Talk:Orosius

Attalus

To Aldux -- I don't have anything against adding a link to Attalus' Home Page, but was it necessary to remove the link to the Latin Library at the same time? The material from Attalus was used with the permission of Attalus' webmaster -- cf http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/readme -- so copyright or netiquette is not an issue. Is there anything wrong with a little redundancy in the links? Apart from the texts by Orosius on each website, there might be other material at Attalus' Home Page as well as at the Latin Library, which Wiki-readers could find interesting. I don't want to step on anybody's toes, so I'll wait a while for an answer, but if I don't hear from anybody, I'll put the the link to the Latin Library back. GBWallenstein 01:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, you're probably right, so I've restored it. Cheers. Aldux 11:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. GBWallenstein 22:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Geography

According to Alfred the Great and the Tradition of Ancient Geography Jerzy Linderski Speculum, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Jul., 1964), pp. 434-439 doi:10.2307/2852498, O's history began with a geography of the world and was used as a basis or framework for his Geography. Kdammers 09:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Tarraconensis or Gallaecia?

Gallaecia was in Hispania Tarraconensis! Orosius was probably from Bracara Augusta (present day Braga, in Portugal). I'm correcting the changes made by Nicknack009. Thank you. The Ogre 14:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence Orosius was from Gallaecia? If so, cite it. I cited my edit. --Nicknack009 14:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

My friend... Do you know that all other languages wikipedias say that Orosius was from Gallaecia? Namely the Spanish and Galician ones? You see, the site you use as reference has some of its details wrong. First of all Orosius was not Spanish! Not in the modern sense of the word. He was from Hispania (wich comprises modern Spain and Portugal). Secondly he was not from Tarragona (in modern Catalonia) - he did say that he was from Hispania Taaraconensis, wich included the sub-provinces of Gallaecia, Carthaginiensis and Tarraconensis proper. And he was from Gallaecia, in Hispania Tarraconensis! That is were he made is seat, in Bracara Augusta. This is commom knowledge in Spain and Portugal! there is no need for the citation needed tag. I'm removing it. Thank you. The Ogre 14:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources:

• Catholic Encyclopedia, states " b. probably at Bracara, now Braga, in Portugal, between 380 and 390..."
• Vortigern Studies, states "born probably in the town of Bracara, now in Portugal, between 380 and 390."
• Encyclopædia Britannica, states "born , probably Braga,"
• Biographisch-Bibliographisch Kirchenlexicon, states "unbekannt in Galicien (Braga?)..."

The Ogre 15:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe there may be some confunsion in English speaking sources due to the fact that Gallaecia was part of Hispania Tarraconensis, and that under Diocletian, in 293, Hispania Tarraconensis was divided in three smaller provinces: Gallaecia, Carthaginiensis and Tarraconensis. But this was a short lived administrative division - soon the situation reverted to the former state of affairs. Probably some people read his statment of being from Hispania Tarraconensis as being from the smaller province of Tarraconensis, with capital at Tarraco (modern Tarragona, Catalonia). But let us follow the accepted version pratically everywhere! That states he was from Gallaecia, probably from the city of Bracara Augusta. Thank you. The Ogre 15:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

And I'm changing your reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia one. Thank you again. The Ogre 15:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Orosius never states he was from Tarraconensis, he only says "Germani Alpibus Raetia totaque Italia penetrata Rauennam usque perueniunt; Alamanni Gallias peruagantes etiam in Italiam transeunt; Graecia Macedonia Pontus Asia Gothorum inundatione deletur; nam Dacia trans Danuuium in perpetuum aufertur; Quadi et Sarmatae Pannonias depopulantur; Germani ulteriores abrasa potiuntur Hispania; Parthi Mesopotamiam auferunt Syriamque conradunt. exstant adhuc per diuersas prouincias in magnarum urbium ruinis paruae et pauperes sedes, signa miseriarum et nominum indicia seruantes, ex quibus nos quoque in Hispania Tarraconem nostram ad consolationem miseriae recentis ostendimus." When he says "in this our province of Hispania Tarraconensis", that is by no means a certification of birthplace, it is just a rethorical device when refering to the devastations produced by the barbarian invasions, he could as well be saying "in this world of ours"! The Ogre 15:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You may also find the following statement at Celtiberia.net (hope you can read Spanish...):

A priori, Orosio reúne dos importantes requisitos para constituirse en una fuente de primera magnitud en cuanto a la historia de Hispania (y la pars Occidentis en general) para el período que cubre su obra, es decir, los últimos años del siglo IV y poco más de la primera década y media del s. V. En primer lugar, el propio Orosio era hispano (GENN. De virus ill., 40), con mucha probabilidad originario de Callaecia y más concretamente de Braccara Augusta (la actual Braga). Las fuentes (AUG, Ep. 166, 2 y 169, 3, en las que utiliza las expresiones ab oceano litore y ab ultima Hispania respectivamente, y una carta de Braulio de Zaragoza a Fructuoso de Braga, concretamente Ep. 44, 290, son las principales, además del propio Orosio, especialmente en su Consulatio sive Commonitorum 3, donde llama conciudadanos (cives mei) a los dos Avitos de Braga) así parecen indicarlo. Otros autores sugiere Brigantia (actual La Coruña), igualmente en Callaecia. La mención de Orosio (Hist., VII, 22, 8) respecto a Tarraco llamándola Tarraco nostram no es suficiente como para considerarla candidata a ser su lugar de nacimiento.

The Ogre 15:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so why do so many secondary sources say he came from Braga? Where do they get this information from? Church tradition? On another subject, I find the avoidance of the name "Spain" as a handy and easily understood geographical shorthand for the ancient Iberian peninsula rather pedantic. --Nicknack009 17:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nicknack009. I'm not understanding what you mean by "Okay, so why do so many secondary sources say he came from Braga?" I am saying that most sources state he cames from Gallaecia and probably from Braga. The text in Spanish I quoted says that there are several ancient sources indicating that, and that Orosius himself called "fellow citizens" (cives mei) to people of Bracara Augusta (Braga). What is exactly your point, my friend? The Ogre 14:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding calling Spain to Ancient Hispania or as an "easily understood geographical shorthand for the ancient Iberian peninsula"... well... you should notice that all articles refering to ancient Iberia never called it Spain! The Iberian peninsula or Hispania, covers not only the modern country of Spain, but Portugal also (and Andorra; and Gibraltar!). The word "Spain" in modern English (and its counterparts in other languages) means the country of Spain, not all of the Iberian peninsula (as the respective articles show). The fact is that Castillian expansionism over the centuries (ask not only the Portuguese, but also the Galicians, the Basques or the Catalans...) tried to monopolize the definition of Iberia in a way that satisfied its imperial interests. In fact, even if Spain was used in ancient times to refer to the whole of Iberia, today it is not. In this sense, given that the Kingdom of Spain only emerges with the union of Castille and Aragon in 1492 (and this is disputed since Navarre was only incoporated in 1512), one can almost say that there was never a Spain before that! It was Iberia that was conquered by the Romans, who called it Hispania. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Hispania that was conquered by Suevi, Buri, Vandals, Alans and Visigoths. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Visigothic Hispania that was conquered by the Moors, who called it Al-Andalus. The country of Spain didn't exist then. The Moorish conquest was of Iberia or Hispania (that should not be confused with Spain, even if the term Hispanic is used to denote Spanish speaking peoples). This conquest and subsequent occupation led to a Christian reaction know as the Reconquista from which several Christian kingdoms emerged (such as Asturias, León, Castille, Portugal, Navarre, etc.). Over time Castille came to dominate most of Iberia (but not Portugal, except for a small period between 1580 and 1640 - see Iberian Union) and the use of the castillian word "España" (which is the castillian derivative of the Latin Hispania) started as a political strategy to curb autonomy or independence from centralist Madrid (for the same reason Castillian language started to be known as Spanish, implying the irrelevance of other Iberian languages - this was still a problem in the Spain of the 20th century, with the active repression of languages other than Castillian). Furthermore, if you call Spain to the Iberian peninsula, this not only is simply not true, but is felt as profoundly offensive at least by the Portuguese. For all these reasons and more, no article should emply that Spain is Iberia or Hispania! That would not just be wrong but also POV! The Ogre 14:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

How would everyone feel if I started calling England to Great Britain? The Ogre 14:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

oppose name change

This article should not have been renamed, as the scholar is most commonly referred to as simply "Orosius" and there don't seem to be other Orosii from whom he would need to be distinguished. I've left a notice on the talk page of the user who did this so unilaterally. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I came here looking for the move discussion, but there doesn't seem to have been one. The user has also edited the links pointing here, so undoing the move would be quite difficult but, in my view, desirable: a hatnote might have been better than a dab page. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont see this change of name to be so terrible, provided that Orosius redirect here. There are other articles as Bobbio Orosius. Anyway I'm ok also to change back the name of the Article, and leaving Paulus Orosius as a redirect. A ntv (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, with the Bobbio Orosius, there's probably justification for a dab page; I withdraw my objection. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a particular problem with calling the article "Paulus Orosius," but this does not conform to general naming practice: see Tacitus, Lucretius, Cicero, Lactantius, etc., where the single name in the title represents the most common form of reference that WP users are likely to have seen and typed into the search field. In either case, just plain "Orosius" should direct here to the article on the scholar, because that is by far the most common use of the single word "Orosius." The disambiguation page should be called Orosius (disambiguation). The creation of a dab page was no doubt intended to be helpful, but it creates inefficiencies for both editors of articles and people looking things up: every time I link to Orosius (which is regularly), I don't want to have to remember whether it's Paulus or Paullus, because the two spellings for this praenomen are often found interchangeably even for the same person. (Hence I'm probably making this sound more dire than it is; apologies.) DItto someone who wants to know who Orosius is: the intermediate step of a dab page is unneeded. In short, a dab page is fine, but "Orosius" really needs to direct to the page on the scholar. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You persuaded me A ntv (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I support Cynwolfe's position on the priority of scholarly Orosius; Google-searches both general and scholarly offer a lot more on him than on the genus. Let's keep it as simple and useful as possible, yes? Hats sound a better solution to this wee problem. Haploidavey (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Normally I favour using the full names of subjects from classical antiquity, at least in the instance of Romans with identifiable praenomen, nomen, and cognomen. But as Cynwolfe points out, Wikipedia policy encourages the use of single names when the subject of the article is unambiguous (I note that "Shakespeare" is listed under "William Shakespeare," perhaps to distinguish him from other equally-noteworthy Shakespeares with whom he might otherwise be confused). So in principle, I don't feel very strongly one way or the other in this case.

I don't know enough about Orosius to know why Paulus is spelled with one l instead of two, which was the usual spelling in classical Latin. I would, however, point out that it's almost certainly not a praenomen, but a cognomen. Paullus as a praenomen was rare enough in Caesar's day, let alone four centuries later, when praenomina were rarely recorded. But it had been a familiar cognomen since republican times.

The reason I mention this (apart from sheer persnickitiness) is that presumably Orosius is also a cognomen (I see no other instances in my index to PW). At the time he lived, Roman names were frequently a train wreck of cognomina, many of which were used only when convenient. In my opinion, such names are useless in article titles, and are best given as part of the full name in bold in the first sentence, instead. So that's what I think would be the best practice here. P Aculeius (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Good, thanks for catching that, P Ac. I wasn't thinking. Paul(l)us is not a praenomen. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

William Shakespeare is an example of the difference between Wikipedia's treatment of ancient and modern names; we use forenames and surnames for everyone since the Renaissance (except for cases, like royalty, where they don't exist). This is often annoying, but saves disambiguation later.

But on the substance, I agree with Cynwolfe and Aculeius. Paulus Orosius is pedantry; away with it. Unless I am convinced otherwise by tomorrow, I will propose a move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: he's probably named for Paul the Apostle, not L. Aemilius Paullus; hence the single l. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion. - GTBacchus^(talk) 11:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Paulus Orosius → Orosius —

This man is usually called simply Orosius, like Livy, Tacitus, Boethius, Ovid.

Sources which use simple Orosius as the article title include

• Brill's New Pauly
• Oxford Classical Dictionary
• Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church

The Britannica does list him as "Orosius, Paulus", and some sources do list him as Paul Orosius. I will include the last, but it strikes me as eccentric; see also the section immediately above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Support. 'Nuff said by me above. No point in the redirect of "Orosius" to "Paulus Orosius." Just call it that. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Support (same reasons as in previous section). Haploidavey (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Relics of St Stephen

Why is there no mention that Orosius was supposed to take the relics to Braga and either abandoned or left them in Majorca? (see Avitus of Braga) 72.172.10.114 (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Who are "the Germans" here?

Are they supposed to refer to the Suebi, or to other Germanic peoples? Note that English, Swedish, etc. are Germanic languages, but we don't usually describe Americans, the English, or the Swedes, most of whom speak Germanic languages as Germans. So it seems misleading to describe Goths, Vandals, etc. who spoke a completely different branch of the Germanic languages as Germans, although it is at least arguable that one could refer to the Suebi as Germans. 96.231.17.143 (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

'Chalcedonian'?

In what sense is he 'Chalcedonian'? The article claims as much in the first line but doesn't explain itself. By its own reckoning, Orosius may well have been dead before the Council of Chalcedon anyway. 79.70.169.147 (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Hagiography

This article reads like hagiography. Clearly, many of the authors of the sources are necessarily totally focussed on their subject, but the end result of their use in this article is that it comes across as not objective at all. There is no discussion of the actual content of his work or how it’s viewed as history today (or not). One person’s opinion that Graeco-Roman historians “always tried to give a positive impression of their "enemies"” is given undue prominence. There’s a very weird sentence that seems like an argument lifted straight from a source without context — “The date of the book is not our main focus here…”. If not from the source, then it is making an argument in a Wikpedia article, which is worse. ⚜ Moilleadóir ✍ 04:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)