Talk:Anselm of Canterbury/Archive 2

message: This dispute could have been avoided with a little honesty.  Here's what Cantor actually wrote in In the Wake of the Plague 
:The last front-rank philosopher and theologian who had been Archbishop of Canterbury was St. Anslem in the east years of the twelfth century.  He did poorly as archbishop, getting into needless quarrels with kings, exasperating the pope, and turning the monks into an ingroup of young gays.
::I would disagree that the quarrels with kings were needless.  Quarrels between archbishops and kings are one of the predominant themes of medieval history, and are the root of the whole Western concept of church and state (which has no exact equivalent as a historical theme in any non-Western civilization).  Relations between Archbishops of Canterbury and Kings of England are a much more important element in English history than is the sexuality of Archbishops of Canterbury.  (For that matter, the sexuality of Kings of England is more of an element in English history than is the sexuality of Archbishops of Canterbury.)  Robert McClenon 15:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If he could have had a dose of Lithium each morning, there might have been no Canterbury martyr.  (Cantor, Inventing the Middle Ages, p. 366)
I've read many books by Professor Norman Cantor, and he is a serious historian for the most part, but ITWOTP is a popular and not a scholarly history and there are no footnotes to back up the assertion made here.  It is too casual to be cited in the Wikipedia article.
Cantor mentions St. Anslem in his criticism of the scholarship of Professor Richard Southern of Oxford University where, in 1953, Cantor became Southern's student and each thought himself to be the greatest living expert on the subject of St. Anslem.  The way I read pages 343 through 370 of Inventing the Middle Ages , is that Cantor abandoned objectivity generally about this period and especially so with respect to St. Anslem making him a special target of his contempt.
If there is a serious and non-speculative historical claim to St. Anslem being homosexual, it can be in the article. But Cantor's biased and flippant "ingroup of young gays" comment appears to me to be a slap back at his rival medievalists for admiring St. Anslem rather than scholarship. patsw 05:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. AnnH (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that we have a consensus that the homosexuality reference is non-encyclopedic.  It also appears that Cantor has a dislike for Archbishops of Canterbury.  The murder of Thomas Becket could also have been avoided if the knights had recognized that the Pax Dei was in force in the cathedral.  Robert McClenon 12:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Cantor actually wrote 

message: I think that we can agree that Cantor's remark is flippant.  I also see no need to cite Dobbins, both since he was an undergraduate, and since he was only offering his own opinion on what appears to have been an existing debate.  That is, both of the proposed sources should be dropped.  I would suggest that anyone who thinks that the question of Anselm's sexuality is relevant should suggest at least one relevant scholarly source who was being serious about the subject.  Robert McClenon 16:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Dilecto Dilectori'' Debate and Sources

message: I have another question.  What is Anselm today remembered for?  Is it for his poetry, or his philosophical writings?  I think that he is remembered primarily for his philosophical writings, and is secondarily of interest in terms of his disputes with kings.  If his poetry is not considered important today, then I am not sure whether any inferences as to his sexuality from his poetry are important either.  Robert McClenon 16:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert, I concurr on all the points you have made in all the above sections of discussion; Karl, can I go ahead an removed the Dilecto Dilectori section and the Dobbins reference/link, until such time as you demonstrate its validity to be present and in what way it could be better set forth? --Br Alexis Bugnolo 16:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm researching this now, and will report back. If you want to delete the section in the meantime, I won't undo the edit until (and unless) I have more evidence to support my case.KarlBunker 16:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I greatly admire your professional approach and attitude to this Karl. I am deleting the section and link now. And look forward to any proposal you are willing to make, here on the dicussion board.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 19:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedic Relevance

message: ===The reality of the debate===
The current leading biography of Anselm appears to be: "St. Anselm : A Portrait in a Landscape", by Richard W. Southern. Southern devotes 9 pages to the issue of Anselm's sexual orientation, plus mentioning it in his preface. (He concludes that Anselm was not homosexual.)
"[...] he expressed a warmth of affection which recent scholars have not hesitated to call homosexual."
Two of the current editions of "Butler's Lives of the Saints" mention the debate. The volume for April in the 12-volume edition has an entry on Anselm of about 3900 words. Approximately 560 words are spent discussing Anselm's letters and the oddly (to modern eyes) passionate language used in them. (The modern editor concludes Anselm was not homosexual.)
From the 4-volume edition of Butler's:
"[...] which express friendship and love for his monks in emotional terms that prefigure the later medieval tradition of courtly love (and which have led to questions about his suppressed homosexuality), [...]"
From the 12-volume edition of Butler's:
"Their extremely emotional language can be embarrassing for the modern reader and has even led to suggestions that Anselm was a repressed homosexual [...]."
Among the scholars who have voiced an opinion that Anselm was homosexual:
* John Balnaves, Ph.D., Australian National University, in his doctoral thesis
* Rictor Norton, author of 4 books on history
* Paul Halsall, Ph.D., Medieval historian, Brooklyn University
* John Boswell, Ph.D., historian, Yale University, author of many books, including "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century"
* Brian McGuire, Ph.D., a leading expert on Anselm, in "Monastic Friendship and Toleration in Twelfth Century Cistercian Life"
* Norman F. Cantor, Ph.D., medieval historian, in "In the Wake of the Plague"
On a non-scholarly level, Anselm is included in many online lists of "gay saints", "gay people in history," "notable gay figures in Christianity," etc.
===My proposed revision of the section:===
Having established that the debate is considered valid by Anselm scholars, here is my proposed rewrite of the "dilecto dilectori'" section:
Many of Anselm's epistolary poems contained passionate expressions of attachment and affection, and were typically addressed dilecto dilectori, "beloved lover". These letters were written to monks, male relatives, and others. This has led to some debate among academics about Anselm’s sexuality. There is wide agreement that Anselm was personally committed to the monastic ideal of celibacy, but some (Brian P. McGuire, John Boswell, others) have characterized his passionate writings as expressions of a homosexual orientation. Others (Richard W. Southern, Paul Burns, others) describe them as representing a "wholly spiritual" affection, "nourished by an incorporeal ideal." (Southern).
About this revision:
* It's shorter.
* It doesn't cite Norman Cantor's book, which was flippant about Anselm.
* It presents the issue as two-sided, with authorities on both sides cited. The previous version used Dobbins' article as a source to justify dismissing the issue as simply irrelevant, given that it's anachronistic to project modern stereotypes about sexuality onto a historical environment with a very different culture. This was too subtle and ambiguous for some people's taste, so an old-fashioned "these experts versus those experts" approach has been substituted.
* It doesn't cite or link to the Dobbins article, as Dobbins was criticized for lacking scholarly credentials. (Of course, Cantor is up to his ears in scholarly credentials, and he wrote about the subject like 12 year old boy.)
===Reasons for including the section===
* It accurately and even-handedly describes a real debate among Anselm scholars.
* It discusses an issue that will be a point of curiosity to anyone who reads certain excerpts of Anselm's writings, or who sees Anselm's name listed as a "gay saint", etc.
=== Useful links===
* Butler's Lives of the Saints, April, on Amazon ("Search inside" available): 
* Southern's biography of Anselm, on Amazon ("Search inside" available): 
* A useful Google search: 
* The Dobbins article: 
* Brian Patrick McGuire's home page: 
KarlBunker 16:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Dilecto dilectori" debate, Part IV

message: * Butler's Lives of the Saints, April, on Amazon ("Search inside" available): 
* Southern's biography of Anselm, on Amazon ("Search inside" available): 
* A useful Google search: 
* The Dobbins article: 
* Brian Patrick McGuire's home page: 
KarlBunker 16:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful links

message: If Boswell has a Ph.D. in philology or in Classical Languages and Literature, then I would submit that he may be a qualified source on what the meaning of the phrase dilecto dilectori was in eleventh- and twelfth-century Church Latin.  Robert McClenon 20:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Philology

message: A third opinion was requested as to the appropriateness of mentioning theories regarding the subjects sexuality. If such theories have been published and are held by a not-insubstantial number of adherents (as appears to be the case here), our Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV) requires that the theories be mentioned, along with any rebuttal from those who believe the theories are not accurate. A formulation in which wikipedia calls one side of the dispute "members of the homosexual community" is not appropriate, while a formulation in which the OTHER side of the dispute calls the first side of the dispute members of the homosexual community would be appropriate, if it is cited. I find the current section,  to be appropriate and NPOV.
::The first side of the dispute calls themselves homosexuals. The second side of this discussion thinks that it is NPOV to identitfy the first side of the dispute as homosexuals (see refences on Paul Halsall's pages, cited above). --Br Alexis Bugnolo 16:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Hipocrite that the reference to arbitration was mistaken, and that the NPOV tag does appear to be in order, because there does appear to be a dispute as to what is NPOV.  Robert McClenon 17:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The section being added is not written in accordance with the NPOV policy - specifically, it is duplacitive of the earlier work, it contains the POV phrase "members of the homosexual community," and it characterizes one side of the debate as wrong and one side of the debate as right. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it do the latter. As to the former, Paul Hasall says that it is homosexulas who have raised the issue;and his saying that is cited. As for the double versions, Karl Bunker likes his his way, where it is. You'd have to talk to him about it.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 17:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not NPOV to put Paul Hasall's words into Wikipedia's mouth. Quote Paul Hasall saying it, and that will be fine. The sections are redundant - having both of them there is not encyclopedic. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a moot point at Karl has erased the entire section, on his own initiative.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 17:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:3o]] 

message: The assumption running throughout this discussion is that St. Anselm's sexuality has significance and relevance to this biographical article.
It would be significant in the case of article on an activist promoting or opposing rights for homosexual persons, but can it be explained how referencing would be significant? (Apart from the question of whether it could be determined by a consensus of editors here.) patsw 19:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's considered significant enough to warrant discussion in current editions of Butler's Lives of the Saints, and in the leading modern biography of Anselm. I don't think it's significant enough to warrant much discussion in this article, which is why I've tried to keep that section of the article brief. KarlBunker 19:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not significant, except for those websites on Gay studies, or written for the "gay community", or for those like Karl Bunker, who thinks that the catholic scholars in this "debate" (his word not mine) are "homophobic" (his word not mine).  It is so starkly obvious that what is going on here, by the insistence of having this section in the Anselm page is all about Gay Revisionism, and not historical fact [BTW, what contemporary of Anselm says he was a gay, a homosexual, or a sodomite].  The discussion is anachronistic, and belongs an a page of Gay issues, not the historical Anselm.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 21:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance 

message: It seems that this debate will never terminate, because there are 2 different notions of truth, going on here. The one, that truth is the adequation of the mind to reality, and the political one, that truth is the adequation of mind to an agenda. I would personally like to understand better the POV of every one participaing here, since it seems that there are so many opinions and actions being taken by persons who don't identify if they have Collge Degrees, and what they are in, or if they can read latin (since the debate at is core is about latin terminology, used in Anselm's letters, as understood in the English speaking world). If the confusion of POV with a fact prevails, and NPOV with an agenda, then WikiPedia is in danger of becoming a blog.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 21:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't entirely understand the request that everyone state what their POV is.  That sounds counterproductive, just like the use of userboxes to state POVs.  What should be more important is that all Wikipedians should be trying to work toward truth via NPOV.  Robert McClenon 08:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Veritas, quid est illa?