Talk:Brendan

Is there a reason for confusing the historical Brendan of Clonfert with the "Saint Brendan" of the Navigatio I have material for the Voyage but hesitate to post it and have it mangled. User:Wetman

If they are two different people, they do indeed deserve two different articles. I had understood that the semi-legendary Brendan the Navigator and the historical Brendan of Clonfert were essentially two different bodies of lore relating to the same person. Listing the two as duplicate articles did nothing to dispersuade me of that notion, and I tried to harmonize them while keeping the essential data from both articles here. If I was wrong, everything needs to be reverted. -- Smerdis of Tlön

Have you looked into translations of the Navigatio? The crystal column? the fallen angel-birds... 'Semi-legendary' would have to apply to the Odyssey too then. Or Sir John Mandeville. Or Prester John? But Brendan of Clonfert, canonized after his death-- that's a real person. (BTW, I enjoy your entries and editing User:Wetman

Yes, I have read the Navigatio. Now what I started doing was a basic article merge: you put all the text on one page, and then you go through and cut what's redundant from one to the other. I gather that you'd prefer a different approach, one that treats B of C and StB as two separate though related subjects?

Actually, I suspect that "semi-legendary" is about right about StB and Odysseus. I see no reason to deny that the Trojan War took place, that a leader named Odysseus fought in it, and that he took the long way home. The story got embellished in the re-telling, and that's my take on the Navigatio as well. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:43, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

There I go again.. After a few "minor" edits by Kenneth, the article now reads like this (after being Faroe islands for a while):

It is possible that Brendan may have encountered the Shetland Islands on his journey, perhaps being their first historical coloniser, as the Orkney Islands were recolonised by Christian missionaries about this time. The Orkneys had been heard of and commonly known to the monks but Shetlands were not, representing the next step outwards from the British Isles. Christopher Columbus may have relied on the legends told of St Brendan as part of his argument that it was indeed possible to travel to Asia by crossing the Atlantic.

This section now makes no sense. Why would Christopher Columbus have relied on these legends if Brendan discovered the Shetland islands? Do we have references in the literature about Brendan that theorize about him ending up on the Shetland islands? If so, I'm for keeping this in the article, but that doesn't change what I'm going to say in the next paragraph.

The section used to talk about the speculations that Brendan ended up i America on his voyages. These speculations are well known and is something an encyclopedia should report. If we want to report more, we should offer arguments for and against. Obviously Kenneth is in the 'against' camp. We should not be changing this to the Shetland islands! Martijn faassen 14:54, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Popular knowledge about traveling capabilities have proven that the Catholic emissaries were just landing upon the Orkneys later by a few decades. I think it highly absurd to postulate that Brendan would have made it to America when there isn't much mention of the Shetlands during his time.

I've actually found some references online (but where? I can't find it anymore) which place him on the Shetlands as *part* of the voyage, but them have him possibly go to the Americas later on. Martijn faassen 16:32, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Columbus fluffed his image to look descended professionally from people like Brendan. It certainly gained him enough money for his voyage. There was no proper understanding of America in those times, from Europe. Lord Kenneð Alansson 16:49, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

At the most, I'd concede he might have hit the Faroes, considering it had been long known as the "Sheep Isles", Norway being Thule. Sheep livestock raising is a key signature of Christian agriculture in the Isles. There had been no traces of European remains in the Americas before vikings. If you would have it that he hit "America", or likely they thought "Atlantis", then this is just too mythological and fantastic. Oh, and he did not record such people as "Skraelings" or ice. Considering their technology, I'd say Atlantis wasn't any further west than the Canary Islands, Azores and I'd laugh if it were said to be Bermuda. Most people do not adhere to the Atlantis story anyways, so why is the notion that he hit America so valid?? Lord Kenneð Alansson 16:04, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not proposing he hit America. But it's a long standing theory that is talked about by many people. Removing this theory from the encyclopedia page about him would be unencyclopedic. Martijn faassen 16:32, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, we can talk about how people have speculated and dreamed of it, but providing it as definite, or the chief source of view doesn't scientifically uphold itself. It is laughable, sort of like the New Age practitioners pretending that they are the same as their ancestors, or that their amendments to include all cultures into their frame of reference for their occult nature when no such understanding of other cultures existed during ancient times. The 60s may have been good to help us analyse and idealise, but trying to change facts to fit those ideals of the present, doesn't work. That's looking at history backwards. Lord Kenneð Alansson 16:49, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I have lots of opinions about stuff, but all I'm trying to point out in the role of dry encyclopedist is that we should put this view in the article. We can say it is considered unlikely. The voyages after all were recorded hundreds of years after the event. Just by putting in these things in the right order lets people draw their own conclusions. Omitting the America speculation is only making this encyclopedia less valuable. Martijn faassen 18:50, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Distinguishing Biography and Legend and Fiction

If Wikipedia has one entry for the actual Antonio Salieri and the "Salieri" character in Amadeus, one needs two separate subsections to discuss the person and the fictional creation based on the person. There is Alexander the Great and then there is the medieval "Alexander" a legendary figure, one of the "Nine Worthies". Is the actual historical Frederick Barbarossa sleeping in a distant cavern, ready to wake? Must that aspect get discussed in contexts that also includes the granting of urban charters and the politics behind the Crusades? Wetman 15:31, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I know you have a point, but please define it less atmospherically. Lord Kenneð Alansson 16:04, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

You've been somewhat "atmospheric" about things in the past, Kenneth, so don't call the kettle black. :) I do agree Wetman should come up with a proposal for separating fact from fiction in the article. Martijn faassen 18:50, 22 May 2004 (UTC)