Talk:Bernard of Clairvaux/Archive 1

Praise

If one can not praise the Saints then there's little hope for the rest of us. Contesting the neutrality of an article praising the Saints is absurd. If you conceed that a Saint is a Saint, then it is a fact that their works are from God, and therefore good. If you try to contend that the saints were evil or that their works were mixed with good and bad and not from God, then the onus should be on those who oppose the Saints to present their case. I'm removing the neutrality warning - anyone who disagrees is welcome to place the counter argument within the article, and the verdict will me likely made on the Day of General Judgement. - Sean White

Very lovely, but perhaps human actions that proceed "from God, and therefore good" is a syllogism less than encyclopia-worthy! To effuse "The world had no meaning for him save as a place of banishment and trial" about a powerful abbot at the center of European politics is inane. I did't apply the vulgar little tag myself, but it was well deserved in this case. --Wetman 01:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

An apology

This is an apology of the crusades ? Ericd 15:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Much of this section has been disproven by modern scholarship. Citeaux was NOT on the verge of extinction. Bernard did not join until 1113 the SAME year the first daughter house, La Ferté, was founded. If a monastery creates a daughter house they have to have a surplus of monks to fill it. Also, planning the creation of a daughterhouse takes several years. La Ferté was founded in 1113, so it was in the planning stages at least as early as 1109. The dating, and importance of Bernard in the early years of Citeax, as well as the 'miracles' can be traced back to his original biographers, whose aims were to prove Bernard's worth as a potential candidate for sainthood.

see:
http://www.wku.edu/~rob.harbison/projects/bernmyth.pdf
http://www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/~dvess/ids/medieval/cist.html
http://www.thecyberfarm.com/cistercians/cistercianintro.htm

Comments from "Abbot of the Cistercian abbey of Clairvaux" section by 161.6.41.76. — Laura Scudder | Talk 17:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments from "Bernard and the Cistercian Order" section by --Owenaprhys 02:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The article says that Bernard's influence was great because there were 93 abbeys associated with Clairvaux in 1142. At that time there were more than 300 abbeys associated with the Cistercians as a whole. Bernard's influence, while impressive, was not as great as the article makes it out to be. Perils of cutting and pasting from the internet.

Date Change

I am changing the date from Easter 1145 to Easter 1146 for when Bernard preached the Crusades and Louis and Eleanor took up the cross.

See Here: http://www.randomhouse.co.uk/alisonweir/eleanor/newsextracts.html

hdstubbs

Article addition suggestion

This article would benefit from more information about Bernard's letter "In Praise of the New Knighthood", which helped support the Order of the Knights Templar. His relationship with them (as a nephew of one of the original nine knights) should also be clarified. I'd do it myself, but am deep into editing some other articles at the moment, and noticed the omission. --Elonka 18:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Patronage

I have included Gibraltar in the patronage section as Bernard of Clairvaux is also the Patron saint of Gibraltar. --Chris Buttigieg 20:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Miracles

This article is about a saint, and no saint is complete without miracles. Some of the paintings shown in the article illustrate miracles, but the text omits any mention of them. What are the key miracles attributed to St. Bernard? Freederick 21:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The miracle Lactatio Bernardi, where the Virgin Mary gave him her breastmilk - but my english isn't good enough to write about. --Cuso

...a classic trope of adoption: compare the Etruscan image of the adult Hercules suckling at the breast of Uni, the Etruscan Hera. --Wetman 19:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Farm and Agricultural Workers

St. Bernard is listed as a patron of farm workers. Given his bio in the article, the rationale for this is hard to understand. He moved among the great leaders of his times; he meddled in church doctrine, monastic life, heretic trials, preaching, mysticism, politics, law, even warfare; but there is not a shred of a connection with peasants or farming. Presumably this odd patronage is not without cause, but the article is silent on this. A catalog of saints I have lists him as patron of Burgundy, Genoa, Gibraltar, the possessed, and beekeepers (also quite odd, though this goes in line with the beeskep attribute) — no mention of farming. If anyone knows why this saint is a patron of agriculture, please include the info in the article. Freederick 21:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What really happened?

In the section on the Schism, the article says: “In the conclave, Anacletus II was elected by a narrow margin”; there is no mention of Innocent II being elected, merely “favored by many important cardinals”. On the other hand, if you follow the link to Anacletus II, you will read that “Cardinal Gregory Papareschi... was elected as Pope Innocent II”, a direct contradiction. The article on Innocent II also says that Innocent was elected, and Anacletus “counter-elected” afterwards. Now, I understand that conflicting viewpoints are inherent in a schism, but shouldn't this contradictory information be brought into line in the three relevant articles? What really happened in 1130? Freederick 21:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The Cathars

Was it St. Bernard who ordered "kill them all. God will know His own" at Bezieres? I think it was, but I'm not sure.

...or was it in the Vietnam War? It's all a blur... --Wetman 07:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Helpful. Thanks.

No definitely wasn't. A different abbot. Buffo 19:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

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 03:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Might I add...

I am user KnightTemplar48 and see that someone has put a citation needed comment on my article referring to a quote. I did not put a direct source for some of the following reasons. First of all it might not be an exact quote but follows a very similar guideline. Secondly I read this in a book (non-fiction) titled Knights Templar and I am not sure who the author is because I am at school and do not have the book in front of me. However the quote described is truthful and can be proven in another source that I do in fact know In Search of History - The Knights Templar (History Channel) (2005). This does not directly prove Bernard himself saying this however does go over the respect aspect of the Templars towards the Jewish and Muslim people quit extensively. I shall later update this article to include this author and God willing be able to find the exact quote in which is stated. --KnightTemplar48 (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi KT48- It's better to wait until you have the reference in front of you so you or others don't have to edit it later. I put a post on your talk page with some tips. As for the citation tag, that's standard procedure to help us all remember to find a reference if we can. -Eric ^talk 16:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC) (←originally posted then, restored 14:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Secondly I add...

Hello KnightTemplar48 again I have got a chance to look at the book again and the author is Piers Paul Reads, he is a good writer and I enjoy his work. However I was not able to find the exact qoute keep in mind the book does have three hundred some pages and might take me some more time to find so I hope you can bear with be on this one. Till I write again --KnightTemplar48 (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick review

Lead at five paragraphs is rather long. Insufficienct citations for A-Class, although acknowledgably GA is different. Image of Abelard and Heloise is frankly questionable. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

At first glance, I would cut the Abelard and the Roger II images - I don't think they add to the article enough to outweigh the feeling that the article is a little image-cluttered (especially since these images do not directly relate to Bernard's life). I agree with John, and would also suggest trimming the lead, probably cutting 2 paragraphs. Pastordavid (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

All suggestions taken. Anything else? -- Secisek (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to not use the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia and the book of Saints. The saints book would work for details of his veneration, etc, but isn't going to be considered a NPOV souce for anything at all contentious. And the CE is just plain out of date with modern scholarship. Large sections are unreffed with opinion in them. (the whole first paragraph of early life) You definitely need to update your sourcing. Probably would squeak by at GA, but if I did the review (which I won't because I've commented here) I'd be pretty harsh about it for that. Bernard's way too prominent of a character to be using outdated sources for. It's not like some obscure bishop, this is Bernard of Clairvaux, who started the Second Crusade, and was more influential than popes. (And who, coincidentally, a lot of history students loath, but that's beside the point). Ealdgyth - Talk 02:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Not to offend, but we need to not start sentences with "you need to not" or "I need you to". It makes it sound like we've learned how to speak English from watching bad American TV. Sincerely, -Eric ^talk 21:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In any case the previous point remains: the page needs to be changed. Look no further than the controversy with Abelard and how this page and Abelard's present different takes on the matter. Check http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abelard/#1 if you want more of the details found in primary sources that are not in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.164.79.32 (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead paragraph, 3rd sentence: Shouldn't it be that he was sent to "found" a new house, not "find" a new house? wandev —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wandev (talk • contribs) 15:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Immaculate Conception

The text read "Bernard fought against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.[18]" However footnote 18 is a work by Richard Allestree, not by Bernard. Further it does not state what this sentence is proposing. Reviewing the paragraph in general, footnote 19 refers to Book 3 Ch 2 Sec 25 in a book that only has 12 sections in Chapter 2. Hence, I'm removing the entire paragraph. Johnstosh (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

---

As to Book 3 Chapter 2 Sec 25... There is clearly a Book 3 Chapter 2 Sec 25. You looked at book 4. Here is an online source incase you think I'm just some kid trying to waste your time. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.iii.html

The footnote provided a link to the work by Richard Allestree was an accident. I'm sure you noticed the link to 17 was the exact same source material, but an entirely different name listed. I accidentally hyperlinked epistle 174 when it is not available online. However, the reference that was written in was to epistle 174 by bernard which a quick google search will pull up extensive quotes that show he was clearly opposed to the novelty being introduced. Since most of these quotes are on blogs it is not proper to cite them in an encyclopedia. It is now cited correctly referencing a print work. I mention this detail because as someone who was going to delete an entire paragraph with 7 footnotes because of one paritally incorrect footnote. I would hate for it to come across like you are deleting information you are uncomfortable with, especially considering your page only describes you as a Catholic and the only edit you have is to improperly delete 7 footnotes and an entire paragraph worth of information about Protestant sentiments in a beloved Saint.

98.157.209.58 (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Please invert the Claire Vallée interpolation, as the site has never been named that. A correct reference should be from the Latin Claris Vallis (please check) to the mediaeval French Claire Vaux, and then the modern transliterations Claire Vallée and Fair Valley. Estanlished precedents include Ruusbroec's priory of Valle Verdis, Groenendael/Groenendaal, Green Valley, to the South of Brussels, and Vaux de Cernay in France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.91.172 (talk) 07:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Abelard controversy

I have made some corrections to the details of the Abelard controversy, to introduce more historical accuracy, based upon Bernard's own letters and other primary soures from the time. For example, '[Abelard] who answered in an insulting manner' was pure invention, and cannot be found in the account of the Abelard / Bernard meeting as documented by Geoffrey of Auxerre, Bernard's secretary. To say that Abelard's writings were at odds with the position of Rome was a gross oversimplification; there were contending factions in Rome, and Guy of Castello, who would become Pope Celestine II three years later, had some of Abelard's books in his library, which he presumably would not have done if he had thought they were heretical.PJO'M (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This section was fairly accurate when I read it near the begining of the year, but now it seems to have morphed into a curious inversion of historical fact, with Abelard looking like the better man! I restored the section so its closer to the more correct version of events our article recorded earlier on, together with a top rank refrerence from Oxford University Press. As if the Abelard and his "logic" had any kind of chance going up against someone with the faith of Bernard. Bernard was a mystic with deeper direct experience of God than almost any other soul in human history! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable, thanks for your good edit to that section. No thanks, however, for your authoritative assessment of Bernard's faith, the depth of his "experience of God" as opposed to that of the rest of humanity, and the value of logical arguments "against" those of a person of great faith. Let's keep it encyclopedic, not evangelistic, eh? Eric ^talk 20:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Youre welcome and thanks for the good advice. I guess its just frustrating to see this outstanding man of God represented by whats almost an attack page. There seems to be an implication he was some kind of evil proto inquisitor going about prosecuting folk for heresy and stirring up crusades. But unlike the Abelard section most of whats written isnt blatantly misleading so I dont feel within my rights to remove or counter the bias without bringing some serious sources to the table. And its about 15 years since I studied Bernard so that would need time to research. Far from being a zealous persecutor , Bernard was an exceptionally kindly and gentle soul, at least when he wasnt dealing with folk like Abelard who arrogantly considered their human reason superior to Gods revelation. Bernard perceived that many of the common people felt God to be unapproachable, too grand and remote for them to want to pray to directly. So he helped create the cult of the Virgin, the gentle mother who would intercede with God to ensure the prayers of the faithful were heard. Folk began to sense Mary , the saints and angels floating in the ether between Heaven and earth, watching over them at all times. This thought-world of light, purity and utter beauty of soul , along with absolute confidence in power of confession to grant absolution (also thanks in part to Bernard), helped bring a brief period of intense happiness to Europe that its population have never known before or since. Its what gave the 12th century its extraordinary charge, a quickening of creative energy that Lord Clarke in his magisterial series Civilisation says can only be compared to two other periods, ~3000 BC when civilisation emerged in Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Indus valley – and ~600BC with the golden age of Greece and the spiritual awakening in India. Long before Luther, Bernard understood absolution as a divine miracle that could be achieved most wholly as a kind of inward transformation brought about by unmediated and unrelenting attention to God. As Bernard put it "He who loves God with his innermost being transforms himself into God" Yet the gentle Bernard, unlike Luther who really knew only himself, understood that the common people would often lack the heroic resources to successfully undertake this task daunting ask alone, so he left them the sacrament of confession where they could be assured God had forgiven them simply by their undoubting faith in the power of the priest. This and other examples of his kindly nature need to be added to balance the article! FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, in fact, based on my work at Sens, I'd say the tone in the copy I'm seeing is more than a bit one-sided. Abelard was rather harried out of town by Bernard, and if I had the time I'd see about offering some way to temper the tone (which is a bit too rah-rah on Bernard's virtuous appearance here; soon after, Abelard's points were taken seriously within the Church, and Bernard's opposition becomes apparent for the grandstanding it probably really was--people who don't understand more insightful commentary too often try to make their ignorance virtuous as a cover--and that is probably the case here as well. Taken with Lobrichon's findings about Bernard's misguided efforts to "amend" chant to some pristine original form that turned out to be dead wrong, (and in the process wiping out earlier, more accurate versions that were thus lost to musicologists, ironically) this side of Bernard really needs to be admitted to; he just wasn't the perfect person he's being shown as. A saint isn't a saint because they're perfect but because they kept trying despite their imperfections, in other words.

But I've got too much else on my plate to do more than note it here; maybe someone else can consider the other side of the picture and figure out some more balanced way to present the two men.

(The terrible irony of Hillyard's Abelard CD using the Froissart painting of Bernard is really too much, of course, too. Poor Peter must be doing revolutions in his crypt at St-Pierre-la-Chaise about now...)Dellaroux (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: this: There seems to be an implication he was some kind of evil proto inquisitor going about prosecuting folk for heresy and stirring up crusades Ummm... Well, actually, not to put too fine a point on it, he probably was.

His institution of the observation of the BVM's fete may have been the only benign thing he did stir up; that's not to say that other of his activities weren't well-intended in his own mind, and that some probably had a very good effect (his address written for Abp. Henry Sanglier at Sens is among them, in my estimation).

But this is presumably a biography, not a haigiography, and that means a broader and more critically detailed assessment of his life and actions. I'm as willing to be forgiving as the next historian, but the study of issues with which I'm familiar (I avoid the Crusades, I have enough to do with liturgics and music) really does require a more straightforward approach to the problems as well as the positive elements of his character. I would have to question what makes something "accurate" if materials that fill out the picture from these other dimensions are viewed as "inaccurate"--there is a historical basis for them, and whether you like his character or not, that has to be admitted.

In fact, this is not the CE, which is where one can go to get a different viewpoint (and it's a source I find helpful in many cases for my own work, since it does include materials not documented elsewhere) and while I'm fully in agreement that articles here need to basically uphold the integrity of the individual as well as possible, Bernard had several serious "warts" that have to be acknowledged as well. If I didn't have articles to finish in two weeks, I'd consider drafting an amended version but can't do it at present. Best--Dellaroux (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the argument remains unresolved at the heart of a modern debate, and this is not the place to sort that one out. Abelard's Universalism led directly to scientific rationalism in the entire philosophy of the University, whereas de Champeaux' retreat into the Victorine Order led through Aquinas and Ruusbroec (various spellings) to the Brethren of the Common Life, the birthplace of both the Enlightenment in Luther and Erasmus, on the one hand, and à Kempis and the Devotio Moderna on the other. That sets our social mores at odds with the Rationalists (Richard Dawkins being a chief spokesman of that school), a conflict running so deep in Western Society it is unlikely ever to be resolved. The NPOV approach is, therefore, to make Bernard's case here, but to qualify it with a reference to a carefully-balanced countercase under Abelard, also cross-linked back to here. It might in fact also be necessary to add a meme focused on the philosophical debate down the ages, if it does not already exist, and good luck to anyone with the courage to address that one.

The late 19th century hagiographical imbalance of the Catholic Encyclopaedia (used as a quick-and-dirty free source to get Wikipedia up and running) infringed WP's own NPOV ideal and a considerable amount of work needs to be undertaken to rebalance the core theme of philosophy. As this is so central to the entire work, and the subject appears to be more than somewhat disjointed at the moment, I think the entire question needs to be refered to the upper reaches of Admin as a matter of quite high priority. The model I might propose is that given the long-standing feedback between the two, we need some form of evolutionary double-helix in the description of the dialogue between the humanitarians and rationalists down the centuries, in much the same way as there is a continuous debate between finance, political power and social weal in the movement from feudalism to early guild-moderated democracy to nineteenth-century capitalism and post-WWII social society, determined by the concept of the greatest good to the greatest number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.91.172 (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead

I've cleaned the lead today, but I think it still needs rather a bit of work. I agree with Ealdgyth, it reads very pious. I'd be happy to re-write a lead from scratch and submit it here, if that would be amiable to all. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is way, way too long. Richard75 (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)