Talk:Sulis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Discretion in linking

Not every proper name found on any inscription offers a link to a possible new article. Too many dead-end or irrelevant links obscure the ones that are actually useful to a Wikipedia reader interested in following up concerns that are central to the entry. Some discretion in linking is urged. --Wetman 19:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Suleviae

The distribution, etymology and the function of the Matres Suleviae differs from that of Sulis. It is incorrect to conflate them. --Nantonos 18:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

saya sangat terharu dapatdi beri kesempatan untuk melakukan edit terhadap subyek ini semoga kita dapat saling berbagi cerita diantara sesamanya, wlaupun saya sangata miskin pengetahuan semoga dengan ini akan menambah perbendaharaan diantara kita ok nanti aku akan membuat artikel salam dari anak indramayu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.124.17.115 (talk • contribs) on 14 December 2005.

repetition

the last paragraph in the section about syncretism with Minerva and the first para in the section about the etymology of the name are duplicated. The two could possibly be joined to form a section about the name.--stib 10:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Attempted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

generic abstraction justifiable?

The article begins with the assertion: "In ancient Celtic polytheism, the deification of spring-water, especially of thermal spring-water, conceived as a nourishing, life-giving Mother goddess." Since there is no inscription aside from the ones at Bath, can we delete this generic "deification of spring-water" as unwarranted? --Wetman 21:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Nantonos 11:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Any problems with editing a more cautious, less sweeping referenced version of this article? --Wetman 00:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. (I've been preoccupied with a yet-unpublished overhaul of Celtic polytheism; but by all means, this article could use attention.) QuartierLatin1968 16:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

no contradiction

Celtic dedications to Minerva per se are common. I meant that it is not common to see pairings like Sulis Minerva or *Brigantia Minerva (or for that matter *Hygeia Sirona). Maybe the confusing part is calling them "Celtic dedications", but I couldn't think of a compact way of saying "dedications found in the (Romano-)Celtic territories of Britain and Gaul". QuartierLatin1968 21:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Súil or suíl

I've removed the accent from this word in the text as the two sources used spell it differently. It's a minor point, but one that might grate with language experts without an explanation. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What about Coracle? That’s Brittonic and ends in -l.

Given the convention and the fact that the most authoritative sources on inscriptions in Roman Briton prefer Sul, the page should probably be renamed. Noted the objection that “no Britonnic words end in -L” but we cannot possibly know this without knowing all Brittonic words. In fact we know only a tiny fraction. And anyway the word coracle, which is Britonnic, ends phonetically in an L sound. Dena.walemy (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you please leave this to those of us who have actually studied Brittonic? It is totally inaccurate to say that "we know only a tiny fraction" of Brittonic words; linguists have reconstructed thousands of Brittonic words by studying the development of the daughter branches of Welsh, Breton, Cornish, and Cumbric and via the comparative method (likewise, a large database of earlier Proto-Celtic and Proto-Indo-European vocabulary has reconstructed, which helps to inform us on Brittonic words). Coracle is an Anglicization of WELSH (not Brittonic!) corwgl, which itself comes from Brittonic *corucos, but with a borrowed Vulgar Latin diminutive suffix added, i.e., *coruc(u)lus. It never ended in -l in Brittonic; in fact, no nouns ended in -l in Brittonic. Cagwinn (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

---

No, I don't think I need to leave the discussion to people who have spent more time studying Brittonic than me. According to you, Welsh is a daughter branch of Britonnic anyway. If 'corwgl' comes from Welsh then it doesn't seem to be beyond the realm of all reasonable conjecture that there might have been Brittonic words ending in -L. And my suggestion of coracle was just the first example. Besides, unless you know all the words that were ever used in the Brittonic language, and specifically all the words of the dialect that was used around Bath, then you can't say for sure that no Brittonic word ever ended in L. So even if you are the greatest scholar of Brittonic who ever existed, you cannot be sure. First because by your own admission we only know a few thousand words, second because regional variations tend to make a mockery of generalising assertions about language (some will tell you that in British English, the R in card is not pronounced). Given the fact that the deity has generally been known in English as Sul and has been for at least 200 years, I do not see a pressing need for a change to Sulis, which strikes me as confusing. It has no point other than drawing attention to the person making the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dena.walemy (talk • contribs) 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Cagwinn on this one. 'Coracle' is a red herring: there can be a huge difference between a daughter language and a parent language. [To give one trivial example, Old English had no words that end with /ʒ/ (a phoneme not reconstructed for Old English at all), whereas Modern English does in a word like 'rouge'. French or Portuguese have a totally different sound and feel from their parent language, Latin (including different rules about what's permissible in a well-formed syllable).] More to the point, what evidence do you have that "the deity has generally been known in English as Sul and has been for at least 200 years"? In the literature I'm familiar with, "Sulis" is very much the form favoured in English. Q·L·1968 ☿ 21:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

---

What I’m challenging is the over-bold assumption that there were no words in Brittonic that ended in L. We cannot possibly know all Brittonic words, especially since they would have morphed over the centuries that the languages were spoken and varied in the different localities where it was spoken. Indeed it shows a surprising ignorance of the extent to which languages can change. Even in modern times a language can change so much over just a few dozen miles as to become unintelligible. It is not convincing to say that while a Welsh word might end in L, a Brittonic word cannot end in L no matter when or where the language was spoken. Moving on to Sul – few texts written before the 1980s and 90s referred to the goddess as Sulis. You could Google "aquae sulis" "waters of sul" and note the date stamp. Of course a search for "aquae sulis" "waters of sulis" leads far more results, but this is presumably partly due to the influence of Wikipedia and the erroneous reference to Sulis in the nominative that I have already objected to. Using google is not the best way of conducting research, but it does at least show clearly that Sulis is a neologism and that all earlier works use Sul. I would like to add that I peppered my original amendment to the Wikipedia page with different references to “Sul” usage, but these were all removed. Finally, the very fact that we are having this debate shows that the disrespectful request “Can you please leave this to those of us who have actually studied Brittonic?” was unjustified. I suspect this was written in the heat of the moment. People with a rudimentary knowledge of Brittonic are quite capable of commenting constructively if they are knowledgeable on other relevant aspects that can illuminate the findings of those who claim to specialize. That’s how scholarship works. You don’t shout people down because you don’t agree with them. Dena.walemy (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Cornish tewal, Breton teñval, and Irish teimheal all end in -l. What's the Brittonic form of that? And how many Brittonic words end in -is, if Sulis really is the correct form? (Just to be clear I'm not supporting either side in this "ending in L" debate, I just want to know the answer. My reason for preferring Sul to Sulis is that it's more common. Everyone who knows Bath and is of a certain age is familiar with Sul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birnt Hardnut (talk • contribs) 13:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Title change please

Can the title be changed to Sul? The article refers to the god as Sul, but the heading is Sulis, so it's not consistent. I'm not too sure which is correct but certainly Sul is the one I first heard; I didn't know people were starting to rename her Sulis. Even if Sulis is more correct I feel it would be like insisting that we all srta calling Rome "Roma". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birnt Hardnut (talk • contribs) 13:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Initate a page rm. Put up points there and the discussion will follow Accesscrawl (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Also I would suggest that the discussion on etymology and the debate Sul vs Sulis in the article should be merged into one section. They are both very illuminating but generally they are about nomenclature so I suggest merging. I have not done so myself as scholars might disagree with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birnt Hardnut (talk • contribs) 13:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The change from Sulis > Sul must be reverted

I'm dismayed to see that the article and title have been altered from the correct form of this goddesses' name, Sulis, to Sul. Unfortunately, this means that our Wikipedia article devoted to a very well-known and significant Celtic deity is now mistaken in a rather glaring way.

Dena.walemy, I appreciate that you left commentary to explain the edits you made. I have reviewed your reasoning, and I would like to explain: Brittonic was an inflectional language similar to Latin (which is to be expected considering their relationship to each other as Indo-European languages). At this stage of development, Brittonic (like Latin) retained its vocalic stems (it had not yet undergone apocope). Therefore, there is no reason to assume the i ending is being introduced by Latin, but instead we can recognize it as perfectly consistent with being a Celtic feminine noun. And indeed, Matasović has reconstructed *sūli- as a Proto-Celtic root meaning 'sun', based off of a range of Celtic and Indo-European evidence (see Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic, 2009).

I see that you also attempt to justify this change by comparing the theonym Sulis with Sol. While it's true that these are cognates, the British inscriptions themselves clearly show Sulis as a feminine name, and as mentioned above we have all the reason to believe in its Celtic origin. This means there is no reason to expect it to conform to what is a masculine cognate from another language branch.

Lastly, you claim without reference that "Sul" is the most commonly-known form of the goddesses' name. I think it is fair for us to expect you provide some proof for that claim before the article is moved to a different title (alas, it was moved without this evidentiary support). While I have seen "Sul-Minerva" cited in 19th Century literature, modern scholarship appears virtually unanimous in spelling the name as Sulis. Here you can see that the official website for Bath and Northeast Somerset Council refers to the goddess as Sulis. I also have references at the ready for famous and credentialed Celticists such as Cunliffe, Green, and Olmsted referring to the goddess as such.

Given the preponderance of evidence, I would request that you please revert your changes made to the article and restore it to its original state. Please let me know if you need any further clarification. Thank you. — Uiscefada (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Article has been reverted to "Sulis". Please read before attempting any future rename or move.

When the topic of moving or renaming this article has come up in the past, it has been opposed by several editors. That means that such a change would qualify as "controversial" and require a formal request and discussion prior to being made. To learn the proper steps for submitting a request to move the page, please see this helpful guide.

Do not move or rename this page without following this procedure, please. Thank you. —Uiscefada (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Revert to Sul

Uiscefada Your comments are welcome. The answers to some of your questions (especially your challenge to me to give evidence for the widespread usage of the Sul spelling) had been given in earlier discussions, including my original amendments to the Wikipedia page. These have since been deleted. 1. You stated that Brittonic was an inflectional language similar to Latin and that “at this stage of development, Brittonic (like Latin) retained its vocalic stems (it had not yet undergone apocope).” I don’t dispute this. I would ask, however, at what stage in its development? The goddess was worshipped for decades or centuries. All language is fluid, both temporally and geographically. The assertions made about Brittonic imply that it was fixed, which cannot be true. It would have varied from hill to hill and from year to year. The “modern scholarship” you referred to frequently is little better than guesswork, and it is guesswork about a certain place and a certain time. We are not talking about Linear B or China’s seal script, which are immutable written forms of language - we are talking about the mere transcription of spoken language in phonetic form.

2. I acknowledge that we do need rules and forms to understand the basic properties of the language. It is not just comforting to scholars to refer to rules and specifics, it is essential for learning. However, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that this is a flimsy construct based on scant evidence. I was, frankly, appalled at the overconfidence placed by some who wrote in this discussion page (not you) in our ability to recreate the language. The Fuzhou dialect of Min Chinese, for example, is a living language – and yet because it is rarely written down there is considerable debate about its vocabulary, syntax, grammar and correct pronunciation. It makes no sense to pretend that we have cracked a language that died out centuries ago.

3. You challenge my assertion that "Sul" is the commonly-known form of the name as if this was an add-on point. It is the main reason for making the change and I provided several citations for the change, all of which were removed. I am sure you do not really mean it when you say “modern scholarship appears virtually unanimous in spelling the name as Sulis” – this implies you are somehow discounting all authors you rendered the name as “Sul” as something less than scholars.

4. The encyclopaedia pages of Wikipedia are not fora for scholars to employ the latest jargon for their own gratification. They are for people to learn about subjects they might be coming to with little or no knowledge. This is why the subject headings are supposed to reflect general rather than specific knowledge. This is why the heading for the page on Rome is the English name Rome, not Roma. It is why scholars do not get by name “Confucius” being given to the page dedicated to 孔子。 For this reason it doesn’t particularly matter what form your three “famous and credentialed Celticists” use.

Here are some links to use of the name Sul: https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/1001605/view

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Encyclopedia_of_Goddesses_and_Heroines.html?id=Cj5OAwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y [page 338 of this book, which is searchable online. The same author has written other books that also refer to Sul, not Sulis.]

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/roman-carving-of-the-ancient-british-goddess-sul-at-bath-news-photo/463908167

http://www.teachinghistory100.org/objects/about_the_object/the_roman_temple_in_bath

https://siris-libraries.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?uri=full=3100001~!388751!0

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306044017_The_Cult_of_Sul-Minerva_at_Bath

http://www.localhistories.org/bath.html

http://megalithicpoems.blogspot.com/2006/05/water-goddess-sul-from-12th-century_18.html

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tRtVaKWxgBQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+waters+of+sul+moyra&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOpfbhoJLoAhWLY8AKHSMeAb4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=the%20waters%20of%20sul%20moyra&f=false

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/92112754851392503/

Dena.walemy|talk]

Oppose. "Sul" is a mistaken form of the theonym in question and the article was never originally called "Sul". There is an overwhelming consensus of this in modern scholarly literature (notwithstanding the persistence of the antiquated "Sul" in some popular publications).

Inscriptions to the goddess naturally provide her name in the dative or genitive cases. This had left the nominative form of the name unclear. 19th and early 20th Century literature speaks to the resulting ambiguity of whether the nominative form had a consonant or vocalic stem (i.e., was it "Sul" or "Sulis"):

"Whether the nominative of her name was Sulis or Sul is uncertain: in the following pages I have used Sul as the shorter and most customary form." — Francis Haverfield, Romano-British Remains, p. 220 (1906).

This "shorter and most customary form", as it was at the turn of the 20th Century, may have been reinforced by comparison with the Latin theonym Sol, but was later overturned by expert philologists:

"She is traditionally called Sul; but Professor Tolkien points out to me that the Celtic nominative can only be Sulis, and our authority for believing that even the Romans made a nominative Sul on the analogy of their own word sol—perhaps meaning the same—is not good. The Celtic sulis may mean 'the eye', and this again may mean the sun." — Collingwood and George, Roman Britain and the English Settlements, p. 262 (1936)

While Collingwood and George do not appear to elaborate on Tolkien's argument there, modern literature is in agreeance, noting:

"The traditionally accepted nominative form of the deity's name was Sul, though Sulis came to be generally preferred [...] The first attested instance of the name in the nominative is ut [1-2]um dea Sulis maximo letum [a]digat." — University of Wales Press, Studia Celtica, p. 37 (2007)

For reference, here is the documentation of this fortunate attestation of the nominative case:

DEA SVLIS

No further elaboration should thus be needed, as we have a clear and unambiguous example of the goddess' true nominative-case name in this tablet inscription. However, I would like to point out that other reputable encyclopedias also list her name as "Sulis". See: Encyclopedia Britannica and Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia. Nonetheless, I will clarify some questions that were raised by @Dena.walemy point-by-point.

1. I pointed out that Brittonic still retained its vocalic stems when the goddess was worshiped, so the "Sulis" form would have been expected in the indigenous language contemporary with her worship. You asked "what stage of [Brittonic language] development" I'm speaking of. Specifically, the inscriptions to Sulis were variously made at different points between the early 2nd to 5th Centuries CE. You may find a database documenting that here. Peter Schrijver cites Jackson as dating apocopation in Brittonic to the end of the 5th Century CE (Studies in British Celtic Historical Phonology, 1995, p. 21). Therefore, the inscriptions all predate apocopation and it should be noted that the overwhelming majority of them are clearly much earlier than the 5th Century entirely. Considering that Christianity had already been established in Britain prior to apocopation, it must have been a relatively small window of time when the goddess would have ever been referred to with a post-apocope appellation, if she ever was at all (there is certainly no record of such a situation).
2. While you doubt the abilities of linguists to reconstruct dead languages such as Brittonic, as demonstrated above it is not even necessary to rely on reconstructions to establish that her name was indeed "Sulis". It was etched in a lead tablet at Bath, and that is all that is needed now to prove the point.
3. I believe I have now fully demonstrated that scholars and encyclopedias are, in fact, in agreeance that the name should be rendered "Sulis". The misapprehension that her name could have been "Sul" persisted for perhaps an entire century, and it has unfortunately left an enduring legacy. But that does not make it correct.
4. You have not demonstrated at all that "Sul" is more widely or commonly known than Sulis. But even if it were, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate. We would be remiss to allow readers to continue believing that "Sul" is the correct nominative form of her name when it is not. If there is any reason to believe that a significant number of readers may search for "Sul" instead, then that is what redirects are for. We should be redirecting people to the correct form of her name rather than allowing them to continue to be mistaken.

— Uiscefada (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

OK you're probably right.

1. I’m glad that there is some acknowledgement now that there was previously an accepted scholarly acceptance for using Sul in the nominative rather than Sulis. It’s very interesting to see the remarks of Haverfield, Collingwood and George, all referring to Sul as the “traditional” or “common” form. Popular usage tends to trail behind scholarship, by decades if not centuries. This would explain (if your proposition is correct) why the use of Sul continued after scholars had already agreed Sulis is the correct form.

2. Your attestation from the Docilianus / Bruceri curse is also convincing, at least to show that there is one example of the “Sulis” usage, from the Roman period. One solitary example of such usage is nothing. The name of the goddess would have been uttered literally millions of times and I do not agree that attempts to recreate language are anything more than that - attempts. I had, moreover, never argued that the name could not have been Sulis. I said it was inconclusive either way, and that since “Sul” is more common, we should consider using Sul as the title.

3. I believe you when you say “the inscriptions to Sulis were variously made at different points between the early 2nd to 5th Centuries CE.” This however is not answering the question. The question is over what period would the goddess’s name have been used. That is likely to have been a much longer period than that of the found inscriptions. It is also likely to have been over a wider geographical area, with the dialectal differences I mentioned. And use of inscriptions is quite likely to have been a tiny minority of votive behaviour. How do we know lighting of fires or saying of prayers wasn’t the majority worship style for believers in Sul? Those would have left no evidence. Again, I’m not discounting the evidence you provide. I’m saying we should remind ourselves that we cannot be sure. Where does your certainty come from? Is it perhaps emotional rather than evidence based? I’m asking, not accusing.

4. You also stated that I have not demonstrated that "Sul" is more widely or commonly known than Sulis and that even if it were, Wikipedia should be educating readers rather than pandering to ignorance. I don’t see it as ignorance. As I have stated before, the heading is not intended to resolve scholarly debate. It is a signpost. For example, the Wikipedia heading for the Chinese sage is Confucius, despite the fact that the philosopher’s name was most certainly not Confucius.

Finally.

Despite all the above, I am convinced by your erudition if not by your theories and I don’t feel I can persist with my argument. Indeed, all the criticisms levelled at your claims could be levelled at a claim that the correct name is actually Sul.

— Dena.Walemy (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Sources for Further Information/Analysis

Hello there, I am a student editor from the University of Winnipeg, currently working on improving the Sulis page. I have compiled a brief list of sources that I think may be useful regarding Sulis and the Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath, and I welcome any feedback or suggestions! I have found it slightly more difficult to find general information pertaining to Sulis in fairly recent publications (in the last 10-15 years), but this is my goal in the upcoming weeks.

Cohen, Paul; Cohen, Brenda (2000). "The Roman Baths Museum In Bath, England". Journal of College Science Teaching. 29 (4): 285–286. ISSN 0047-231X.

Cousins, Eleri H. (2016). "An Imperial Image: The Bath Gorgon in Context". Britannia. 47: 99–118. ISSN 0068-113X.

Cousins, Eleri H. (2014-04-04). "Votive Objects and Ritual Practice at the King's Spring at Bath". Theoretical Roman Archaeology Journal (2013): 52–64. doi:10.16995/TRAC2013_52_64. ISSN 2515-2289.

Gerrard, James (2007/09). "The Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath and the End of Roman Britain". The Antiquaries Journal. 87: 148–164. doi:10.1017/S0003581500000871. ISSN 1758-5309.

Revell, Louise (2007). "Religion and Ritual in the Western Provinces". Greece & Rome. 54 (2): 210–228. ISSN 0017-3835.

Thanks, and happy editing! Mmilne15 (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Back with an update, to say that I have completed the course pertaining to the Sulis page. I have copied and pasted a variety of information from my sandbox - User:Mmilne15/Sulis - to the live page. In addition, I have changed/added some imagery, as well as some "citation needed" tags. As seen in the post below ("Proposed Deletions"), I have also removed one passage that was not cited and deemed inappropriate. I look forward to seeing how the Sulis page continues to progress! Mmilne15 (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletions - unsourced material

Hello again,

One of my main purposes in examining the Sulis page is to make sure that all information has been properly sourced. I've noticed that there are a few areas without any citations, and I'm wondering if anyone can provide some clarification on the sources of the following, and/or whether they cannot be sourced and should be removed:

Under 'Cult at Bath':

"This is not surprising, as Celtic deities often preserved their archaic localisation, remaining to the end associated with a specific place, often a cleft in the earth, a spring, pool or well. The Greeks referred to the similarly local pre-Hellenic deities in the local epithets that they assigned, associated with the cult of their Olympian pantheon at certain places (Zeus Molossos only at Dodona, for example). The Romans tended to lose sight of these specific locations, except in a few Etruscan cult inheritances and ideas like the genius loci, the guardian spirit of a place."

Under 'Syncretism with Minerva':

"Sulis was not the only goddess exhibiting syncretism with Minerva. Senua's name appears on votive plaques bearing Minerva's image while Brigantia also shares many traits associated with Minerva. The identification of multiple Celtic gods with the same Roman god is not unusual (both Mars and Mercury were paired with a multiplicity of Celtic names). On the other hand, Celtic goddesses tended to resist syncretism; Sulis Minerva is one of the few attested pairings of a Celtic goddess with her Roman counterpart."

Are any of the original authors able to clarify where this (albeit very interesting!) information has come from?

Thanks! Mmilne15 (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mmilne15

I would agree with removing the first passage you've pointed out. It is true that Celtic deities often had toponymic epithets and were associated with specific water features, such as rivers and springs. But I think the conclusions being drawn in that passage are blunt, inaccurate, and probably Romantic in origin.

The second passage, I would not delete. It is accurate, even if it may be difficult to find a single source to cite for it. Probably just add a "citation needed" tag.

— Uiscefada (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

As advised, I have removed the first passage, and added a "citation needed" tag to the second passage. Thanks! Mmilne15 (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)