Talk:Nuada Airgetlám

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Ireland Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the priority scale.
	An image is requested for this article as its inclusion will substantially increase the significance of the article. Please remove the image-needed parameter once the image is added.

	Nuada Airgetlám is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Celts. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess. The project aims for no vandalism and no conflict.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

[edit] 2005 posts

I'm confused. The Bres article says he lost his hand. This one says he lost his arm. Which is it? --Atlastawake 01:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to be sure. In Irish lámh means both "hand" and "arm", and medieval Irish texts are rarely consistent. I've read one source that says Nuada lost his arm at the shoulder, but I can't for the moment remember which one it is. --Nicknack009 11:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It currently says Nuada/Nuadu becomes Nuadha/Nuadhu in later texts. But I think that's wrong as far as 'Nuadhu' goes, because unstressed a → u happens before they changed the spelling of lenited consonants; n'est-ce pas? So you'd get 'Nuadha' in Middle Irish spellings, never 'Nuadhu' (if I'm right about this). QuartierLatin1968 00:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tuatha Dé/Dé Danann, gods, Sreng/Streng

To the anonymous author who made these recent edits, please read the original texts linked to in the references. The Tuatha Dé Danann are regularly called the "Tuatha Dé", and never the "Dé Danann" which makes no grammatical sense as it's a genitive. They can be interpreted as gods, but are not represented as such in the texts, so it is misleading to call them gods unambiguously. Finally, the warrior who Nuada fought was Sreng, not "Streng". --Nicknack009 22:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As the one who made the edits, I'll put my case forward a little. I have to say that while I have heard them referred to as "Tuatha Dé" it's use has been infrequent, and both in spoken conversation and written word I find it absurd to say that they are "never" called the Dé Danann. Frankly it makes more linguistic sense to refer to them as the latter, as it is literally "of the Goddess Danu" as opposed to "Tuatha Dé" which is "people of" when left as a fragment. I referred to them as gods because this is what they are, I'm not sure which text you are quoting which states that they are not, though admittedly in most accounts of their battle with the Fir Bolg they are presented in a more human manner, this does not discount the fact that they were figureheads created for worship. I will add that I left it "who would become the Gaelic Gods" to reflect this. Finally, it was Streng, though Sreng is often used as well. The link given to corroborate Sreng as the sole name is weak at best, and I will do my best to find something to replace it if I can. Seanacha 13:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of links, to the Lebor Gabála, Keating, the Four Masters, and the two Battles of Mag Tuired. These are translated primary sources. What are your sources? You have given none, and you suggest replacing perfectly good sources because you don't like them? "Streng" is not a name found in the original Irish texts, and your interpretation of "Tuatha Dé" and "Dé Danann" shows you do not know how the Irish language works. Dé is the genitive of dia, god or goddess. It does not mean "of". Tuatha Dé means "peoples of the goddess". Dé Danann means "of the goddess Danu". Finally, the Tuatha Dé did not "become the Gaelic Gods". They very likely were the Gaelic gods in an earlier time, but we do not have any texts from that earlier time. The texts we have were written by Christians, who were careful to remove any non-Christian religious material, so instead of "becoming" gods, they "became" mortals. Identifying which characters were gods and which were not is a matter of interpretation, and scholars differ. Claiming it's a "fact" that the Tuatha Dé "were figureheads created for worship" is just wrong, and whatever book is telling you that is misleading you. There are some who would identify even Cormac mac Airt as a god, and some who would claim there are no gods in Irish mythology.

Identifying equivalents from other cultures is also problematic, as gods have many different functions, and their functions change. Odin may be the chief god of the Norse, but he's also the guide of the dead, which would make him equivalent with Hermes/Mercury as much as Zeus/jupiter, and Zeus is a thunder god, which would make him equivalent to Thor as much as Odin. In fact, the English days of the week make "Woden's day" the same day as the Romance languages' "Mercury's day" (French Mercredi, Spanish Miercoles) and "Thunor's day" the same as the Romance "Jove's day" (French Jeudi, Spanish Jueves), and these identifications were made in late antiquity at the latest. The best Greco-Roman match for Nuada's Romano-British counterpart Nodens seems to be Neptune/Poseidon, but Nuada in the Irish texts has no marine associations at all.

Nothing in Irish mythology is definite, no matter how much the authors of popular primers would have you believe. --Nicknack009 22:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting a lot of what I have said. For one thing, I have not suggested replacing the links given on the Nuada page which are indeed comprehensive, but those on Sreng's page to substantiate my claim that the alternate spelling of Streng should be included. I do not have access to any particular text at this time that could substantiate my claim, I could however point you to numerous online sources, though I feel that you may be unsatisfied with this. From what I can tell of your arguement against the Tuatha Dé Danann, aside from implying that I know noting of gaelic when I offered up what the approximate translations of each fragment are, you wish to remove implications that they were revered as gods because, as you yourself state, Christian texts from the time tried to remove religious significance from them. This baffles me. Are we really to say that they were not regarded as such because some recorded texts were altered by people who knowingly removed information to subcribe it to their religion? Indeed much is open to interpretation in Irish mythology but it is generally accepted that the Tuatha Dé Danann acted as the approximate gods of the gaels. I referred to Nuada as an approximate to Zeus or Odin because in popular modern culture there is a tendency to describe such old religions in terms of pantheons with set hierarchies to make them more accesible. Nuada is the first of several kings of "his" pantheon, yes, but as he was created largely for this purpose of "ruling" he fits the theme better than say, the Dagda, who had great connections to the land and agriculture. I know of very few people who would claim your cited figure as anything more than a great-king figure. He was the son of mortal king, the grandson of Conn of the Hundred Battles. I assume you're implying a sort of deifying cult surrounded him at some point such as perhaps occurred with a character such as Guan Yu, of which I at least have heard no evidence. Throughout Wikipedia itself through most of, if not all the entries in Irish mythology dealing with the Tuatha Dé Danann they are referred to as the gods of the gaels because this most readily describes their function in a way that is understandable to a reader, so why you are suddenly going against this due to my change is beyond me. If you want a text to back this up, Lady Gregory's Complete Irish Mythology, ISBN 0-7537-0945-7, repeatedly and virtually exclusively refers to them as gods.

If you will look back on my changes, you will also note that most of my entries act as asides, such as my minor addition to the Sreng page, so I fail to see how exactly I am attempting to define something absolutely to my tastes, though I will add that saying "nothing in Irish mythology is definitive" is a vast oversimplication and equally wrong.Seanacha 12:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no argument "against" the Tuatha Dé Danann. I merely wish to retain the ambiguity about their divine status. It is my opinion that certainly the most important of them were once gods, and the fact that Nuada's name is cognate with that of, Nodens, a god from Britain is a pretty good clue that Nuada was. However, Nodens is unambiguously divine and associated with the sea, while Nuada is neither. It seems a lot about him has changed since he was a god. Nuada as we know him exists only in medieval Irish texts written by Christians, In those texts he is presented as a mortal king. Therefore we must start from there, and all interpretation should be clearly flagged as interpretation. Lady Gregory is a Victorian interpretation of these texts, and a lot of her interpretations are now outdated.

I mentioned the "Cormac was a god" (T F O'Rahilly) and "there are no gods" interpretations as extremes. I don't agree with either of them, but they're both published opinions held by scholars. A lot of things that are "generally accepted" are wrong, as I discovered when I researched the article on Brennus, the 3rd century BC Gaul who led the invasion of Greece. It is "generally accepted" that Brennus sacked and looted Delphi, and presented as fact in several books about the Celts, but it's wrong. I do not believe an encyclopedia should perpetuate misconceptions, or present interpretations, however popular, as fact. Give people the facts, and let them make up their own minds. --Nicknack009 13:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Then we can agree at least on some things. I didn't want to place the divine nature of the Dé Danann above all reproach as precisely the level of ambiguity is one of their defining traits. I was however taken back by your removal of any place where I referred to them as a god. I am not disputing Nuada's similarities to Nodens, nor am I trying to equate him with other ancient gods, I tried instead to list his position more clearly for viewers who are not so familiar with him. Wikipedia does not list his full history, and relies a lot on pointing the reader to an independant text.

I agree that we should not present mistruths as truths in an encyclopedia, but as it is essentially a repository of knowledge I think it's most important that we list common, popular or likely interpretations alongside the main article, as these are likely still prevalent in the world, as long as they are flagged correctly as such. My insistence of including Sreng's alternate spelling of Streng is an example of this; it is an extremely common alternate spelling, and while Sreng is accepted by most scholar's as the proper name Streng still finds common use, though perhaps not so much in the same field. I am bit surprised at your insistence that this interpretation is so certainly wrong in a field where you yourself say texts are frequently inconsistent, but I can understand your point. Seanacha 14:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)