Talk:Pope John XXII
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pope John XXII article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
The article claims that John XXII reconciled with Michael of Cesena, and cites the "History of the Franciscan Order" from christusrex.org. If you read the "History of the Franciscan Order," it says that Michael died in 1342, eight years after John, still holding the seal of the Order--that is, still claiming to be the rightful minister-general. This is confirmed by the more reliable source, John Moorman, "A History of the Franiciscan Order," (Oxford, 1968), 330. Piperheid (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- References 7, 9 and 13 refer to a text, Brooke, and don't have a source.Whiteguru (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Numbering of the Johns
I don't consider it necessary to include a Trivia section at all (is discouraged). Moreover, I don't think we need to mention the problem of numbering of the popes with the name John as there is a reference on top of the page regarding the issue.--Kojozone (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Possible NPOV Issue
It seems that the sentence " John XXII's actions thus demolished the fictitious structure that gave the appearance of absolute poverty to the life of the Franciscan friars" found at the end of the first paragraph in the section titled "Franciscan Poverty" is problematic as it uses strong rhetorical language and seems to occupy the same position as John. --Trickstyhobbit (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Reference in Dante Paradiso 18?
It is frequently stated by Dante scholars that the "Giovanni" mentioned at the end of Canto 18 of the Paradiso refers to John XXII. This, and Dante's criticism of him, seem worth adding here.Campolongo (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Coat of arms in question
The coat of arms for Pope John XXII is in question. The arms displayed on the page shows a "gueules aux deux fasces d'or" in the 2nd and 3rd quarters. Furthermore, the arms shows 12 besants in the 1st and 4th quarters. The description attached to the image describes his arms as stated below:
- "Écartelé au 1 et 4 d'or au lion d'azur accompagné de douze besants de gueules disposés en orle et au 2 et 3 de gueules aux deux fasces d'or."
From this blazon the image is correct, however the following is where the issue arrives.
In the article is an engraving which shows a different arms in several ways, twice, one in large detailed form on the right, and one in a smaller form on the upper left. Also in the portrait of John you can see this same arms etched on his book. This engraving also shows only 8 besants in the 1st and 4th quarters and the besants circle around the lion, contradictory to the emblazon image. On top of all this, the engraving shows a "barry of six vert and argent" in the 2nd and 3rd quarters, not a "gueules aux deux fasces d'or".
I did some study on the french wikipedia and they have a very long page for John! Also on that page both the first arms is displayed, along with the etching mentioned.
The image displayed of the arms of pope John XXII seems to me to be incorrect due to the references of it in the images mentioned. I do not know if the original source describing the blazon mentioned above is verified. --Xavier (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- The English translation of the given blazon would be "Quarterly, 1st and 4th Or a lion rampant Azure and twelve roundels Gules [or twelve torteaux] in orle, 2nd and 3rd Gules two bars Or" and the color emblazonment of the arms matches that blazon. I cannot, however, find any evidence supporting the blazon given, but that does not mean it is incorrect. It was not uncommon, especially in the Middle Ages, for engravings of arms to have inconsistencies with the blazon. Presently, French blazon would call the roundels tourteaux de gueules rather than besants de gueules as the term besant is used for roundels Or, while roundels Argent are referred to as besants d'argent. You can read more on that at fr:Besant et tourteau. — Jkudlick tcs 12:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
If we could find a portrait in higher resolution we would have better reference. It is also questionable which arms the book is displaying, maybe a relative. --Xavier (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- The portraits and the arms are imaginary. They were drawn to illustrate Onuphrio Panvinio's lives of the Popes, where he gives a coat of arms for every cardinal. They have often been complained of, for their inaccuracy and even their very invention. In fact, as I recall, Panvinio is accused of using the so-called "Prophecies of St. Malachy" to invent his coats of arms; he is the first person known to have read the prophecies. --Vicedomino (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Couldn't read French
I am unsettled by the sentence at the beginning of the 'Early Life' section, "...Jacques Duèze studied medicine in Montpellier and law in Paris, yet could not read a regal letter written to him in French." This is taken from Sumption, who is developing an argument concerning extreme localism in Medieval France, not extreme ignorance. He points out that the Bishop of Beziers intended to disinherit his nephews if they learned French rather than the language in which he and his father had grown up in. Sumption is not specific, but we must take into account the considerable differences between the Langue d'Oc (Occitan) and the the language of Northern France (Langue d' Oeil). The comment about Duese might be interpreted to mean that he was not familiar with the idiom or vocabulary of the Ile de France, not that he could not read French. Placed where it is in the article on John XXII it seems (unintentionally I am sure) to imply that Duese was semi-literate, which is contradicted by all the facts. (See the materials gathered by Stephanus Baluzius, Vitae paparum Avenionensium I, pp. 687-688, including that of Petrarch, who calles Deuse "homo perstudiosus et vehementioris animi." ('a very learned man of vigorous mind-set'). And who knows what the inventor of the original anecdote meant to say? The quotation from Sumption is one of those glittering and attractive vignettes, which totally misleads and confuses. I would like to see it gone. --Vicedomino (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)