Talk:Saint Patrick

Tírechán citation

This is what is stated in the article at the moment:

Tírechán writes
"I found four names for Patrick written in the book of Ultán, bishop of the tribe of Conchobar: holy Magonus (that is, "famous"); Succetus (that is, the god of war); Patricius (that is, father of the citizens); Cothirtiacus (because he served four houses of druids)."[57]

Muirchu records much the same information, adding that "[h]is mother was named Concessa."[58] The name Cothirtiacus, however, is simply the Latinized form of Old Irish Cothraige, which is the Q-Celtic form of Latin Patricius.[59]

_______________

By checking source 59 I found out that the name Cothirtiacus isn't spelled correctly in the article. In the book from 1920 (White, Newport: "St. Patrick, His Writings and Life" (1920)) the spelling of "Cothirthiacus" is ok., while the WP-article is omitting the letter h. That letter however is important, both in Old Irish and in modern Irish.

In addition, I find the equating of "Cothirthiacus" and Old Irish "Cothraige" more than questionable.

See what Tírechán actually wrote:
"1 (1) Inueni quattuor nomina in libro scripta Patricio apud Ultanum episcopum Conchuburnensium: sanctus Magonus, qui est clarus; Succetus, qui est <deus belli; Patricius, qui est> pater ciuium; Cothirthiacus, quia seruiuit quattuor domibus magorum;" ("Tirechani collectanea de sancto Patricio").

English translation: 1(1) I have found four names for Patrick written in a book in the hands of Ultán, bishop of Connor: the saint (was named) Magonus, that is: famous, Succetus, that is: <god of war; Patricius, that is:> father of the citizens; Cothirthiacus, because he served four houses of druids; ("Tirechani collectanea de sancto Patricio").

Tírechán translates the four names of Patrick as follows:

• Magonus - clarus (famous)
• Succetus - deus belli (god of war)
• Patricius - pater ciuium (father of the citizens)
• Cothirthiacus - (quia seruiuit) quattuor domibus (magorum) ((because he served) four houses (of druids))

It makes not much sense to me why Tírechán who knew the Old Irish language very well, should confuse Old Irish "Cothraige" (Pádraig in modern Irish) with "Cothirthiacus".

If you compare modern Irish: ceithre theach - four houses with the latinized Old Irish form "Cothirthiacus"
than a translation of "Cothir-thiacus" with "quattuor domibus" (four houses) makes more sense to me.

In short, I do agree that Old Irish 'Cothraige' is the Q-Celtic form of Latin Patricius. I can't see, however, why Tírechán should cite Patrick's name twice: first in Latin and than in Old Irish, followed by a wrong translation, as the article states at the moment. --91.61.112.123 (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The short answer is, it's the consensus of linguistic scholars that Tírechán's "Cothirthiacus" is a confused rendering of Cothraige. The longer answer is that Irish changed quite drastically from Patrick's time to the 7th century, and Ireland was mostly illiterate during that time so little of it is documented. All we have are the ogham inscriptions before the changes, and the Old Irish texts after them. Patricius entered 5th century Irish oral tradition as something like *Qatrikias, which by the time Tírechán was writing, after all the oral changes that took place between Primitive and Old Irish, was something like Cothraige, Cothairche or Cothriche, and its derivation wasn't understood. Meanwhile, the texts that Patrick wrote in the 5th century still existed in the 7th century, where his name could could still be read as Patricius, and Irish scholars of the day, being ignorant of historical linguistics, had no way to make the etymological connection between them. They, quite reasonably, thought they were two different names borne by the same person. They did their best to explain why in oral tradition Patrick was sometimes called Cothraige or something like it, but they were working blind. The Glossary tradition is full of attempted name explanations of this kind, that scholars now know are mistaken. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"Who was St. Patrick?"

I've read part of the huge amount of literature concerning Patrick over the years. I've come to the conclusion that all that can be known of him almost wholly resides in the two surviving letters he wrote. And as they make clear, he wasn't a very good writer (a point upon which Patrick himself is admirably clear). If anyone is interested, I would strongly advise them to read Edward Arthur Thompson's "Who was St. Patrick?". Everything else should be seen in the light of his conclusions. Fergananim (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Britain vs. Great Britain

I'm not seeing how the article is improved with this edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Romano British

Since the editor User:Rob984 seems only interested in edit-warring and adding St. Patrick's ethnic identity/nationality as "Romano-British" without any consensus or discussing it, I will open the dialogue here. First of all his usage of the term is not appropriate regarding one's ethnicity, identity or nationality, it is a generic term used to describe the culture of Britain which was under Roman influence, it is being applied here incorrectly, and as the editor should, know the question of identity in Ireland & Britain is a complex, divisive and sensitive topic even in historical terms, and the editor in question seems to be oblivious in that regard. Are we going to start calling King Arthur & Boudica Romano-British next? (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You are mistaken. "Romano British" has been in the article for over a year. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Not consistently, and I see no talk page discussion pertaining to the matter. Tyrsóg (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Over three and a half years in fact (Romano Briton). As you are the one pushing for a change, you should be aware of WP:BRD (not WP:BRRRRRRRRD). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about the term "Romano-British" regarding Patrick or Arthur (if we're considering the allegedly historical Arthur as opposed to the literary one, anyway). Romano-British is the standard term for describing Christian Britons of the late Roman and early post-Roman period. And "the question of identity in Ireland & Britain is a complex, divisive and sensitive topic even in historical terms"? Please. Keep identity politics and its strategic offence-taking out of history. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The term Romano-British doesn't strike me as terribly controversial, but it has now been challenged and thus become controversial. I don't recall that Patrick himself described his ethnic identity clearly. Would those who care about the label be good enough to provide some suitable evidence that Patrick is normally described as Romano-British in scholarly sources? Or that he is given another ethnic label? Or that he is commonly not given an ethnic label at all, in which case we could appropriately remove a over-simplistic label from a place where it is inappropriate. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The term "Roman-British" is not even used as an ethnic description in the article. It simply identifies where he came from geographically and culturally. It's informative. And, as I said, it is uncontroversial. The burden is on Tyrsóg to show why it's not appropriate, which he so far hasn't even tried to do. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

What about "St Patrick: the archetypal lrishman from Britain: St Patrick, the patron saint of lreland, was not lrish-born but was of Romano-British origin, born in western Britain." from [1] by a university professor? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A good start. With only a couple more we could fairly declare an academic consensus, unless someone else can produce academics specifically disagreeing with the description.

Britain needs disambiguation, Great Britain does not but can occasionally upset some people? In the immediately-post-Roman context, what about Britannia? Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's some more sources: [2], [3], [4],[5], [6], [7], [8].DeCausa (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Great Britain is fine. If it upsets some people, then they should grow the fuck up. Rob (talk | contribs) 00:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Great Britain is unnecessarily imprecise. Although there is a very wide swathe of the island that he might have come from, sources are agreed he was from Roman Britain, so it makes more sense to use that term in place of Great Britain. AFAIK, there is no serious suggestion he was from Pictland, so why leave it open? DeCausa (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Nitpicking here, but Roman Britain customarily comes to an arbitrary end in 410, probably before Patrick's birth. What about Post-Roman Britain, or, to repeat, Britannia? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"Britannia" is uninformative for the sake of accuracy. Not everybody reading this is a history buff and knows what ancient names refer to. The state Patrick was born in is not known, as his birthdate is not known more accurately than "the 5th century", which is the century the Romans left. The simple geographical terms "Britain" or "Great Britain" are the appropriate terms here. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

How about: "Saint Patrick was a 5th-century Christian missionary and bishop in Ireland who was originally from Post-Roman Britain. He is known as the "Apostle of Ireland", he is the primary patron saint of the island along with Saints Brigit and Columba."

We know he was a missionary and we know he was from Post-Roman Britain and we avoid making any assumptions about his ethnicity, cultural identity etc. Tyrsóg (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Please, inform me what assumptions are being made by describing him as "Romano-British", the standard term for people of his background in this period, and why that's a problem. What, exactly, is your problem with it? --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

...and for which we have 8 citations from sources (above).DeCausa (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

'Romano-British is the standard term for describing Christian Britons of the late Roman and early post-Roman period.' Actually no, the Picts and Britons of southern Scotland in Rhygedd, Strathclyde and Manu Gododdun were Brythonic speaking (where the confusion with Welsh comes in). They were indeed Christian at the time of Patrick's mission (as the Saint himself writes) and didn't call themselves 'Romano-Britons' or Welsh, nor in the Empire. Just because he spoke a language very close to Old Welsh does not mean he was born in the partitioned, Roman-occupied part of the main island.

The crux of the matter here is the term 'Romano-Briton' is being used to dilute the Saints ethnicity leaning towards his family as continental Romans I have an Irish-American friend who uses it in that context. Regardless of the politics here he was a native Briton from the east coast who probably spoke Brythonic. That is 100% accurate from what we know of his life. There is no consensus which side of Hadrian’s wall he was born on or where his home was. He could very well have been from Hen Ogledd and not a Roman or even part of the Roman Empire during his life. To assume he was 'Romano-British' would be inaccurate. He was a Briton though. A more accurate phrasing would be 'born on the island of Great Briton' Uthican (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The first language of most Romano-Britons was most likely Common Brittonic rather than British Latin, although no one really knows and it's a subject of academic dispute. But, this is a question of sources. He is generally referred to as "Romano-British" in reliable sources, see for example the 8 sources mentioned in this thread. "the term 'Romano-Briton' is being used to dilute the Saints ethnicity leaning towards his family as continental Romans". What? Firstly, that's a terrible misunderstanding of what "Romano-British" means and secondly, it's not been "used" for anything - before this silly thread I've never seen it have any controversial/political meaning. DeCausa (talk) 08:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The Picts were converted to Christanity by Columba in the century after Patrick. Patrick had a Latin name, his father had a Latin name (Calpurnius) and a Roman political office (decurio) and owned a villa (presumably on or near the west rather than the east coast, but there's no reason the Irish couldn't have raided some distance inland via navigable rivers, like the Vikings later did), and his grandfather had a Latin name (Potitus). He may not have spoken Latin as his first language but he was being schooled in it. In the Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus he talks about being in exile among barbarians. Whether or not the Romans had "officially" left by the time of his birth (and that's a retrospective judgement anyway) he grew up as part of the local ruling class in a culture that followed Roman religion and Roman social and political organisation and saw itself as perpetuating Roman civilisation, which is why it's absolutely conventional in all the literature on the subject to refer to the Britons in the immediately post-Roman period as Romano-Britons. The Britons of Hen Ogledd, Rheged, Strathclyde and Manu Gododdin were Romano-Britons. It's not an ethnic term, so it does not "dilute" (a worrying term) anyone's ethnicity, which is in any case applying a modern conception of national identity to people who probably didn't think the same way about it. I will repeat, keep identity politics out of history. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Great Britain was formed in 1707, end of the discussion really. Great Britain is historically inacurate for St Patricks time as most of Britain was a hotchpotch of small tribes and kingdoms. You could say Celtic Britain I suppose. How silly would it be to say the Tsar of Russia was born in the USSR, think about it guys ? --Ryangiggs69 (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)