Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peterborough Chronicle

Peterborough Chronicle[edit]

Self-nom. I know it's a bit short, at least by my standards, but we have a dearth of FA's on medieval literature. There are more possible references, but they would get us into some fairly strong minutiae of linguistics and would therefore be on language, rather than on the Chronicle itself. Geogre 20:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed an ungrammatical sentence, but still find the result puzzling:
The first continuation expresses equal outrage at the hanging of forty-four thieves in 1122, many of whom were innocent, as at the burning of the monastery at Gloucester. The monastic author suggests that taxes were too high, putting the impoverished villagers in a dilemma of stealing or starving, and argues that the draconian punishments of thieves were a sin.
It would seem that this would have the first continuation saying the thieves are guilty at the same time as they're innocent. Which is it? Not having the references to hand nor any knowledge of the text itself, I'm not competent to answer. If the chronicle is so obviously self-contradictory, this should be acknowledged explicitly. If it's more subtle about it, this needs to be explained better.
Otherwise, a fine article, although I'd be interested to have more information about the history of the manuscript itself (its preservation, how it traveled from Peterborough to Oxford, etc.). --Michael Snow 21:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you disentangled the sentence, but I guess not. The author thought some of the thieves were innocent, but he thought they were innocent in a larger scheme because they had been forced to become thieves. I.e. they were guilty of the crime, but they were innocent of the sin of moral depravity involved in stealing. The guilt belonged to the local barons who taxed so excessively that people were turned thieves and who then demonstrated their power by hanging the thieves. I'll work on making it clearer. (Please check again a few minutes after this time stamp, as I'll risk being wordy to be clear.) As for the MS treatment, that's something I haven't encountered. Inasmuch as it's Bodleian, we know from its call number that it was collected by Archbishop Laud, which means that it was one of the books he gobbled up after the "dispersal" of the monasteries ~~(under him)~~ at the time of Henry VIII. Laud made some donation to Oxford, so I imagine it landed there around ~~1580ish~~. I don't know for sure, though. Geogre 01:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC) Correction: probably got into Oxford in the 1640s, and, for all his faults, Archbishop Laud didn't have anything to do with breaking up the monasteries. My mistake(s). Geogre 01:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
28 June 1639 to be precise, it appears [1]. How Laud came by the manuscript I'm not sure, but I did find this statement that may or may not be relevant: "In January 1623, Laud was inducted into the parsonage of Creeke in the Diocese of Peterborough" [2]. --Michael Snow 06:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking through the various copyrighted sources on Questia now. There are some bibliophiliac works from the turn of the 20th c. that might give an account. If I find one, I'll put it in as a sort of "history of the book." BTW, not to be needy, but was that a "support?" :-) Geogre 16:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I took the information we have now and started a history of the manuscript section. Please add to it if you find more. Now that it's there, sure, I'll support. --Michael Snow 18:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All great stuff. So far, I've been finding out (as I feared) about all the source material, which you can tell in this passage, that passage, and another passage in the space before the first continuation, and then more about exactly which and by how much the declensions declined in the first continuation, etc. I have yet to find a descriptive bibliography, but I keep looking. (The philological stuff is fascinating, but it's wholly inappropriate in an encyclopedia article.) I might find an account of when the Peterborough Abbey was "dispersed" by Henry VIII, but even that's going to be a tough slog. I also keep looking for PD or GFDL pictures of the present-day cathedral, but to no avail so far. Geogre 02:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I know nothing about Middle English, but this article really interested me. Which is what an encyclopedia should do. Stephen Turner 09:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Short and sweet like an ass's gallop, as we say in this land of perpetual drizzle. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support: looks good to me. (I can't think why they say that about Asses gallops because it's raining). Giano | talk 15:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a great Geogre read, light and clear. I wish there were more pictures, but there probably simply aren't any relevant images other than the manuscript itself, which graces the top right position. If it were me I might put in a few kings and a shot of the Bodleian Library, but that's more an admission of vulgar taste than an objection. Bishonen | talk 00:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. See, I had been searching for a picture of the religious center at Peterborough that was GFDL or PD, and I haven't found one. It might be worth a picture of Stephen. I don't think the article is long enough for more then 2-3 photos, but I absolutely agree that at least one more is needed. I just couldn't find the ones I could think of. Geogre 10:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:stephenblois.jpg and Image:Matilda-coin.gif are being uploaded and added now. Thanks again. Geogre 10:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]