Talk:José de Anchieta

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


This section seems to be the subject of some dispute:

A story places Anchieta and Nóbrega against this background and links them to the arrest and death of a Huguenot refugee, the tailor Jacques Le Balleur, by Governor General Mem de Sá in 1559. It was claimed that after the hangman has refused to kill Jacques le Balleur, Achieta would have killed him with his bare hands. )citation: LESSA, Vicente Themudo. Anchieta e o supplicio de Balleur. 1934) (citation: REIS, Álvaro. O martyr Le Balleur. Rio de Janeiro, 1917.) Nevertheless, Father Viotti, S.J., based in period documents, argues that there was no involvement of Anchieta in this episode, claiming it is anti-jesuitic advertising, despited that near-contemporary jesuit publications have praised Anchieta for having executed Le Balleur (citation: RODRIGUES,S.J., Father Pedro. Codex da vida de José d'Anchieta. 1607. Biblioteca Nacional de Lisboa.) The base for Viotti's argument is that Jacques le Balleur was another person, a former dominican friar named Jean Bolés, who was led to Bahia and then sent to Portugal, where he had his first trial completed in 1569. In a second case in Portuguese India, in 1572, was finally condemned by the Tribunal of the Goa Inquisition. (citation: Cf. VIOTTI, H.A. Textos Históricos. Rio de Janeiro: Loyola, 1989, pp. 46,83-85) Nevertheless, Viotti does not explain how Jean Bolés was in jail in Bahia at the time of the execution of Le Balleur in Rio de Janeiro.

I've tried to make sense of this -- the prose is simply terrible. It appears that the Portuguese version of the entry for Anchieta says merely that "Anchieta assisted the executioner to the consternation of the Catholics". That entry summarizes one side of argument (Viotti's), so it's not a great example of WP editing. And it's hard to understand why any confusion of identities matters if we are still left with Anchieta helping kill someone. But it's all pretty muddled. If someone want to find third-party sources that document this incident, that would be good. But what we here is clearly OR and POV.

I'll try to find a source. I think the outcome will be something that reflects the simple statement: "Anchieta assisted the executioner to the consternation of the Catholics". This doesn't deserve a section. It's just part of the chronology of his work in Brazil. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

An anonymous user has (A) removed the sentence that says Anchieta helped the executioner and (B) written on my personal talk page that there is evidence that Anchieta helped the executioner, and then (C) said this isn't certain in the sources. We could use a third-party source to say the fact is contested. Something better than a Catholic Church website. Something scholarly that's not by the people cited above. And in English would be preferable. I'm still looking. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Anchieta not kill Jacques Le Balleur[edit]

Anchieta not kill Jacques Le Balleur: Conheça a vida do Beato José de Anchieta, fundador de cidades, missionário gramático, poeta, teatrólogo e historiador, ¿ANCHIETA MATOU COM SUAS MÃOS AO SANTO JACQUES LE BALLEUR?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many sources you have. There's a a dispute. We've said that. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


Any objection if I replace the word "Indian" as it occurs with some form of "indigenous" or "indigenous people"? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea, will avoid potential confusion. But I think that "Amerindian" is fine (it also appears in the text). —capmo (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)