Talk:Lugus

[Untitled]

The "wind with words, words with logic,..." passage seems highly contrived to me, as if it was produced by very amateur research. I will be removing it in one week if it has no verification. ~~~~ 09:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Verification

In response to concerns regarding the validity of my assertions as to what concept is embodied by the Pan-Celtic deity Lugus-Lugh-Lleu-Llew, I have cited the prestigious sources of the contemporary Proto-lexica of the universities of Wales and Leiden, the links to whose lexica are gladly inserted in the body of the sub-heading on etymology.

I have absolutely no issue surrounding such a source.

I humbly pray that you forgive me my previous oversights in this respect, for which oversights i am most contrite. I have also attempted to improve the coherence of the sub-heading. It will become apparent upon reading it that the semantics of the name of this deity are as multifaceted as the deity himself. Yours in good faith, User:GeoffMGleadall08:35, 30th June 2005 [GMT].

I do, however, object to any original research which has been tacked on top of the etymology. I do not contest the etymology of the Proto-lexica, but I would like verification of the additional information to it, and evidence that it is not original research - i.e. that it is not you who is the source of the additional information.

However, the current state, at this moment in time, of the article is not disputed. ~~~~ 30 June 2005 07:43 (UTC)

But not the state it is in now ~~~~ 4 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)

I'm going to look into the sources cited. I have no doubt that they identify the roots and their semantics, but I strongly suspect that the identification of the roots in question with the name of the god Lugus is original research and should not be here. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Sourcing

"Lugus was a deity attested to by inscriptions in Gaul, Germany and Switzerland"

Which inscriptions? I know that a problem concerning *Lugus is the missing of iscriptions with this name from celtic countries (except two inscriptions with the plural form "Lugoves" from Cantabrians). The name itself, *Lugus/*Lugos, has been rebuilt by scholars from the name of city of Lugudunum (Lyon, in France), in relation with Irish god Lúgh too. So, the real name of "Gaul Mercurius" is unknown, and *Lugus is an ethimological hypothesis only. - Holger Danske (contributing as 84.222.135.183 on 31 August 2006)

I whole-heartedly agree. Although this article reads fairly well as a synthesis and an essay, I think its tone is far too emphatic and self-assured for a serious encyclopedia. We must make clear both what we know and what we don't; concerning *Lugus there is plenty of the latter. (The Gaulish Mercury, however, is very well known by comparison.) Q·L·1968 ☿ 20:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Foreign parallels

What of Slavic Triglav? He is a triple god, consisting of (although this varies) Perun (which might be roughly equivalent to Taranis), Svarog (which, if the thesis that he is the grandfather of the Slavs is correct, might be the equivalent of Toutates), and Dazbog. - Zaebangad 17:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted and restored

Someone has deleted sourced text, which I have returned without further editing. Prtobably the same person deleted some references, including on-line references. I have returned these too. --Wetman (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC):

You've restored some good stuff, but you've also restored some bad stuff that was deleted with good reason. As the "sourcing" section above says, Lugus is not directly attested, but is inferred from place-names, inscriptions that seem related, and insular medieval parallels, and the importance of Gaulish Mercury. The material you complain was deleted was largely not deleted, but reorganised (the opening paragraph was too detailed about the Iberian inscriptions, and not balanced enough, for an introduction, so an "inscriptions" section was created for that material) and the references were moved into footnotes as per the Wikipedia manual of style. It still needs work, but it doesn't need that opening data dump. --Nicknack009 (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, the claim that his name is attested as "Lugo" is a misreading of the e-Keltoi article. When it says "this god is mentioned in three inscriptions from Sober and Otero del Rey (Lugo)" it is saying that both places are in Lugo in Galicia, not that the inscriptions read "Lugo". --Nicknack009 (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Continuity in Later Celtic narratives

I think the final sentence is unclear - 'Lugus has also been suggested as the origin not only of Lugh and Lleu Llaw Gyffes, but also the Arthurian characters Lancelot and Lot. The relationship with the former is no longer widely accepted.' Is 'the former' referring to Lancelot or to Lugh? 86.139.161.23 (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I touched up the sentence to clarify the matter. Cagwinn (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Misleading article

This article is highly misleading and makes so many disputed claims. Ronald Hutton, the preeminent historian of ancient British paganism, has traced the creation of "Lugus" to the Victorian era and has shown that the evidence for his widespread worship - including the inscriptions and etymology of place names - is scanty and questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Androsblogger (talk • contribs) 05:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

That certainly explains his presence in numerous placenames including Lyon. — LlywelynII 01:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Androsblogger is this only in the British context? Jamesks (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Move

Regardless of whether this figure is genuinely Celtic or a Victorian bungle, the guy's actual English name is Lug, not Lugus. There should be a redirect, sure, but the article should be parked at Lug (or Lug (deity) etc.) instead of here. If we're only using this as a natural dab, that's fine but it should be clear within the article. — LlywelynII 01:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

His "English name" is not Lug, and your Ngram doesn't say what you think it does. Lug is the older spelling of the Irish presumed deity we have at Lugh. This page is about the presumed Gaulish deity, who doesn't have an English name. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

San lorenzo

In spain they say that fiestas to Lug were replaced by those of San Lorenzo in the process of christianisation. Can anyone confirm and add this. Jamesks (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Lugus as tricephalic: A misidentification?

Previous versions of this article made a lot of hay about Lugus's depiction as a triplistic (triple-faced, triple-phallused) god. Certainly, some scholars point out triplistic aspects of Lugus (Irish Lugh is one of triplets, some altars to the Lugoves have three foculi), for example Tovar 1981, p. 598. However, this isn't a point which any of the sources I have come across make a lot out of. It is usually bracketed within discussions of the number of the Lugoves, or within attempts to identify Lugus as a trifunctional deity. While the Celts gave three faces to many of their gods (Watson, p. 63), I can't find any source which associates Lugus with tricephaly.

Previous versions cited Courcelle-Seneuil's Les Dieux gaulois d'après les monuments figurés, but this only mentions one image in relation to Lug, the (non-triplistic) Mercury on the Kernuz Menhir. MacKillop's Dictionary says, in an entry on "Gaulish Mercury", that "the Celtic propensity for triplism is evident in his iconography, both triple-faced and triple-phallused" but all this says is that there are tricephalic depictions of Mercury from Gaul. There is no suggestion in the entry or in any of MacKillop's citations (so far as I can tell) that these triple-faced Mercurys were depictions of Lugus.

Other Wikipedia articles (and some unimportant, self-published stuff) reproduce the information about Lugus's supposed triplism, and even supposed tricephalic depictions of Lugus. Previously in the article were this image from Paris and this from Reims, both confidently identified as of Lugus. Two sources say there are no depictions of Lugus (Deyts 1992, p. 23; Le Duc 1999, p. 97). What were these images doing here? Does anyone have sources I have missed? Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lugus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Tenpop421 (talk · contribs) 20:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 01:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I am reading now, comments follow in the next days. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Overall, a very interesting article on an underrepresented topic, thanks for that! I hope to see more Celtic deities in the future?

• I have a general concern regarding WP:MTAU. The article has a lot of technical terms which are very difficult, and I think some of them could be avoided.

• I am mostly worried about "toponymy", which is a quite obscure term that has a different meaning in each separate discipline. In my discipline, it is a synonym of topography, but usually it is some type of classification. No idea what it means in this context. If possible, just avoid this term please, or at least explain it.
• Also, "onomastics" – if it is essential here, please provide in-text explanation in brackets.
• theonym – Less critical and I can guess what it means, but maybe it could also be explained at first mention or at least linked.
• etymon – I can also guess what it means, but it needs at least a wikilink.
• between aniconic representations of Gaulish Mercury and the herms (aniconic sculptures of Hermes – I can guess what "aniconic" means, but then I have no idea how a sculpture can be aniconic? Maybe provide some additional explanation for context?

Reworded to avoid these, except for "aniconic". Changed "aniconic sculptures of Hermes" to "aniconic monuments to Hermes".

• The known sound changes between the two languages do not allow proto-Celtic *lug- to develop from proto-Indo-European *leuk-. – This is difficult to read because you talk about "two languages" before you name them. Had to read it twice for this reason.

  Rearranged the sentence.

• Place-names – place names (without hyphen)?

  I've seen both. I have the (unconfirmed) feeling that "place-name" is more usual from the point of view of toponymics, but I'm happy to change if you think it's awkward.

• Since Arbois de Jubainville argued for the connection, the place-name "Lugdunum" has frequently been connected with Lugus. – When did he argued that? And as above, you talk about a "connection" before saying what the connection is.

  Clarified that the connection is etymological (also clarified in the lede).

• Many other etymologies have been given.: 483–484  An ancient etymology derives it from a Gaulish word for raven. Attempts have been made to analyse it as *lugus ("luminous" or "clear") + dunum ("hill"), bolstered by a medieval etymology which gives the gloss mons lucidus ("shining mountain").: 131 : 219–220 – That's all already covered under "Etymology", so what it is doing here?

  These sentences cover the etymologies of "Lugdunum" rather than of "Lugus". I'm happy to remove it or turn it into a footnote if you think it's extraneous.

• Indeed, if (as Maier suggests of Caesar in this passage) their – Very convoluted wording. Maybe simply "Maier suggested that"?

  Removed the clause wholecloth (the paragraph is really about interpretatio romana more generally, so it's difficult to incorporate Maier's views very much).

• about whom they do not "much the same ideas" – verb missing?

  Added "have".

• This identification was widely accepted until Arbois de Jubainville proposed – When?

  Added date.

• He also drew comparison between – "drew a comparison" or "drew comparisons", whatever is the case?

  Replaced with "drew a comparison".

• John Rhys was the first to relate Lleu to Lugus – When did he do that?

  Added date.

• That's all. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Jens Lallensack: Thank you for your time on this article! I'm doing a bit of an overhaul of the articles on Celtic religion at the moment, though I don't know if I'll bring any other ones to GA. Hopefully most of the things you raised are fixed. Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for your changes. I will have a look at your other articles. Should you nominate another one, feel free to ping me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.