Revision as of 10:16, 12 November 2005 edit Wikibob (talk \| contribs) 2,524 edits →Chronicles' End: logic of drunkenness implying strictness? ← Previous edit		Revision as of 10:35, 12 November 2005 edit undo Stephen Turner (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 9,564 edits →Why not a lax monastery?: Reply Next edit →
Line 55: I do not understand this sentence in section [[Peterborough Chronicle#Unique authorial voice]]: ''It does not seem likely that Peterborough was in any sense a lax or secular monastery, as the description of drunkenness causing the fire would not have made the abbey singular in the age.'' - drunken monks were not unusual then, therefore the monastery was likely to have been strict? I cannot follow the logic here. -[[User:Wikibob\|Wikibob]] \| [[User talk:Wikibob\|Talk]] 10:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC) : I think it means "the drunkenness doesn't necessarily imply that the monastery was lax". But I agree it's not very well phrased. [[User:Stephen Turner\|Stephen Turner]] 10:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Peterborough Chronicle: Difference between revisions