Talk:Tutagual of Alt Clut

Ninian
MacQuarrie says that Tutagual may be identifiable with the tyrant associated with Nenius in two sources, but makes a point of saying that no other writer has suggested this before. He includes the caveat that this would require ignoring the traditional timeframe for Nennius, which is sometime in the 5th century. He notes that this is based on the line from Bede, which says that Ninian lived multo ante tempore or a long time before Columba's mission to the Picts (specific dates were later manufactured by James Ussher). He refers to his own earlier article proposing what he terms a "radical revision of Ninian's chronology", and lists a few of his argument's points. However, he notes that his suggestion has been criticized by another historian. It is for these reasons that I reproduced his caveat into the article - ie, since he admits that his suggestion is novel and reliant on his own "radical" theory that has been criticized, we shouldn't just follow him without comment. I don't think we need to go into an analysis of Ninian's dating here, but we should at least say something along the lines of: "Historian Alan MacQuarrie suggests that Tutagual of Alt Clut may be identified with a tyrannical ruler blah blah blah... However, Macquarrie notes that such an identification would require a reappraisal of the traditional dating for Ninian's life, which, based on a line in Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, is generally assigned to the 5th century rather than the 6th."--Cúchullain t/ c 13:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * MacQuarrie is not the first to suggest a connection between Tuduvallus and Tutagual and Rhydderch ... see this footnote in Ritson's Annals,  (18th cen) where he quotes Pinkerton's notation of him as Rhydderch's father ... this connection has been common knowledge for hundreds of years ... I haven't read the work, but does MacQuarrie really suggest his idea in this area is an original one?


 * Bede does not suggest the 5th century. Indeed, multo ante temporare is ambiguous (in 731, 100 years earlier would be "many years earlier"), and this appears deliberate ... note that Bede qualifies everything regarding Ninian by saying he is repeating a "traditional" story &mdash; he is saying that he does not assert any of it as having a factual basis. This fits nicely with his agenda of legitimizing a heritage for the new Northumbrian see at Galloway. Attributing a 5th century date to Bede sounds like an effort to avoid mentioning the authority of Ussher, who is now held in high disrepute for his falsifications of history. I imagine that people have been speculating about the date for a long time, long before Ussher, but it's still someone's speculation, not Bede's implication.


 * By the way, efforts have been made to connect a historical Ninian with the traditional Saint Ninian, and I think that is where the editor of the Vita Sancti Niniani article is going, perhaps ultimately leading to Finnian of Moville (or some other candidate, it's a long list). The idea has been around for a long time, and may have merit. For an early discussion, see the reference by Todd in the bibliography of Saint Ninian, Note B: St. Finnian of Maghbile.


 * But these are just my current thoughts ... counterpoints welcome. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Very interesting. MacQuarrie says that "No previous writer has suggested that Ninian's Tudwal could be identified with the father or Rhydderch Hael, thus making Ninian a figure of the mid-sixth century rather than the fifth." He goes on to say: "But the only chronological pointer for Ninian is Bede's statement that he lived a long time before ('multo ante tempore') the conversion of the northern Picts by Saint Columba (c. 521-597)..." This is indeed the reason that Ninian is traditionall placed in the 5th century, by Ussher and others. MacQuarrie then expresses the ambiguous nature of the phrase multo ante tempore, which Bede uses elsewhere to refer to two events that occurred within the same guy's lifetime (he doesn't mention Ussher), and gives two more pieces of evidence for his "radical revision", which is presumably elaborated further in his article "Date of St. Ninian's Mission". But the most important thing is, MacQuarrie acknowledges that his theory has been criticized by scholars such as John MacQueen, editor St. Nynia. As such I don't think we should discuss the Tutagual-Tuduvallus without the caveat. Or rather, unless we find the same connection espoused in a source beyond an 18th-century footnote and an article by a guy who undercuts himself by talking about how novel and unaccepted his theory is, we should just follow what the cited source says and note that the connection requires a move away from the traditional dating of Ninian.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * After writing all that, I realized I should have just directed you to Google Books. On another note, MacQuarrie's article was published in 1998, before some of the more recent work on Ninian had been done. Others may have followed him in his conclusion, in which case I'll just move on to something more productive.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I wrote the Saint Ninian article in a way that keeps clear the line between the traditional story and the (unknown) historical person; apparently I'm now trying to percolate this distinction into other articles, such as this one, which is not time well spent ... perhaps, we should go the way that you're suggesting. Give it all a thinking over, and then I suggest that we go with your best instincts. All of this has just been my input the process.


 * There are many more references than the 18th century one ... that was just to give an example, showing that the idea has been around quite a while. And he's wrong that Bede is the only chronological pointer regarding Ninian ... works covering Finnian of Moville, and many others, are pointers (and that is part of the effort to connect a historical Ninian to the traditional one); picking one is arbitrary, and picking the famous Bede is perhaps self-serving.


 * I've read some of the more recent works on Ninian ... just my opinion, but they don't seem to add much if anything. They rehash old theories without attribution to the authors, they tend not to cite their sources, they invent new theories to promote, etc, etc. (not intended as a blanket condemnation, just an anecdotal observation on one specific item) I read quite a bit of the newer stuff, but then am inclined to track things down, and often see that it has all been said before. Not always, but often. Best Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)