Talk:Abbey of Fontenay

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abbey of Fontenay. 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/20140903214244/http://cuicui.be/france-fontenay-abbey/ to http://cuicui.be/france-fontenay-abbey/

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) 08:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

"so-called" forge

Moved from User talk:Eric § Revert

 – Eric ^talk 03:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@DerMaxdorfer:: Regarding my revert: In English, the construction "so-called" is generally used to bring something into question. Putting that before the word forge in this article could be interpreted by a reader to mean that we question whether the building being referred to is in fact a forge. Now that I see your native language is German, I wonder if you might have been trying to introduce language more along the lines of known as (bekannt als). Is that perhaps what you meant? Your edit summary did not explain your intent. Eric ^talk 03:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Eric: Thank you for your thoughts. But as I explained in the edit that you reverted without comment (and without reading it completely (?)), the building called forge in all likelihood never served as a forge. I referenced that with a chapter-long treatment of the building in a recent scientific monograph. Maybe the remaining unavoidable degree of incertainty inherent to such research is better expressed with "known as" than with "so-called" - that is something that you certainly can judge better than I. But as my edit should make clear (despite my non-native level of English), the interpretation of that building as a forge is indeed heavily "brought into question", as you call it, by recent scholarship.

In any case, I don't see why deleting the paragraph I inserted without any substitution makes the article any better. DerMaxdorfer (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

DerMaxdorfer: You are correct, I did not read it completely! I somehow missed the paragraph you added. I've restored your edit. I'll do a bit of copyediting on it -- see what you think. Eric ^talk 14:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring and improving my edit! If you missed the paragraph I added, it is clear that the other elements of my edit looked awkward, if not wrong. I'll answer your other question later. DerMaxdorfer (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I've now adjusted the wording a bit, and changed the cloister distance to 60m per a scaled plan I found. I'm sure I've seen better ones, so I might look for one later. Does Schöneweis discuss the lack of evidence for the building being built as a forge? Eric ^talk 15:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Eric: It is hard to discuss something in detail that doesn't really exist, but Schöneweis treats several elements that could be relevant for the function: The architectural elements as they are today, the building history and chronology and the history of research.

First of all: There are no sources on the building (texts, plans, images) from the time when Fontenay was still an abbey. The theory that the building could be a forge was first put forward in the mid-19th century by the paper manufacturer M. Seguin, who owned and used the entire site for his paper production at the time. His contemporary A. de Caumont, who was the first scholar to study the "forge" in detail, mentioned this hypothesis without explicitly supporting it. Nevertheless, it quickly took on a life of its own and was carried over from publication to publication. As early as 1912, 60 years after the interpretation as a forge was first formulated, someone wrote that the building had "always been known as 'forge'" ("connu de tout temps sous la dénomination de 'Forge'" (Bégule 1912, p. 79).

Over the course of time, a number of similar medieval buildings have been used as a comparison to support the theory of a forge. However, none of these buildings are still recognised as forges by scholars today (just one example: the "grange de Beauvais" of the Preuilly Abbey, for some pictures click here).

The former smoke vents in room B of the building (which were visible at Seguin's time and which have served as an architectural argument in favour of an interpretation as a forge) appear to have been installed in the building at a late stage, according to newer analysis.

A helpful parallel? - The so-called "Wirtschaftsgebäude" of Doberan Abbey, another former Cistercian abbey. One of several parallels that let Schöneweis think of a interpretation of the "forge" as guest house, brewery and/or bakehouse - although obviously no undisputable proof.

I cannot summarise all the information collected by Schöneweis, but from his detailed compilation of the available material it is quite clear that there is no positive evidence or arguments in favour of an interpretation as a forge and instead even some arguments that rather speak in favour of a different interpretation. The aspects mentioned above are just examples that I found particularly relevant.

And finally regarding the distance to the rest of the abbey: The best plan I could find is this one. From that, 50 meter as written by Schöneweis seem to be better than 60 as the scale in the bottom left measures 30 meters (the numbers 10, 15 and 25 on the scale are at least somehow legible). But this question is not that important to me - so I leave that for you to decide. DerMaxdorfer (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about the long text - your enquiry made me look at the chapter in Schöneweis' book again and discover some new fascinating aspects. DerMaxdorfer (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Re the distance, I looked at several plans on the internet, most of which were at too low a resolution to read the scale. I ended up going with this plan. Using it, and taking your "enclosure" as referring to the cloister (i.e. the gray square on this plan), and resorting to using my ruler on the computer screen, I came up with 60m. What do you think? I did another search for a better plan, but so far to no avail. Re Wirtschaftsgebäude, it would seem to make sense to me that an abbey would have a multi-purpose utility/craft workshop that might include a smithy. Might be a good excuse to launch a fact-finding mission to Burgundy... Eric ^talk 18:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh yes, the measurement really depends on what you define as "the cloister". If you mean the inner courtyard with "cloister" (meaning number 1.1 in wiktionary), 60 meters is reasonable; if you mean the whole abbey building with "cloister" (meaning number 2 in wiktionary), 60 meters are too much (an ambiguity that doesn't exist in German).

And regarding the function of the "forge": Personally, I would prefer to imagine that this monumental jewel of the abbey served as a brewery and guesthouse - just as the industrialist family who owned the abbey in the 19th century obviously preferred to see it as an economic building used for craft and industry. A good example of how the search for the "real" past in fact often rather mirrors one's own imaginations and presuppositions of the past :-) DerMaxdorfer (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes and no on cloister; — You germanophones are naturally prejudiced by the word Kloster! ;) — I suspect that if you were to poll the small percentage of today's native-tongue anglophones who are sufficiently acquainted with that word to employ it in a sentence, the great majority of them would be referring to the inner quadrangle. Like Wiktionary, part 2 of AHD's definition indicates the monastery as a whole, including figuratively in addition to literally; but I'd bet that all eleven remaining anglophones likely to invoke the 2nd definition be doing so in the figurative sense. Cambridge gives simply the quadrangle. It finally occurred to me to use Google Earth to get measurements! I wonder if we might change to giving the distance between the Grande Salle/Arbeitsraum/Scriptorium and the "forge" (30m). Instead of naming the scriptorium, we could put something like "main complex".

As far as the main function of the forge building, my personal view from now on will be to imagine it as a brewery. It would be a religious experience for me to drink a Fontenay homebrew in there! Eric ^talk 23:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Prior to my research on Fontenay, I would instinctively have translated the English "cloister" as "Kreuzgang", not as "Kloster" - but you are right that it is likely to become a false friend for Germans even unconsciously. And that is where I as a non-native am just not able to decide which is the best phrasing. But just giving the distance with something like "30 meters away from the main complex" seems to be the best solution so far anyway. Cheers! --DerMaxdorfer (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Machen wir mal also! Eric ^talk 14:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, DerMaxdorfer, the plot thickens, as we say! (≈ Aha, jetzt wird's interessant!). After making the 30m edit, I decided to try a rewording of the next sentence: The word traditionally gave me the idea to try looking for the earliest mentions of "forge", looking to maybe reword the sentence to something like While modern sources refer to this building as the "forge", no evidence.... Starting on Google Books with "fontenay batiment forge", I found a few sources, the earliest of which was a 1912 book L'abbaye de Fontenay et l'architecture cistercienne. Searching within for the word forge, I came across an assertion on page 79 that makes me want to go back in time and interview author Lucien Bégule: "...connu de tout temps sous le dénomination de « Forge »...". As I discovered by chance on the first page of the preface, written in 1911 by Édouard Aynard, a footnote there credits an 1882 monograph by the local parish priest that includes "the most reliable historical documents". Searching the web for this monograph by J.B. Corbolin, Monographie de l'abbaye de Fontenay, I finally found it on Commons. What would you say to tentatively changing that sentence to read something along the lines of While at least one source asserts that the building has "always been known as the 'Forge'", architectural comparisons suggest a brewery or bakery.? Eric ^talk 20:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Adding a couple notes:

• I think it's worth looking at all the instances of the word forge in Bégule's book. He seems to have no doubt about the building being used as such, and as a mill (p. 81 bottom), mentioning vestiges of supports for water wheels (p. 82 top). The search function on Gallica is pretty good.
• Skimming through chapter 2 of Corbolin's book, I was expecting to find some mention of the building, but the last paragraph dashed those hopes (p.18). I skimmed through much of the book anyway, but to no avail. Searching for the word forge yields only one hit, but the OCR feeding that search is imperfect, as I saw at least one other instance of the word that was not captured by the search function. Eric ^talk 21:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Four notes on all that:

• As I wrote above, the theory of a forge was "born" around 1850. The first time it was published is - as far as Schöneweis knows - this paper: Caumont, Arcisse de (1852). "Rapport verbal sur une excursion archéologique aux environs d'Orléons et en Bourgogne, faite à la séance du 30 octobre 1851". Bulletin Monumental 18, pp. 225-267, esp. pp. 248-251 (online). On p. 249, he writes: "mais à quoi servaient ces cheminées, y avait-il là une cuisine? ou bien était-ce une ancienne forge, comme le pense le propriétaire, M. Seguin, correspondant de l'Institut?" On the next pages he writes about which hypothesis is the most probable, but without mentioning any additional literature or old evidence.
• I must correct my statement that A. de Caumont was the first to examine the building "in detail". In reality, he himself writes on p. 249 that he did not have time for a thorough examination. Nevertheless, he definitely was the first scholar to think about the building and its function - and I think that is the crucial point in this context.
• I'm not entirely convinced by your phrasing suggestion. The statement that the building has "always been known as a forge" is found neither in the current scientific literature (Schöneweis 2020) nor in the oldest material on the topic (de Caumont 1852). In fact Schöneweis and de Caumont both treat it as a modern hypothesis born in the 19th century. I don't know whether this one statement from 1912 should be given so much weight.
• I wouldn't put too much hope in finding information about the forge in the ‘oldest historical documents’ from the local archives that Corbolin has compiled. Economic buildings often do not play a significant role in texts from the Middle Ages and early modern period - it was not considered necessary to say much about them, unlike about churches and castles.

That are the results of my thought processes so far. --DerMaxdorfer (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. Re "always known as a forge", I would think it's worth mentioning, maybe just in a footnote, if only because that's how people refer to the building. The text you added based on Schöneweis' work makes it clear that there is scholarly doubt about this designation. I think it would be good to add the Caumont ref as well. I just wish we could know what time span Bégule was basing his "always" on. It could well be based solely on what the local priest Corbolin told the owner Aynard.

I haven't found much on Corbolin; he was born nearby and was a priest in Marmagne, and is referred to as "l'abbé", but I don't think this means he was an abbot anywhere. I wonder if Caumont spoke with him. In a footnote at the bottom of his page 2, Bégule speaks of an abundance of historical documents on Fontenay -- I'm tempted to use this as an excuse for a trip this spring! Eric ^talk 21:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Notes