Talk:De Situ Britanniae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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part of it is the "travel account" (as you put it), but that characterization is never used in the context of historical documents ... have a look at the Itinerary of Antoninus in Britain (which is wiki-referenced in the article): it is a valuable historical document, and deserves to be characterized as a "travel account", as much so as this article. Indeed, the spurious itinerary is presented in the same form as the actual historical document, and part of the damage it caused was its perception as a "correction" to the historical document.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)