Harry Potter Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Harry Potter Wiki

Name[]

Is she really called Mirabile Visu? From this image, I think I can make out "Sakndenberg" on the right side of the portrait, which, to me, sounds more like a surname than "Visu". Also, couldn't "mirable visu" be something like an epitaph referring to her beauty? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 11:48, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Many surnames in the HP series aren't found in the real world and seem to have been invented as puns. However, "Sakndenberg" is on the left side of the portrait, which supports the theory that it, and not Visu, is her surname, as English is read left-to-right. The text before "Sakndenberg" is apparently "Eoessa" - it zooms in on this part of the portrait at the end of the Quest of Sir Cadogan feature, but as I don't have my DVDs with me at the moment, I can't take a picture of it. Starstuff (Owl me!) 19:18, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
I found this character's name inscribed on the wood paneling in Trelawney's classroom in the PoA film. However, in that image, the spelling of her name is "Skanderberg," not "Sakndenberg." Starstuff (Owl me!) 17:09, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
  • I suspect that the form "Sakndenberg" continues an old typo by whoever in the film prop-makers made the page with the name on. The name Skanderberg looks like a slight change to the real-world name Skanderbeg. AnthonyAppleyard 05:41, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • "mirabile visu" is a Latin expression meaning "wonderful to behold". Anthony Appleyard 05:01, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Date of Death[]

There seems to be a date of birth and death on this portrait, and I seem to be able to make out "1515" for the death. --Parodist 23:00, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had already seen that, but I cannot make out the text immediately before 1515... --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:03, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
I found a higher quality version of her portrait. The text between her name and motto actually says, "Anno 1503," and as anno means "in the year" in Latin,[1] it presumably indicates the portrait was painted in 1503. Starstuff (Owl me!) 09:16, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Move?[]

  • Move this page to Eoessa Skandenberg? How much evidence is there for each spelling? Anthony Appleyard 05:06, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Etymology[]

The etymology describes Eoessa, but is that right, when the name truely is Edessa?  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 20:19, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

But her name is not Eoessa, it is Edessa.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 15:00, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
@Anthony: No, it’s not. It’s not Greek for anything. There is no such verb as ἠωέω ‘to have dawn’ from which to derive the participle ἠωέσσα. Eoessa is not anything. Oisín (talk) 17:20, September 13, 2015 (UTC)
  • In Eoessa, the ending -essa is the feminine singular form of a common Greek suffix X-o-eis, genitive X-o-entos, meaning "having X". There is no corresponding verb X-o-e-ō. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:46, September 13, 2015 (UTC)
Even so, the word does not exist. It is not attested. Moreover, it would not likely be eoessa if it did, since -went-adjectives that do not happen to be common words (as presumably an unattested one wouldn’t be) are nearly always left uncontracted. The expected form would be ἠωόεσσα. Oisín (talk) 16:30, September 23, 2015 (UTC)

Template on the page[]

On this page is the "Youmay"-Template which leads to Skanderberg. But Skanderberg leads back to this page. Do we really need the template anymore then?  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 16:50, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

Spelling[]

"Home Life and Social Habits of British Muggles" and the wood-paneling in Trelawney's classroom give her the surname of "Skanderberg". Plus, Skanderberg is an actual surname. I'd be inclined to believe that it is the correct spelling. -- Saxon 15:34, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

  • Ditto. It is the real Albanian name Skanderbeg, plus an "r" after German names ending in "-berg". "Saknderberg" is almost certainly an old typo which people have run with. Move to Skanderberg. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:01, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
Regardless, her portrait in Harry Potter Limited Edition clearly gives her the surname of "Sakndenberg". It's fully possible they're two different people; nothing explicitly links them apart from the similar names and the fact that they're films-only characters. However, it's also likely "Sakndenberg" was simply a typo on the portrait... --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 19:26, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
I think that the portrait was probably a typo given such a similar name being used twice in other instances. -- Saxon 14:03, September 23, 2014 (UTC)
Bumping. -- Saxon 19:39, October 9, 2014 (UTC)
Bumping. -- Saxon 19:33, October 25, 2014 (UTC)
I do not have access to the actual book, but the two versions of her portrait linked to on this talk page—different, but clearly meant to be the same portrait—write her name in two different ways as well: one has what looks like Sakndenberg (though it’s blurry); the other has a much clearer Sakddenberg (or possibly Saknnenberg with flourishes above the double n), with the second d (or n) raised somewhat above the line). So that’s three possible spellings, of which two are completely impossible in English phonotactics and orthography. If we accept that the a and the k have simply been accidentally missed, that still leaves whether it’s supposed to be Skanderberg—as mentioned, very similar to an Albanian name—or Skandenberg. The latter seems to be a Romanian variation of the Albanian Skanderbeg, but not currently much used as a name—it’s somehow ended up being the Romanian word for arm-wrestling (!) instead. Oisín (talk) 16:51, September 13, 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I know there was no answer anymore. The rename template is okay, but to change without consense is a little bit aggressive! :-)  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 21:20, October 30, 2014 (UTC)

  • Sorry if I reopen this discussion, but if the portrait says 'Sakndenberg' clearly, why do you not conserve it as such? The portrait clearly say 'Sakndenber.'--Slytherin ClearBG LeFences Pukwudgie ClearBG 2 Lechucería 01:45, August 14, 2020 (UTC)

Page title[]

The subject of the article has a given name of varying spellings in varying sources (Skandenberg, Skanderberg and Sakndenberg). It has been suggested the page title be changed (Skandenberg to Skanderberg). Does anyone have any thoughts of which title should be used? - Kates39 (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I think her name should be the one which is definitely a confirmed spelling of her surname. RedWizard98 (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This article currently states that "Skanderberg" is the correct spelling of her surname.RedWizard98 (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

This is an ongoing issue that is discussed above and in the BTS section. The 1503 painting title is given as "Edessa Sakndenberg" in Harry Potter Limited Edition - The Paintings of Hogwarts: Masterpieces from the School of Witchcraft and Wizardry Sets. The Home Life and Social Habits of British Muggles film prop from COS has a "Edessa Skanderberg" as the author (although that is canonically incorrect from the books) which is also seen on a plank in Trelawny's room. Now there is apparently another possible mention in Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery as "Edessa Skandenberg?" But in what context - the portrait or the (incorrect) book author or something else? In short there is a conflict in various second/third tier canon as to the spelling of this name and/or if they are all even the same person. Anyone have a screenshot/video from Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery? Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The spelling of her name in HM is irrelevant due to it being the lowest canon source that she's mentioned in. Multiple tier two sources agree on Skanderberg, so what's the issue? -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  17:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
It is well known (or should be known) that Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery (a video game) is an inferior source to official film sources, so I don't even know why such a comment was raised.RedWizard98 (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Because it is unclear if any or all of the mentions are even of the same person. "Sakndenberg" is the spelling given for the portrait - so that could be one article. Then there is "Skanderberg" on the plank (and secondary portrait on the DVD game - or is the text just game text and so it third tier?) . Then there is a new "Skandenberg" mention which could be yet a third person (or a lower tier contradiction of one of the other mentions depending on what is said). The context for how all these mentions occur make a difference in how to resolve this matter. If you read the (~12-year!) long history of this issue, it's not just a simple matter of choosing a spelling and assuming all the others are just incorrect versions. So again, anyone have evidence for the HM mention or if the name given in the DVD is just game text as well? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

...the same first name is given in literally all of the tier two mentions. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  18:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Actually, I think the image for the plank is missing the first couple letters which is why it was titled "Eossa" as that was the best guess when everyone was working from screenshots. As noted above, we've been at this issue for some time now...
The HM appearance can be seen here and is a lower-tier spelling for the portrait as "Skandenberg". So this leaves reconciling using the name actually given on the portrait and confirmed in HPLE as "Edessa Sakndenberg" compared to the plank name and (canonically incorrect) book author name of "Skanderberg". I am inclined towards the using "Sakndenberg" as it is confirmed on the visual evidence used on the article and then placing the plank and book name info into the BTS section or separating out as a separate article with that given name (as we don't have any direct evidence that these must be the same person other that similar spelling of their names, correct? Why would we assume a c. 1503 Headmistress must be the same person with the same name spelling as the incorrectly attributed author of a 1987 book?) This approach clearly states what we are given in canon, discusses the contradictions in the evidence, and lets the readers decide how to interpret things instead of us deciding and then stating assumptions and inferences as fact. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Does the plank in Trelawney's room break canon? Is it referring to a book? -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  19:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Also, the HM writers have been known to just pluck stuff randomly from the wiki, as evidenced by the fact that the image used for Edessa in that video is the main infobox image on this article, so after acquiring that video evidence, we are really none the wiser. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  19:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The name on the plank is just a name on a plank - it doesn't refer to any particular thing. So it's a film prop evidence that the name "Edessa Skanderberg" exists, much like Stuart Craggius. Why would this be the preferred name over the one literally printed on the portrait used for the infobox and the basis for the fl. 1503 and professor / headmistress information?
The HM video helps clarify that they were indeed talking about the portrait, not a random mention of a similar name (like the plank). Obviously, it's third-tier status cannot be used to correct the spelling used on the portrait, but at least we know they haven't created yet a third "Edessa S."
Also in reviewing POA DVD extra walkthroughs like this one, her name doesn't appear to be given directly, just as another source for reading the name off the portrait. That DVD extras reference originally was actually used to support the "Sakndenberg" spelling (as seen in this version and when someone later changed the name they never removed the reference so it seemed later to support the "Skanderberg" variation, but it does not.
The Headmistress portrait is given in canon as "Edessa Sakndenberg" which should (again) be the article's title. The plank & book are different spellings that may or may not be the same person and have various issues with making that claim which could be handled in the BTS section or as a separate article. The HM reference is a lower-tier (mis)spelling of the portrait and should be in the BTS section on this article. That's my take on it, but would be interested to hear Seth's as his 2009 question is the first message on this talk page about what is actually this person's name. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
It's the same first name, so it's not going to be a different person, but whatever you say. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  20:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Again, what's the evidence that the partial name "essa Skanderberg" on the plank must be the same name and must be the same person and is somehow higher canon than the actual name given directly on the portrait? Why would one ignore the direct evidence given in the portrait and clarified in an official companion book and choose instead the disconnected, incomplete, and differently spelled name as the primary source for the article name? These points have been raised time and again above - we're only in this mess because some people repeatedly took it upon themselves to fix the "typo" without bothering to review the primary sources - check out the complete history of the page if that isn't clear. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Sigh. It is far far far far more likely to be Edessa on that plank than not, but if it is definitely certain that 'Sakndenberg' is not a mistake of that one artist, then that can be the title, with the rest of the spellings noted in BTS. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  22:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Sigh indeed - why would one assume that the artist (and official companion book) made a mistake and that every other (partial, unrelated, and non-canon) mention of a similar name must be some sort of correction? Most of this problem could be avoided if people stopped to review the primary sources before coming to a conclusion. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
No further questions, your honour. Rename the page. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  10:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
"Sakndenberg" does indeed seem the most acceptable spelling, for the reasons pointed out by Ironyak1 above. If the page refers primarily to the woman in the portrait, it only makes sense to call her what's on the portrait (and so transcribed in Harry Potter Limited Edition - The Paintings of Hogwarts: Masterpieces from the School of Witchcraft and Wizardry Sets). The different spellings might indicate different individuals altogether, though I am more inclined to admit those are all spelling variations: in the old days, spelling wasn't strictly speaking standardised; the most famous example I can think is, naturally, William Shackspeare — Shaksper — Shakspeare — Shakspere — Shakespeare.
For the sake of historical clarity (because Seth is a living fossil), "Eoessa" is a relic from a time we didn't have any clear images of the portrait and couldn't make out the upstroke of the "d" for what it was (thus mistaking the letter for an "o"). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 11:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

In the section "Etymology" you can read:
Her surname may be the Albanian name Skanderbeg influenced by German names ending in -en-berg.
Is that already correct after the renaming?  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 20:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

That Etymology info still applies to the "Skanderberg" variation of the name so it makes sense to keep it, although probably best after an Etymology note on the primary "Sakndenberg" spelling if one can be determined. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Just catching up and I agree that "Sakndenberg" was the best spelling variant for the page title. I too would be inclined to say that the other spelling variants are for the same person like Seth has explained. - Kates39 (talk) 11:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

As the variant name Skanderberg is named, too, at the beginning of the article I can understand the Etymology not.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 18:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Advertisement