|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
The Catholic Encyclopedia page linked from this article gives (as of this writing) the date of the first removal of Swithin's remains as 931. As it also says this is "more than a century" after Swithin's death (in 862) and associates the event with a bishop who died in 984, it seems likely that this is a typo. 971 is given as the correct date by other sources. --rbrwr 22:04 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Which is it?
Is it St. Swithin? Or St. Swithun? The article uses both spellings. Even the Talk page is inconsistent! --Micahbrwn 21:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The spellings of Swithun's name are several, and reflect the inconsistent spelling conventions of the time. The "normalized" Anglo-Saxon version is generally held by modern scholars to be "Swithun," but this is no more than a convenience. Other versions in the original texts include, among others, Swiððhun, Suuiðun, Swyðun, and Suitthun. "Swithin" was the version favored in the 17th-19th centuries.
I suggest keeping the page header at "Swithun," but possibly including either a redirect from Swithin or adding a short paragraph on name variants. Hexotrope 12:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
More Detail, Please
There are these two paragraphs.
Of other stories connected with St Swithun the two most famous are those of the Winchester egg-woman and Queen Emma's ordeal. The former is to be found in Gotzelin's life (c. 1100), the latter in Thomas Rudborne's Historia major (15th century), a work which is also responsible for the not improbable legend that Swithun accompanied Alfred on his visit to Rome in 856.
William of Malmesbury adds that, if Bishop Alhstan of Sherborne was Ethelwulf's minister for temporal matters, Saint Swithun was the minister for spiritual matters. The same writer recorded the bishop's prayer that his burial might be ubi et pedibus praetereuntium et stillicidiis cox alto rorantibus esset obnoxius. This expression has been taken as indicating that the well-known weather myth about St Swithun was already well-known in the 12th century. However, this is uncertain (particularly for those who need a translation).
Why are the stories mentioned in the first paragraph not in the article? The source for each is known and given. Why make a reader go search for the source documents?
Rather than belittle readers who have little or no Latin, why not provide a translation?
- Probably because he has little or no Latin himself, otherwise he would have quoted it correctly. I have supplied. Incidentally, has anyone ever heard the so-called British slang term at the beginning of the "Contemporary references" section? Unless someone can provide some evidence for it, I'm tempted to delete it. Лудольф (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Other than those irritations, it is a pretty good article. Thank you.
In the section Veneration: "An example is the church in Headbourne Worthy to the north of Winchester, probably not a very notable church. . . "
This is misleading. It may be the oldest church in continuous use in the UK.
In addition, it has at least one undisputed treasure of international value: the rood. http://www.astoft.co.uk/headbourneworthy.htm
In Popular Culture
Revocation of 23 May 2012
A large chunk of materiual was removed from this article on the basis that ": The paragraph starting "More probable..." had an invalid link and apparently pushed a pet theme with no basis in fact. Links should be plentiful and well-maintained. No original work, right?". This is not original work - I have certainly seen this explanation - possibly in the reference that was quoted. The link itself was probably valid when it was put in place. Since then "The Times" has hidden this artcile behind a "pay barrier", but this does not invalidate the source.
The annonymous editor who removed this material could have done better by doing some of his own research first. It took me less than three minutes to find a new reference!!!!!!!!! Martinvl (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I see that this problem was raised four years ago and nobody cared, but let's try again.
- Swithun's best known miracle was his restoration on a bridge of a basket of eggs that workmen had maliciously broken. Of stories connected with Swithun the two most famous are those of the Winchester egg-woman and Queen Emma's ordeal. The former is to be found in Goscelin's Life (c. 1100), the latter in Thomas Rudborne's Historia major (15th century), a work which is also responsible for the not improbable legend that Swithun accompanied Alfred on his visit to Rome in 856.
This is not a useful paragraph. If these legends are detailed in reliable sources (Life and Historia major), why are they glanced over so briefly in the article? Alright, so there's probably not much more to say about the eggs, but who the hell is Queen Emma? What was her ordeal? I mean, it obviously refers to this, but I shouldn't have had to Google it. It should be in the article. And who's Alfred? Alfred the Great, I suppose, but according to Wikipedia, he went to Rome in 853. Why would Swithin go with him, and why is that legend so inherently plausible? I came here to learn more about St. Swithin, but this article left me more confused than I was before. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Is Saint Swithin's Day in common use as a metaphor for a generic obscure saint's holiday, or a metaphor for a very arbitrary metaphor for a fixed day that never seems to arrive. My English Anglican mother-in-law used the term this way, analogous to the way sports folks use the term Mendoza line as a marcation point for obscurity. (Is this an appropriate point of discussion here?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregscott humbird (talk • contribs) 21:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)