Talk:Immurement

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

Quran 4:19 Talk About Immurement?[edit]

I did not find anything about immurement in Sura 4:19. I found that Quran Sura 4:19 is: "O you who have believed, it is not lawful for you to inherit women by compulsion. And do not make difficulties for them in order to take [back] part of what you gave them unless they commit a clear immorality. And live with them in kindness. For if you dislike them - perhaps you dislike a thing and Allah makes therein much good." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abex888 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great catch, Alex! I followed such as the Dictionary of Islam, the correct verse is 4:15, as in the following rendering:

"Those who commit unlawful sexual intercourse of your women - bring against them four [witnesses] from among you. And if they testify, confine the guilty women to houses until death takes them or Allah ordains for them [another] way" http://quran.com/4/15

Thank you for your wish to improve Wikipedia! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The verse is not about immurement, more like house arrest. There's nothing that state the wife must be deprived of sustenance or visit. Is there a source that records an occurence of immurement during Muhammad's time? if not I don't think this is factual at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.253.73.96 (talk) 10:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • But if something is not mentioned in an ancient text such as the Koran, it by no means implies that they would have or needed to give further definition. Not saying anything carried meaning in a world of lesser words in which the Koran was devised during the 1st millenium CE. Just look how many modern insertions are added to contemporary published versions of the Koran (or the Old Testament). Do you really think they said "thou" in the language of the ancients, as they do in modern and historical versions of the New Testament?; - no, that is an entirely British colloquialism. A key feature of the ancient mind is that they understate things as a matter of course - it is part of their intellectual heritage. For a corresponding period just look at the earliest cuneiform writing. Many words were left out. It was a very simple language (especially if detailed articulation signifies intelligence). Please do not look at the past through television-eyes. What you see will not be valid because it has been synthesized by your modern mind... What we call sociopathology now, was standard behavior even by the nice guys of the time. You need to keep in mind that ancient humans were vicious and make the modern warriors of ISIS look like American schoolgirls... to look at the ancient world in any other way, would make the ancients modern... And that would be an enormous misjudgment. Regards. Stevenmitchell (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Immure a ghost?[edit]

"In The Canterville Ghost by Oscar Wilde it is implied that the ghost of Sir Simon was immured by his wife's brothers after having killed his wife." So the wife was killed by a ghost? And then her brothers immured it? How? Can't ghosts travel through walls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.64.50 (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

real?[edit]

the article only discusses literature and folklore and films, but no word about whether immurement is something that really happened or not, how often, at what time, etc. 109.64.198.235 (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point also! This article does not mention the historical practice (or lack thereof) of immurement, while I distinctly remember reading in some book that the practice was sometimes used during inquisition. MammonI.Dumah (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it should be considered a reliable source for expanding the article, but I came across the following source citing possible evidence of actual innurements cited by a cracked.com article: http://books.google.com/books?id=MDmGX5y40IwC&pg=PA37&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false 65.183.189.103 (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have eliminated the reference to "The Hungarian Countess Elizabeth Báthory died immured." First, she is not legend and folclore, but real historical person. Second, she was secluded in her rooms and the main door was bricked, but she lived there for several years, regularly given food and otherwise attended through a small orifice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.52.24.86 (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard that the Catholic church did not ever use immurement as a punishment for recalcitrant nuns. However, Alessandro Manzoni's famous historical novel I promessi sposi is inspired by the true story of the Nun of Monza, Marianna de Leyva y Marino, otherwise known Suor Virginia (b. 1575), who was punished in just this way. According to the Italian wikipedia, her confinement lasted 13 years, after which she was released, so perhaps solitary confinement was meant, whether or not the door was sealed up with masonry. Manzoni's novel justifies this punishment as just and merciful, imposed by the enlightened Cardinal Federico Borromeo, who is depicted very positively in his book, and indeed her crimes, which included being an accessory to (or instigator of) multiple murders (as well as having several out-of-wedlock children) were very grave and would have called for the severest punishment even in a much later era. That she was of very noble birth probably mitigated her sentence and perhaps protected her from further mistreatment in jail. According to Italian wikipedia she and another nun, her co-criminal, Suor Ottavia, "vennero murate vive in separate celle" -- "were walled up alive in separate cells". Suor Virginia died at the pretty advanced age of 75 of rheumatoid arthritis in the year 1650 Mballen (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC) 02:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This confirms my suspicion that immurement was considered not that severe a punishment (in an era when torture and capital punishment were routine). http://planetmonza.altervista.org/portale/?q=book/export/html/11The trial against Sister Virginia, her accomplices and Father Arrigone

The trial initiated the 27th of November 1607: Saracino interrogated the mother superior Angela Sacchi, on the 22nd of December Sister Virginia also testified before him – basing her defense on the fact that her vows were null and that diabolical forces were behind her deeds. From the 19th of February to the 27th of March 1608 Father Arrigone was interrogated by Saracino and Lancillotto. Sister Colomba was interrogated on the 22nd of May confirming her charges even under torture. The 31st of May, Sister Virginia –confirmed the charges against the priest under torture. Father Arrigone was interrogated and tortured once again as were the caretaker and his wife. On the 18th of October 1608 the sentence was read. Sister Virginia was to be walled inside a cell in the Monastery of St. Valeria. Her crimes were not explicitly declared but were described as being “plurima gravia, et enormia, et atrocissima delicta, de quibus omnibus in processu contra eam.” Sister Virginia welcomed the sentence as magnificent gift..... [Father] Paolo Arrigone was sentenced to 3 years of forced labor on a Ship. On his return he was to spend another 15 years away from Monza. On the 27th of July 1609, Sisters Benedetta, Candida e Silvia were also condemned to be walled inside their cells in the convent of St Margherita

.

On the 25th of September 1622, 14 years later, Sister Virginia left her cell-It is presumed that the other nuns were also released at around the same time. She asked to meet Cardinal Borromeo who initially attacked her ... Virginia expressed her repentance but the Cardinal waved her off; when he saw her torn dress, however, he changed his tone and began to console her. Virginia then began to talk about her spiritual experiences ... Borromeo’s [initial] distrust did not last long. He asked her to write to other nuns undergoing spiritual crises. In one of these letters, dating 1625, she describes her captivity as having been a “charitable and holy medicine for her wounds,” adding, ”I was one of the worst sinners of this world ……the goodness of the Lord cured me.” The 14 years of segregation however left her prone to severe headaches.

This comes from an internet travel site about Monza, I believe, and is not a reliable source, however it may spur someone else to do further researches. 03:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I

Caption for the Mongolian capital punishment photo[edit]

Wouldn't the person condemned to die in this fashion die of thirst rather than starvation? The human body can last weeks without food but only a few days without water. I think the caption should say thirst or dehydration rather than starvation, unless the condemned was given water. I'm not familiar with this method of execution so I won't change the caption myself. Evonj (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Báthory[edit]

There appears to be a difference in opinions as to whether the Countess Elizabeth Báthory was sentenced to immurement, or house arrest. According to the main article of Elizabeth Báthory, she was specifically sealed within a dwelling - the definition of immurement. This is in contrast to house arrest, for which a subject may be free to move around outside of a dwelling. Unless someone can further explain why they feel that "house arrest" is more historically accurate, and accordingly fix the main Elizabeth Báthory article to reflect the accepted definition, I am reverting the last "good faith" edit back to Elizabeth Báthory being sealed up, as defined by immurement.
Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Báthory was sealed within the castle, but she died four years later and not from starvation or asphyxiation. That sounds a lot more like house arrest. The "walled-in" situation immurement implies is a The Cask of Amontillado imprisonment where if you're not buried alive you're trapped and die shortly. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input, Chris Troutman. According to text within this same article, religious figures have immured themselves for years on end without starvation (although meager sustenance); see section Asceticism/Religious practice. This would contradict the definition you are implying, however, you rightly note that most, but not all, of this article deals with death by starvation as a result of immurement.
I believe the issue is that of whether this article is strict in its use of "immurement" by implying only death by starvation, or more loose in how "being bricked up" is defined (as in the fore mentioned section), and this should be specifically mentioned at the beginning of this article.
Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. An alternative way to resolve this if source material describes being walled-in as immurement and we could qualify the definition in the lede, that there hasn't been a uniform technical definition. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm interested in taking up the task of researching the references on the Elizabeth Báthory page for this purpose, but I haven't had time to start; it's taken me this long just to reply to your reply. If someone believes they can do the work before I can, thank you.
Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

The authors cited in the "Vade in Pace" section are not exactly neutral commentators. The historicity of immurement as a form of punishment in monasticism is not a black and white issue, and to have two block quotes from a 19th century polemicist does not do justice to the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.209.29.69 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Immurement by Otto III. of Olomouc[edit]

The article now claims:

In 1149 Duke Otto III of Olomouc of the Moravian Přemyslid dynasty immured the abbot Deocar and 20 monks in the refectory in the monastery of Rhadisch, where they starved to death. Ostensibly this was because one of the monks had fondled his wife Duranna when she had spent the night there. However Otto III confiscated the monastery's wealth, and some said this was the motive for the immurement.[20]

The reference is Wekebrod, Franz Xaver (1814). Mährens Kirchengeschichte, Volume 1. Brünn (Brno): Traßler. with link to https://books.google.no/books?id=djECAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA118&hl=no#v=onepage&q&f=false

I have tried to substantiate this colourful story from some source which would be less than two hundred years old and so far I have failed (not mentioning that the quotation is obviously badly translated from German); its author apparently didn’t know that Olmüz is actually Olomouc, that the monastery is at Hradisko, that the abbot Deocarus was abbot only to year 1144, that the wife of the Moravian duke was a Russian princess Durancie. Yes, apparently in the middle of the 12th century Benedictines were replaced by Premonstratensians (perhaps then Deocarus finished his service as abbot; the change was related to the visitation by the papal legate Guido in 1143, according to article on Czech Wikipedia), but the change seem to happen in the orderly fashion, mainly for the political reasons (Premonstratensians were less independent on the pope, so their spread was quite often connected to replacement of Benedictines) and there is no record about any violence (monks apparently moved to other Benedictine monastery in Opatovice).

In conclusion I would suggest to delete this paragraph as unsubstantiated.

-- Ceplm (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand article?

we're seriously going to use an early 1900's article from New Zealand, which is a racist country even today, as proof, even though the article itself mixes up Mongolians and Chinese people. Might as well use Chinese propaganda stating white people eat babies as proof of cannibalism in modern society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.243.64.97 (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Immurement. 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: 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) 18:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Catholic Fake News[edit]

I've edited the article, with documentation, to reflect the fact that immurement of dissident nuns or monks by the Church or the inquisitions is anti-Catholic Protestant and leftist fake-news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.48.97.197 (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't. The content is cited. Do you have an issue with those source better than some random blog? Chris Troutman (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I took a look at the link you provided, which is a book. I'm going through it now. The issue is, the book you cite seems to allege that Protestant authors made up a bunch of stories. Those stories are cited here, so I don't know yet if the book you're referencing actually disproves them. We're going to need to come to consensus about how to address this. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you take the time to actually look at the sources and the citations, none of them document a single case of actual immurement, only a few cases of life imprisonment, which is not the same thing. As documented in the link I provided, Sir Walter Scott made up the notion that medieval or early modern inquisitions punished errant nuns and monks with immurement.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Immurement. 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: 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) 09:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References; "Attested;" & Tense[edit]

Save for a single reference notation, following the first sentence, any verification of the statements made in the entire opening section is completely absent.

The opening sentence of the second paragraph is oddly worded: "Notable examples of immurement . . . are attested." Statements or claims "are . . . " or (far more commonly) "have been/were . . ." attested *to,* and attested to *by* a person or entity.

When the word "attest(ed)" is used, it is almost always part of the phrase "attest(ed) to." For example: "(statements) '. . . have been attested to, by (entity which has confirmed veracity of the claim or statement)' [¹];" or "' . . . (entity) has attested to (statement)' [²]" including the citation notations as shown, which should link to relevant information about, and links to, external sources, in the "References" section.

Instead of using a consistent past-tense style, many of the statements wander into a phrasing that straddles the border between past and present tenses. A second sentence, located within the third paragraph, repeats the previously described issue: " . . . incidents . . . are attested or alleged . . ."

The first section of the "Immurement" article includes problems, possibly caused inadvertently during user edits, or resulting from a word-substitution computer translation of the source material, without the proofreading necessary to refine the crude results of the initial language conversion. I recommend a competent writer revise the issues that're obvious to a native English speaker, removing any claims or statements that lack a verifiable origin. 2601:600:8E00:7C90:3805:C182:E793:2061 (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Immurement&oldid=1205034623"