Talk:The Description of Britain

Article created

This article is for the forgery attributed to the historical person. Notuncurious (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not really clear what going on here unless read several times. Perhaps the article should be moved to the title of the "work" "De Situ Britanniae". And it needs some sources. DGG (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

revert good-faith change

The entire book is spurious, and had a large impact that has not quite disappeared; part of it is the "travel account" (as you put it), but that characterization is never used in the context of historical documents ... have a look at the Itinerary of Antoninus in Britain (which is wiki-referenced in the article): it is a valuable historical document, and deserves to be characterized as a "travel account", as much so as this article. Indeed, the spurious itinerary is presented in the same form as the actual historical document, and part of the damage it caused was its perception as a "correction" to the historical document. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

the problem is that "Richard of Cirencester" is not a forgery. A work can be forged in his name, but you can't forge an author. You can invent one, or misattribute a work to one. The only way "Richard of Cirencester" as such can be a forgery iwould be if there were a work whose title was "Richard of Cirencester" . There has to be some other way of wording it. DGG (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, DDG - I'll move this article appropriately and clean up the links. Looks like I was in a bit too much of a hurry to disassociate the forgery from the real person (and really didn't accomplish that, as you point out). BTW, I doubt anyone will pick up this article (no one wants to spend intellectual juice on a forgery); its only value is in debunking "bad history". Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stick to the facts in your sources

The account presented in this article of the views of the English Historical Society with regard to this forgery is not in accordance either with the facts or its own sources. In particular:

• The relevant remarks of the English Historical Society are to be found in their introduction to the reprint of Chronicon Ricardi Divisiensis De Rebus Gestis Ricardi Primi Regis Anglia which was published by them in London in 1838, which this article currently cites as a source. The first paragraph says, in part, "...the Council of the English Historical Society think it right to explain to the Members the grounds upon which they have abstained, at least for the present, from presenting them with this treatise of Richard [of Devizes] as a genuine work." cleary indicating that they do not think it a genuine work.
  
• Later in the same introduction they say, "The account which Bertram gives of the manuscript in p. 2 of his preface to the printed work, is as follows :" showing that they have a transcript of the document and are fully aware of its contents.
  
• Further quote from the introduction, "The whole history of this alleged work therefore is extraordinary. Richard himself anticipates objections to his work, and apologises for any mistakes he may be found to have committed. This is unusual." The alleged work, is described as extraordinary and unusual. The Council clearly has doubts.
  
• Further quote from the introduction, "The words containing the Roman general's consignment of his fragments to posterity are also remarkable." Further use of the word remarkable, denoting a lack of faith in the document.
  
• Further quote from the introduction, "What is most suspicious of all is, that although it was so little to be expected that an original manuscript relating to English history should fall into the hands of an Englishman at Copenhagen, and though Bertram himself obtained possession of it in a manner which he himself calls marvellous, he has neither told us in what the marvellousness consisted, nor has the manuscript ever been seen by any person but Bertram himself; nor has he told us to whom the manuscript belonged, where it was deposited, or any other circumstance relating to it." They describe it as suspicious, and clearly do not merit the story of its provenance.
  
• The final paragraph says, "The Council have requested a very intelligent Danish gentleman, who has lately returned from this country to Denmark, to make all the inquiry he can about the manuscript which Bertram is supposed to have copied. From his researches some light may be thrown upon this controverted subject; but as so much doubt still hangs over the authenticity of Richard's work, the Council hope the Members will think them justified in abstaining from giving it a place among the received materials of English history."
• From these quotes it is quite clear the Council were not simply reserving judgement until they can see the original. They were suspicious of the document that Bertram was supposed to have copied, and which they describe as remarkable and unusual, and whose provenance is unexplained and which has not yet, despite having been printed in London 200 years previously, been, "place[d] among the received materials of English history." They clearly were not duped, and I have therefore deleted the entire paragraph dealing with this issue. I have no objection to a subsequent editor replacing it with a rather more nuanced version of the affair.
• In conclusion, I think we should also require a source for the rather spectacular claim made in the article that this forgery was, "incorporated into virtually every publication of ancient British history." which I have also deleted. Cottonshirtτ 15:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Cottonshirt, I've double-checked and you are correct regarding the English Historical Society. Thank you for finding and correcting my error. Not sure how it came to this, since I provided both the reference for my original (incorrect) text, and also the means by which you found the error in my text. As for removing the statement about the forgery's impact in written histories, it is common to omit citations in the lede when the material is cited in the body of the article. However, sometimes it is appropriate to have some explanation in lede, particularly when it isn't clear to the reader what specifically is meant, so I've re-inserted a mollified text along with an explanatory note. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Wex´s Article

I´d like to contribute two references, but as I´m not common with the reference system used, I´ll just place them here. Both are accessible online. Maybe somebody else can put these into the article:

• Friedrich Karl Wex: Ueber Ricardus Corinensis. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, Vol.4, 1846, p.346-353. (german, klick on "Objekt aufrufen" to read the article)
• Mr. Wex´s dissertation on Richard of Cirencester. The Gentleman´s Magazine, Oct. 1846, p. 365-369 Alternative online source

Regards, --Kallewirsch (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Woodward seems to have the idea that the translation published by the magazine was Wex's own translation, which he mailed to Cave. Do you have any corroboration? — LlywelynII 18:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Name

Scholar splits pretty evenly with just a handful of cites and Ngram leans heavily towards Description of Britain. (It's case sensitive, although obviously it'll pick up on other similar titles.) Seems like a wash, in which case we should opt for the English as the title and running text, with prominent mention of the alt title and redirects. — LlywelynII 17:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ptolemy

The existing link went to U Chicago (which is good) and had a cool map (which is fun), but the actual text is described by the editor as completely wretched, undeserving of being printed, and unfit to be used for any purpose except having reputable scholars ridicule one's work (his words!). The English translation I've replaced it with seems like a grad school version but it's directly from the Greek and parallels its text directly with Nobbe's Greek text, allowing one to understand the original source. Lemme know if it actually has any major errors, but it seems like it's fine at least in the section dealing with the Selgovai. — LlywelynII 13:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Apennines

I guess the original editor didn't finish reading his source, which concludes that Bertram was cribbing Camden on the name and "cannot be credited with inventing the name, for its use clearly goes back long before the 18th century". — LlywelynII 16:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

So the article has slightly contradictory statements, that the book originated the name Pennines (in the lede) and didn't (in Legacy). The lede needs rephrasing I think, but I don't know exactly what to say. Stevebritgimp (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Description of Britain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 14:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Will start soon.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Rectify the cn tags
• DAB link to "Copperplate"
• When two or more pages are used, you use "pp."
• Citation #41 and #42 should be merged.
• Citations #4 and #5 should be merged
• British English or American English please.
• Citations #11, #13, #15, #16 don't point to any long source.
• Lead should be split up,

--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Over the standard time without a single clue of response or action, so I'll have to fail this. Feel free to renominate at any time.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)