Talk:Sebastian of Portugal
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on August 4, 2005, August 4, 2006, August 4, 2007, August 4, 2008, August 4, 2009, and August 4, 2010.|
Almost certainly killed or executed??
Killed in battle, or subsequently executed. It's very late at night over here. As far as I can tell, Sebastian isn't around these days Seriously though, thanks for pointing it out. I've amended it, and it looks better now (in my opinion). My articles really are open to editing, so please feel free to contradict or amend if you have some info I've missed or mistaken. Simon Who are you? A professional historian? I doubt it. You need to get up to date on Sebastian. Your sources are out of date.
While it may be okay to use Sebastian instead of Sebastião and Philip II instead of Filipe II, the other names should either all be in the English form or in the Portuguese and Spanish form. I have corrected some of them, but not all. Perhaps someone else will be willing to take the time to do this.
Thank you for including the familial chart showing the structure of parents, grandparents, and great grandparents. While I grasped what was being said in the article relating to this, the chart really helped to visually clarify. I found it very complimentary to this great article.
Wow, so his parents were genetically siblings both having the same four grandparents. His failure to produce children was probably a blessing to the Throne of Portugal. Cosnahang (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily. All he had to do was marry a woman unrelated to him. —Preceding unsigned
"He contracted gonorrhea at age ten, most likely through sexual abuse by his tutor and confessor, the Jesuit Padre Luís Gonçalves da Câmara, a malady that tormented him throughout his short life." I don't know why this article is using Harold B. Johnson's book as the final word about King Sebastian! Other historians think that the King contracted a veneral disease as a result of his sexual iniciation with a female prostitute! Maybe this was a traumatic experience for the King and he afterwards didn't want contact with women. I think his strict religious education gave the King the idea that sex and women were a danger, were the Devil, etc. Also Sebastian didn't want to marry because he though he had a important mission on Earth: to fight the Arabs for God and Portugal's glory - another consequence of his education. And I just don't buy that story about hipersexuality!
You appear unable to spell hypersexuality and initiation and there were no "Arabs" in Morocco, all of which cast doubt on how educated you are or are not. What are your qualifications to make these assertions?
I'm educated enough that I will not send you to the "special place" you deserve. And I can ask you the same question: what are your qualifications to think Harold B. Johnson is right? In fact HBJ is not an authority on Portuguese history, but in Latin America history!
Johnson is an authority in both Brazilian and Portuguese history. Read his book entitled Camponeses e Colonizadores published in Lisbon in 2002 and you will see his extensive research in Portuguese history.
- I certanly never had read the "sexual abuse"theory before and take issue of it being flaunted al over the article only based on the contested works of a non-specialist. --JGuerreiro 02:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The abuse allegations by a certain US historian (who also makes similar unsubstantiated allegations against Henry the Navigator) don't make sense - violating the monarch's person would be an act of HIGH TREASON. The culprit (if such a crime did occur) would have been tortured and executed, no matter who the culprit was, under some false pretext to protect the King's privacy. There is just NO WAY the abuser would have been allowed to get away with his crime! Regarding the King's disease, we'll never know the truth about what his disease really was, since 16th century medical diagnoses were far from accurate, and the corpse of the King is not there for anyone to perform forensic investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Both Lima Cruz and Johnson say his "illness" began when he was nine years old, not ten. Two more references would be useful. 1. The review/article written by Johnson and published in the Portuguese Studies Review of the recent biography by Maria Augusta Lima Cruz. It is in volume 18:2 (2011), pp. 153-169. He answers Lima Cruz's attempt to refute his thesis in her recent bio of Sebastian. 2. The recent book entitled "Retratos Ignorados de D. Sebastiao," published in Lisbon in 2008 where there appears a painting of Sebastian presently in the Uffizi Gallery in Florence. In this painting he has a red blotch and other lesions on his right cheek completely consistent with the dermatological effects of untreated chronic gonorrhea. This painting was unknown to Portuguese biographers of Sebastian and also to Johnson until this year. It provides clear visual proof of his infection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Sebastian was NOT hypersexual, he was HOMOSEXUAL. If you read Johnson's detailed account of the matter this is very clear. And as for what other historians think, I would like to have a citation of any of them who think he contracted gonorrhea from a woman. Please cite source. In fact at age ten when he contracted the disease he had virtually no contact with women other than with his grandmother Catherine, and she obviously did NOT have gonorrhea. In fact Johnson's study has never been refuted by any historian. If it has, please cite the refutation. I don't think the prior contributor has even read Johnson's book.
Johnson's study has never been refuted by any historian because it can't be taken as serious!Read this book: MACHADO, J. T. Montalvão, Causas de morte dos reis portugueses, Lisboa, 1974.
Johnson´s research has nothing to do with the way Sebastian died. He died in battle in Africa. He did not die from his gonorrhea. You seem very confused. By the way, Johnson´s book has been highly praised in Portugal. See: http://www.terranovacomunicacao.com.br/refacamahistoria.htm. Read Section II.
The confusion is yours: Montalvão's book also talks about the King diseases and not only his death! Johnson´s book has been highly praised in Portugal? You just found only ONE site (it's that your idea of "highly praised"?) and it is BRAZILIAN (are you confused?)! And here you have another refutation: "Existem ainda muitas especulações sobre as verdadeiras razões que levaram D. Sebastião a não ter deixado sucessores. A tese que vigora refere que este rei seria estéril. Contudo, há quem que não partilhe dessa ideia, como o médico e historiador Mário Saraiva: «O mal do jovem rei foi o de os físicos e cirurgiões terem caído no erro comum na época de confundir a sua inofensiva e passageira espermatorreia com uma uretrite, e terem-lhe originado esta com práticas pseudocurativas»"
What nonsense. If you read Johnson, and I see you have not, you will see the silly previous ideas about his disease all properly refuted. Montalvão's outdated book was published during the SALAZAR regime when the truth about Sebastian could not be told. The best biographer of Sebastian, Veloso, reached the conclusion that he had a sexually transmitted disease in 1933, but he didn't want to get into how he got it. 1933 was the beginning of the Salazar regime, the Estado Novo, censorship, etc., and after that the truth could not be told about Sebastian. He was described as having gonorrhea by the French ambassador at his court who found out in order to inform Catherine de Medici who had doubts about his marrying one of her daughters. You seem so naive that you believe now outdated historians working in fear of the Salazar dictatorship to those who have not been censored. The website is written by PORTUGUESE historians whether it is Brazilian or not. Are you so naive or do you adore the previous dictatorship so much that you cannot accept new research about Sebastian? Really, what a disgrace. Mario Saraiva was a reactionary bigot and frustrated monarchist who could not possibly accept the idea that a Portuguese king had a sexual disease. He had a medical degree from Coimbra in 1936 which means he knew almost nothing about medicine, medical teaching at Coimbra in the 30s being decades behind the times and virtually worthless. His idea that Sebastian had wet dreams and nothing more is beyond stupid. Sebastian had penile fluxes from age ten to his death. And contemporary sources, cited by Johnson, make it clear he could not have had wet dreams, since they began only at 12 years of age or later. Why do you try to refute Johnson without even reading him? How silly can you be? By the way, Mario Saraiva never practiced much medicine; rather he spent most of his career trying to restore the Portuguese monarchy. A worthless and laughable source. Just the kind for you. One thing more. The number one Portuguese historian today, A H de Oliveira Marques, calls Sebastian a homosexual in his work. So you, whoever you are, think YOU know better?
One final note since you seem to know so little. Neither Mário Saraiva nor Machado are listed in the very comprehensive Dicionário de História do Estado Novo although it lists almost all important historians and writers. So they were regarded as too insignificant to be included. What do you think of that?
- My take in this subject is the same than the above. But let me say that it could be nice if we all behave like gentlemanwhile discussing this... This page has been the target for vandalism for some reason. I say we tone the Johnson findings a bit down. --JGuerreiro 02:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- What proofs are that Sebastian was abused? The text says "most likely through sexual abuse by his tutor and confessor". Isn't it an assured fact? The tutor must have been caught in the act, but by whom? Even today thousands of people are falsely accused of child abuse, it is even easier when the person is dead. So what are the proofs? Is it possible that he had a Non-gonococcal urethritis or someting else? Isn't it necessary to do tests to have a correct diagnosis or they are no longer necessary?
- I agree with the original criticism. The section on Sebatian's sexuality was a POV mess. I have removed the most blatant nonsense. FilipeS (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Aleixo de Meneses the "aio" of Sebastian was the person incharge of taking care of the prince and of his education. Luís Gonçalves da Câmara was the teacher of the prince. I translated "aio" as tutor and left Luís Gonçalves as teacher which was what he was.
The article is written by someone who is not up to date on the historiography of Sebastian. It ignores his most recent biographer, Maria Augusta Lima Cruz, and the critique of her bio in the Portuguese Studies Review, vol. 18:2 (2011), pp. 163-169. As often is the case, Wikipedia articles are not written by authorities but amateurs. People as a result often don't trust it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Francisco Manuel de Melo does not mention Sebastian and he was a moralist that was born 30 years after the disapearence of Sebastian. His critics are a result of, maybe, something he heard. Although I tried to add more information to what was written I think it has nothing to do with the sexuality of king Sebastian and should be deleted.
Naming grandmothers in intro
The intro of an article shouldn't be a mini genealogy. It is to provide immediate context. In this case, what is the useful context - where does this person fit within the royal families of Iberia. We name his parents, we indicate he was grandson of two kings. Is anybody really going to understand this person's relevance by knowing his maternal grandmother was Isabella of wherever? If they are interested, they can follow links, or just look at the genealogical table in the same article, rather than having this formulaic "His paternal grandparents were . . .", there just to be there. Agricolae (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Tomb - Where's the body?
I visited the Monastery of the Jeronimos this weekend. The guide told our group that King Sebastian's tomb is empty because his body was never found. But I've read on this site that King Felipe of Spain put a body in the tomb that he claimed was Sebastian's. So which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Phillip of Spain put a body in the tomb to try to put an end to the cult (Sebastianism) that maintained that he would return at some future date to reclaim the throne. Whether this was really Sebastian's body has never been definitely determined. However, Lima Cruz claims Sebastian's body was delivered to agents of Phillip in Ceuta in late 1578 where it remained until August of 1582 when it was transferred to Lisbon and reburied in the Jeronimos monastery.
This article, astonishingly, does not list in its bibliography the two principal biographies of Sebastian. One is the classic of Queiroz Velloso of 1935 and the other one by Maria Augusta Lima Cruz published in 2006. Both are only in Portuguese which might explain their omission, the writers unable to read the language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to give you the citation you need for the horoscope reference. It is to Harold Johnson, "Um horoscopio feito por ocasiao do nascimento de D. Sebastiao (1554-1578)" in Harold Johnson, Camponeses e Colonizadores (Lisbon: Ed. Estampa, 2002), pp. 142-166. (He publishes the horoscope and an analysis of it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
There are too many images. It is getting difficult to read.