Talk:Eilmer of Malmesbury

Bescherelle quote

What does the Bescherelle quote add to the page? Why does Bescherelle's account of the event recommend itself over other historians' accounts of the event? Since William of Malmsesbury is the only primary source for the event, and no archaeological evidence exists, other historians can only re-report, re-interpret, and comment on what William had to say. Unless Bescherelle found some new evidence to provide more detail on the flight or to provide more certainty as to whether or not the flight actually took place (neither of which I see in this excerpt), or changed the prevailing view of Eilmer in the public consciousness (which seems unlikely, since Eilmer remains a mere historical curiosity), I see nothing to recommend his account any other secondary-source historian who has written on Eilmer.

In fact, the quote given seems to me to be weaker than William's account, and even misleading. Taking William's rhetorical flourish "mistaking fable for truth, he might fly like Daedalus" Bescherelle reports that Eilmer had designed his glider based on Ovid's description of the Daedalus flight. This is utter speculation, since the only details William gives about the glider's construction are that Eilmer had "by some means, I scarcely know what, fastened wings to his hands and feet," yet stated as fact. Shimmin 12:09, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

It's interesting and colorful historiography is why I included it. Regarding the Daedalus connection I do not know. Are we sure that Eilmer did not actually fashion his wings based on that described in the fable? Are we sure that the William quote is the sole single source of information that exists of this event? I mean, there is an entire book writen about it (See the Bibliography).. was that book writen using only a single quote as its source? My question is, how confident are you about these facts that you can with confidence remove them from the article? How do you know that Bescherelle embelished based on Williams quote and did not use another source? Stbalbach 22:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the book at the bottom of the page, it is rather short (the Malmesbury Abbey website calls it a booklet), and not entirely concerned with the flight. In William, the story of Eilmer's flight is a rather brief introduction to Eilmer himself, who upon seeing the apparition of Halley's Comet in 1066, prophecied, "Thou are come, a matter of lamentation to many, more terrible, threatening to hurl destruction upon this country." Which prophecy was fulfilled later that year when William the Conqueror invaded England, and which is the main point of the story in William's account. Shimmin 11:51, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Halley's comet

The passage from William of Malmesbury does suggest that Eilmer believed the apparition of Halley's comet he saw in 1066 was the reapprearance of an omen he had already seen once before in his life. But taking this fact and using it to deduce Eilmer's birth date, or the date of his flight, is a flawed strategy, because there is no way of knowing what heavenly body Eilmer was seeing the first time he observed the omen. Shimmin 19:04, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

It would be an assumption to presume medieval monks were not aware of the cyclical nature of comets (Eilmers phrase "you have returned" suggests an inborn understanding), although, they may not have named the comet or known its particular 76 year cycle-- plus, later historians wrote that the earlier comet he saw was Haley (whose sources, I presume, could go beyond just Williams account in regards to comets)-- until we have more definitive evidence one way or another, trying to keep it a part of the article, at least for historiography reasons. Stbalbach 21:40, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yet it would be a greater assumption to assume they were aware of comets' cyclic nature. In the Aristotelean cosmology, comets were meteorological phenomena, not astronomical ones. They existed in the sublunar sphere, being a warm, dry exhalation of the upper atmosphere. It was a big deal in 1681 when Georg Doerffel demonstrated that a comet seen in 1681 was the same object as one observed in 1680, now having made its passage through perihelion, and when Halley computed the orbital periods of a number of comets in 1705, it was sufficiently groudbreaking work that one of them has been named for him ever since.

William has Eilmer say to the comet of 1066, "you have returned," which only means that he thought he had seen this omen before. It's entirely understandable that a later historian, particularly one who is writing a history of flight and is not familiar with the history of astronomy, should read this utterance, cast our present understanding of the periodic nature of comets on the speaker, and deduce that the speaker had been alive to see the 988/9 apparition. But this is an anachronism; all it really can mean is that the Eilmer had seen some other portent that impressed him, and thought that the 1066 comet was a recurrence of it. And from the Chinese astronomical records, we know the 11th century was a good time to be looking for celestial portents.

Other historians have said it is only a good reason to mention something in the context of other historians saying it, not a good reason to blandly mention a speculative-at-best date as fact. Shimmin 14:23, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Hopefuly the new text reflects this better. Stbalbach 23:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Gunter This sentence should be removed: "Ovid was a good poet, but knew nothing of flight aerodynamics." is an arrogant hindsight biased opinion.

You have misused the term hindsight bias, no one predicted the outcome. At best the sentence is humour (Wikipedia is not humerlous), or if you have none: Eilmers flight proved that flying without a tail, according to Ovids descriptions, doesnt work. Stbalbach 07:02, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Gunter My apologies, i was assuming the sentence read Eilmer... not Ovid...., the flow of the article is confusing. The article suddenly mentions Ovid. Who is Ovid? If Ovid the poet then hyperlink it. The relavance to Eilmer must be explained, it is here in the discussion area, but not in the actual article :)

Ive removed Ovid; the refrence to Ovid was actually from a later source, that can't be supported by the (only) primary source, William of Malmesbury. Hopefully is more clear. Stbalbach 23:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removal of pic

I've removed the pic from the article because:
The flag on the tower is Welsh, Malmesbury is in England and I can find no mention in the article of any Welsh connections for Eilmer or the Abbey.
The towers are round in the pic, see Malmesbury Abbey where there are no round towers.
The figure is in a costume which I assume is just invented by the artist.
The pic quality is terrible.
All in all, the pic seems to me to make the article look amateur. Apologies to the pic uploader for finding so many objections! - Adrian Pingstone

Here's the pic - Adrian Pingstone 13:59, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

File:Towerjumper.gif

While I'm no great fan of the pic myself, to nitpick one of your nitpicks, the flight, if it took place, happened before the construction of the present Abbey, and we have no idea what its predecessor looked like. Shimmin 14:05, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the stained glass window of Eilmer in Malmesbury Abbey would be better (although it is copyright and poor quality). --Stbalbach 19:46, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the next sunny day I'll take a public domain photograph of the Eilmer window, I only live 15 miles from the Abbey - Adrian Pingstone 20:38, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Very nice, thank you! A great improvement to the article. Stbalbach 17:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Richard P. Hallion USAF source

This is a public domain source (text). I have copied verbatum 2 paragraphs over.. there is additional interesting material, but it seems conjecture, so w/out source for the conjecture, leaving out for now. --Stbalbach 20:12, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

GA delisted

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I found there were some issues that may need to be addressed. The review can be found here.

As the issues have not been addressed, this article has now been removed from the GA list. If you disagree with this decision, it may be challenged through WP:GAR. If improved, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Dead link for Flying Monk

Not sure what to do with this, but the Flying Monk external link appears to be dead. It's at

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/bodhidharma/monk.html

and was banned by Angelfire for violating their terms of service.

Ckinata (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a tertiary source, apparently written from the Woosnam book. It is archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20081201042527/http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/bodhidharma/monk.html but I see no reason to keep a link to it in the article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eilmer of Malmesbury. 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/20090115195158/http://www.jane-williams.me.uk:80/so/cartnav/eilmer.htm to http://www.jane-williams.me.uk/so/cartnav/eilmer.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)