Talk:Virgilius Maro Grammaticus
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
[Untitled] edit
To my knowledge he does not cite the authors (Isidore of Seville, Virgil, Aelius Donatus) by name. In "Wisdom, Authority and Grammar" Vivien Law argues, that some citations (and Virigilius' knowledge) can be traced back to mentioned authors - but Virgiliuses style is always obscure. --Aethralis 13:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
True, he does not cite them by name, and Virgilius' style is indeed obscure: borrowings, references or quotations are not easily picked out. But there are hints that he knew many real texts: as well as references to Isidore, Virgil and Donatus there is evidence that he knew many patristic works. There's an index of genuine works apparently known to Virgilius in the back of the Lofstedt edition, though unfortunately I don't have this to hand. More are probably still to be found. But it would be even better if some of the weird and wonderful texts Virgilius refers to ever turned up! --Arichis 17:22, 23 March 2006
Irish origin??????!!!! of course... edit
It's incredible! It seems that scholars should always attribute irish or british origin to intellectuals of unknown origin in the high middle ages. So ye brythons are able of course to boast yourselves that ye have always been the centre of the world. Even when ye were a pack of dull folks in the margin of civility. It's false, ye have always been too lucky folks (very luky does not mean worthy of thy culture). For some scholars should be likely that a herd of few thousands insular writers might be able to provide a great lot of middle latin literature. And country of far greater and profound latin heritage, Gallia, Hispania and especially Italia should have been (even in that ages) a stock of ignorants! Damn falsehood! It's false anglocentric irritating knowledges: that's what I've found much too often here in this anglowikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.49.245.186 (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Irish Origin edit
I would like to inquire why the article refers to the Irish evidence as 'not watertight'? From what I've seen, Virgilius Maro Grammaticus a.k.a. The Irish Virgil displays a knowledge of Old Irish grammar, and this would not have been possible for anyone other than an Irish person in this period. Not to mention the fact that the Irish scholars of this period underwent extensive research of classical languages, and the timing and style of Virgilius Maro Grammaticus fit in perfectly with the Irish grammars. There's not even a reasonable alternative. I'm giving notice of my intention to remove the below line by the 21/09/2012 if nobody can suggest reasons why the evidence is not watertight.
However, the Irish evidence is not watertight, and Virgil's origins remain undetermined.
General Michael Collins (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem to be any contemporaneous source referring to the author as such - Scotus is the usual term. There were many British scholars in the Irish system around this time, which caused Aldhelm to cite the influence of Virgilius in dissuading students from travelling to Ireland and to favour his school at Canterbury instead. Good 2008 article from Peritia which should be included: https://www.mgh-bibliothek.de/dokumente/b/b045627.pdf Shtove (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)