Talk:Aelred of Rievaulx

Aelred's Sexuality

Aelred is the patron saint of Integrity, an organization in the Episcopal Church of the United States of gays and lesbians and their friends. He is also the patron saint of the Order of St. Aelred, a gay-friendly organization in the Philippines. He is also the patron saint of The National Anglican Catholic Church of the United States, a gay-friendly church serving the northeast and New England.

"His most famous work, On Spiritual Friendship, which explores the relation between spiritual and human friendship in a monastic context, reveals his own conscious homosexual orientation and gives love between persons of the same gender its most profound expression in Christian theology." -- American Council of Learned Societies--Dictionary of the Middle Ages, volume 4.CoppBob 04:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

The spelling fluctuates between "Ailred" and "Aelred" throughout. Could we settle on one to use consistently (and add the alternative spelling in the opening line of the lead)? FWIW, I've never seen the spelling "Ailred" before, and I note that of the external links and secondary literature all but one (the Powicke book) give "Aelred" (or "Ælred"). Vilĉjo (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Aelred's Nationality

I see a much earlier editor deleted any suggestion that he was 'Anglo-Saxon' because he was born 50 years after the Conquest. But he clearly was of native ('post-Conquest Anglo-Saxon'/English) stock, advanced the cause of an Anglo-Saxon/'pre-conquest English' king-saint and attached some importance/respect to the descent of Henry II from Anglo-Saxon/'pre-conquest English' kings (ditto for David of Scotland). Is there some way to capture this in the article which is neither at risk of being denounced as anachronistic nor appears to be a glimpse of the obvious (to the 21st century mind) fact that anybody born in Hexham must have been English? [ To the 12th century mind, that did not follow at all (cf Duke of Wellington, stables, and horses)] Rjccumbria (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved to Aelred of Rievaulx. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ailred of Rievaulx → Aelred — Aelred is by far the most common spelling (Google hits excluding Wikipedia show a four to one ratio). "of Rievaulx" is unnecessary as a disambiguator. This name is currently occupied by a redirect. Mangoe (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Partial Support: I support changing the spelling to Aelred and moving the page to Aelred of Rievaulx. Not only because I'm more familiar with that spelling, but also because I notice that all the previous comments on this very talk page use the AEL spelling. I'm not sure, however, that we need to give up of Rievaulx, as that phrase is the way I've usually seen his name listed. Also, I notice that the Ailred spelling comes from a page move in 2006 that apparently was never discussed? That editor is still around; perhaps s/he can explain the spelling change. Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Partial Support Aelred of Rievaulx is the most common form of his name. Noel S McFerran (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to go with Aelred of Rievaulx since that seems to be the building consensus. Mangoe (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. I strongly oppose omitting 'of Rievaulx' however Ailred is spelled; this is what he is called, it's not a disambiguation point. Oppose Aelred too, but it's not as big of a deal. Ailred is the form used in the Oxford medieval texts edition of the life by Walter Daniel. It is more common therefore among scholarly sources than otherwise. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: A few observations on the spelling issue: In ATLA, a search of "Ailred" turns up 8 entries, only 2 of which come after 1980, 2 from 1980, and the other 4 from the 1950s--and even here, the ATLA subject index uses "Aelred" instead; by contrast, a search for the subject heading "Aelred of R..., Saint..." turns up 75 results, and searching for just "Aelred," I get several more hits for him that don't have that subject index heading. Similarly, the MLA bibliography has 65 entries for Aelred of Rievaulx; it does not list "Ailred of R..." as a search option, and a search for "Ailred" is redirected to "Aelred of R...." It seems to me, therefore, that two of the major academic databases prefer the "Aelred" spelling as the subject heading in the index. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment Walter Daniel wrote in Latin, not in English. Oxford may prefer to retain the Latinate spelling but other translations (e.g. the Powicke translation) prefer "Aelred". Mangoe (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

They're the same thing, Mangoe, and indeed prefer Ailred like I said. @Aristophanes, those dbs don't have much of the Northumbrian/Scottish medievalist literature I was talking about. Even the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography prefers 'Ailred' [1] Admittedly 'Aelred' is much more popular in the theological literature, but I'm not persuaded this is a better form of the name (it redirects here anyway). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Even the Catholic Encyclopedia's online version [2] uses the "e" spelling. I've seen debates like this one before here--do we go with the most widely-known spelling, name, etc., or do we use the version preferred by specialists? Here we see even the specialists don't agree. And using Google Books, I see there are a lot of uses of the "i" spelling (though lots of those are very old sources). Deacon: What database(s) do medievalists use? Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is a LOT more theological literature. And curiously, different editions of the Powicke seem to vary in the spelling (e.g. [3]]), don't ask me why. I did notice in GBooking that hits on "Ailred" were far more common to be old. Mangoe (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The spelling is an issue even within the article. I noticed that several sections switched spellings. And the Patronage section almost demands that we use the Aelred spelling, since that's the spelling these groups use. I also notice that the list of Primary Sources is listed entirely with the Aelred spelling. This article will probably have less problems in the future if we move the article and use Aelred throughout. Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment: Not only does the list of primary sources use only the E spelling, but the list of reference works also uses E with only one exception (i.e., Powicke). I think if our own article shows a large number of scholars using the E, we should close the discussion and move the article to Aelred of Rievaulx. Thoughts? Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hey, apologies to Mangoe and Aristophanes for missing your comments. I forgot about this page and the WP Biography bot has been spamming my watchlist making it useless. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I think the "attributes" and "patronage" sections have been vandalised... Please investigate this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.160.77 (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

LGBT categories

I've restored the category. Brian Patrick McGuire's work is respected and well received by the academic community. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Addition of categories must be clear from article content per WP:CAT. An "inference" of homosexuality comes no where near the bar for addition of a cat. Furthermore, Aelred contributed nothing to LGBT history. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The addition of categories is perfectly clear from the article content and is fully supported by Sommerfeldt 2005, Boswell 1980, McGuire 1994, and Roden 2002, as well as about a dozen other reliable sources. If you would like to lodge specific objections, I would be happy to address them. Your allegation that "Aelred contributed nothing to LGBT history" is contradicted by the sources, for example Roden, who says that McGuire's work demonstrates that Aelred added to the awareness of same-sex desire from that period. Roden also says that gay theology was influenced by Aelred, and "he has been hailed as a model for Gay Christians". There is, of course, much more to this. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not uncontroversial. It's striking that Dutton is listed at length in the bibliographical material and isn't cited as a reference at all, and especially so considering that a lot of secondary discussion of McGuire's work points to her as a critic of his thesis. I would agree that the thesis has to be mentioned, but putting it out there as something that everyone accepts seems a bit questionable. Even then I'm not sure I would step up to the categorization issue. Mangoe (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has put it out there as something that everybody accepts, so I'm not sure why you said that. The two categories are "Homosexuality and Christianity" and "LGBT history prior to the 19th century", which as far as I can tell, are perfectly acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to exclude the former category, because the speculation/interpretation is undeniably part of the lore of LGBT advocacy within the mainline churches. In reviewing entries in the latter category, I find that it contains a mixture of some cases where the matter is more or less incontestable, and other cases where the evidence is fairly tenuous. Aelred is firmly among the latter. It's one thing to include Margaret Clap in a historical category, where the matter is plain on its face in the sources; it's another to include Sergius and Bacchus, whose historicity is generally doubted and whose homosexuality is a matter of at best inference (and in my opinion, largely Boswell's fantasy). I'm doubtful that the category is well-formed, at least as constituted, and I am dubious whether Aelred should be in it. Mangoe (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Are Boswell and McGuire advocating for LGBT, or are they acting as historians and specialists on this subject? The inclusion of the latter category seems supported by both. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

As fate would have it I have been writing or adding to articles connected with St Cuthbert—St Cuthbert's Well, St Cuthbert's Cave, Bertram Colgrave and Reginald of Durham (a contemporary of Aelred of Rievaulx and Godric of Finchale). In looking for an image of Guthlac for the third article—eventually I abandoned that idea in favour of an illuminated manuscript of Bede's prose life of Cuthbert—I came across this book in preparation: Improbable Manners of Being: The Queer Lives of Saint Guthlac. However, in that case, I would probably side with Lionel and not tag the article because it seems like an anachronism. That would also probably apply here. Mathsci (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

How is it an anachronism? Categories don't subscribe to a linear interpretation of history that only allows for a strict application of categories based on knowledge from the historical period. They have never been used that way. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It was my first reaction. You can listen to Eileen Joy talking about Guthlac here (after 8 minutes). Mathsci (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Three editors have argued for the removal of the categories so I will comply. I will, however, ask for clarification of the categorization procedures in another venue and revisit this matter if the need arises. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This is all so depressingly familiar. No-one was saying that Aelred was categorically homosexual but rather that the student interested in researching the history of homosexuality on wikipedia would do well to read the article (among others) and find information to help with building greater knowledge and understanding. A "signpost" if you may. Aelred is actually quite important in understanding the history of homosexuality, being "gay", same-sex desire (call it what you will). Firstly because it allows us to see how individuals in the medieval period responded to issues of desire and sexuality (in Aelred's case we see an internal struggle as he responds to the traditional construct of Christian practice and belief). It helps us determine whether there were historical periods where homosexual desire was tolerated. Finally it gives us a reference point to groups such as the [{Oxford Movement]] in Victorian England (who looked to Aelred as a model refelecting their own suppressed desires), as well as 20th century christians in the Anglican tradition that have identified him as an example supporting LGBT inclusiveness. Can I ask are we genuinely interested in contributing to improving human knowledge or are we simply pedants here? I'm not saying we label Aelred as gay or straight - I'm just saying that we need space to reflect the nuances and understand his importance to others. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I said before that I saw the one categorization as accurate: Aelred is (as we both agree) an important figure in modern LGBT thinking about religion, and he should be so categorized. It's the "history" aspect of this that I question: you yourself set the notion in the history of thinking about homosexuality in the 19th century and onward, rather than in medieval history itself. Or rather, the second half of your response does so; the first half is predicated on asserting categorically that Aelred did express homosexual desire in his writing. That assertion remains a contested point in the literature. Mangoe (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it is contested but does that necessarily matter in terms of the categorisation? The point of the category is for people to identify relevant material on wikipedia and then use it to draw their own conclusions in support of their research. We are just trying to make it easier for them. I'm not saying that he was "gay" in the modern sense of the word (as that would be anachronistic), but we have to accept that he may well have been homosexual (in the sense of attraction to a member of the same sex). I'm sure he wouldn't have seen it like that - and I recognise a very different cultural context. Nevertheless it is "LGBT history" as it is a subject about which persons exploring LGBT history will want to be aware. However, I see the point you are making I think - that we cannot be certain that Aelred was LG or B (because such labels/ psychology are modern constructs) and so it isn't technically LGB history. But I would argue that it is as close to LGBT history as one is likely to get, and better than "LGBT men from England" or some such. As a parallel should we be content with calling him a "Christian mystic"? The 20th century understanding of mysticism will be very different to that of the medieval mind. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

These categories do not really have that much significance. I would suggest that for early saints, where everything depends on interpetations of early medieval sources, a more ambiguous category like "Christianity and sexuality" might be more fitting (within the usual hierarchy of categories). Concerning the actual structure of this article, I would suggest having separate sections for the account of the life (a summary of the medieval sources) and the later queer studies literary/historic rereadings. The same would apply to early saints like St Gregory and St Guthlac, where content from the source material has yet to be added to wikipedia, let alone categories. Mathsci (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I can support. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You readded a category that was already here :) I discovered that Category:Sexuality in Christianity already existed so replaced the previous category with this. The other one can be readded if editors think it appropriate. Mathsci (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok - sorry about that. Thanks for the amendment. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aelred of Rievaulx. 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/20131209133338/http://www.sacredpauses.com/saint-aelred-the-patron-saint-of-integrity/ to http://www.sacredpauses.com/saint-aelred-the-patron-saint-of-integrity

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Naming

Aelred of Rievaulx as far as we know was a real person. His name was not, however, Saint Aelred - it was Aelred. He had a life of his own outside of the canonisers. Can we stop trying to push a retrospective religious agenda onto historical fact. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Look up Francis Xavier, Sergius and Bacchus, and Francis of Assisi articles. Every Christian Saints in Wikipedia has a "Saint" title in it. Rantemario (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No they don't. The article name for Francis Xavier is Francis Xavier. That who he was - a man called Francis Xavier. He was only recognised a saint by some people after he died. We need to separate the historical person from the religious agenda - as this is more accurate history. We can say that he was recognised by some as a "saint" but he needs to be acknowledged first and foremost as a real person. Otherwise we diminish the person - it suggests that the most important thing they achieved in their life was to be called a saint! But he was a writer first and foremost. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

According to this page, he was a monk #1, an abbot #2, and a writer #3. Yes, he was a writer, but a religious writer! Religious agenda? He wouldn't be as famous if he wasn't a saint! Thus the title "Saint" at first section in this article is very appropriate! We must respect that he sacrificed his life for religious devotion! Of course he was a real person! Who said he wasn't? Rantemario (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

A saint is an honorific title conferred by some religious groups after an individual's death. Yes I agree he was a monk, abbot and writer. But you would be quite wrong that he wouldn't be famous if he wasn't a saint. Historians would still have studied him, I have no doubt. What I'm trying to do is avoid the situation where we have one particular group "owning" Aelred. Let's treat him as a man first. The rest is poor historical analysis. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

James Houston

I have taken out the recent text that was added to the article to explain that James Houston thinks claims of homosexuality are an "historical anachronism". Maybe they are, maybe they're not. But what concerns me is that Houston isn't a person that would necessarily know. He is not a historian, but Professor of Spiritual Theology at a religious college in Canada. Putting in a random quote by someone who is not an expert in same-sex relationships in medieval monastic communities doesn't seem to me to be helpful in terms of ensuring an accurate and balanced article. Can we reconsider please before adding back in.Contaldo80 (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

There are apparently at least two distinct approaches to reading Aelred. One is that of a number of historians apparently looking to confirm evidence of same sex attraction during the Medieval period. Fine. Others read friendship from a more philosophical perspective, with any physical aspect, being temporal, as superfluous. Just as Houston may not be an historian, the historians listed are not experts on ancient literature, classical or medieval Latin, rhetorical discourse, or philosophy. It should not be forgotten that De spirituali amicitiâ is a deliberate literary construct based in no small part on Cicero's De Amicitia. As Dutton and others have pointed out the monk in the prologue is not the same character as the abbot in the later discourse. (Nor is it insignificant from an historian's point of view that his father and grandfather both lost their benefices because they were married clergy.) The historians cited appear to focus on what is sometimes termed "particular friendships", which were generally frowned upon as leading to presumptions of favoritism and therefore jealousy in the cloister. The literary/philosophical readers are looking at what is termed "spiritual friendship" (and the title of his arguably most famous work, which borrows from both Ambrose, Augustine and a bit of the Nicomachean Ethics). These are very different things. The article at present leans almost exclusively to the question of sexual preference while ignoring an entirely different context. Since De spirituali amicitiâ does not have its own article, it should have its own section. But that would take some time in order to avoid an undue esoteric presentation. Mannanan51 (talk) 03:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

But respectfully my point still stands - Houston is not a historian and it was odd to plonk his random musings into a section that requires sensitivity and careful thought. So I’d be grateful if we can please keep out references by Houston. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

As I don't particularly watch this page, I only just noticed this. While you may dismiss Houston, Wycliffe Hall had him as a lecturer. Are you suggesting that one needs to be an expert on "same-sex relationships in medieval monastic communities" in order to be conversant on Aelred of Rievaulx? I'm sure that will come as something of a revelation to Dutton, Squires, Merton, and others too numerous to mention. ---And "respectfully my point still stands". Manannan67 (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

"Regent College is a transdenominational evangelical Protestant institution in its general outlook. The school's stated mission is to 'cultivate intelligent, vigorous, and joyful commitment to Jesus Christ, His church, and His world'". I repeat again that Houston is not a historian and I strongly doubt his ability to talk with impartiality on the issue of the history of homosexuality in Western Europe without viewing it through a particular lens. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe I referred to Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. Manannan67 (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Same point. Wycliffe Hall is a theological college. Theologians are not historians, and being a theologian is no guarantee that you understand historical attitudes to homosexuality. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Homosexuality - Squire

I find it off that we have a sentence in the section on homosexuality that says: "According to Aelred Squire, Aelred "is much less autobiographical than is often supposed." It's not clear to me that Squire makes this point specifically in relation to discussion of Aelred's sexuality or whether it is a more general point? Can the editor that inserted it please clarify - thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear to me wherein lies the misunderstanding. Sources are quoted as saying that based on their interpretation of his writing, Aelred was undoubtedly homosexual. Regardless, of whether or not this indicates an unfamiliarity with the concept of amicitia (which probably deserves it's own article), Squire merely cautions that Aelred's writing was not necessarily as autobiographical as some may suppose ---which is also demonstrated by Aelred's "cribbing" both Cicero and Augustine. (I expect you'd find this iin Aelred of Riveaux - A Study). Manannan67 (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Homosexuality

I can't accept the re-write on the section dealing with homosexuality. It seems that one editor is pushing their own point of view. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I accept even less a Cistercian rewriting the article to align with church teaching. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

There's a new article that just came out about him. It cites Ruth Mazo Karras (the expert in medieval gender and sexuality) and takes a much more intersectional approach than has been put forward by most academics so far. I cited the article in my recent edits, if you want to add anything. Princefindekano (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Relationship with St Bernard

This article says almost nothing about Aelred’s relationship (personal or intellectual) with St Bernard of Clairvaux... and yet that must have been a major theme of Aelred’s life... Aelred’s teaching on friendship is a continuation of Bernard’s teaching on love and charity, for instance. Antiquated (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)