Talk:Etymologiae/Archive 1

incorrect part

In which part is he incorrect, the world as a wheel or about Noah descendants? Roscoe x 19:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zainer

In connection with my transcription of Isidore on my site, this morning I got an e-mail from Bernard Rosenthal, (Bernard M. Rosenthal, Inc., bookseller in Berkeley, CA), a man who has spent the best part of a very long life in the field of incunabula and manuscripts (see this testimonial), alerting me to the typo on my site. On investigation I find that, as often, there hadn't been a bone of originality in me, but that I'd merely picked it up from the page at the Library of Congress that is the source of the illustration both on my site then later on Wikipedia. Google confirms Dr. Rosenthal, reporting the correct spelling at many other independent sites — even if outweighed numerically by the typo on Wikipedia and all its mirrors. It is not the first time the LC website has had a typo; usually I manage to correct them on my own; it is not the first time that an error on Wikipedia has propagated so much as to befoul searches on Google. Bill 12:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight: the flat earth section

The flat earth section reads as if it were written by a wonk doing original research. A large number of the quotes are from the work itself, rather than reliable secondary sources. The section is definitely too long, and there is already a long, edit-war-bait article mentioned in the see also hat note. This section needs to be severely abbreviated or even eliminated. Rwflammang (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The section also wanders from the subject by discussing the status of the medieval flat-earth theory in general, rather than the Etymologiae. I intend to truncate it, unless someone comes up with arguments against.Dayvey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do, and thanks! Rwflammang (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed much of the deviations. Granted that this article is about a work, it may be relevant to keep some refs on the primary source on the issue. However, secondary sources would be better. Fontaine's work, and other secondary sources, can probably stay. I am open to any suggestions.--Mayan1990 (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Shape of the Earth section

The size of this section has mercifully been much reduced, but there are still many problems with it. These include:

1. In the discussion of the antipodes, the antecedent of ‘’them’’ is unclear, making it seem that Isidore rejected the existence of a southern hemisphere rather than the existence of inhabitants in it.
2. ’’’The sun’’’ is said to ‘’appear equally’’, when it is ‘’the size of the sun’’ that is discussed in Etymologies. Also the reference is given to III,xxx, when the correct reference should be III,xlvii. Neither reference supports the misquote given, however.
3. ’’’Orbis’’, meaning ‘’orb’’, is said to mean a disk or a circle, which may have been true in classical times, but in ecclesiastical Latin, ‘’orbis’’ can mean a sphere.
4. The reference to Brehaut is problematic in several ways. It is not clear what Brehaut’s opinion of Isidore’s grasp is notable. If he really is arguing that Isidore did not understand the difference between a sphere and circle, then that does not reflect well on Brehaut’s intelligence. Certainly, the quote from ‘’De Natura Rerum’’ in no way supports such a proposition.

The whole section really cannot help but be overblown, since Etymologies does not comment on the shape of the earth as such, except off-hand in obiter dicta. Attempts to read significance into these are comical, reflecting the preoccupations of conflict-hypothesists.

At a minimum, the problems listed above need to be addressed, but I cannot help wondering whether deleting the section would be more appropriate.

Rwflammang (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It is pretty coatrackish and probably too long. There is certainly reason to mention the topic and to link the flat earth article. Brehaut has shown with certainty that Isidore was rather vague on the topic; whether people think that is because of Isidore's vagueness on the actual shape of the earth or because of Isidore's grasp of geometry. The Brehaut view is certainly notable (a book reliably published by an Isidore scholar).

On the question of balance with the rest of the article, the section was far too long when the article was very short; now the rest of the article is growing rapidly, balance is less of an issue. I'll see what best to do about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Another editor has precipitately deleted the section. I am not minded to restore it, as the crux of the argument rests on Isidore's De Natura Rerum, not on Etymologiae, where indeed he talks of spheres. The materials therefore belong either in Isidore of Seville, where they still risk being coatrackish though probably deserve a brief mention, or in flat earth where a full treatment would make perfect sense. I have however provided a brief mention in Book XIV, with map, link, and some of the <sigh> many refs available. It is remarkable how much reliance has been placed on Isidore's very thin or non-existent support for flatness.Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap, yes, I just decided to make a BOLD move and delete it since Rwflammang mentioned some issues which I had already foreseen on this article for years. This whole section does not really belong here for the issues both you and Rwflammang have already mentioned. The T and O map image is fine since it is part of Etymologies. The coat rack issue is on the flat earth myth. On the Flat earth article there is already extensive discourse on Isidore's views (much of what was deleted actually came from the flat earth article with modifications) by the way. Since Isidore did not really focus on the shape of the earth in the Etymologies, the mentioning of this particular issue here would seem like UNDUE weight. What do you think? In terms of mentioning his views on the Isidore of Seville article, perhaps only a very short mention would be tolerable since it is not a prominent topic he discussed in his writings. It would look coat rackish, depending on those who read that. --Mayan1990 (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. There is a brief mention here; not much if anything is needed in Isidore, and the FE article is probably long enough already. It does need correcting if anyone is feeling exceptionally robust. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)