# Talk:Angelus Silesius

Moving the old dusty furniture out of the room before I paint.  This stuff wasn't really used in the article. Saving it here for reference if it is useful down the road.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
When I started editing this article 11 July 2012 it was a mess.  The more I look at the article, the more I see this as the best way of cleaning house.  I've removed a couple of sections here that has to be sorted through, and it distracts from actually making the article look presentable and properly format it.  I don't want to delete it outright, because it might have a few useful gems of knowledge.  Keeping it here until then. --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


### references/external links
This article incorporates information from the public domain Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913. 

Catholic Encyclopedia article
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Dünnhaupt, Gerhard. Johannes Scheffler. In "Personalbibliographien zu den Drucken des Barock." Vol 5. Hiersemann, Stuttgart 1991, ISBN 3-7772-9013-0, pp. 3527–3556. 
Dürig, W.. Zur Frömmigkeit des A.Silesius in Amt und Sendung. Freiburg: 1950.
Garland, Mary, editor. The Oxford Companion to German Literature.  2nd Ed.  Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
Hederer, Edgar, editor.  Das deutsche Gedicht: Gedichte vom Mittelalter bis zum 20. Jahrhundert. 14th ed. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Verlag, 1974. 
Steiner, Rudolph. Giordano Bruno and Angelus Silesius. Unknown Publisher: 2005.


### Bibliographical references
A complete edition of Scheffler's works (Sämtliche poetische Werke) was published by D. A. Rosenthal, 2 vols. (Regensburg, 1862). Both the Cherubinischer Wandersmann and Heilige Seelenlust have been republished by G. Ellinger (1895 and 1901); a selection from the former work by O. E. Hartleben (1896). For further notices of Silesius' life and work, see Hoffmann von Fallersleben in Weimarisches Jahrbuch I. (Hanover, 1854); A. Kahlert, Angelus Silesius (1853); C. Seltmann, Angelus Silesius und seine Mystik (1896), and a biography by H. Mahn (Dresden, 1896).  His poetic works appeared, Sämtliche poetishe Werke (3 Vols.),  1949–1954, under the editorship of H. L. Held.


### works
In 1657 Silesius published under the title Heilige Seelenlust, oder geistliche Hirtenlieder der in ihren Jesum verliebten Psyche (1657), a collection of 205 hymns, the most beautiful of which, such as, Liebe, die du mich zum Bilde deiner Gottheit hast gemacht and Mir nach, spricht Christus, unser Held, have been adopted in the German Protestant hymnal. More remarkable, however, is his Geistreiche Sinn- und Schluss-reime (1657), afterwards called Cherubinischer Wandersmann ("The Cherubic Pilgrim") (1674). This is a collection of Reimsprüche or rhymed distichs embodying a strange mystical panentheism drawn mainly from the writings of Jakob Böhme and his followers. Silesius also delighted specially in the subtle paradoxes of mysticism. The essence of God, for instance, he held to be love; God, he said, can love nothing inferior to himself; but he cannot be an object of love to himself without going out, so to speak, of himself, without manifesting his infinity in a finite form; in other words, by becoming man. God and man are therefore essentially one.
The Catholic Encyclopedia defends Silesius from the charge of panentheism. His prose writings are orthodox; "The Cherubic Pilgrim" was published with the ecclesiastical Imprimatur, and, in his preface, the author himself explains his "paradoxes" in an orthodox sense, and repudiates any future pantheistic interpretation. 
Silesius also wrote prose, notably a series of tracts against Protestantism, published under the title Ecclesiologia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColonelHenry (talk • contribs) 06:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Angelus Silesius/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 11:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an article I just had to review, so I've signed up. Pyrotec (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


### Initial comments
Sorry for the delay, I intended to take just one day off for the weekend and that has caused various "ripples". I'm now back in reviewing mode. Pyrotec (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I've done a quick initial read of the article and it appears to be at or about GA-level so I would anticipate that it should make GA-status by the end of this review (baring any mishaps. I'm now going to review the article in more depth, starting at Life, working my way to the end and then going back to do the WP:Lead. I may fix minor problems as a go, rather than listing them for the nominator, if this is easier. The tool box is showing four disambiguation links, at: Phenomenology, Borowice, Kabbala and Moravian, but everything else looks OK at this point. Pyrotec (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Took care of disambiguation on 3 of 4(all 4)...they now go to Phenomenology of religion, Kabbalah, and Moravian Church.  As for Borowice, I'm not entirely certain just yet, but I think it's Borowice, Lower Silesian Voivodeship given its proximity to Breslau/Wroclaw. Will check a.s.a.p.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
After checking my sources, I'm certain. 4/4. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Life -
Early life and education -
Y Pyrotec (talk) - The following three sentences could benefit from a copy edit: Silesius was born in December 1624 in Breslau, the capital of Silesia. His exact birthdate is unknown but it is thought to be in December 1624 as the earliest mention of him is the registration of his baptism on Christmas Day 1624, as the first sentence is definite in terms of place and date, the second less so in respect of date and the third is an explanation of date.
Revised.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it reads much better now. Pyrotec (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Y Pyrotec (talk) - It would be helpful to clarify "Imperial court", at the end of the first paragraph. From its context, I would assume that its the Polish court (at the time of Sigismund III Vasa), rather than the Habsburg Empire.
It was the Habsburgs. Revised and Linked.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Otherwise, OK.
Physician , Priest and poet & Death -
These three subsections look OK.
Importance -
...stopping at this point. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Interpretation of his work & Use in hymns -
These two subsections look OK.
Silesius in modern culture -
I considered this subsection separately as it has a number of direct quotations.
The "Borges", is still likely to be within copyright, but as its a single sentence, that appears to me to be "fair usage".
I just read a great Spanish journal article about Borges and German Literature that discussed a lot of particulars on how Silesius's work influenced Borges (as well as other Germans literary greats).  I would have to translate this in English to incorporate a few more points and know the best gems to cite (down the line, though...it probably would take me two weeks to translate all of it). I agree...one sentence from Borges' Siete Noches would pass the "fair use" test and not run afoul of 17 USC 512, Berne Convention, etc..  This would qualify under that academic/critical review exemption. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Y Pyrotec (talk) - It's not clear what words were used in  Cape Fear, as the table is titled "Original German text" and "English translation". Wikipeida states that the film's language was English, so perhaps the titles should be "Original German text" and "English translation used in film"?
Good idea. Will take care of that forthwith.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:Lead -
This should both introduce the topic and summarise the main points of the article (the requirements are in WP:Lead. Arguably, the lead does carry out both of these functions and its probably about the right "length" for an article of this size.
I looked to see if anything was "obviously" missing from the lead and did not come up with very much: "publicly attacked and denounced as a heretic" does not appear in summarised form, neither does his second honorary position as as Imperial Court Physician, but the lead does describe him as a physician. So, on this basis I'm not going to put the review On Hold for this to be "fixed". Pyrotec (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


### Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I'm awarding this article GA status. Congratulations on producing an informative and well referenced article. Pyrotec (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed. 
I would be all for leaving it removed since the pronunciation seems obvious to me (cf. NOTADICTIONARY), but it must be hard for some since the IPA the article had is (per the OED on "Silesian" or per Classical or Ecclesiastical Latin) wrong. The article had {{IPAc-en|ˈ|æ|n|dʒ|ə|l|ə|s|_|s|aɪ|ˈ|l|iː|ʒ|ə|s}} but OED would replace the ʒ with a ʃ. The very uncommon word "angelus" has a pronunciation identical to that given here and I'd use it since I'm comfortable with English dog Latin, but "angel"  is much more common. Frankly, if people "mispronounce" the name that way, I don't see why we should tell them that's wrong, given that neither way matches the German or Latin pronunciation anyway.
If the OED is wrong and people really do want to reädd it, kindly provide a source before doing so. — LlywelynII 22:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to edit the footnotes, but the Borges source is cited there as Seite Noches but should be Siete Noches. (2604:2000:1382:C19F:0:1959:61D9:2569 (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC))

He was a German. Silesians is a new invention since the 20th century. For centuries, Silesia was either by the Germans and the Poles, there were no Silesians (except the tribe hundreds of years ago).

I fixed the wacky translation of one title. The wackiness stemmed from a misreading of the original, not "Christ" but Christian Chemnitz. Here is the original page: [1]. Cordially, --Msbbb (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Has Silesius's work been compared to the philosophy of Zen? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it true that Silesius was a favorite of Goethe? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

1675: Der Catholisch gewordene Bauer Und Lutherische Doctor (trans. "The Catholic becomes a farmer and Lutheran Doctor")
The translation says the opposite of the original German meaning. "Catholisch gewordene" means "who became Catholic." 2003:FE:2F08:5054:C0C0:6995:EEA3:846E (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)