Talk:Morea
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wasn't the Chronicle originally written in French, and then translated into Greek? Also, I thought the odd state of the Greek translation was because it had been translated by a non-native speaker. (I'm probably mis-remembering something, and I don't have a copy at hand.) Adam Bishop 07:41, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
-
- Probably, but is there a surviving ms version in Old French? I haven't read more than quotes from it. How does the passage look now? Wetman 08:46, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- The Catholic Encyclopedia says:
-
-
-
-
- "To the period of Frankish conquest belongs aIso the metrical Chronicle of Morea (fourteenth century) It was composed by a Frank brought up in Greece, though a foe of the Greeks, and its literary value for the history of civilization is all the greater. Its object was, amid the constantly progressing hellenization of the Western conquerors, to remind them of the spirit of their ancestors. It is Greek, therefore, only in language; in literary form and spirit it is wholly Frankish. The author "describes minutely the feudal customs which had been transplanted to the soil of Greece, and this perhaps is his chief merit; the deliberations of the High Court are given with the greatest accuracy, and he is quite familiar with the practice of feudal law" (J. Schmitt). As early as the fourteenth century the Chronicle was translated into Spanish and in the fifteenth into French and Italian."
-
-
-
-
- I guess that must be what I was thinking of, written by a French guy in Greek. Adam Bishop 16:51, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
-
W.J. Aerts, the University of Groningen, contributed to a Dutch festschrift in 1990, "Was the Author of the Chronicle of Morea that Bad? Some considerations about the style and composition of the Chronicle of Morea, mainly based on the MS of Copenhagen (H 57)" It would be over my head, that's fer sure... Wetman 17:51, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merged the two. I did delete the "is it a fish or is it a hamster?" way the original last paragraph was constructed; it just looked too editorial for a encyclopaedia article. I do feel that both points of view are adequately represented (but I also thought both povs were represented in my original edit, so go figure). Sysin