Talk:History of the Rosary/Archive 1

Opening Prayer of the Rosary
I think it’s noteworthy to mention the origin of the common opening prayer of the rosary (Apostles Creed, three Hail Marys) and why the Dominican Order don’t use it:

Catholic Cults and Devotions: A Psychological Inquiry

By Michael P. Carroll

"5. Most readers familiar with the Rosary will know that a small tassel is usually attached to the circle of beads I have described. This Tassel consists of a crucifix (on which usually prayed the Apostles Creed), an Our Father bead, three Hail Mary beads grouped together, and another Our Father bead. A religious medal of some sort is often found at the spot where this tassel joins the main strand of the rosary beads. But neither the tassel nor the associated prayers forms part of the Rosary as officially defined by the Church (Attwater 1956, 250-1; Hinnebusch 1967, 667). Moreover, it is clear from the archaeological evidence (Thurston 1901d, 396) that the tassel was not found on the Rosary when the Rosary first became popular in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. It seems likely that the three-beaded tassel, which had always been part of the Bridgettine Rosary, was added to the Dominican Rosary when the Church authorities in the early eighteenth century began trying to discourage the use of the former and encourage the use of the latter (see “Gaining of Cumulative Indulgences 1909; Thurston 1901d, 201-3)."

https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=gBlrL1A6lrIC&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=rosary+confraternity+bridgettine+rosary&source=bl&ots=-96_2U-vfO&sig=EJQVn5T0HxFy-JEzqXQO5NEkfCw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin67q9jqXXAhWCEpQKHbn5AmoQ6AEITTAL#v=onepage&q=rosary%20confraternity%20bridgettine%20rosary&f=false

The Bridgettine Rosary

Historically the greatest rival in popularity to the Dominican Rosary was the so-called Bridgettine Rosary. Fr Thurston has investigated the origins of this chaplet.

He quotes from the official publication of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences:

The chaplet called after St Bridget, because she first devised it and propagated it, is recited in honour of the most holy Virgin Mary, in order to commemorate the sixty-three years which, as it is said, she lived on this earth. It consists of six divisions, in each of which are said the Our Father, the Hail Mary ten times and the Apostles Creed once. After these six divisions another Our Father is added to make up the number of her seven dolours, or seven joys; and the Hail Mary is said three times to make up the number of her sixty-three years.

There is no question that St. Bridget did assign the term of sixty three years for Our Lady’s life in her Revelations. It is therefore reasonable to postulate that the name of St Bridget became associated with the 63 Ave Corona to distinguish it from the Franciscan Corona of 72 Aves. The Bridgettine Rosary was almost as popular as the Rosary properly so-called in the 16th and 17th centuries. The little pendant of three small beads now almost universally attached to all rosaries, has been transferred, with a lack of any understanding of its significance, from the six decade corona (60+3) to the five decade chaplet, where no specific meaning can be assigned to them.

The Franciscan Crown - The Rosary of the Seven Joys of Mary

This 15th Century devotion is recited like the Rosary. It consists of seven decades of Aves separated by a Pater and completed with the Gloria Patri, after which two Aves are added (making 72 Aves in all, the traditional years of Our Lady’s life as revealed in a vision to St James of the March) and a Pater, Ave and Gloria for the Pope’s intentions.

See http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/dmiller/beads&prayers.htm

The following links shows picture of Dominican nuns wearing a rosary without pendent beads:

https://i2.wp.com/catholicsaints.info/wp-content/uploads/img-Blessed-Mariam-Sultaneh-Danil-Ghattas1.jpg?resize=329%2C414

http://www.hawaiicatholicherald.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/1dominicanssiena.jpg

Johannine mysteries
It would be nice to mention in here the origins of the five Johannine mysteries, if anyone has a reference. Rwflammang (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you do not heed warnings but I do
It is my duty to warn you both, History2007 and Rwflammang that your edits here are not only a blatant violation of POV, OR and wikihounding ... it is also approaching edit warring. I will not war with you about this. I stand by my statements and so far have seen nothing but unpleasant behaviour from you both. I trust you have seen Alpha_Quadrant's warning to all of us. Lastly, History2007, I advise you to stop trying to argue with a former Jesuit student who has prayed more rosaries than you could fantasise. You've won your case, but I am taking this to an administrator to see how you are abusing Wikipedia standards in your attempt to own this article. Djathink imacowboy  13:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

'''The following is a quote from my talk page, the entire sec. lifted and copied haec verba. I suggest it is read with care, by everyone.'''

"==Edit war warning== As stated to you before, on the talk page for the History of Rosary, per WP:STATUSQUO:


 * If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change.

Therefore, you must leave the statusquo up, discuss on the talk page, not keep reverting. Please consider this a formal edit war warning per the prior notice on the talk page regarding statusquo. History2007 (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:STATUSQUO is an essay, not a policy. Editors are expected to follow official policy and guidelines. However, essays are advice by a specific editor or group of editors and do not have to be followed by other editors. There is no policy giving editors permission to delete particular content, requiring other editors to gain consensus before they can add it back. You and Djathinkimacowboy are in a content dispute. Giving him a "formal warning" for violating an essay is extremely inappropriate for two reasons. Firstly, you are involved in the dispute. As you are involved, giving out warnings because your edit was reverted is not appropriate. Secondly, it takes at least two editors to edit war. Rather than continuing to revert, you should have brought the issues up on the talk page. There is no "status quo" policy allowing you to keep the version you prefer. Nor is there a 3RR exemption allowing a particular editor to continue to revert, just because it isn't "status quo". If neither editor is willing to be the one to bring the issues up on the talk page, then that is how an edit war starts. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  18:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)"---retrieved this date  Djathink  imacowboy  14:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)"

And now my final statement to you:

History2007, you have been advised of the request for resolution of content dispute/conduct in this matter, which I opened not long ago.

You have engaged in edit warring here, since I worded the significant fact for a more 'neutral' tone. You have deleted that.

You have abused and misinterpreted Wikipedia rules, and I can only hope you did it out of ignorance rather than a tool to frighten and bully me.

You have tried to own this article; between you and Rwflammang I've taken all the wikihounding I'm going to take from you two.

You do not own this article. You do not dictate to other editors how they may/may not edit. You clearly have little regard for Wikipedia if you think you can do this at your pleasure. Djathink imacowboy  14:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A bias against Wells as scholar because he wrote sci-fi?!
Wells was not "just a science fiction writer" and was qualified enough to be cited as a source. It is folly to pick at the shcolar because the scholar also wrote science fiction. Do we judge Isaac Asimov by this same foolish standard?

"Wells was encouraged by the news of the communist revolution in Russia. He visited the country and lectured Lenin and Trotsky on how they should run their country. Wells was disillusioned by what he saw in Russia and in 1920 Wells published The Outline of History . The book described human history since the earliest times and attempted to show how society had evolved to the present state. Wells illustrated the triumphs and failures and pointed out the dangers that faced the human race. The main theme of the book was that the world would be saved by education and not by revolution."

Retrieved on today's date, from here. I'm restoring the citation and text. I have no page number handy - perhaps someone would volunteer it. Djathink imacowboy  00:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I know the above quote has info re: Russia that does not pertain .... Anyway, I don't appreciate the Catholic bias I see here in this "history" article. I cannot revert the unfair and high-handed edit that removed the Wells research. It is the height of stupidity to require another source to bolster Wells' credibility just because the editor thinks little of Wells. Djathink  imacowboy  00:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, no, no, no, no and no. First he was primarily a sci-fi writer and at best a 3rd rate historian. Secondly his book was in 1922 and is way, way out of date as a single author. Single author books that old may have well been discredited by more modern scholarship. Third he is a lone voice and no further support, so basically subject to WP:Fringe. Fourth he is contradicted by more recent and solid scholarship. Fifth you have no page number which means the reference fails verification. That item should per Wikiedia policy in fact be deleted to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia. It is a straightforward issue. Sixth, per WP:STATUSQUO now that you have admitted no other supporting reference and no scholarly consensus, I can remove it and you need to gain consensus on this talk page before adding it. Quality is quality. Per STATUSQUO it stays out until consensus is established for its introduction.


 * And may I make the novel suggestion that you "study a subject" before editing articles about it. The rosary is much more than beads. Many people not familiar with the topic think it is a just a bead-based prayer, but such prayers were said sans beads using the Marian Psalter beforehand. So to just state that the "rosary came from beads" is flatly incorrect as anyone who understands the topic can tell you. And there have been ring-based devices for reciting rosary prayers which have no beads.


 * Regarding your very intelligent statement about "height of stupidity" I will just ignore that. I do not need my intelligence measured by you. It has been measured elsewhere. Do not need you. History2007 (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You deserve a full reply, editor History2007. You say: "Well, no, no, no, no and no. First he was primarily a sci-fi writer and at best a 3rd rate historian." That is pure POV unless you show me the source that states this.

"Secondly his book was in 1922 and is way, way out of date as a single author." Again, this is POV and on top of that is silly.

"Single author books that old may have well been discredited by more modern scholarship." Well I have yet to see that. Scholars agreed with him in this, but I have no citations for that...yet.

"Third he is a lone voice and no further support, so basically subject to WP:Fringe." If I can't find the sources yet, how do you know this?

"Fourth he is contradicted by more recent and solid scholarship." - which is what? Is it your OR?

"Fifth you have no page number which means the reference fails verification." Would it make a difference? You've already muscled your way into trying to own the article.

"That item should per Wikipedia policy in fact be deleted to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia." This is POV.

"It is a straightforward issue." Yes, that is what I said when I put a VERIFIABLE statement into the article with citation. Most people are not held to page number and a page number is NOT a requirement.

"Sixth, per WP:STATUSQUO now that you have admitted no other supporting reference and no scholarly consensus, I can remove it and you need to gain consensus on this talk page before adding it. Quality is quality. Per STATUSQUO it stays out until consensus is established for its introduction." Pure nonsense. It satisfies what it needs to satisfy and no one needs consensus for that, and you know it. You are simply trying to own this article and keep out anything disagreeable to you.

"And may I make the novel suggestion that you 'study a subject' before editing articles about it. The rosary is much more than beads." I know what a rosary is, editor, I prayed one many times a day for decades. No need to get personal in your quest to own this article.

"Many people not familiar with the topic think it is a just a bead-based prayer, but such prayers were said sans beads using the Marian Psalter beforehand. So to just state that the "rosary came from beads" is flatly incorrect as anyone who understands the topic can tell you. And there have been ring-based devices for reciting rosary prayers which have no beads." You clearly do not know your subject. Rosarium means garland, which is what the Buddhist japamala means, and that is the material point as you well know.

Also, I made no mention in my original edits of any of the things you are babbling about above.

"I do not need my intelligence measured by you. It has been measured elsewhere. Do not need you." Well said, but far from being well done, editor. You clearly need your intellect measured in some fair way. Djathink imacowboy  11:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * And might I add, you do no service to Our Lady or the Church with your attitude of revisionist history and repression of scholarly views. Let's see your exposé of Wells as a "third-rate" scholar with sources to back that up, let's see the source that proves the rosary did not come from the Buddhist beads, then I'll yield. You are the one who does not want to know in full the proper history. Your misrepresentation of Wikipedia's rules are evidence of that. Djathink  imacowboy  12:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone thinks I am being merely disagreeable with you on the subject, perhaps for starters you'd like to read this which says, "There are many other similarities between Hinduism and Christianity, including ... reciting prayers on the rosary (Vedic japamala)...." or the commentary "How Hindu and Buddhist Malas became Muslim Tasbihs and Catholic Rosaries!". Looks solid enough, albeit a bit 'modern' for my taste.

How about here which shows me where you get your revisionist hsitorical perspective by claiming the following almost insultingly patronising information: "The use of beads among pagans is undoubtedly of greater antiquity than their Christian use; but there is no evidence to show that the latter is derived from the former, any more than there is to establish a relation between Christian devotions and pagan forms of prayer." Every claim in that par. is revisionist and clearly wrong. Of course that one is a Catholic rosary-selling website. Djathink imacowboy  12:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a subject I know I will not be able to keep in the article in any form. The bias and rudeness shown to me here by User:History2007 is typical at a religion-controlled article like this one. It's what I get for attempting to fairly, accurately balance an imbalanced, revisionist article.


 * For the record, I object to the title of this article - it should be "A purely Catholic history of the Catholic rosary". Djathink  imacowboy  12:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Wells was no scholar
Obviously. Rwflammang (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. How very helpful of you, Rwf.

Just to let everyone know there are other proper, scholastic accounts of history ....

Sec.: "The History of Prayer Beads" "To Bead or Knot to Bead: Some Historical Considerations" by Dr. Alexander Roman, noted sociologist and rosary enthusiast retrieved this date

"[T]he first form was the most approved by the Church and is today as well. St Basil prescribed the saying of the Jesus Prayer in place of reading the Psalms and the Divine Office for those who could not read and also for those who were travelling and who were otherwise impeded from using the liturgical books in their prayer. He prescribed the saying of the Jesus Prayer 300 times for each of the 20 sections of the Psalms into which the Byzantine Church had divided it.

"Basil then ordered the use of a counting device of a woollen, knotted cord of 100 knots, divided every 25 knots with a larger or other knot or bead. In Slavonic, this knotted cord is called "Chotki." Before his time, Christian monastics used loose beads in bags to count their repeated prayers. St Paul of Thebes had a bag of 300 beads and placed them, one by one, into another bag as he prayed. Interestingly, this is exactly how St Clare of Assisi prayed, centuries later.

"Another method involved the use of the monastic staff itself. The top of the staff was carved with notches that one could use to count prayers as one walked or stood in prayer with the staff. But the knotted cord became, by far, the most popular prayer counter. The East used nine turns of the threading needle to create one knot, a tradition that went back to Pachomius of Egypt.

"When St Pachomius prayed on a knotted cord where the knots were made of three turns or wraps, the devil was able to undo them. Pachomius increased the size of his knots until he made them with nine turns of the threading needle - and the devil, much to his dismay, could not undo them! Beads and other materials were later used for prayer cords and prayer chains that the West has come to know as the [rosary] or "a [garland] of roses" (rosarium).

"In the West, the prayer cord was also popular. When St. Dominic received the rosary from the Mother of God, what he received was a knotted cord and Dominicans and other Western monastics wrapped these large circled cords around their wrists as part of their monastic uniform - very much like Orthodox clergy and monastics [and Buddhists] do today."

Doesn't sound very Catholic to me, as stated in the article as History2007 would have it.

And this retrieved this date - "The use of beads in prayer appears to have originated with Hindu religious practices in India, possibly around the 8th century B.C.E. Buddhism, which developed from a sect of Hinduism, retained the use of prayer beads as it became established in China, Korea, Japan, and Tibet. It is thought that Islam adopted prayer beads through contact with Buddhism and Hinduism. Prayer beads, in the form of the Catholic rosary, were common throughout Europe by the late Middle Ages."

Further citations: Dubin, Lois S. The History of Beads, from 30,000 B.C. to the present. (New York: Abrams, 1987).

Miller, John D. Beads and Prayers: The Rosary in History and Devotion. (London: Burnes and Oates, 2001). Djathink imacowboy  15:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Rwflammang, I agree with you. Wells was no scholar. History2007 (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Djathink, just think about it. Ok? Now:


 * The use of prayer ropes (maybe even crude beads) in Christianity goes back to the Desert Fathers in the 3rd and early 4th centuries. But they did not pray to Mary. Did you know that?


 * The Desert Fathers' tradition mostly relied on Christocentric prayers such as the Jesus prayer. That prayer is not the Rosary. Their tradition is Eastern Christianity. Not Catholic. Right?


 * It was only after 431 in Ephesus that things changed and Marian prayers started to gain more momentum. hat is 5th century now. Right?


 * The Rosary did not even appear until several centuries later. Prayer ropes in Eastern Christianity predated the Rosary by several centuries. That is simple.


 * Beads may have been been used in India prior to Europe. So what? That does not mean the Rosary was influenced by beads. Christians may or may not have learned about prayer beads from somewhere else, India, China, Mars or wherever. That does not mean the Rosary as a "method of Marian prayer and Marian veneration" came along with the beads.


 * The Rosary as a "method of Marian prayer and Marian veneration" may be said by counting on the knuckles, no beads, no other counting device.


 * The Rosary is distinct from the counting device which may be knuckles, beads, ropes, stones, or whatever. It is simple, if you think about it.


 * So prayer beads did not invent the Rosary, a prayer that can be said on the knuckles. Try saying a few Rosaries, then the idea may become clear that as a prayer it is very distinct fromk whatever counting device is used. History2007 (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Your insistence on an off-message straw man argument is no great testament to your towering intellect. No one has ever tried to claim that the beads originated the prayers and liturgies used in the rosary. But in case you have not noticed, this article is called "History of the rosary", not "History as seen by History2007". So you can stop with the insulting and distracting B.S. I am taking this case to an admin who can come and evaluate how you have abused Wikipedia rules. And I suggest you see the warning I have cited in the post below. Djathink imacowboy  14:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, your first post on this talk page included the words "folly" and "height of stupidity" as you referred to others. That is an interesting fact, in view of your comments here. I will leave at that. History2007 (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"Well, your first post on this talk page included the words 'folly' and 'height of stupidity' as you referred to others. That is an interesting fact, in view of your comments here. I will leave at that." I quote you.

You actually dare to keep beating a dead horse and what is worse, one that does not exist. I did not call you a "fool", I said "folly". I did not call you stupid, I called an action "the height of stupidity". Those are not personal attacks and I think you know this.

After all that, you went and lied at the board requesting content evaluation about what I post. No one should place too much stock in what you argue on this subject. Djathink imacowboy  17:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, your task (and Rwflammang's) has always been easy as pie, History2007: find a more recent scholarly citation that either proves or disproves Wells; find a citation that says Wells was out of his depth and is a "third-rate" scholar. That is all you have to do.


 * Otherwise, Wells is the final authority since he's the only published authoritative citation. Wikipedia supports that and is against you in every assertion you've made. Djathink  imacowboy  18:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wells is no authority
Wells was a very imaginative entertainer. His theory on the origin of the rosary is both imaginative and entertaining. What he is not is authoritative. And the fact that we are really nasty, vile, and wicked people will not make him so. Rwflammang (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Wells was a very imaginative entertainer. His theory on the origin of the rosary is both imaginative and entertaining." Cite your source then, or drop it. It's nothing more than gaseous POV and a straw-man argument. I note you do not contribute at the mediation page. Djathink  imacowboy  19:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So where is this mediation page? Rwflammang (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think he meant this page. History2007 (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that is unbeleivable, when you, R, were duly informed about all this and the link is on your talk page per instruction. Djathink imacowboy  21:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, Rwflammang, how about the plot we hatched against Julius Caesar a few years ago in Rome... that was some caper.. was it not? But just to clarify things for the last time hopefully, the first two references in the article, both go against Well's statement. And they are both recent WP:RS sources. Not to mention the other refs in the article that also do not support Wells - a 1920s, less than RS source which has not even been read for a while and is quoted either from memory or a from non-RS source... Go figure... History2007 (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You are throwing out nonsense and think this is all very funny, do you not? It isn't funny, and Wikipedia does not need editors like you. My teeth are strong. Djathink  imacowboy  19:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Beads
All the Wells nonsense does raise an interesting point. It seems to me that the article would benefit from having a section on the beads as distinct from the prayer, especially since the bead chaplets themselves are very popular and very commonly called "rosaries". The reference provided by our angry friend, while admittedly only a tertiary source, might be a good provisional reference to jump start this section.

According to the source, the rosary beads became common by the late middle ages. While the source does not come out and say it, probably because of the absence of primary documentation, it implies that the practice spread to Christendom from Islam.

This theory actually has something to be said for it. It was around this time when the Carmelites were ejected from the holy land, and their brown scapulars became very popular in Europe. Since their earliest documented practices allowed for the substitutions of paternosters for praying the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, it is quite plausible that their popularity greatly increased the practice of the rosary, and they could have very easily brought prayer beads with them from Mount Carmel.

Although the source is tertiary, it seems to be reputable, and it has the advantage of being accessible.

Thoughts?

Rwflammang (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There are better sources than that, namely Miller's WP:RS book, the very first reference in the article which discusses things in great detail, is scholarly and dedicated to the subject. If you want to use that for the section great. Miller (and Miravalle's) conclusions are that there was "no single source" for the rosary (or the beads used in it) and the origin remains unclear.


 * I had not been planning to work on this article this month. But if you use Miller that would be a good source - and less work for me. I would not rely too much on the tertiary website that would be subject to WP:Linkrot anyway. And Miller, does, of course also negate Wells. Else, if it is not done with RS sources, I will try to get to it later this month based on Miller and Miravalle's book that s also RS but has less on beads. But if you manage to use RS sources, great. This is not a complicated topic really, and can be done in a day or so. We have wasted so much time here already, might as well use it to add content. History2007 (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, after I typed the above I noticed that the website you mentioned (which has only a few short paragraphs) uses Miller as its main scholarly source... So I guess most beads lead to Miller... History2007 (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

R. says that "the article would benefit from having a section on the beads as distinct from the prayer, especially since the bead chaplets themselves are very popular and very commonly called 'rosaries'. "

What did you think this article was about?! The history of the rosary as in common meaning, then of course secondarily the specifics of the Catholic tradition. What incredible gullibility you must assign to other readers of this article.

Then H. says, "We have wasted so much time here already ... " and I agree that the two editors have wasted their time. My time also has been wasted by them and their continued battle to own this article. Djathink imacowboy  22:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Side comment: Rwflammang, please refrain from inflaming the situation, as you did by referring to Wells as "nonsense", and describing a fellow editor as "our angry friend"; it doesn't help. Djathinkimacowboy, please stop discussing other editors on this page. Now - let's all get back to discussing the content. Let's stop the bickering, here and now; I hope no more needs to be said on this matter. Thanks for listening,  Chzz  ► 11:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I also think that the museum webpage is a poor source; not only is it tertiary, but also it states that the info comes from other sources including Encyclopedia Britannica - which is itself a tertiary source. So there's a danger of chinese whispers here. And there are certainly better sources. I offer the following two snippets, verbatim;

Prayer beads are also used in other religions (e.g. Hinduism and Buddhism: see MALA; Jap. Buddhism: see NENJU), and are referred to in English as ‘rosaries’. Thus, many Sikhs use a rosary (ml) to assist meditation. See also NAM SIMARAN. In Islam, the suba (Arab., sabbaa, ‘praise God’, cf. subn Allh, ‘Glory to God!’) is the Muslim string of prayer beads, in three groups, divided by two larger beads (imm), with a larger piece serving as a handle. --"Rosary" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Ed. John Bowker. Oxford University Press, 2000. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Stockport Central Library. 12 December 2011 link

The word comes (in late Middle English, in the sense ‘rose garden’) from Latin rosarium rose-garden, from rosa ‘rose’. In the 16th century (from which this meaning dates) the word was also used as the title of a book of devotion --"rosary" A Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. Edited by Elizabeth Knowles. Oxford University Press, 2006. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Stockport Central Library. 12 December 2011 link

 Chzz  ► 11:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, it looks like there is work to be done... We are all going to have to call WMF and ask for salary increases now... kidding. But I guess that is how millions of articles came about. Now:


 * The pages Prayer beads and Prayer rope, etc. do have some overlap, and relate to the "overall scheme" of the use of counting devices in repetitive prayers. But the "Eastern Orthodox prayer rope of 50 knots" is a different item and is never called a rosary. There are several sub-pages such as Anglican prayer beads, Buddhist prayer beads, Hindu prayer beads, Misbaha, etc.


 * There is a small history section in some of those articles, but much of it in unsourced. E.g. Misbaha says that: "It is thought that in the early Muslim era loose pebbles were used or that people counted on their fingers." but has no source. I am not sure where the Misbaha originated but we can look those up.


 * There is no overall article: History of prayer beads. That would have helped clear the issues up here. If you guys write that general article, that will clarify things. Doing that is not on my path this year. But I can do a well sourced section on that in that article, which gives the general overview - I know the sources for that. Then we can add a link and description as to how it relates to the rosary here. Eventually, at some point an umbrella article called Christian prayer beads should help relates the Anglican, Orthodox, Catholic beads etc.


 * The observation Rwflammang made about the chaplets being called rosaries is reflected in the article Rosary-based prayers. The term rosary is mostly used by the Catholics and not by the Eastern Orthodox etc. who use terms such as prayer ropes. However, Roman Catholics at times use the term Rosary to refer to things such as the Franciscan Crown (a zero reference article!) which is sometimes called the Franciscan rosary. But Chaplet of Saint Michael is not called a rosary, but a chaplet - I am not sure why but perhaps because it is not passion related. The Rosary of the Seven Sorrows is also called the Chaplet of seven sorrows, etc. However those are always qualified by an additioonal descrptor and "rosary" when used standalone just refers to the Marian rosary with the usual Hail Mary structure.


 * Anyway, my guess is that a section called "History of prayer beads" in the Prayer beads article is the right way to start, and all of the sub-pages can then refer to it. Eventually that may turn into an article by itself, if there are people who have the time to do it in detail - yours truly excluded. Ideas will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above. I have withdrawn all the unnecessary issues I raised. I apologise for any perceived offensive comments that cropped up here. Hopefully Chzz's helpful and sage advice will be heeded by all. Now, I will retire my presence from here. Djathink  imacowboy  15:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries, we will let bygones be bygones and move on. History2007 (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Kudos
Kudos to its editor for the new Beads section. It is very well done. My only quibble is that it should be moved to the end of the article. Unless I hear otherwise, I will make the move in a few weeks' time. Rwflammang (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't need to rush it now... kidding. But there is still the 6th-10th century gap to fill in somewhat more smoothly. As to where it goes I don't mind that much, but if that moves down, then St Dominic seems a little abrupt. Let me finish the gap, then let us weigh our options. In the end an IP my show up out of nowhere and rearrange it in 6 months... The section in the general beads article also needs work to cover Islamic beads etc. Anyway, in a few days it may be stable. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyway, your idea of beads/ropes at the end looks pretty good, so I arranged it that way and filled the gap between the 6th-10th centuries etc. The material is pretty well sourced now, and I am not planning on spending more time on this. But we seem to have covered most bases now. If you have other material, please add it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia
An anonymous author recently put in some stuff about Islamic prayer beads, the relevance of which was unclear, so I removed it. I saw later that the material he used was copied almost verbatim from the Catholic Encyclopedia's history of the rosary article. That article is comprehensive and really quite good; it's also in the public domain. Does anybody object if I import large chunks of it wholesale into our relatively anemic article? It will mean that our article will need some restructuring. Rwflammang (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Rosary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070209235726/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20021016_rosarium-virginis-mariae_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20021016_rosarium-virginis-mariae_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Rosary beads have nothing to do with Hindu/Buddhist prayer beads...
Not sure what the point is in mentioning prayer beads in various other religions. While it's true that all prayer beads have a superficial resemblance to one another, the fact is, there's no evidence to suggest that Catholic rosary beads are at all "borrowed from" (or otherwise historically linked with) the prayer beads used in any other religion. 98.115.103.26 (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)