Talk:François Fénelon

Untitled

I'm puzzled that The Adventures of Telemachus is claimed to be his most important work. Explication des Maximes des Saints lays down his views on mysticism and the love of God. The book was condemnded by the Vatican and is the basis of his famous and long running quarrel with Bossuet. The contention that he's best remembered for Télémaque seems dubious to me Sumergocognito 21:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

By way of comparison here's the CathEn article on him [1] Sumergocognito 21:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Whichever work of his is best remembered, the wording of the notice probably ought to change; the current version seems to claim that there is doubt that he was the author of Telemachus, which is misleading. I agree, though, that Maxims of the Saints is much more widely remembered in the present day. Telemachus was about local politics of the past; Maxims of the Saints about subjects of abiding interest. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know - I think that Telemachus is a pretty major work in the history of political theory. People who are interested in political theory would probably know of Fenelon because of Telemachus while people who are more interested in him as a religious figure would probably know the Maxims better. Both are important.

Adam_sk 00:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The URL "The Adventures of Telemachus" linked not to a discussion of Fenelon's work but to an article on Telemachus, the character in Greek mythology. I have corrected this misleading mark-up both on this page and, more importantly, in the article. pmr (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have altered what appears to be a date typo, showing Fenelon to have been 12 in 1663. --Austin Meredith, kouroo@kouroo.info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.207.156 (talk • contribs)

I have taken out the Contemporary Interest section as it contained no information and was essentially an advertisement for a print-on-demand company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.95 (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Absurd comment

To call the Télémache an "attack on the French monarchy" is ridiculous. It was written as an educational tool for the Heir to the Throne of France!! Fénelon was his official tutor. It does criticise war-mongering, which some people may at some time have interpreted as a "thinly veiled" criticism on Louis XIV's war-like policies. If so, it's certainly a very gentle and formulaic criticism. Louis XIV himself, in his bed, piously told his eventual heir—infant son of Fénelon's pupil—that he had "loved war too much". That's what great Christian kings do on their deathbed. As a saintly archbishop, Fénelon—a "Sword" aristocrat through and through, scion of a very great ancient family—could hardly recommend war. This sorry article needs to be thoroughly re-written. 208.87.248.162 (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Then rewrite it. PsychoInfiltrator (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I was of the very same Opinion and edited it out. The Telemach may be a criticism of Louis XIV and his policies, but it is has much more facets than just that and criticism is certainly not the main intent of the work. MintCCC (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

"Good kings are rare..."

This quote has a citation needed: "Good kings are rare and the generality of monarchs bad". I put the first part of into Google and got p. 268 of Thomas Lewis, Origines Hebraeae: The Antiquities Of The Hebrew Republick (1725). He collates a bunch of pithy lessons from Old Testament books:

These books of Chronicles, together with those of the Kings and Samuel make up the best and choicest history in the world. Here were are abundantly furnished with such useful notices, truths, and maxims as these …

He then rattles off his list of "notices, truths, and maxims", one of which is:

Good kings are rare, and the number of them is inconsiderable, in comparison of those that are bad … With many other propositions and Maxims of the same nature, which are of great service to princes and subjects, and are to be deduced from these excellent histories.

Anyone got any insight on this? --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)