Talk:Medieval literature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Medieval literature article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Former featured article Medieval literature is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 26, 2004.
This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated B-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Langlit.

When I put this together, I struggled over whether to add Islamic literature or not. I don't want to seem as though I'm snubbing the major contributions of writers like Ibn Khaldun and Alhazen; on the contrary, it's because of my respect for Islamic literature in the Middle Ages that I wonder if it doesn't deserve its own seperate treatment--after all, the term "medieval" refers very specifically to Europe proper. Any thoughts? Jwrosenzweig 20:03, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Re Peer Review

Nice article. Just a few points: I think the paragraph on courtly love really ought to link to Troubadour and I'd question the designation of the Divine Comedy as an epic. More an allegory, really. Layamon's Brut is a better second example of an epic from this period. Also, I'd suggest including the Mystery Plays. Apart from that, it's a matter of the red links turning blue. BTW, I agree with your decision not to include Islamic literature. Bmills 12:54, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] picture added

I've added a picture. Two questions: is it a good choice, and have I left it too big? Any advice would be great. Jwrosenzweig 21:56, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] featured article blurb placement

Shouldn't the featured article blurb be on the article itself rather than talk?
Brooklyn Nellie (Nricardo) 05:43, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know why, but apparently marking featured articles occurs in talk (I looked at some others). Curious. But apparently this is policy. Jwrosenzweig 16:40, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] anonymity in this stuff

One point that this article overlooks is that a good chunk of medieval literature literature is anonymous. The folk literature -- Beowulf, the Mabinogion, the Song of Roland -- lack one author's name, & are understood as the creation of a class of storytellers who made their living retelling these stories. It was with the waning of this folk culture that they came to be attached to certain poets or authors, & even then generations passed before much was recorded of these people beyond their names.

(The above is just a quick impression; please do not copy it into the article without verifying my facts first.) -- llywrch 19:18, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Adding something about anonymity is a great idea (though to my limited knowledge no authorship has ever been ascribed for either Beowulf or Roland...don't know about Mabinogion). Do you think it should be an independent section? And what should it focus on, beyond simply stating that numerous important works arose anonymously from a class of storytellers? Jwrosenzweig 21:13, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

First, AFAIK the creation of the Mabinogion is attributed to the anonymous class of Welsh bards. None of them thought their individual contribution was worthy of being mentioned.

Second, I think this anonymous quality signalled the birth of new tropes & conventions. The Iliad & Odyssey were ascribed to a definite personality, although we know nothing more about Homer than he wrote these epics, & there was a tradition he was blind; no one ever thought to pair Beowulf, Roland or the Mabinogion with an author -- even though they are far less a creation of a tradition than the Homeric works.

When a Celtic king wanted praise for his works, he drew from a far different convention than Claudian or Sidonius knew: he maintained court poets who would sing poems in the vernacular tongue & use a poetic language so oblique that the king might understand only one word in ten. When his subjects wanted a song or story to entertain them, the deeds of Rome or Greece were were but one small part of the possible library to draw from, & the stories were no more the property of the story-tellers than a contemporary might be the property of its teller.

Beyond this, I'm not sure what to write. One could push the folklore angle too hard, & end up not describing what Medieval literature was, but Romanticism's interpretation of Medieval literature -- which probably also needs a mention. But in Western literature, there seems to be a period where the Classical conventions & tropes were in vogue, then went out of fashion (the Medieval period), then came back into vogue (the Renaissance), then went out of fashion (the Romantic period). And one convention that is in opposition with the Classical environment is communal, anonymous authorship. It can be discerned today in the phrases "the Voice of the People" or "the Power of the Internet". And the Classical convention that it opposes is not personal responsiblity, but the concept of the Great Genius -- that certain people have deep thoughts, while the rest of us are shallow.

But this interpretation is just my own, unpublished & idiosyncratic POV. -- llywrch 02:08, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] mysterious chart

What on earth is that chart? It's neither in English

If you look at the source information, you will find out that it was created by a German (not me), so if you spot translation mistakes, it would be useful to point them out so we can fix it in the next version of the chart.--Eloquence* 01:09, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

nor particularly accurate from the point of view of scholarship. I'd love to know what "keys event" was, for instance, since it happens right in the middle of my specialty period and I've never heard of it.

The Keys Event was a severe volcanic eruption around 535 CE. You can read about it in the book Catastrophe by David Keys, Arrow, 2000.--Eloquence* 01:09, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

And "Byzance" (not English) didn't "destroy Rome." Here's an example: "26% Vivarium"? Well, we have a list of books the founder thought people should read, but we have neither a surviving library (we're not even certain WHERE it was) nor a surviving catalog of said library. So what's the value of calling it 26%? YOW. Scary.

The numbers from Vivarium Markus sent me are: 139 theological works, 9 secular, 41 classical ones. Are those the same numbers given in your source? I will ask Markus for the exact source for these numbers.
Update: Markus has now sent me the source, it is R.A.B. Mynors: "Cassiodori Senatorius Institutiones", Oxford 1963, which is a "provisional indication of the contents of the library of Vivarium" and based on various sources, not simply "a list of books the founder thought people should read." It is based on an earlier German study, by A. Franz: "M. Aur. Cassiod. Sen.", Breslau 1872. --Eloquence* 01:09, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

What this is is someone's cherrypicked list of books in libraries OR library catalogs (not the same things at all) categorized by a variety of authors in a variety of studies as "secular" or "literary" or "theological". What you might call a "meta-study". I, myself, would call it "a not very useful study." --Michael Tinkler

The question is not whether the chart is useful to you, but whether it is an accurate representation of the content of selected libraries over time or not. If you have any indications that it is not, I would like to hear them. Certainly, in many cases we can only make secure statements about samples from each library. However, as any statistician knows, a sufficiently representative sample is good enough to spot trends, especially when correlated with more data. This chart is based on a very substantial knowledge base and the trends it depicts are consistent over time. There is nothing "cherry picked" about it; in fact, it makes use of as much available data as possible (such as the Codices Latini Antiquiores) and merely collates a set of observations that have already been made before for selected time periods (as Reynolds did in Texts and Transmission).--Eloquence* 01:09, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] fools rush in

At the suggestion of jwrosenzweig, I have looked over this article more or less as a Martian. I know next to nothing about the literature, or the period, save general knowledge. My comments are to be taken in that light -- and with charity, if you please.

As a preliminary, I like it. It covers an impossibly large subject briefly and with some panache. But... As a novice, I have some difficulties and some questions with which I've been left hanging. Perhaps they could be addressed? If relevant, and I haven't missed something obvious.

I'll number my points for clarity of reference 1. The general impression is of a pointer collection. I don't learn from this, for example, whether the goliards and troubadors were the same thing in a different area or time or not. Perhaps I shouldn't, but unless I clicked on a link(s), I'm pretty much lost on this one. (They were the same, weren't they?). The cost in verbiage to add a little padding to the bare bones of a pile of pointers needn't be over much.

2. Assorted nits about language. 'delved deeper and deeper'; cliche. 'essentially all' is the sort of weasel wording I'm too prone to use; easy to recognize, and hard to evade. Is it 'all' or only 'a large proportion'? Which liturgy? presumably Catholic (as influenced locally), but a Buddhist might not have a clue. Passive voice here and there.

3. A narrative arc problem, perhaps. If this is intended to stand alone, it has a somewhat disjointed quality, perhaps inevitably given its terms of reference. But, more connection would make it read more smoothly, and the Mary Poppins advice really does apply. For instance, there is a para on hagiographies, followed by a new para mentioning something called the Golden Legend. Is it a hagio? Would provide a better transition if the reader is given that connective.

4. I seem to remember that different regions developed at different rates, dependent on political connections, local language, etc. And even when writing in Latin (as was the universal ?? practice in ex Roman areas (and newly Christianized ones too??) before local literatures began to develop, things were different from area to area and over time. No sense of this here. It will be hard to convey, but shouldn't it be attempted?

5. In areas in which Latin never dominated (eg, Scandanavia and non Gaul Germanic territory), the local literature differed from place to place. Much (most/nearly all) is lost, but don't we have a sense of what non-Latinate literature there was?

6. There were abortive attempts at a local literary life. Eg in King Alfred's Wessex (though lost in the pressures of the next few generations), in Northumbria, and in Mercia. The later two entirely (?)extinguished by the Vikings. And what about the Irish? There is a famous recent book claiming that the Irish Saved Civilization. Was all of that swamped by the Vikings? No sense of it here.

7. In England at least there are chronicles of various qualities from Anglo Saxon times through Chaucer's (I think). Bede, for instance, though he wrote in Latin(?). Surely there were similar things elsewhere?

8. Was the development of a local literature faster in the North or slower? Was there a difference between Latin literature in ex Roman areas and non Roman ones?

9. No mention of the Norman invasion and its consequences for literature in England or the ties between Norman France and England (at least for a few generations). There were similar things elsewhere in Europe, eg the Moorish conquest of Spain, the Ottoman Turk invasion of the SE near the beginning of the Renaissance, and the influences brought back from the Crusades and via translations (early in the Reanaissance) made in Spain, the Viking innudations in much of England, (all?) of Ireland, N Germany, Russia, ... They had some great art (weapons, jewelry, ...) did they have a literature? Did any survive?

10. Did the universities affect any of this? Was literature after their founding (1050+ I guess) university based? Who wrote this stuff, insofar as we know?

11. For Beoulf certainly, and I think Roland, there is no influence of Homer as no one knew Greek N of the Alps, right? Didn't Homer become available with the Renaissance, like Aristotle, most of Plato, etc? What effect did the lack have -- had to explain of course, but perhaps illustratable by noting the effect of sudden availability?

12. First (?) mathematical treatise in West in 1000 years, Fibbonacci's Liber ca 1200? Should it be mentioned?

13. Very little mention of poetry. Some of the chronicle stuff was in couplets wasn't it? At least in English poetic forms were changing from German style split lines to others eventually ending up with Chaucer and then a collapse for a while and back to assorted forms. Or so I think I remember. Was it similar in other languages? Did modern poetic forms develop in the Middle Ages in Italy, Germany, France or did that have to wait for the Renaissance?

14. Possible additions to the list. Sir Gawain and Ye Greene Knyghte, the Adventures of Sir John Mandeville (Munchausen like stuff taken as real for several hundred years, lots of editions and translations, ...), Mallory's Morte D'Artur

This is long enough, it's helpful (hah!). And if it isn't I should stop wasting bits.

ww 22:28, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Most helpful. I will take the weekend to consider a restructuring for the article which will allow me to encompass your generally very useful and wise comments. Anyone else interested is welcome to work with me on this, but as I'm the only person who's done much in the way textual additions here (not to slight those who've edited in the least!), I'm imagining this will be a one-Rosenzweig job. :-) Any other comments and thoughts are welcome! Jwrosenzweig 22:35, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You LIKED it??? ANY of it??? Wonders will never cease! Good luck. I'm still trying to digest your comments on Enigma! Thanks.
I just reread my comments. Well... But the thing that jumped out at me was what I managed to leave out. How about noting the language, date of composition, type of work, and place for the items in the list? ww 23:03, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 20:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

This article should not be featured. It contains factual (POV?) problems, not to mention it is thin. It's a vast complicated subject,whats been done here is a noble effort, it just is no where near what it should be, or to be featured as the best of wikipedia. Each of the major venacular languages needs a sub-article, each further broken down by category. Scandanavian languages, Asian languages, Germanic, French, English.. each could have robust and interesting articles on Medieval literature. Stbalbach 04:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you feel strongly enough about that and think others will agree, you can list this article at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. Much better though would be to fix it. I don't know anything about the topic, so I couldn't do that, but it seems perhaps you could. This article should still be the overview and would not require having full sub articles on each of those subtopics, as long as this article covered them properly in overview. - Taxman 13:41, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
I've added an outline of the major areas of study for this period. It should give some idea of the breadth and range of the material under consideration. It would take years for one person to research and write all these articles. Its a shame our current article takes such a narrow and negative tone about medieval literature, it is certainly not FA in terms of accuracy or POV. Stbalbach 04:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Praise

Great article. I enjoyed it. :) --Jen Moakler 19:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Slavic literature

Slavic literature is generally how it is categorized by Medieval scholars. To call it by its national origins is kinda out of place considering the time frame of "medieval". Stbalbach 23:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/d/Talk%7EMedieval_literature_ab73.html"