Talk:François Rabelais

Untitled

This article, so far, makes Rabelais sound like a civil libertarian or proponent of free speech. It does not convey the "Rabelaisian wit" at all.

He may have been a keen observor of his time - but so what? Many people are that. A lot of them sit around in doughnut shops, bars, lunch counters, goumet coffee bars, and barber shops. Or shoot pool.

He was an artist, no? Was his writing scandalous at the time? If so, why - specifically?

Needs to be fleshed out in terms of the man as a human being (which would be the basis of the man as a writer).

Removed "Notable Thelemists"

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)

formatting

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)

fr

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

last words

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)

Found a reference that has both quotes - Last words of real people - and will insert it. Stellar (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Thomas Urquhart

Urquhart is a translator of Gargantua, and therefor cannot be fictional.

Translation

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)

Dates

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))

According to some sources the most probable date of Rabelais' birth was 1483. Irrespective of which date is the most probable one, I strongly propose changing the text so that it mentions both dates, at the very beginning. A proposed way to rewrite the paragraph:

Although the place and date of his birth are not reliably documented, it is probable that François Rabelais was born in 1483 or 1494 near Chinon, Indre-et-Loire, where his father worked as a lawyer.(Desiderius82 (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC))

Rabelais and Thelema

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)

As one editor has noted, presenting Thélème as Utopian is dubious and probably wrong. The abbey may stand as a satire or a rebuke of the monastic life in the sixteenth century, but Thélème is Club Med. If someone says, "Let's eat and drink," everyone eats and drinks. If someone says, "Let's dance," they dance. But if someone says, "Let's study," they throw him in the swimming pool. This is satire open to all comers and all pretensions. Perhaps a better informed scholar than the present one (or I) can rewrite this article. Josephlestrange (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Other

"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)

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 04:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

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)

Biography

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)

Orwell's Diss

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)

Utopia?

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)

Date of birth

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)

"Grandes et inestimables chroniques du grant et enorme geant Gargantua" came first

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)

Thélème

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)

External links modified

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.

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) 21:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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) 03:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Inscription on the gate of Thélème

I am quite surprised by the translation in English of the inscription on the gate of Thélème. That can hardly be farther from the old French original:

Grace, honour, praise, and light
Are here our sole delight;
Of them we make our song.
Our limbs are sound and strong.
This blessing fills us quite,
Grace, honour, praise, and light.

The old French original text says:

Honneur, los, deduict,
Ceans est deduict
Par joyeux acords;
Tous sont sains au corps;
Par ce, bien leur dict
Honneur, los, deduict.

The translation added words that are not on in the original, and changed completely the meaning, especially in the most important and repeated verse.

Here, a different translation, still very distant from the original, available online: [1] (note "delight" in the main verse, which is much more Rabelaisian than "light". Disport being the closest English translation of deduict).

Grace, honour, praise, delight,
Here sojourn day and night.
Sound bodies lined
With a good mind,
Do here pursue with might
Grace, honour, praise, delight.

Isn't there any better source somewhere?

Vincent Lextrait (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Rabelais is not exactly the easiest writer to translate. (especially the word deduit ^^, which is probably why it's there in the article). I think the negative definitions (Cy n'entrez pas, hypocrites, bigotz, vieux matagaotz, juristes mâchefoins, etc.) might be fun to add. Have you got any ideas about how else this page could be better. I'm not an expert, just an enthusiast. Here's the translation into Modern French, I used to try to find rhymes:

Honneur, louange, bon temps
Sont ici constants
d'un joyeux accord
Tous sont sains de corps
Aussi leur dis-je vraiment
Honneur, louange, bon temps

(trad. Demerson)

— 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t | c} 18:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Unreferenced claims removed

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)

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)

It gets deep fast

I was somewhat surprised to see that Rabelais coined the word progress. The other words he is credited with coining were wikilinked, so I investigated and found that progres has a fr.wiki page that does give Rabelais the credit for coining the word. However the English version of that page begins a century later with the Enlightenment, and the en-wiki article on the Enlightenment shockingly does not mention the French except in the context of the American and French revolutions. And the next thing I knew I was finding out that Philosophy of History needs an nedit...Elinruby (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I wouldn't be suprised if more doesn't come out it. I made a start on the main bio entry. The fr Wikipedia entry is really well written by a professional by the looks. Hardly any work on grammer or spelling. I didn't know it. re:above. That Philosophy of History article is some condition for such an important article. I see somebody has been doing the odd bit. I'll leave a thanks and welcome template. A lot of these types of article seems to be like that. scope_creep^Talk 15:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I've moved the forensic details about the far-fetched extrapolations into a footnote to avoid bogging the reader down immediately in arcane details. The bottom line is: nobody knows. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

NB: In fact the section title I removed is almost certainly not a copyvio... it was added to fr.wp in 2013, long before the facsimile of the French entry appeared. The author, French user Zythème, is an expert on Rabelais. I don't believe we need section titles as this page does not go into as much speculative detail as is done on the French page. A page to translate would be their excellent fr:Quart Livre; but there too, fewer details would probably be better (less is more). -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby:: FWIW, neither Huchon, nor this entry, nor even CNRTL (§) make the claim that Rabelais coined the word "progrès". It is just the first attestation of the word in French (as obviously it comes from Latin). Similarly, the false compound "encyclopédie" appeared slightly earlier in Latin, but is first lampooned in French in the famous episode where Panurge tops Thaumaste in a debate "by signs". (§ : in the next chapter Thaumaste admits defeat: "En quoy je vous puisse asseurer qu'il m'a ouvert le vrays puys et abisme, de Encyclopedie") -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:28, 20 Octo

All of the above is... noted. I have been skimming around on a preliminary survey. You are right that I should have said attested, not coined, Sashi. Scope noted the much better French article and we want to improve this one. I touched on Rabelais in school but not in any depth. I like the periond though. Question, isn't this all happening in the midst of the guerres de religion? Elinruby (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Details about theories concerning Rabelais' birthdate

@SashiRolls: 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_creep^Talk 17:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

No it doesn't. This is a 15th century major French author. scope_creep^Talk 17:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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_creep^Talk 18:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Concerning the content you added, you say as far as I can, are all academic references and seem perfectly valid. Does this mean that you read the references you added? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Distraction from discussion of content

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) 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) 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)

All of the above is ... noted. I haven't looked at the substance, but I'm fresh off the argument about whether Lithuania collaborated more than Poland and would really like to work on something that seriously shouldn't be contentious. For the moment let's just all use the talk page more than we otherwise would, eh? Myself...I've done some minor copy-editing in here so far, and don't mind if changes are made to those changes. Elinruby (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Todos

• :Hutchon 1994 ref to add in Moreau. scope_creep^Talk 15:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Please explain the relevance of this remark to improving this article. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It is a todo list, of todos. Tommorrow or the day after, I will come back, see this todo and fix the reference. scope_creep^Talk 17:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Please Sashi. Your help with this article is welcome as long as it is helpful. As someone noted on the site which shall not be named for incomprehensible and obscure side jokes, you really should not be nitpicking the clarity of other people's progress notes. I gather that you have some work in on the topic. Is there some actual issue that you would like to raise here? If so please do so in a forthright manner. I now return to my current role of background wikignome, where I would like to start my approach to this topic, if that is possible. Elinruby (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

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: "At times, it may make sense to move off-topic posts to a more appropriate talk page."  -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 07:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

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_creep^Talk 07:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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_creep^Talk 08:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: Sorry. scope_creep^Talk 09:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Todo list

• :Hutchon 1994 ref to add in Moreau. scope_creep^Talk 07:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

fot discussion

[2]

Mistranslation of "cordeliers"

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)

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)

Source fails verification

The following sentence is sourced to Lucien Febvre.

Frustrated with the ban, they petitioned Pope Clement VII and managed to obtain an indult, to leave the Franciscans and enter the Benedictine Order at Maillezais.

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)

@SashiRolls: If you can find a reference it would be ideal. I'll take a look as well. scope_creep^Talk 12:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

@SashiRolls: 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_creep^Talk 13:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I've ordered three books from that list above, the up to date versions, to get started. scope_creep^Talk 16:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Generalist source

@Scope creep: 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)

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)

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_creep^Talk 10:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Take it out then. I thought it was pretty clear. I will put a block in from Plattard. scope_creep^Talk 11:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

List of Articles needed

• Gargantua
• Pantagrueline prognostication
• Pantagruel
• Le Tiers Livre
• Le Quart Livre
• Le Cinquième Livre
• Sciomachie
• Foires de Lyon
• Cordeliers
• Frères mineurs de l'Observance
• Couvent des Cordeliers d'Angers
• Geoffroy d'Estissac <- 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)

  Since I added this redlink to the article and then here I have added to the French page about his extensive holdings, look forward to seeing the translation. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Please sign your entries, guys (and since this is the first comment, let's keep the list above the comments Elinruby (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I unscored the Cordeliers. Its a standalone article and kept the Frères mineurs de l'Observance. scope_creep^Talk 08:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

suggested procedure for discussion

focus on content ONLY -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 03:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

NB: this hatted content has been refactored twice since it was hatted. (diffs 1 & 2) -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 04:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC) So let's do a little talking here first if y'all don't mind. French is a language of allusions and subtleties and this will be especially true in this article, given the subject's necessarily veiled criticism of the politically correctness of his time. It is true, by the way, that "corderlier" is a member of a religious order in this context. Sashi, are all the issues you were complaining about at WO taken care of? If not we should probably start with those.Scope Creep, it's good you decided to de-escalate. Thank you. You both fluffed up your plumage rather quickly. Sashi, I've said what I said about you, but here's your chance to prove me wrong. I am, I assure you, not going to take my doubts about you out on Rabelais, ok? I did not know you had been working on this article and while I would probably be here anyway if I had, nobody is here to hurt the article. Honest. Question 2: Are there are parts of the French article that you deliberately left our of the English version? If so could you please identify them and tell us why? Question 3: I dislike revert wars, can we refrain from them here? Please? I am unsure whether to start with the article history so that I can follow the arguments, or the article. I'd prefer the latter, if this is not going to cause too great a perturbation in the force. Since this is a labour of love and not a pro bono article, I will try to avoid the need for subsequent corrections. But this is 16th-century French and I've been hanging out in World War II lately, so I am not immune to error, ok? I 'delight in archaic French but that doesn't mean I wont need a dictionary here. Elinruby (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Reminder. Talk pages are not a forum. Please refrain from discussing users, where you think they might live, etc. If you wish to engage in forum discussion, there are forums for that, as you are well aware. Please also refrain from talking about any other en.wp pages unless they relate to this page. Thank you. As long as you two stop chattering and focus exclusively on quality work, you'll have no problem with me. Adding passing mentions by random Action Française activists (see previous section) with little expertise on the subject is probably best avoided, especially when they appear to contradict what experts have written. At least cross-checking such sources before posting them would be wise.-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 05:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC) I'm trying to work with you here, Sashi. If it offends you that I mentioned where you live, then I am sorry and I have removed that. It matters though, because you seem to have appointed yourself the gate-keeper of this article, and it isn't clear to me at the moment that you even can read French. I generally give great deference to subject matter experts. But so far all I see is some carping over overly literal translations. Also, this indult -- would it not have been awarded by the then-current pope? I haven't looked at the source for that yet, and if that is the only one that is definitive about the date, I agree that this is a red flag and the source should be further scrutinized. I am in favor of omitting the date if it can't be sourced. The date does not seem very important in and of itself. If I don't get an answer on whether you a have a reason for omitting portions of the very fine French wiki article, I am not going to have much patience if you start reverting translations of them later on. Alternately, if the "chattering" is annoying, you can always stop watching the page. Elinruby (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

this indult -- would it not have been awarded by the then-current pope? Questions such as this are content questions. I will look back at the source and reply here. In the source I cited above, you can see that indeed he received the indult from Clement VII. Not sure why you are asking, the indult was to change from the Franciscans to the Benedictins. He was a monk at this time. There is no mention of Rabelais being ordained at any date in Berenger. The first date cited as sure is 1520 or 1521, when he writes to Budé. This article gives the date of the banning of Greek as 1523 and the date of his move to the Benedictins as 1524. [§]. It also includes the date 1511 for the abbey near Angers, which Marie-Luce Demonet demonstrates is based only on circumstantial &/or conjectural post-hoc testimony (but may still be right!). Search for "moinillon" in the entry to find the full reference. If he did enter that monastery near Angers in 1511 as legend has it, then indeed he would have been ordained at or relatively shortly after that date, but again there is no physical evidence of his whereabouts prior to 1520-1521 as both Demonet and Berenger agree. NB: both are Rabelais specialists. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 09:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Aha I see. Thank you for that explanation. Elinruby (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

That ref needs to be discussed, the fascist dude. I thought it was decent as he is an established french historian but that needs examined. Perhaps a list of established sources that agreed to be good, needs to be established. It the "Fot Discussion" list above is good start. On the copyedit: You taken out the children. He was a family man. You have removed the sentences around the greek. I was planning to introduce more detail on him learning greek from a humanist viewpoint, since that is really the start. He spent 15 years in there from being a novice, so a lot of detail. The man was religious, and everything revolved around the pope. I think it was a mistake to remove it. I found 4 pages in article him meditating. You also removed the "they" bit which indicated it was only him that got the indult, there could be other individual there. As the bit about the family, away for 2 years needs resolved. The copyedit was readlly well-written and i'm warning to it, but also think it is too severe at too early a stage, before deciding what is salient and what is not, e.g. the fascist dude ref. Lastly, your still trying to police the talk page. Leave it out will you. Leave it all in. It good for history and good for us. All it it is salient to the development of the article, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Historians like all. scope_creep^Talk 09:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki article does say he was involved in Action Francaise; offhand I am not sure what is ideological about Rabelais, but there definitely could be something and it would be better to find another source. Elinruby (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

When building entries, we work from sources, not by copying from fr.wp without reading the sources. (reminder: Wikipedia is not a reliable source) As for children, please provide text from a source you have read and can type out about his children. The discussion I found in Febvre about his three kids did not belong in the section about his time as a monk. As I said, we can restore it once we have found better (i.e. more complete) information that tells us where it should go (i.e. dates for the two legitimated kids). If you have access to a source (e.g. Lesellier, "Deux enfants naturels de Rabelais légitimés par Paul III" or Heulhard, "Rabelais, ses voyages en Italie, son exil à Metz", p.107) talking about it, please provide the textual evidence. Thank you. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 09:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I would also ask that you respect the talk page reader's time: sentences like (for example) I found 4 pages in article him meditating. are an incomprehensible muddle. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 10:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Very lastly on this, you removed the Corderliers from the "articles needed list". It is never a good idea to remove talk comment, ever. It is deeply uncool and unethical. You should have added the thing to the list. It is a big article sure, and but the Corderliers is equally important as a provides context to rabelais. Unless the article has already been created right enough. scope_creep^Talk

I added mention of the origin of the name Cordeliers in Order of Friars minor. I added a link to that section in this article. I thought we removed stuff from todo lists once it was done. Creating pages (or sections) for people who request them is deeply cool. Your personal attacks ("unethical" ← say wot?) are unwarranted. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 09:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

They're is a French Cordeliers article, otherwise I wouldn't have put the link in. scope_creep^Talk 10:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I should just go improve some other article. So much has been removed and refactored and hatted -- yet still not ancwered mind you -- that I don't recognize my own attempt to AGF. This isnt Russian disinformation about who won the election. just...whatever this is. Elinruby (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

François, Junie, and Théodule

Above it was said: You taken out the children. He was a family man. It seems like this too may not be quite accurate. I'll write something up covering the story of his Parisian progeny, whose mother Lesellier suggests petitioned the Pope to have legitimated. There are no dates or ages on the legitimation request, Lesellier speculates that the children were born before Rabelais had been absolved for his apostasy. There is mention that François, Jr. was whipped naked for theft a few years after François, Sr.'s death. I don't suppose we need to add that crunchy detail to the entry.

References

-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll read over the next couple of days. It was mentioned in the trans. they were legitimized in 1540, he would have been middleaged. I wonder why. I'm knackered. scope_creep^Talk 13:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Scope creep why legitimize them? Or why not until 1540? Answer at leisure, no6 otkinh on this tonight. Elinruby (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I'm not sure. I'm still trying to answer the questions above for that first para I put in. The apostasy thing has been answered really well. The question of him learning Greek and Latin and books taken away is partially done. It needs more descriptive text. I read something about how starting to write around that time, which may be conjecture. The rough source from the fascist dude, him becoming a friar minor. I spent the whole of yesterday looking for sources on that and looking for an authoritive source. scope_creep^Talk 08:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I spent a little time on this earlier tonight. His first book came out in 1532 -- not the prequel, the first one printed -- so he may have had a little status from that. He was also a practicing physician in the orbit, more importantly, of Guillaume du Bellay ("diplomat and general"), brother of Jean du Bellay (bishop) and cousin of Joachim du Bellay, seminal poet and creator of French as a literary language, more or less, see La Pléiade. Powerful patrons in other wordsk probably rich. He went to Rome as Guillaume's physician, or maybe Jean's, who maybe wanted a retainer who wasn't in trouble with the church and pulled some strings.

That's just my speculation but apparently legitimization was unusual and Guillaume and/or Jean would have been much more influential than the mother of a commoner's illegitimate children. Maybe. I see the article suggests that it was the mother who did this, and she likely would have been concerned about the status of her illegitimate children; maybe we should look into who *she* was. See what a Rorschach the man was? I keep flipping over meanwhile to see where the religious issues were at any given time. Maybe parallel timelines would be cool, but one thing at a time. I'm around and will be for a while, but I have a head of stream going and am fleshing out Countesses of the Gestapo; finally found an edition of Eder where the courtesan marquise isnt masked. ;)later -el ps A source for him joining that first order? Will look Elinruby (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read the source. The author, an expert, went to the Vatican to study the record. Not sure why you would assume the mother was a "commoner" after reading the source. Also if you had read the sourcing concerning the regularization of his apostasy, you would be aware that d'Estissac was the purse backing Rabelais at this time despite him being in the company of du Bellay (in the process of being promoted to Cardinal, with an outlaw in his posse ^_^). The author indicates that Rabelais was not being entirely transparent with his patron...-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 10:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

off-topic asked, answered

/me stares. Sashi. Please. I am not going to hurt the article. But how would I have "read the sourcing"? All of it? I started serious work yesterday and spent it all trying to address the notion that I was somehow not "behaving" used the talk page. And that dead bodies might well be in the picture. Wot? It occurred to me that perhaps my attempt to say that I come in peace misfired somehow, and maybe the dead bodies were even supposed to be a joke, also attempt to connect. On the other hand maybe I was wrong about that. Sashi. This could be a truly great article. But I should not have to deal with attacks on my good faith or intelligence or literacy, either here or at WPO. Not to mention claims that Scope creep and I are teamed up to target the article ott that I have some sort of campaign against you and ... sigh. Let me try again. I've been looking at the schools of literary criticism, Sashi. I have been translating the French article for d'Estissac, as it happens. I had no idea I was supposed to read "the" source, Yesterday, apparently.Look, I have read several sources already. I saw the mother described as "a widow". I have no idea what "the" source might be, but I am sure I will be reading it and a few hundred others as well, ok? I came in here to check on Scope creep. Have I answered your question? It still does not seem safe to use this talk page so I am leaving. Just a thought though: have you looked at any of my recent work? Or my translations? Try Jublains archeological site or Black market in wartime France. They are nothing if not chock full of academic sources. I think I will ask Cullen328 what he thinks I should do, because I am baffled and back to Rabelais not being worth the dead bodies. I'm a native French speaker, or so the census people tell me, with doctoral work in this field, plus eighteen years on wikipedia. I'm being berated me about "the" source that for some reason I should have already read while discussing what is a talk page, also for some reason. Elinruby (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Please stop this. The source is the source that starts this section, which is the source that is in the article. You may note that I've done substantial work on fr:Geoffroy d'Estissac after work today that you may wish to integrate into your translation. p.s. you said there were no dead bodies on this page on your t/p... which struck me as odd and a bit funny since the story of Rabelais giving an anatomy demonstration on a hanged man is mentioned on the page, because it's in all the secondary literature. You are, of course, perfectly safe, as I'm sure you know. You are certainly far from the only person on en.wp or fr.wp with credentials. No need to post a CV to the t/p... good work speaks for itself. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 19:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Not scholarly but respectable RS for now: [3] (search term "rabekais devint moine") Also:Useful later? Elinruby (talk) 10:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Its looks pretty decent and follows Plattard exactly. scope_creep^Talk 11:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

haven't gotten to Plattard. It seems that Sashi wanted me to read "the" source. Is that what he is talking abput? I noticed after I posted the Le Figaro link that it could also be a second source for the "800 words" statement I added and unlike the hermeticism or post-structuralism, that claim really doesn't have to be a venerable peer-reviewed source. (It's a mainstram center-right news daily. There are other articles about Rabelair though, which is interesting.) I am back to thinkng that this hill is just not worth dying on though, This was supposed to be a nice break from brutality. How do you feel about Du Bellay? or Proust? Song of Roland? Elinruby (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to let you know

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)

First appearence

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_creep^Talk 08:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

His status and intentions

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)

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)

@SashiRolls: 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)

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)