Talk:Chronicle of the Morea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled[edit]

The initial version of the text in this page was copied from Morea#Chronicle of Morea. It will be amended and expanded soon.--FocalPoint 07:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone has access to a copy of one of the original publications? It would be nice to put a scan of the first page.--FocalPoint 07:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern or Medieval Greek[edit]

I refer to the edit [1], where Medieval Greek has been replaced by Modern Greek as the language of the text of the Chronicle of Morea. According to the relevant articles, Medieval Greek's symbolic boundaries start with the transfer of the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Byzantium (Constantinople) in AD 330, and end with the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire in AD 1453, while for Modern Greek The start of the period of the Greek language known as "Modern Greek" is symbolically assigned in the the fall of the Byzantine Empire (1453), although strictly speaking it has been shaped since at least the 11th century. The comment by User:Miskin says "the Chronicle of Morea, the Ptochodromic poems and the Acitic poems are the first attested litterature in modern Greek" (I suppose he means acritic poems). I think that this comment deserves to be mentioned in the text, if there are references to support it. If there are no references, I believe that the symbolic definition of Medieval vs. Modern Greek (1453 AD as their limit) should be kept.--FocalPoint 15:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too believe that we should keep the distinction between medieval and modern greek. As far as I know the language of the byzantine vernacular texts is considered as medieval Greek . It is true than these texts (Digenes Akrites, Ptochoprodromic poems, Chronicle of Morea etc) are traditionally considered as the beginnings of modern Greek literature, not only for linguistic reasons, but this matter is last years under discussion and reconsideration and, anyway, although the texts are still called (from the literary aspect) both "byzantine / medieval vernacular" and "(early) modern greek" and these boundaries are sometimes symbolic, I believe that from the linguistic aspect they belong to medieval greek.--Elena153 21:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The language of the Chronicle exhibits the usual morphological and syntactic characteristics of Mediaeval Greek (vernacular) and, as such, it is always treated as a mediaeval text in handbooks or histories of the Greek language (e.g. G. Horrocks, Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers, London & New York 1997, p. 276-81). Though it is hard to trace clear-cut boundaries between linguistic periods, the extremely high concetrations of archaisms and learned forms, especially the retention of the infinitive, offer strong evidence to regard the Chronicle as a mediaeval text. This continues to be the standard view. Dr Moshe 06:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is by no means the standard view. Yes, both chronicle of Morea and Ptochoprodromus contain archaisms, but those archaisms are artificial, irrelevant to the Modern Greek elements prevelant to the text. Also those archaisms are not Medieval Greek. Medieval Greek has almost no attested texts. The Byzantine literary Greek is neither medieval nor modern Greek, it is artificial imitation of Attic Greek, unintelligible to both Medieval and modern Greek speakers. The vernacular language was not used at the time, and when it was used, it inevitably contained several archaistic elements (see the equivalent modern use of passé simple in literary French). The real middle-late Byzantine vernacular was much like today's Modern Greek in all linguistic aspects. Despite those archaisms, those texts are recognisably Modern Greek. We don't really have an authentic medieval Greek text so as far as vulgar Greek is concerned, the distinction between "medieval" and "early modern" Greek is very thin. Miskin 13:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in the edit summary, current linguistic consensus regards those three works as the first attested texts of Modern Greek (see H. Tonnet - Histoire du grec moderne ou N. Andriotes - History of the Greek language). The Greek language didn't suddenly change upon the sack of Constantinople and became "modern Greek" as soon as Byzantium fell. 1453 is only a symbolic date which aims to link the evolution of the Greek language with Greek history. There are other chronological schemes which place modern Greek's starting point in the middle Byzantine period. None of those schemes argues that the Greek language had shaped into Greek much earlier, well in the Byzantine period. I know very well what the articles on Modern Greek and Medieval Greek say, as they were contributed almost entirely by myself. Miskin 13:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also here [2] ("it is conventional to date the emergence of Modern Greek dialects to about the 10th to 12th centuries (AD)"). Miskin 13:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what we have here, I will now remove the "modern" greek, without replacing it with "medieval"., leaving it just "greek", no link. I will later (during the weekend maybe) add a paragraph presenting both points of view. You can all check and edit as usual.--FocalPoint 18:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the histories of Greek language of R. Browning (Medieval and modern Greek), G. Horrocks (Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers), H. Tonnet (Histoire du grec modèrne) the Chronicle of Morea is considered as a medieval Greek text. One can understand it even when reading the titles of the chapters in which it is included (for example Tonnet: “la langue médievale” ). Of course it is accepted that many characteristics of modern Greek language were formed in this or in the previous period, and than the boundaries are many times symbolic, but this text is treated as a part of the history of medieval Greek language. Also Kriaras in the Dictionary of Greek Medieval Vernacular Literature includes the Chronicle in his sources [3]. For this reason I link again to the medieval Greek article.--Elena153 15:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The red herring lies on the fact that "medieval Greek" or "langue medievale" can also mean "Greek of the middle ages". None of what you said implies that the text is linguistically recognisable as medieval and not modern Greek, I think you're misinterpreting the sources. The historical boundaries between medieval and modern Greek are completely symbolic (for obvious reasons), and I don't think any scholar would be silly enough to claim that after 1453 Greek literature was recognisably different than before. I'm not aware of any scholars who deny that the specific texts are recognisably early Modern Greek, and what you cited above does by no means imply so. It is treated as part of the "medieval Greek language" by people who want to focus on Greek of the "medieval period", which has fixed borders. Similarly, someone who wants to study modern Greek independently of a historical period, he'll start with the texts of the middle ages. I think you erroneously favour the historical criterion over the linguistic one. The point lies on where Modern Greek starts, not where the middle ages end. I'm not aware of a source which has an alternative view on what I say, if you find a source which explicitely states that those texts are "recognisably medieval - explicitely different to modern Greek" then please do cite it. Until you do, permit me to assume that you have misinterpreted the question at hand. I'll cite more sources on what I've said so far. Miskin 02:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elena if you've got access to Tonnet read again the title of the chapter "langue medieval", it says in fact "langue medieval XII-XV". The next chapter is called "le grec sous l'occupation ottomane: XV-XVII", so it's blatant that the title does not lead to any conclusions. Miskin 12:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wrote my bit using what has been discussed here, please note that I did not include the original research indicated in this discussion, since it would not be appropriate for an encyclopedia editor to take parts and judge whether archaisms are foreign to the text or deeply part of it or whatever. You may all proceed and change it as you see fit.--FocalPoint 21:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not responding earlier, I was on holiday. I admit that the “argument” about the titles of the chapters is not very convincing, but if you read the whole chapters you can see clearly than no one uses the term “Modern Greek” to describe the language of the vernacular texts of the late medieval/ byzantine period, although they admit that many characteristics of modern greek were shaped in this period. About the Chronicle of Morea they say that the language is very close to the spoken language: “langue proche à la langue parlée” (Tonnet), “This is a document of almost pure spoken Greek. But the word ‘almost’ is important” (Browning). So, since here we are not supposed to discuss the beginning of Modern Greek language and literature, and because I do not intend to continue a discussion than leads nowhere, instead of arguing here, I propose, if you, or me, or Dr Moshe have some time, to write a short paragraph with more details about the linguistic characteristics of the Chronicle and with certain examples, so than the reader (especially the one who has read also the talk page) can understand which are the similarities and the differences between the Chronicle on one hand and other medieval vernacular and modern Greek texts on the other. --Elena153 12:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph, is a mess![edit]

"The Chronicle of the Morea (Greek: Το χρονικόν του Μορέως) is a long 14th-century history text, of which four versions are extant: in French, Greek (in verse), Italian and Aragonese. More than 9,000 lines long, the Chronicle narrates events of the Franks' establishment of feudalism in mainland Greece. West European Crusaders settled in the Peloponnese (called Morea at the time) following the Fourth Crusade. The period covered in the Chronicle was 1204 to 1292 (or later, depending on the version). It gives significant details on the civic organization of the Principality of Achaia."

One might as well state concerning Biblical Old Testament, that things happend in the "begining" and other things happend later!!! LOL96.19.147.40 (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes[reply]

The significance of the Chronicle![edit]

"The significance of the Chronicle

The Chronicle is famous in spite of certain historical inaccuracies because of its lively description of life in the feudal community and because of the character of the language which reflects the rapid transition from Medieval to Modern Greek." Again one might well wonder about the very words found in the Chronicles, and just why one might be concerned with:

"The significance of the Chronicle The Chronicle is famous in spite of certain historical inaccuracies because of its lively description of life in the feudal community and because of the character of the language which reflects the rapid transition from Medieval to Modern Greek."

So just how does Medieval Greek change normally>96.19.147.40 (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes[reply]

Should not this site actually give the reader some version of the actual verse or other version, that is "Just what does it say?"!!![edit]

Juat what do "these" chronicles say? Perhaps this should be a part of this article??????? LOL96.19.147.40 (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chronicle of the Morea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Short description[edit]

A Short description should be short — see WP:SDSHORT. Prominent chronicle / primary source about the Principality of Achaea, a medieval Crusader state in Greece (106 characters) is very much too long. 14th-century history text primarily about the Principality of Achaea (68 characters) is still too long. 14th-century history text (25 characters) is short and sufficient. A Short description is not a definition — see WP:SDNOTDEF — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 20:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostInTheMachine As far as I see, Wikipedia offers a limit of 250 letters for a page short caption and I only used 68 characters out of them, so it's not that long as you make it look like. While your caption of "14th century history text" is indeed appropriate, its hard to imagine the Chronicle of Morea described generally without even a mention on the Principality of Achaea that is the hegemony with which TCOM was identified with as it was written to narrate its story and even it's title demonstrates that. I suggest "a 14th history text about the Principality of Achaea" that has 58 characters. Tell me what you think. Eugene de Moree (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:SDSHORT — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 21:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the short descriptions rules. I dont see how I break wikipedia rules on the short descriptions while the characters of it, remain between the lines provided by Wikipedia. Eugene de Moree (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have read WP:SDSHORT then you will understand that the current SD needs to be shortened. Please also read WP:SDNOTDEF — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 18:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You really do need to read the policies — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 19:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostInTheMachine You really do need to read the Chronicle of Morea. This is a historical source focused on the political history of the Principality of Achaea-Morea I don't know where you exactly saw that this is a source discussing generally "feudalism" in Greece. Something so specific can only happen by a contemporary scholarly work.
I looked several times the policies of Wikipedia on short descriptions, while really short descriptions are encouraged, certainly 50-55 character are not considered too much. Eugene de Moree (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronicle_of_the_Morea&oldid=1206684538"