Talk:François Rabelais

message: I removed Rabelais from the category "Notable Thelemists", because that pertains to followers of the 20th century mystic ideas of Aleister Crowley. I trust no one has a problem with the removal of this, but I decided to let everyone know the reason why I removed Rabelais from the category. Canutethegreat (talk) 06:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed "Notable Thelemists"

message: this page badly needs to be formatted
: Your infinitives badly need unsplitting and your sentences, punctuating.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:41D5:F484:80C1:1266 (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  formatting 

message: added links, but to fr: articles : Gryphe & Jambet. --DLL 08:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fr 

message: The article currently gives Rabelais's last words as "I am off in search of a great perhaps"; is there a source for this?  The Catholic Encyclopedia has the following to say about his last words: 
:Statements regarding his last moments are contradictory. . According to some he died as a free-thinker and jester, saying, "Draw the curtain, the farce is played out", according to others his end was Christian and edifying.
-- Cobra libre 17:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a reference that has both quotes - Last words of real people - and will insert it. Stellar (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if he (or anybody) said "I am off in search of a great perhaps" that statement doesn't necessarily mean he was an agnostic, as it sounds whenever it's repeated in a modern college classroom.  The "great perhaps" might refer to the salvation or damnation of his soul.  From a Catholic point of view it's a pious statement, because it's considered hubris to assume salvation.  76.115.63.153 (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  last words 

message: We need to cite the translation.  Rabelais did not write in English, as the quotations imply.  We also need a better citation of the source; it is ambiguous as to which of R.'s works the quotations actually come from. Tkinias 16:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation  

message: There seems to be a bit of confusion concerning the birth year in the article.  According the introduction/header, he was born c. 1494, but in the opening paragraph to the biography, the estimate is changed to 1483.  Which one is it?  A little consistency would be nice.  (207.68.110.54 23:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: This section begins with a pronoun. I presume "They" must refer to the "Gargantua" series, but I think it needs some work for the sake of clarity. 204.185.19.25 17:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rabelais and Thelema 

message: "His revolutionary works, although satirical, revealed an astute observer of the social and political events..." The use of "although" in this sentence implies there's some conflict between being a satirist and being an astute observer of social and political events. In fact no qualities could be more crucial to a satirist.
Rosekelleher 01:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: This section is mistitled. Erik Satie, C. F. Pierce, D. H. Lawrence and the name of an Asteroid have nothing to do with "Popular Culture." I can't think of a better title though. Anyone? 68.196.119.5 (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture 

message: First paragraph deals with his birth date and place. 
Second paragraph begins with "Later he left the monastery ..." 
Doesn't look like an intentional lacuna - what happened?
RCopple (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography 

message: Orwell's literary criticism focuses on picking out the personal politics of an author - which consequently makes many of his reviews seem negative or even damning.  He has the rare ability to see politics as separate from aesthetics...see his takes on "Raffles", Dickens, P.G. Wodehouse, "Good Bad Books", ect.  His take on Rabelais is very similar to his take on Swift, and while he can't avoid feeling Swift was half-insane, "Gulliver's Travels" was one of his favorite books.  He's not quite as keen on "G&P", but to say he had no admiration for Rabelais is sort of misleading.  76.115.63.153 (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orwell's Diss 

message: The section on the Abbey of Thélème claims that it is supposed to represent some sort of utopia. Really? Can we get a citation from this, that's not from Aleister Crowley? It really sounds like something from a school paper and not from a scholarly source. Mangoe (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utopia? 

message: The date of birth is more probably 1483 than 1494. It should be noticed in the introduction. I'm sorry but my sources are french. I think by example of the commentary of Mireille Huchonin the complete works of Rabelais in the Pleiade editions. You can see the french article, a little more advanced, but room for improvement too. Besides, I  find suprising the name of the article Gargantua and Pantagruel to deal with the works of Rabelais . Zythème (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of birth 

message: According to :fr:François_Rabelais, Pantagruel (1532) is a parody of the anonymous Grandes et inestimables chroniques du grant et enorme geant Gargantua. Is this worth mentioning? Siuenti (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Grandes et inestimables chroniques du grant et enorme geant Gargantua" came first 

message: Why is there a section on Thélème in this article at all? It has nothing evident to do with the author's biography (that is, no more than any other of the many aspects of his work). It would seem to be a better fit within the article on Gargantua and Pantagruel. I suggest it be deleted or moved out. 850 C (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thélème 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on François Rabelais. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111041744/http://www.renaissance-france.org/rabelais/pages/pagrablais2.html to http://www.renaissance-france.org/rabelais/pages/pagrablais2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on François Rabelais. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205024236/http://thelemicknights.org/ootmc/rabelais/rabelais.html to http://www.thelemicknights.org/ootmc/rabelais/rabelais.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100110055916/http://www.renaissance-france.org/ to http://www.renaissance-france.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I may try to reintegrate these two paragraphs later, but for the moment there are no references:
Rabelais was a major reference point for a few main characters in Robertson Davies's novel The Rebel Angels, part of The Cornish Trilogy. One of the main characters in the novel, Maria Theotoky, attempts to write her PhD on the works of Rabelais, while a murder plot unfolds around a scholarly unscathed manuscript. Rabelais was also mentioned in Davies's books The Lyre of Orpheus, (pp 178-181), and Tempest-Tost.
Henry Miller, in his first novel, Tropic of Cancer, speaks admiringly of Rabelais in several passages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SashiRolls (talk • contribs) 11:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like there is a reference for the latter on the Tropic of Cancer page but do we need to know this is my question. It isn't really what he is known for.Elinruby (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced claims removed 

message: The article expansion is only a day old and your already starting to try and dictate how the content should look.  Rabelais is a major classic French author and all these kinds of details are kind of details that that people look for, yet you removed them.  Second, those kinds of details are kind of stuff you do not put in notes. It is entirely unsuitable. It is too important. More so, if you need to make changes, you discuss it here first, so that conensus can be establish. If somebody put a block in, you discuss here, if you think changes are needed. The article is being updated using the French wiki article which had been extremely well-written and referenced.  scope_creepTalk 17:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The details belong in a footnote.  NB:  I did not remove any details.  You do not have consensus for your edit, cf. WP:BRD. --  SashiRolls  🌿  ·     🍥 17:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't. This is a 15th century major French author.  scope_creepTalk 17:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware that Rabelais is a major author.  I am also aware that speculation belongs in footnotes.  This is an encyclopedia not an exhaustive analysis of every theory that has ever been dreamed up based on putative clues hidden in fictional texts.  If you gain consensus for including in the body of the text the multiple theories about text extrapolated from the Third Book and from the use of the word "adulescens" (very likely as stated a case of the humility that characterized much of Rabelais' private correspondence to elder humanists like Guillaume Budé or Erasmus) then we'll add it, otherwise we'll leave the various and sundry speculation in a footnote.  I'll have a look at what Huchon says in her recent biography of Rabelais. --  SashiRolls  🌿  ·     🍥 18:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Those references as far as I can, are all academic references and seem perfectly valid, although they are speculation but that is whole point of that section, the fact is dob is now know.  Do you mind if I ask, what is your background on Rabelais? Have you got the Huchon book? Is Huchon currently the definitive book?  scope_creepTalk 18:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Concerning the content you added, you say .  Does this mean that you read the references you added? --  SashiRolls  🌿  ·     🍥 18:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Concerning Huchon's biography, my local library has it and I'd been thinking of rereading it.  As I recall, she also goes into forensic detail about the story of birthdate without reaching any conclusions.  I was more interested in her assessment of the evidence.  This is what scholars do in book-length bios, this is not really what tertiary sources are meant to do.  Concerning my background, I find Rabelais intriguing and have read a fair bit of secondary literature about his work.  I've also watched User:Zythème at work on the Fourth Book on fr.wp and, again, find his work generally excellent, even if I would again submit that less detail is often more readable. --  SashiRolls  🌿  ·     🍥 18:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted that again. Wait until the discussion here is finished. There is other editors needing to look at it. I'm only mentioning this once, please do not be disruptive. I will issue warnings against you. Other editors will experience of writing of large complex articles, need to see thi. You don't have this now. If they decide it needs to go on notes, then fair enough, but in the mean time, please leave it alone. It is clear your not a Rabelais expert.  scope_creepTalk 19:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Concerning disruption, you will notice that you ran roughshod over another editor's improvements to references in your haste.  Just a reminder:  WP:BRD is not WP:BRR.--  SashiRolls  🌿  ·     🍥 19:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That is one of the other editors who will work on this article. He wont mind. Regarding BRD, your trying to force the thing through, when there is absolute ton of work to do on this article and your making it difficult at the beginning when it shouldn't. It is not going to happen tonight. Patience is called for.  scope_creepTalk 19:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Details about theories concerning Rabelais' birthdate

message: * :Hutchon 1994 ref to add in Moreau.  scope_creepTalk 15:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain the relevance of this remark to improving this article. --  SashiRolls  🌿  ·     🍥 17:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a todo list, of todos. Tommorrow or the day after, I will come back, see this todo and fix the reference.  scope_creepTalk 17:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In a different entry?  What is wrong with the reference in this entry? I'm puzzled why you restored this note to yourself here, given that it contains a misspelling of the author's name... --  SashiRolls  🌿  ·     🍥 18:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Please stay focused on content instead of violating WP:TPNO (reminder: this is not a forum).  The incomprehensible comment was moved to ScopeCreep's user talk page following talk page guidelines:  ""  --  SashiRolls  🌿  ·     🍥 07:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Your being aggressive and disruptive and if you keep this, I'm going to start issuing warning against you for disruptive editing starting today. You need to withdraw. I warned you yesterday, I'm not warning you again. It is a todo list, your making arbitary and incomprehensive statements on a todo list.  scope_creepTalk 07:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

text: what the hell you guys. Sashi, if you know what he means why are you complaining? Scope, I kind of agree with you but if he knows the topic isn't it better to work with him? I could ask for this to be explained to me in detail, which I have no doubt would be excruciating for all involved, but to me it boils down to this, Sashi: are you disagreeing with the change he wants to make? then take issue with the change. It isn't clear to me why you have appointed yourself guardian of the talk page, but Scope Creep is entitled to start a todo list upon it. No he doesn't need to keep it on his talk page and no this is not a violation of not-a-forum, geez. Elinruby (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. I welcome SashiRolls  and I welcome collaboration, not pointing to rules when a simple reading will show we have been here for decades. I'll score it out and withdraw it. Sorry.   scope_creepTalk 08:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

text:  Sorry.  scope_creepTalk 09:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Todos

message: * :Hutchon 1994 ref to add in Moreau. scope_creepTalk 07:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo list

message: I would encourage those engaging in hasty mistranslation to slow down.  Cordeliers should not be translated as "cordmaker".   I understand that this is an easy mistake for someone unfamiliar with the term and not having read the source material to make.  Similarly, lettré is certainly not best translated as "literate". We have moved from a very clear and concise summary (§) to a hodgepodge of details that will require a fair bit of cleanup to render it readable and accurate. --  SashiRolls  🌿  ·     🍥 09:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought Observant Friars Minor bought their cords rather than made them. I suppose they made other chords themselves. Those who misunderstand Cordeliers, dona eis requiem.  Serial 11:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistranslation of "cordeliers" 

message: The following sentence is sourced to Lucien Febvre.
Please provide a citation from the text justifying this or fix it.  I have Febvre and nowhere in the index or the relevant chapter do I find reference to Clement VII.  I presume that the page referenced corresponds to pp. 281-2 in the original 1942 edition which mentions the troubles Pierre Ami (sic) and Rabelais had before leaving the Franciscans.  Previously this material was sourced to Boulenger 1955 ("il passa ensuite chez les bénédictins... et entra à leur monastère de Saint-Pierre-de-Maillezais, [...] dont l'abbé était l'évêque Geoffroy d'Estissac.  [...] grace à Geoffroy d'Estissac, Rabelais obtint un induit de Clément VII" (p. xi)).  Please restore the original sourcing and resolve who is meant by "they" in your new text, in order to conform to the citation given.  Thank you. --  SashiRolls  🌿  ·     🍥 11:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you can find a reference it would be ideal. I'll take a look as well.  scope_creepTalk 12:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You replied to text containing the reference.  Boulenger 1955 (earlier edition of Boulenger 1978). While you're fixing that, you could also fix the grammatical mistakes in the preceding sentence. I would do it but I don't want any ambiguity about "edit-warring", since you've already reverted me twice when I made improvements to the article. --  SashiRolls  🌿  ·     🍥 12:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Crack on. My spelling and grammer are atrocious. I do have several copyeditors I work with, who will coming here soon to fix that, but crack on. Truly any help is appreciated.   scope_creepTalk 13:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

text: I've ordered three books from that list above, the up to date versions, to get started.  scope_creepTalk 16:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Source fails verification

message: This generalist source you've added claiming Rabelais was ordained in 1511 without any reference is very odd, given that we have no other sources saying that.  Given the guy's completely unsourced wikibio (Frantz_Funck-Brentano) does not show him as being a literary historian, but does suggest he was a fascist, I'm not sure I would place a lot of stock in the accuracy of a passing claim he made about a subject he has no expertise on in a generalist overview (with no footnotes supporting his claim).  I would obviously suggest finding better sourcing, given that I've never read any recognized subject matter experts making such a claim. --  SashiRolls  🌿  ·     🍥 23:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we agree to remove this source?  It seems likely that his claim is a deduction based on legend since -- as mentioned below -- there are no surviving documents from this time period due to the guerres de réligion and the Revolution.--  SashiRolls  🌿  ·     🍥 10:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Plattard, the citation I added last night, which is authoratitive doesn't mention. It does mention he was likely friar minor when he went away after his books were confiscated. That date seems to agreeable as time he was ordained, it meeting some context around  The reference, the fascist dude and sentence to go as it stands needs to go.  scope_creepTalk 10:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, could you answer more simply either "remove it" or "keep it" so that there is no ambiguity about what you might be saying? --  SashiRolls  🌿  ·     🍥 11:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Take it out then. I thought it was pretty clear. I will put a block in from Plattard.   scope_creepTalk 11:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Generalist source

message: * 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
*
* 
* 
* 
* 
*  <- have draft translation but fr article is also sparse; want to see if it can be fleshed out Elinruby (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I unscored the Cordeliers. Its a standalone article and kept the Frères mineurs de l'Observance.    scope_creepTalk 08:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Articles needed

message: I see that several very capable editors are now working together to improve this important article. That is good. I also see that tensions seem to be rising and that early signs of bickering are starting to emerge. That is very bad. Please be aware that I will be keeping a close eye on this article and this talk page. Please do not engage in any tendentious, disruptive or combative editing. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just to let you know  

message: He doesn't make an appearence in documentation at all before the year 1519, on the 5th of April. Before that it is all conjecture.  scope_creepTalk 08:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: First appearence

message: His status and intentions
The present text regularly refers to Rabelais as a “doctor”, which may be technically correct, but might mislead. Would it not be better in English, and more precise, to call him a “physician”?
In addition, the present text seems to skirt around, even avoid, what Rabelais himself in his published works said of his intentions. Beneath the raillery lay serious messages, for his times and maybe ours as well? Belle Fast (talk) 09:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure.  In the French sources, the term is médecin and there isn't a distinction between informal "doctor" and formal "physician" as in English.  It would appear that Rabelais engaged in some cutting (viz. anatomy lesson at the Hôtel Dieu), though it does appear he was more interested in internal medicine, diet, and the pharmakon. As for what Rabelais himself said, I've added some of his comment on glosses, though granted it is through the secondary literature...  Feel free to add whatever serious messages you have in mind and can source. --  SashiRolls  🌿  ·     🍥 11:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  As you seem to be spending a lot of time on this page, I'll wait until you draw breath. I'd like, if possible, to add a bit more on what he said his aims were in writing such unusual and frankly difficult works and what contemporaries and subsequent commentators have thought them to be.  Belle Fast (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds interesting.  I know that M. Huchon talks about how he's sometimes just making in-jokes for his coterie of friends, and that people of his time period would have found his writing even more difficult than we do today due to his conscious effort to expand the language.  I may try to get a copy of Rabelais grammairien (Droz) some day, but she gives hints at this in more accessible sources (in part I of this Radio France series, for example, she makes both of these points).  Look forward to seeing what you have to add... :) --  SashiRolls  🌿  ·     🍥 09:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  His status and intentions