Talk:Restitutus

I believe this page deserves more up-to-date references than the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. It's a (very) long time since I took an optional 'Roman Britain' course, but:

If Adelphius was a bishop 'de civitate colonia...' he was clearly NOT bishop of London. London was never a colonia. There were only four coloniae in Roman Britain - see I A Richmond "The four Coloniae of Roman Britain" Archaeological Journal 103 (1946) 57-84 Arch J 103 - Colchester (Camulodunum), Lincoln (Lindum), Gloucester and York. And since Eborius was the bishop from York, Adelphius must have represented one of the other three. (And, since it was not a colonia, Caerleon is also out of the picture.)

As far as I know, he doesn't seem ever to have been claimed for Gloucester, and debate has centred on Colchester and Lincoln. Thus, accepting that the text "Adelfius episcopus de civitate colonia Londinensium" is corrupt, the question is whether the correct version was "colonia Camulodunensium" or "colonia Lindensium". Ian Richmond (ref above p 64) argued for Colchester, following various earlier authorities. Lincoln is supported by J C Mann "The Administration of Roman Britain" Antiquity 140 (Dec 1961) 316-20 (at p 317), Charles Thomas Christianity in Roman Britain to AD 500 (1981) p 197, and A L F Rivet & Colin Smith The Place-Names of Roman Britain (1979) p 48.

I suspect Lincoln is the current orthodox view - perhaps someone with a more recent background in Roman Britain studies than me can suggest other references to cite.

This leaves Restitutus as the sole claimant to be the bishop of London attending Arles (and the only Romano-British bishop of London we can be certain of). Since he isn't in the fictional list of "archbishops" credited to Jocelin of Furness, one can't really claim, as in the infobox, that his predecessor was Hilarius and his successor Guitelinus.

I don't know the source of the claim in the current text that "other emendations place him [ie Restitutus] in Colonia Lindum (Lincoln) or Camulodunum (Colchester)".

For a more recent quotation of the relevant text of the list of British bishops at Arles, together with the variant readings in different manuscripts, see Rivet & Smith (ref above) pp 49-50. Their source is an edition of Concilia Galliae published in 1963, perhaps more reliable than the 1671 edition currently cited in footnote 1.

Another point - the link to Roman colonia is unhelpful, since that page is inaccurate, incomplete and lacking in references.

Sorry to go on so long!− John O'London (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

See also S. N. Miller "The British Bishops at the Council of Arles (314)" English Historical Review 42 (1927) 79-80. I've yet to see this, but I gather he opts for Camulodunum as Adelfius's see. – John O'London (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've now revised the page, with updated references - please feel free to edit further. I hope I haven't made too many errors in formatting - I haven't done much editing on this scale, and I struggle with the citation templates. In the infobox I've replaced the names of Restitutus's predecessor and successor by 'unknown' - the idea they were Hilarius and Guitelinus is historically unwarranted, it's only by inserting him in the 'traditional' (probably fictitious) list of 'archbishops' that you can relate him to these others.

If anyone thinks the discussion of where Adelfius came from is superfluous on this page, perhaps they would like to create a new page for Adelfius and move it there! - John O'London (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

With respect to sources for attendees of the Council of Arles, Rivet & Smith is also inaccurate and misleading. Digital copies of the source manuscripts can now be viewed online. The actual text of the diocesan city of Adelfius in each manuscript version is as follows:

Paris BnF Latin 12097: "colonia londenensium"

Koln 212: "colonia londinientium"

Toulouse 0364: "colonia"

Munich Latin 5508: "colonensium"

Paris BnF Latin 3846: "coloniae londininsium"

Paris BnF Latin 1452: "colonia londiniensis"

There is another manuscript in Albi which is a close copy of the Toulouse version. Colchester BFC (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I notice Restitutus is described as "Roman Catholic" in the info box. Is that actually correct, before the East-West schism? - John O'London (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not really ... but ... that field is just a magnet for people determined to push one or another view. I've tried using "Christian" but it eventually ends up "Roman Catholic" in most articles. Honestly? I try to just not put it in... it seems that if it's not there, people are less likely to think it needs "filling" or "correcting". Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I see most of the Anglo-Saxon bishops that you created pages for, Ealdgyth, are down as "Catholic" with no link. I'll try the same for Restitutus, and see if anyone changes it! - John O'London (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply