Jump to content

Talk:Durham Cathedral

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bede

[edit]

I think the venerable Bede was buried here also. Can anyone confirm? Mr. Jones 16:34, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Quote from the front page of the Cathedral's website http://www.durhamcathedral.co.uk/ "It contains the remains of Cuthbert, the saintly seventh-century bishop of Lindisfarne; it also holds the tomb of Bede, the chronicler of Cuthbert's life and the first English historian".
Bede's tomb is at the west end of the cathedral, in the Galilee Chapel. Cuthbert's tomb is in a special sanctuary between the high altar and the easternmost chapel, the Chapel of the Nine Altars. Gareth Hughes 13:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No - noone knows where Bede's remains are, the tomb is empty.

Bailey/Peninsula

[edit]

Anyone who has an interest in contributing to Durham related articles may like to look at the discussion going on at Talk:The Bailey Robdurbar 10:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Cruikshank

[edit]

Dan Cruikshank argued in "Britain's Best Buildings" that the essential features of Gothic architecture were pioneered at Durham, not (as in the traditional account) at St Denis, and that Muslim craftsman may have been involved in its construction. We should find room for these arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.103.184 (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good argument, it's more Gothic than many other Gothic buildings. Flying buttresses were used already in ancient Greece and by the Byzantines, though. It all depends on how much is original in the Durham cathedrals construction and what's added later. It features the oldest ribbed vault, but apparently the pointed arched windows are of a later modification. It can be seen that the oldest section (east) has the lastest design windows, while the western end has round arches in the windows, which means it must've been added later. However, it does mean that the current building has many Gothic features, it doesn't really matter how it was originally.109.59.52.2 (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that the source mentioned was a UK television programme which was broadcast in or before 2008? Not an ideal source if it's not available online or via a disc? The use of Muslim craftsman would also need a more robust source I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cruikshank is a good writer and creator/presenter of tv programmes, but his specialism is firmly British architecture of a much later period. Probably there is some academic support for this line of argument, but I'm pretty sure it remains a minority view at the moment. Last Sunday was the 10th anniversary of the start of this section, btw! Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well. That just sounds like Wikipedia, doesn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fancy finding you two here! I love the way the Film, TV and Lego sections are stuffed with cites, and the Architecture section has absolutely none at all. Again, only on Wikipedia. Have just found a wonderful Pevsner quote and am looking for somewhere to put it. KJP1 (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural project rating

[edit]

Despite the quotation, no-one reading the architectural description given here would gain the impression that Durham Cathedral is one of the finest Romanesque buildings in the world. Hence its "top" importance and start rating. Amandajm (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number of steps.

[edit]

Why isn't there a reference to the number of steps in the cathedral tower? I suppose it isn't must know information but it should be included somewhere... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewr05 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bells

[edit]

From the intro to Bells on Sunday this morning:

"5 of the bells date from 1693. The ring of 8 was augmented in 1980 to bring the bells to 10. The 2,800-pound tenor is tuned to D."

If you are interested in cathedrals and stuff, you might want to update the article with this information. —Tom Morris —Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

A bigger floor plan

[edit]

A bigger floor plan than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Durham_Cathedral_plan.jpg is available on http://www.medart.pitt.edu/image/England/Durham/Cathedral/Plans/durham-cplan-g01-b.jpg.--24.186.223.176 (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A version of it is already available on commons, as seen on the right. I think the current plan is much better as it shows more of the cathedral, while the added detail is unreadable in the article. I found a third one while looking for that which perhaps looks better than both, the lower of the two to the right.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

The article currently claims the formal name of the cathedral is "The Cathedral Church of Christ, Blessed Mary the Virgin and St Cuthbert of Durham", which may very well be true, but...

  1. that's completely unsourced and
  2. the COE pages are fully committed to the branding as "Durham Cathedral. The Shrine of St Cuthbert." and
  3. the sources I can find that aren't obviously cribbing our material (such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7...) seem unanimous that the cathedral itself is only dedicated to Christ and Blessed Mary the Virgin (alt. the Blessed Virgin Mary, alt. the Blessed Virgin) and it was the priory that preceded it that was dedicated to St Cuthbert.

Is the cathedral's dedication to St Cuthbert an official and recent thing or is this just a typo we're presenting as a fact? — LlywelynII 17:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hell, the thing's original official listing with the British government uses the format "Cathedral Church of Christ and St. Mary the Virgin" and so does it's 2004 renewal at the local city council. I'm just going to emend the page to that fact pending some very authoritative sourcing (i.e., links to the COE's formal rededication.)

See also Henry quite pointedly excluding Cuthbert's cult from his establishment of the diocese and the university's charter. See also this, just because it's a great picture we should upload as soon as the copyright lapses. — LlywelynII 17:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Cathedral's Constitution and Statutes document (available offline) includes St Cuthbert in the dedication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R J Hilton (talk • contribs) 12:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should add a photo of the classic view of the cathedral and mill across the river

[edit]

This well-known view shows how magnificent and grand the cathedral is. Without it, the current article does not convey how impressive the cathedral is. 92.3.76.249 (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which view? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123 - This one, I'd guess. KJP1 (talk) 09:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd that guess too. I'm sure it's equally impressive, even after 2 years. Martinevans123 (talk)10:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was when I used to cross Prebends on a regular basis, thirty-five years ago, so I doubt it's changed much in the last two! KJP1 (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it still looks impressive today, it's hard to imagine how impressive it the early 13th century when those towers were first built? There's also a mill there?... don't see any mention at Durham. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the building with the orange-tiled roof, to the bottom left, was/is a mill. Don't think it's operated for many decades however. I shall see if Pevsner mentions it. KJP1 (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As it does - the Fulling Mill of the priors, now an archaeological museum. Derelict and empty when I was there. KJP1 (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, not the kind of mill I had assumed. How fascinating. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Durham Cathedral. 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:

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: 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) 23:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Durham Cathedral. 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:

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: 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) 11:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Durham Cathedral. 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:

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: 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) 06:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Priory not Abbey?

[edit]

I'm surprised to note that the Cathedral is described as a Priory, given that in most cases where it is in the Benedictine tradition, the Bishop is the titular Abbot of the monastery. I'm not claiming this is impossible, I'm just surprised. Anyone got any evidence one way or the other? Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Durham Priory was associated with the cathedral...see that article. This one might need to be revised to make that clear. Peter K Burian (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more research. The cathedral was indeed part of the priory, which was dissolved in 1540; it then became an independent (and C of E) cathedral.
   Durham Priory: Durham Priory was a Benedictine priory associated with Durham Cathedral, in Durham in the north-east of England. Its head was the Prior of Durham. It was founded in 1083 and when dissolved in 1540 was succeeded by a chapter of secular canons led by a dean.

   Also see https://www.durhamcathedral.co.uk/heritage  1541 – Durham Cathedral is re-founded with the last Prior becoming the first Dean, and twelve former monks becoming the first Canons

   Also see http://www.engineering-timelines.com/scripts/engineeringItem.asp?id=1441: Durham Cathedral started life as a monastic cathedral, part of a Benedictine priory. ... The Reformation of the Monasteries in Tudor times resulted in the dissolution of the priory and its community. In December 1539, the Roman Catholic monastery was surrendered to the Crown. In May 1541, the cathedral was re-established as a Church of England (Anglican) place of worship. St Cuthbert’s shrine was dismantled, his coffin opened and the body — reportedly still incorrupt — interred in a plain grave behind the altar. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Jelley

[edit]

She is now the Bishop of Doncaster, so the list of canons is out of date. Mdrb55 (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince bishop

[edit]

@A.D.Hope has removed all references to "prince bishop" from this article on the grounds that the term is anachronistic. But the term is widely used by sources - scholarly writings and the cathedral's own publications - so this seems to be a mistake. We use anachronistic terms on WP when they are in common use (eg Byzantine empire). Furius (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it's only appropriate to use 'prince bishop' if it's already been explained that the term is an anachronistic but convenient way to refer to the bishops who had palatine jurisdiction. Even then we need to be careful, as the palatinate developed slowly – the term palatinus wasn't applied to the bishop until 1293 – and so using the term for the early post-Conquest bishops isn't straightforward. If we were discussing this at Bishop of Durham I'd definitely be open to a paragraph on the popular use of the term, but it doesn't seem worth it in this article.
On academic writing, as far as I'm aware 'prince bishop' isn't widely used, although it does crop up in popular history and in contexts like the World Heritage Site website. For example, it doesn't appear in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entries for Walcher, William of St Calais, Antony Bek, John Cosin, or William Van Mildert (all by different authors). As far as I can tell it doesn't appear in Robert Surtees' History and Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham, the county's 1911 Britannica entry, or more recent articles such as 'Lordship and the Urban Community: Durham and Its Overlords, 1250-1540' or 'Fifteenth-Century Durham and the Problem of Provincial Liberties in England and the Wider Territories of the English Crown'. The history of the term is discussed early on in Christian Liddy's Bishopric of Durham in the Late Middle Ages, but he doesn't use it himself. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy and images

[edit]

I've done a little tidying; trimming the very lengthy media section, converting bullet-point lists to prose, and cutting a few of the less-strong images. I'm still not sure about the images. There is a long right-hand side string, most of which don't seem to relate to the aligned sections, and aren't all of great quality. I'm also not certain about the lead image - with no disrespect to the author and acknowledging it does show the building quite well - I'm not sure it quite conveys the building's grandeur. I intend to try swapping a few in/out. Any concerns, just shout here. At some stage the Architecture section also needs a complete overhaul. KJP1 (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Durham_Cathedral&oldid=1227218662"