Disputatio:Matthaeus Parisiensis
Nomen
recensere<<"There seems no reason to infer from the name by which he was commonly known that this famous English historian was directly connected with Paris either by birth or education": Catholic Encyclopedia.>> So that's why we speak of Scipio Africa, not Scipio Africanus, and of his brother, Scipio Asia, not Scipio Asiaticus, right? If the adjective isn't Parisiensis, why is Parisiensis associated with this Matthaeus in editions cited all over the internet? The name attached to the image provided in the article, an apparent self-portrait (so presumably labeled by himself), might prove dispositive, but it's been cropped just where it becomes interesting, on the right side, at Frat[er]:Mathia[u]s:P. Can a wider image of that page be found? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:58, 2 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
- Damn you (in the nicest possible way), you're right. Here is the page and one could hardly find a better source. I'll make the changes gradually :)
- Glad to oblige! It struck me as odd that somebody would have to have been born or educated somewhere to be deserving of an epithet from that place (though those causes may indeed be the likeliest ones). Elizabeth Barrett Browning was known as "the Portuguese," but not from any physical connection with Portugal. Indeed, inversion could come into play, so that a Mathiaus Parisiensis might really have been a Matthew who didn't want to have anything to do with Paris! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:43, 2 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
- Funny thing is, this image gives his Christian name as Mathias, not Matthaeus (or possibly, as in your transcription, he hedged his bets with Mathiaus). My impression is that most editions call him either "Matthaeus Paris" or "Matthaeus Parisiensis", very few "Mathias" and surely none at all "Mathiaus". Admitting you're right about "Parisiensis", do we need to check the Christian name further? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:24, 2 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
- Well, but Vicipaedia's practice is to regularize given names: thus Gulielmus for Guillermus, Gulliermus, Willermus, Williamus etc. So Matthaeus should probably be OK. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:43, 2 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
- My problem with that argument, momentarily, was that "Matthaeus" and "Mathias" are both regular Latin and in his caption he fell between them. However, I find he wrote a poem to himself in 1250:
- Siste tui metas studii, Matthaee, quietas,
- Nec ventura petas quae postera proferet aetas.
- Siste tui metas studii, Matthaee, quietas,
- The metre guarantees the spelling there, so it seems OK. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:53, 2 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
- My problem with that argument, momentarily, was that "Matthaeus" and "Mathias" are both regular Latin and in his caption he fell between them. However, I find he wrote a poem to himself in 1250:
- Well, but Vicipaedia's practice is to regularize given names: thus Gulielmus for Guillermus, Gulliermus, Willermus, Williamus etc. So Matthaeus should probably be OK. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:43, 2 Augusti 2012 (UTC)