Talk:Rogation days

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Holidays (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Low-importance).

Separate "beating the bounds"?[edit]

Is there enough material to separate "beating the bounds" out from Rogation days. I mean, we have nothing here written on the sociology of the activity; the passing of the familiarity with the landscape and boundaries from one generation to another on a ritual level, before the age of cartography; indeed this is why several areas have restarted the practice in recent years. I'm not sure that has a place in what is essentially an article on "church days", however. Graldensblud

Gang days[edit]

I understand these were also known as "Gang Days". Origin of this name? Drutt (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"to gang" is an archiac verb meaning "to walk".Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Custom carried by "Slave holders"[edit]

I just edited this sentence at the end of the article: ""The new Protestant version of Rogation days became such a fixture in church life that the tradition was even carried over to the Americas by British slave holders.[18]" , altering "slave holders" to slave owners. The citation refers to a publication about rituals in British plantation colonies. On reflection, it seems absurd to suggest that a part of Episcopalian liturgical history in the US could exist solely because of British "slave holders", and so it proves: I would therefore suggest removing this sentence. Robocon1 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I have just remove this sentence, and at the same time, edited repeated references to "Catholic" priests etc from periods before the Reformation. Robocon1 (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I've put Catholic back into the article, but left the words slave holder out. Rogation days go back to the Roman era so it is important that the newly formed, official, Catholic church, took up the mantle from earlier Christian communities. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Panyd: You have not simply restored references to "Catholic" and replaced a sentence with a minor amendment, you have reverted both my recent edits. I believe that is usually regarded as a hostile act on Wikipedia.

I edited those references because of the fact that there were no "Catholics" before the Reformation. "Catholic" is usually used to mean Roman Catholic. The church was just the church, not the "Catholic" church. And, for instance, a woodcut illustration showing processional regalia is just a woodcut illustration, not a "Catholic" illustration. And a woodcut is not a drawing, and this illustration does not show a procession, or a "procession line" - see caption "Catholic drawing of procession line". Your point about the adaption of Roman ceremony by the early Christian church is made very clearly by the sentence following the description of Robigalia.

You have added your sentence about the observation of Rogation Days in the US to a section headed "In the British Isles". The US is not part of the British Isles. In any case, Rogation Days are observed in the US as part of the shared religious tradition of Anglicanism and Episcopalianism, as well as by Roman Catholics. It is therefore wrong to describe them as a "Protestant" tradition or as being "carried over by British Christians".

This is an article about Rogation Days, not Roman religious customs and their historical influence. The fact that Rogation Days were originally a Roman custom is already explained, and how they were adapted by the early Christian church. The rest of the article is about subsequent history and current practice.

I therefore respectfully invite you to restore my edit. Robocon1 (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You have my apologies that my act appeared hostile, it most certainly was not intended that way, but I respectfully retain the right to edit the article, which includes undoing edits I think are incorrect.
To go through this properly, I have to ask- do you have access to JSTOR? If you do, that's fantastic, if you don't, then I'm going to have to let you know what I'm quoting from, but then the context of what's in the article. This is incredibly difficult. Even regarding the sentence re: British slave holders - as far as I'm aware, it was the slave holders especially who took up the tradition across the Atlantic to make themselves feel like less of a minority with regards to all those other land owners around them. That is specific to British slave holders, and specific to the official church religion of the day, which certainly did not include Catholicism. I can see the need to put the information in another section though. Would you suggest something?
The picture was from the Catholic Church, and it is of the procession. This illustration was taken from a peer-review journal which labelled the image as such.
Just because something was not known as 'X' before such a date, does not mean that you cannot refer to it as 'X' for clearer reference in future.
I'm more than happy to discuss large changes, and I always welcome good tweaking, but these are major changes and if you strenuously disagree I'd like to discuss them as I feel they change the entire tone of the article. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
(The Latin inscription under the image states it is the procession order and the journal described it as an image of the procession. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC))
Do you have any ideas about how to properly address Catholicism as a "before the reformation" and "after the reformation" entity that still practised the same rituals in both states? I think that's the problem. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's the problem here at all. The church split into two parts after the Reformation. The original 'entity' was afterwards known as Roman Catholicism, or usually just Catholicism. Rogation is observed on the same days in both the Protestant and Catholic churches, but in different ways.

To reply to your earlier posting:

And I respectfully retain the right to point out that you haven't edited the article, you've simply reverted my edits, in the process restoring errors of fact and grammar that had been corrected - Christians can only be described as Protestant or Catholic after the Reformation, there was no "British" Rogation before the Act of Union in 1707 etc. Reverting good faith edits without explanation or discussion is, I think, behavior often associated with edit warring.

I'm sorry, but I can't see what access to JSTOR has to do with this, and I can't see that you've effectively refuted any of the points I made in my message to you above.

I've just looked at the history of the article, and I would say the changes you made in January amount to more than 'good tweaking', and were a lot more major than anything I've done. They certainly alter the entire tone of the article, but I notice you didn't explain them or provide any chance to discuss them in the Talk section beforehand (I'm referring specifically the 'I got me some stuff' edit).

However, you are discussing this now, and you've asked me to suggest where you might put this information. I think it belongs not in another section in this article, but in another article concerned specifically with the adaption/adoption of Roman religious rites by the Christian church, tracing the connections from those influences down the ages, and I think you should then restore the tone and direction of this article to what it was before January 1st.

Robocon1 (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just realised the first sentence of the January 1st edit, which is current, is wrong on a number of counts:

"Rogation Days are Christian celebrations spanning over five days. Processions are held from Monday through Wednesday on the dates preceding Ascension Thursday, with a final celebration held on the 25 April. [1]"

They are not celebrations, they are days on which rituals are observed or ceremonies are performed. They don't "span over" five days, and even if they did the correct expression would be "spanning five days". The Major Rogation is observed on St Mark's Day, 25th April, and the Minor Rogations are on the three days preceding Ascension. Ascension is the 40th day after Easter, this year the 29th May. So St Mark's Day is not a "final celebration", it precedes the Minor Rogations.

So, as it reads now, the first sentence of the article needs editing.

Robocon1 (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - are you telling me the entire article is wrong? And when I say JSTOR is important, it's because that's where all the peer-reviewed information that this article is based off of lives. If we both had the same source material to hand that would be great, but not having it changes the conversation.
Not every change needs a discussion, a contentious change usually does. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
N.B. written before the most recent discussion:) «I feel the Robocon1 version is generally preferable to the present one, without getting involved in the detail. Apart from the disputed text the article should stay in British English.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)»--Johnsoniensis (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Panyd: No, not the whole article. That was just an example. Please read my comments above. I don't believe the origins of source material affect the relevance of the points I made there. Robocon1 (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to all have forgotten about the Eastern Church. The Catholic Church was by no means The Church all the way up to the Reformation (see the East–West Schism.) Personally I would refer to "the Catholic Church" or "the Roman Church." DBD 21:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Good point, DBD, and one covered by Rwflammang in the most recent edit.

To return to the question of the reverted edit: It is not a major edit, not least because no contributions were removed, with the exception of the sentence about Rogation Day observation in the US being due to British slaveholders. Terminology and grammar are edited, not salient points. Referring to Johnsoniensis' comment, it is a language edit, but perhaps more about improving clarity and concision, rather than being a question of British or US English. Since there appears to be more consensus for than against, I will now restore it before further edits are made.

Robocon1 (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Can't and shan't argue with consensus. Thank you other people for putting in your two-cents. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 10:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Panyd, what do you specifically mean by "the new Protestant version of Rogation days were carried to the Americas"? Do you mean processing and beating the bounds, or just processing? And by 'the Americas' do you mean the US, or North (US and Canada) and South America? Robocon1 (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

By US America I meant British slave holders (plantation owners?) in the new British colonies in what is now the United States. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 10:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Specifically the article is talking about "Ritual Time in British Plantation Colonies, 1650-1780" - but as I'm by no means a specialist in the subject I have no idea how to condense the journal article into a detailed summary. Suffice to say it was early US colonies. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 10:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
They also just went nuts with it after a while. It was taken up after they moved there to help them keep their cultural identity and it ended up in such a way that there are wonderful journal articles such as "Native Americans on the Path to the Catholic Church: Cultural Crisis and Missionary Adaptation" - I just don't have the full text of that one. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 10:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The Protestants also did this. That's just one example. I am completely cold ridden. Too many P.S. sentences for one's own good. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 10:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

And did they have processions and beat the bounds, or just have processions? Robocon1 (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Only slaveholders?[edit]

So does the reference say only slaveholders participated in these rogations? Slaveholders were a minority of British colonists in these places, and I imagine in these parishes as well. I think the wording in the article should not give the impression that rogations were just a slaveholder thing. Rwflammang (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't appear it was only them, and another re-read lets me ensure there's verification of that. Having said that, the ceremonies were used (though not exclusively) to mark the difference between free men and slaves (see direct quote below). As that was a thing, and slave holders made a distinction during the days, can we come up with a compromise that puts both of those things there? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we could call them free men then. Not all free men are slaveholders. Most are not. Rwflammang (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
So how about
"The new, Protestant version, of Rogation days became such a fixture in church life that the tradition was even carried over to the Americas, as well as Jamaica and Barbados by British free men, where they were used, in part, to mark the difference between British citizens and slaves."
Does that sound ok? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds fine. Rwflammang (talk) 04:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Slave holders and my idiocy (part of an ongoing series)[edit]

Right. I've trawled through reference 19 again. I missed out a few parts. Firstly, I had forgotten the original quote that tied the ritual to slave holders, namely:

[T]he keeping of important English days and seasons marked a difference between those who claimed the rights of British subjects and their slaves.

I also missed out the bit where the British also did this in Barbados and Jamaica, as well as what is now South Carolina. All it says regarding their version of Rogation though is fasting. No other reports on how else it was celebrated. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Wood cutting[edit]

Ah, one point. The wood cutting is the Catholic version of the procession which was different from the procession type used in later years. Can we please make sure this is reflected in the article? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 10:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

What publication is it from, please, and what date is it? Unless it's from the early to mid 1500s (in which case it may be a woodblock print) it's a woodcut illustration. If it's from before 1534, the Church in England was the Roman Catholic Church. Robocon1 (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

So here is the footnote that comes with the image:
Henderson, p. 122. Henderson's is a re-editing of the 1508 printed edition of the Processional, collated with other sixteenth-century editions. Christopher Wordsworth states that these editions reflect the parochial and monastic practice in Salisbuty. Wordsworth edited the Processional manuscript surviving in the cathedral for which the Sarum - an abbreviation for Salisburgium - Use is named (Ceremonies and Processions of the Cathedral Church of Salisbury [Cambridge University Press, 1901]). He reprinted the woodcut on p. 93 but no analogous drawing is in the manuscript (p. xx). His assessment of the sixteenth-century editions, edited by Henderson, is on pp. xviii-ex.
From The Dragon in the "South English Legendary": Judas, Pilate, and the "A(1)" Redaction - Modern Philology
So it's definitely Catholic. I think it's important to put that distinction in because as soon as Queen Elizabeth I got her hands on it Rogation Days changed dramatically. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 11:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems Henderson used the 1508 and 1517 editions of the Sarum Processional. Perhaps "Woodcut illustration of Pre-Reformation processional order, c. early 16th century." for a caption? Robocon1 (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds perfect PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I notice that the description in the wikimedia jpeg file summary currently reads: "English: Original picture from the Catholic Church regarding the order of the procession for Rogation days in the South of England. From around the 13th to 15th century.", which isn't really very helpful regarding source or date.

Perhaps something more helpful might be along the lines of: Illustration from Sarum Processional, ed. W.G. Henderson, 1882, McCorquodale, Leeds, UK (p.122). Woodcut showing order of procession for Rogation Days in Pre-Reformation England, c early 16th century." Robocon1 (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Done and done! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)