquest, not on papal concession, and was therefore absolute. The much-discussed bull Laudabiliter is, however, not genuine.

Canaen 06:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

To have completely deleted reference to the pope's granting of Ireland to King Henry II of England when that was one of the most important acts of his tenure is inapropriate and some reference to it should be restored to the article. FDR 5:40 PM, May 19, 2006 (UTC)

Even if Laudabiliter was a fake / copy, it was said to be issued in 1154 and Henry didn't involve himself in Ireland until 1170. When he did, the Irish bishops agreed to his overlordship at the Synod of Cashel and the then pope Alexander III either confirmed or reconfirmed the 'grant'. So the validity of Laudabiliter is a bit of a red herring. Its importance was that it gave him a very good reason to take over Dublin and start the process.Red Hurley 19:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

More historical context, plus genealogical note:[edit]


Adrian [Hadrian] IV was the only English pope. He was born about 1100 AD in the midlands, elected pope in 1154, and died in 1159. His name at birth was Nicholas Breakspeare, the son of a poor man of Abbot’s Langly, who abandoned his family to become a monk at the monastery of St. Albans, Hertford.

Left to the mercy of strangers, Nicholas adopted the mendicant life, presumably with instruction from a friar companion, and made his way to southern France. Nicholas studied at Arles, and was then admitted into the house of the canons regular of St. Rufus at Valence, half way between Lyons and Avignon on the Rhone, as a servant and postulant. Because of his intelligence and discipline he was soon admitted into the order as a novice. He was elected prior of St. Rufus and, within a few years, abbot of St. Rufus. His quick rise, foreign origin and his strictness were resented by many older canons, who sent complaints to Pope Eugenius III. Nicholas relaxed their discipline a bit, but complaints continued. In 1158 St. Rufus became the mother house of the order of St. Rufus, founded in 1039 at Avignon.

Pope Eugenius III [r.1145-1153] had supported Archbishop Theobald of Canterbury [r.1138-1161] against King Stephen, deposed William Fitzherbert [St. William of York, d.1154] as Archbishop of York, and created four metropolitan sees in Ireland to propagate the Roman liturgy. Eugenius decided that the talents of an Englishman in the prime of his life could be useful internationally, and in 1146 made Nicholas Breakspeare Cardinal of Albano.

As Cardinal, Nicholas was quickly dispatched to Scandinavia to resolve disputes between the northern clergy and Rome over such issues as clerical marriage and the sale of clerical offices. He conciliated them and refounded the archiepiscopal see for Norway at Trondheim. When he returned to Rome in 1154 he was lionized as the Apostle of the North. On the death of Pope Anastasius IV [1153-1154], who had also been a canon at St. Rufus, Nicholas was enthroned as pope on Christmas Day 1154, assuming the name of Adrian IV.

Breakspeare's choice of regnal name signaled the goals of his pontificate. The political situation of Hadrian I [r. 772-795] was similar his own. Both claimed vast temporal authority for the papacy based on the “Donation of Constantine, ” which was first introduced to the world in an epistle of Hadrian I. Emperors Charlemagne and Frederick I, their respective adversaries, were powerful personalities. Both emperors were exhorted to follow the supposed example of Constantine, by deferring to the church. In southern Italy, both Hadrians attempted to impose papal authority over alien cultures, both Greek and Arab. In northern Italy, both Hadrians played Lombard rulers and cities against German emperors. Both popes were humbled when German emperors occupied Rome and dictated papal policy, including anathemas against their rivals. Both popes hoped to reconcile with the Greek emperors at Constantinople, and both were thwarted because German emperors feared their influence would be weakened by papal rapprochement with Byzantium.

It may also be that Breakspeare had seen the mummified bocy of St. Adrian of Canturbury [d.710], a north African who taught Greek and Latin at the Abbey of St. Peter and Paul for thirty nine years, and made the abbey a distinguished center of learning. Hadrian was also, of course, the name of a just and capable pagan emperor [r. 117-138].

Adrian IV was skillful, resolute and decisive in maintaining claims put forth by Gregory VII [r.1073-1085] for the absolute temporal authority for the papacy. Without Adrian’s determination and skill, the papacy might have become captive to Frederick Barbarossa, and to subsequent emperors.

Adrian IV was described as a man of mild and kindly bearing, high character and learning, and famed for moving sermons and for his fine voice. He hesitated to accept his elevation, partly because the authority of the papacy was challenged in Rome itself by a communal senate, led by Arnold of Brescia. William I, the Norman king of Sicily, denied the pope’s temporal authority over Sicily. Several Byzantine generals wished to reassert their emperor’s dominance over the Adriatic coast from Ravenna to Apulia, and challenged both the temporal and spiritual authority of the pope. Adrian refused to surrender either territory or authority to these three challengers, citing the arguments of Hildebrand [Gregory VII], and found an temporary ally in Frederick I “Barbarossa” who, soon after his election as king of Germany in 1152, had laid claims on Italy and announced his attention to be crowned as emperor in Rome.

Arnold of Brescia [ c.1100-1155], a monk who preached against the temporal power and material wealth of the church, opposed papal rule of the city and supported the Roman Commune. Arnold was excommunicated by Eugenius III in 1148, although Eugenius was himself a reformer of clerical and monastic standards, on the advice of Bernard of Clairvaux. They differed over the ability of temporal power to propagate the faith. In 1149 Arnold returned to Rome under the protection of King Roger of Sicily, but was captured in 1156 by Frederick I, condemned as a heretic, and burned.

William I, of the Norman house of Hauteville, [ r.1154-1166] ruled Calabria and Sicily under license given his great uncle, Robert Guiscard [c.1015-1085], by Pope Benedict X [Antipope r.1058-1059], to rule any lands he could wrest from the Arab rulers of southern Italy and Sicily. Under Norman rule Sicily again became a great naval power in the western Mediterranean. The formidable Norman fleet, occupied Arab Malta and Apulia, controlled trade between the eastern and western Mediterranean. William was able to hold the emperors of Germany and Byzantium, popes, and various kings around the western Mediterranean, including the puritanical Almonadid Berber emirs from Morocco to Tunis, at bay.

This golden age in Sicily resembled the Omayyad age in Spain. Most Sicilians spoke Greek, but there were large Arabic speaking colonies, and a few Jewish colonies. The court spoke Norman-French. Laws were issued in Latin, Greek and Arabic. Arabs had their own Koranic law courts, and the Greek population followed Byzantine law.

William’s father, Roger II, also expanded the merchant fleet, kidnapped trained silk-weavers in Greece, hired Norman architects, Greek and Muslim masons and Byzantine structural experts, Arab tile workers and Byzantine mosaic workers, to set up training schools and build exotic cathedrals. Arab seamstresses made robes with flowing Arabic script for court ceremonies.

The court of William’s son, William II [r.1166-1189], was distinguished by a Greek admiral, George of Antioch, an Englishman, Richard Palmer, Bishop of Syracuse, and a Hungarian bishop of Girgenti. Both William I and William II lived more like sultans than Christian princes, and performed court rituals in the hieratic Byzantine style. All Sicilians were allowed to worship freely, but the Latin hierarchy was given precedence over clergy of the Greek rite. Because Robert Guiscard had been appointed a permanent apostolic legate by Pope Nicholas II [r.1058-1061], his heirs claimed to hold the office by virtue of heredity. It was thus sacrilege to question their laws or judgments. [In 1059 at Nicholas’ Synod of the Lateran popes were required to be elected by the College of Cardinals, and at his synod of Melfi the clergy was forbidden to marry.]

Manuel I Comnenus [r.1143-1180] acquired the Dalmatian coast and part of the Croatian coast from Hungary. He considered the Adriatic a Byzantine sea, but for the recalcitrant Venetians. His most effective enemies were the Sicilian and Venetian fleets, and the Seljuk Turks.

Byzantium had been a refuge for Christian scholars from Alexandria to Antioch when those cities were occupied by Moslem armies, but classical scholars remaind safely in those cities. Justinian’s edict in 529 forbade non-Christians to teach. His edict in 546 required non-Christian grammarians, philosophers, lawyers to be scourged and jailed. His edict in 562 required that pagan books be burned. There was little incentive for classical scholars to go where they were not welcome. Constantinople, of course, remained the scholarly capital of Christianity until its fall in 1453.

Bernard of Clairvaux [1091-1153] had vigorously promoted the second crusade, enlisting both Louis VII [c.1121-1180] of France, first husband of Eleanor of Aquitaine, and Conrad III [r.1093-1152]. first of the Hohanstaufen kings of Germany. Since the failure of the Second Crusade in 1149, more than seven subsequent crusades, some mere raids, ultimately failed to recover former Byzantine lands. Because of this failure, a Roman view of history has naturally dominated western historians. However, both Moslems and Byzantines preserved ancient Greek texts, which made the Italian Renaissance possible.

Frederick I, “Barbarossa,” of Hohenstaufen [c.1123-1190] was crowned German king in 1152 and emperor in 1155. As Charlemagne’s heir, he invaded Italy in 1154 to enforce imperial feudal rights. He was opposed most consistently by the Lombard League of north Italian towns, led by Milan, nominally on behalf of candidates for emperor from the rival Welf or Guelph family of Saxony. In Italy supporters of the Hohenstaufen [aka Waibling] imperial claims were called Ghibellines. This feuds of the Hohenstaufens were the talk of Europe.

Pope Adrian showed his mettle early in his pontificate, when a cardinal was attacked in the street by a mob of supporters of the Roman Commune. For the first time in history, Adrian placed Rome under interdict, cutting off their trade with pilgrims from throughout the Western Christian world during the busy season of Lent. As Easter approached, the Roman Senate capitulated and banished Arnold of Brescia from Rome.

In the south, Adrian was less successful. The armies of William I of Sicily wasted Campagna. Adrian appealed for help from Frederick I, who invaded the south and soon captured the exiled Arnold of Brescia. Fredrick advanced to Nepi to await the coming of Adrian. When Adrian arrived, Frederick did not come forward to take the bridle of his horse or help him dismount. For this disrespect to his office, Adrian refused Frederick the kiss of peace. For days their emissaries debated whether the courtesy was required by custom. Adrian was adamant and Frederick, ever conscious of his own prerogatives, received Adrian anew and, in sight of the entire German army, led Adrian’s horse. In 1156 Adrian was about 56, and Frederick about 33 years old.

The two proceeded in amity to Rome. They were met outside Rome by envoys of the Commune, who begged Frederick not to sack their city if they opened their gates to his army. The envoys of the Commune were contemptuously dismissed. This created anxiety about Frederick’s intentions.

Frederick camped on Monte Mario, and his coronation was performed on June 18 in St. Peter’s, unknown to the citizens of Rome. When they heard of Frederick’s coronation, they stormed the Papal City but were driven back across the Tiber by Frederick’s army. Adrian seized the moment of Frederick’s victory to have the papal court quickly try and execute Arnold of Brescia. Because of lack of provisions near Rome, Frederick had to withdraw his army. He was accompanied by Adrian, who was no longer safe in Rome. Frederick’s troops suffered from the summer heat and malaria as he moved northward. He rejecting Adrian’s request that he move south against the now excommunicated William of Sicily. The disappointed Adrian was left behind.

Since he was unwelcome in Rome, Adrian retired to Tivoli. There he received emissaries from the barons of Apulia [now Puglia], asking his help to drive out William of Sicily. The Byzantine emperor, Manuel I, also offered to fight William, if the pope would grant him three Apulian ports of Bari, Brindisi and Taranto. Adrian again met the Apulian barons in Benevento and William, watching the forces gathering against him, made overtures of peace. Adrian would have accepted a truce, but the a majority of the cardinals feared to alienate Frederick Barbarossa by approving a treaty which would compromise his claims to Italy.

William had no alternative but to fight. He promptly defeated both the Greeks and the Apulians. His success permitted Adrian to make peace. At Benevento in 1156 Adrian invested William with Sicily, Calabria and Apulia. William promised a yearly tribute and swore an oath of fealty and to defend the pope against all foes. William’s support now permitted Adrian to return to Rome, where the senate now considered it prudent to welcome him.

The alliance between Adrian and Frederick I was broken, however. Adrian had become increasingly apprehensive about Frederick’s growing dominance of northern Italy. Adrian also had very specific complaints. In 1156 Archbishop Eskil of Lund, in Sweden, who had aided Adrian in pacifying the Scandinavian clergy, was imprisoned for ransom in Germany while returning from pilgrimage to Rome. Despite Adrian’s pleas, Frederick refused to intercede on the Eskil’s behalf. To ascertain Frederick’s intentions, Adrian sent his chief advisor, Cardinal Roland of Siena, to the diet which Frederick convened at Besancon in October 1157.

Roland, unfortunately, viewed himself as the agent of God, as well as of the college of cardinals and the pope. He announced to Frederick that, “The pope greets you as a father, the cardinals as brothers.” Never before had the cardinals ranked themselves as equals, or brothers, of an emperor. Roland then had a letter from Adrian read to the assembly, complaining of Eskil’s treatment, and reminding Frederick of many benefices which he had received from the pope.

In feudal usage, to confer a benefice implied that the person conferring was a lord and the receiver was a vassal. There were immediate, angry protests from the assembly. Roland blandly countered, “From whom then does the emperor hold the empire, if not from the pope?” Pfalzgraf Otto of Wittelsbach grabbed for his sword, but was restrained from killing Roland. Frederick, with difficulty, quieted the assembly. The legates papers were seized, and letters of complaint against the emperor addressed to the German churches were found. Roland and his party were sent back to Rome, in safety. Frederick circulated a letter through his dominions asserting that he held the empire from God alone. He followed by an edict limiting appeals to the pope, and forbidding clerics to travel to Rome without the permission of German ecclesiastical authorities.

Adrian was indignant at the dismissal of his legates, and sent a letter to the German bishops asking them to admonish Frederick to return to obedience. The German bishops balked. They could not countenance ambiguous language by Adrian, which implied unheard-of papal claims of temporal authority in their nation. They asked the pope to rephrase himself, and foster peace between the empire and the church. Frederick prepared for a new expedition into northern Italy.

Adrian could not declare war on so powerful a layman. He had no army. On 1 February 1158 he sent legates to confer with Frederick at Augsburg. They addressed Frederick modestly and handed him a letter from the pope which explained that he had used the term benefice in its scriptural, not in its feudal, signification. This satisfied Frederick, who needed peaceful relations with Adrian. After Frederick defeated the Milanese, he pressed wide imperial claims to Italy at the diet of Roncaglia in November 1158. Adrian was again alarmed, and approached William of Sicily to protect the Italian republicans against the imperial party.

Adrian also refused to confirm Frederick’s nominee for the archbishopric of Ravenna, formerly a Greek city. Adrian sent Frederick a letter forbidding him to interfere in a dispute over church possessions between the cities of Brescia and Bergamo. The letter was thrust into Frederick’s hands by a hapless messenger, who quickly melted back into the crowd. Frederick responded by ordering his chancery to revert to a more ancient way of addressing the pope, in which the emperor’s name was set before that of the pope, and the pope was addressed in the second person singular, rather than the second person plural. This was an institutional slap in the face, denying both the temporal and spiritual authority of the papacy. Adrian could not have responded to such a great rival in the manner of Queen Victoria, by saying “We are not pleased.” His position was too precarious. Adrian was so incensed that he encouraged the Milanese to revolt against Frederick.

Open breach between pope and emperor was averted through the skill of Bishop Eberhard of Bamberg. In April 1159 Adrian sent an embassy to Frederick, proposing to renew the treaty which Pope Anastasius IV [r.1153-1154] had made with Frederick in 1153. Frederick replied that he had always observed the treaty, but that Adrian had broken it by his alliance with William of Sicily. Frederick proposed that he and Adrian submit their differences to the judgment of arbitrators. Adrian replied with a list of conditions to be imposed on any imperial envoys in Rome, to reduce the possibility of bribery and intimidation. These conditions were rejected by Frederick, and fruitless embassies were exchanged for days. In May 1159 Adrian withdrew from Rome to Anagni, closer to William’s army.

Frederick received envoys from the commune of Rome. He agreed to receive their submission and confirmed the rights of their senate. While Frederick’s ambassadors appeared in Rome, envoys of Milan and Sicily were busy at Anagni. Adrian was preparing to head a league against Frederick, and to excommunicate the emperor, when he died of quinsy at Anagni on 1 September 1159. In 1176 Frederick’s ambitions were checked by the Lombard League at the Battle of Legnano.

In England Adrian is remembered for granting suzerainty over Ireland to Henry II. The envoys which Henry sent to congratulate their countryman upon succession as pope included John of Salisbury. The envoys argued that Henry II should be allowed to subdue the Irish, and bring the Celtic church into conformity the Roman practice. Adrian’s authority to make such a grant to Henry was based, first, on grounds that all lands converted to [Roman rite] Christianity belonged to the Holy See and, second, upon the famous “Donation of Constantine.” John of Salisbury wrote that Adrian was deeply aware of his responsibilities, and that Adrian told him in private that the pope’s tiara was glorious because it burned. Some Irishmen say Adrian IV allied himself with Dermot McMurrough [1111-1171] King of Leinster, who sought favor with Rome by founding three Augustinian convents in south Ireland and the Latin rite Priory of All Saints, later Trinity College, in Dublin in 1166, and dispute exactly what it was that burned.


Oldoinus, in CIACONIUS, i.1062, says that before Breakspeare became pope he wrote:

a treatise, DE CONCEPTIONE BEATISSIMAE VIRGINIS, on the immaculate conception.


[Papal legates were the instruments which Gregory VII had used to over rule lay rulers in such matters as appointments to clerical offices, and generally enforce the temporal supremacy of the papacy.]

a catechism for the people of Norway and Sweden, written during his mission there as cardinal.

John of Salisbury, in METALOGIA, LIB. IV. E. 42, says Adrian IV, based claims of temporal power of the papacy on the “Donation of Constantine.”

John of Salisbury, in POLYCRATICUS, lib. viii. e 23, describes how deeply awed Adrian was by the responsibilities of his office. In lib. vi & viii. John describes his own friendly relations with his fellow countryman.

Rymer in FOEDERA, i. 19, states that Adrian could grant Ireland to Henry II, as a papal vassal, on grounds that all lands “converted to Christianity” belonged to the Holy See.

Baronius, Radevicus & Migne’s PATROLOGIA, vol. clxxxvii, gives Adrian’s bulls and letters.

Baronius, ANNALES ECCLESIASTICI. See the years 1154-59.

Ciaconius, in VITAE PONTIFICUM, i. 1055 ff discusses Adrian IV. Gregorovius, GESCHICHTE DER STADT ROM, describes the Roman commune and senate. Muratori, in RERUM ITALICARUM SCRIPTORES, gives several accounts of Adrian IV,

Bernardus Guidonis [fl.1320], vol. iii, pt.i. 440.

Cardinal Nicolas of Aragon [fl. 1350], vol. iii. pt. i. 441

Amalricus [fl.1360], vol. iii. pt. ii. 372.

Radevicus, vi. 745 ff, describes Adrian’s dealings with Frederick I.

Bishop Otto of Frising in DE GESTIS FREDERICI I, discusses the relationship between Adrian IV and Frederick Barbarossa, [Muratori vi. 720 ff.]

Gibbon, Edward, in THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, chapter xlix, [vol.3, p.115 of Womersley’s 1994 edition] has a few comments on Hadrian I, upon whom Nicholas Breakspeare modeled his pontificate. Milman, LATIN CHRISTIANITY


Runciman, Steven, in THE SICILIAN VESPERS, pp. 18-29, describes Norman Sicily.


Genealogical postscript:[edit]

For over a century historians have speculated about a possible relationship between Nicholas Breakspeare and William Shakespeare. If the Bard claimed a kinship with Adrian IV, it would help to account for his probable recusancy--he remained loyal to the church which had benefited his family.

Thus far, such speculation has been based on circumstantial evidence. Given conventions of the late middle ages, before surnames became common, the name Breakspeare could also have also been rendered as Shakespeare. There were Breakspeares in Handborough, Kidlington, Mollington & St. Giles, Oxfordshire, as well as in London through the 16th and 17th centuries. The given names NICHOLAS and ADRIAN appear in the Shakespeare family over a dozen times between 1300 and 1714 in Warwickshire alone-- in Balsall, Arley & Little Packington, all just East of Birmingham, as well as in London.

Kinsmen of popes were often granted leases of church properties. If this were the case with Pope Adrian IV, one should be able to find benefices, leases, donations etc. to his kinsmen in Hertford, Oxford or Warwickshire roughly between the years 1146, when he became cardinal, and 1170, a decade after his death. Closer examination of the various rolls etc. for that period, both in the English midland manors etc. and in Rome, is needed.

Peter Wilson, Minneapolis MN

Cleanup Required: Adrian IV and the Eastern Emperor[edit]

I've written a section explaining Adrian's alliance with the Byzantine Emperor; hopefully the Wikipedia cleanup issue is now resolved. Bigdaddy1204 13:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

details on death[edit]

I can't find a refernece for this but i've read somewhere that he died by shoking on a fly in his drink. Could someone prove or disprove this to see if this can be added?

  • I read that too.Malick78 19:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Just read it in Abbots Langley Then 1760-1960 (ISBN 0953147304), by CW Clark, in the Prologue, unfortunately it comes with an allegedly Bazj (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

rector of binsey?[edit]

many oxford tourist brochures and web sites claim that adrian iv was also the rector of binsey, a hamlet immediately west of the city centre.

is this true?


We show him as both "Breakspear" and "Breakspeare". Spelling was not consistent in those days, but we at least should be consistent (or refer to the variant spellings that may have existed). JackofOz 07:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert if ya's want[edit]

Apparently my 'corrections' yesterday were viewed by another as 'stalking'. The viewer-in-question is 'free' to revert those corrections. Sorry for crowding. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight issues[edit]

Why is so much time given to the Laudabiliter, and to the opinion of Very Rev. Thomas N.Burke, O.P.? A few sentences summarising the issue, with reference to modern scholarship (e.g.), should be enough. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason is is because it is informative. Now why don't you expand the other sections, and it will not appear that the Laudabiliter is given so much attention? If you'd like to add alternative opinions to the Very Rev. Thomas N.Burke O.P. please do. I was going to add more from Froude anyway. We are here to build and expand these areticle, and I'm helping by expanding one of the sections. --Domer48'fenian' 15:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

On the heading re undue weight, the Rev Burke cites:

  • Reimer, the English Historian,
  • J. A Froude, the English Historian,
  • Dr. Lynch, author of "Cambrensis Eversus,"
  • Abbé McGeoghegan, Irish scholar,
  • Dr. Moran, the learned bishop of Ossory,
  • Baronius, the historian,
  • Dr. Mansuerius,
  • Pope Alexander III
  • Mathew of Westminster

This could hardly be described as undue weight? --Domer48'fenian' 15:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

All opinions which would be welcome and relevant if we were living in the late 19th century. In the current century, the new section is just a long ramble-fest filled mostly with outdated debates. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary secondary and third party sources are not good enough, not relevant, is that what your saying? Please! --Domer48'fenian' 15:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The American declaration of independence is just an old outdate load of nonsense then according to you? The Boston Tea party would be right up there on the scale of long ramble-fest filled mostly with outdated debates. If we were living in the late 19th century all opinions would be welcome and relevant but not now? Is that what you’re saying? Because at the moment I can’t make any sense of what your problem is. I've indicated above what you can do to expand the article. --Domer48'fenian' 17:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Domer, the rhetoric above is not relevant to the issues I've raised. You seem to be unfamiliar with the most basic principles of encyclopedia editing. You've launched into a medieval history article with a long piece about one of hundreds or thousands of documents authorised by this pope, when that info already has an article, and most of the time is spent on defunct issues citing the opinions of scholars that have almost no significance in the current century (there is, for instance, no controversy about the authenticity of this document in modern historiographical debate). Sure, this document can be mentioned, maybe even a paragraph or two, I'm not saying it shouldn't. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Deacon, you've never, ever edited this article before, you just happened to pop up out of nowhere. Now your first edit on the article is to place a tag on one section, saying that "This article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information." No tag for the The Byzantine Alliance which is not referenced at all, no, but a tag on the section that is. The tag says that factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information, but not one reference to challange this information is offered. Now why don't you add information about the "hundreds or thousands of documents authorised by this pope" rather than just talk about it. Now why don't you tell me what "basic principles of encyclopedia editing [I] seem to be unfamiliar with" rather than just talking about it. Now again you say "citing the opinions of scholars that have almost no significance in the current century (there is, for instance, no controversy about the authenticity of this document in modern historiographical debate" don't talk in assertive generalisations presented as fact, add the sources. I've removed the tag based on my comments above. Now rather than just start reverting, why not add your sources which say that for instance, no controversy about the authenticity of this document in modern historiographical debate, offering some insight into how defunct the views of the number cited sources are? Thanks --Domer48'fenian' 10:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Deacon, being reasonable I've taken on board your points as to why is so much time given to the Laudabiliter, and to the opinion of Very Rev. Thomas N.Burke, O.P. by moving the text to the Laudabiliter and increasing the number of sources. This will allow the subject to be developed in more detail, however I hope that does not deflect you from expanding this article, based on your new found intrest. --Domer48'fenian' 19:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
What's the significance of me having never edited this article? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Your first edit on the article is to place a tag on one section, saying that "This article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information." No tag for the The Byzantine Alliance which is not referenced at all, no, but a tag on the section that is. The tag says that factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information, but not one reference to challange this information is offered. That is the significance. Now I look forward to your expanding this article, based on your new found intrest. Something on the hundreds or thousands of documents authorised by this pope you mentioned or how there is no controversy about the authenticity of this document in modern historiographical debate and how the opinions of scholars that have almost no significance in the current century have become defunct. Look forward to reading it? --Domer48'fenian' 18:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)