This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Game pieces of the Lewis chessmen hoard was copied or moved into Lewis chessmen with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Thincat ( talk) 19:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The British Museum do not seem to provide photographs with a sufficiently free copyright licence for us so I have had to use images from a 1909 book, supplemented by photographs taken by visitors. The National Museums Scotland also does not offer suitable copyright but some enterprising person/people have arranged a licence which apparently satisfies WP:OTRS here. Thank you, folks! Thincat ( talk) 19:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I asked about this at the reference desk. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2020 February 4#Likeliest number of chess sets. Thincat ( talk) 20:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Madden lived a long time ago and was rather imprecise, and some of his ideas are passé. Many still call the rooks among the Lewis Chessmen "warders". They never were. People just use the word Madden invented for these pieces. Back when the Lewis Chessmen were made, they used the Old Norse word hrókr for that piece, which meant a hero or special warrior. That's why the rooks among the Lewis Chessmen, and other medieval Scandinavian rooks, are depicted the way they are. It wasn't before the 17th century they started to import alternative terms from Central Europe, like tower instead of rook, and runner instead of bishop. Other figural Scandinavian rooks are not called warders, and the berserkers certainly don't look like warders. There is no logical reason to use a special terminology for The Lewis Chessmen, except that Madden invented the word, and others (but not all) use it. Rook is a neutral term and it is actually more correct. Warrior is an alternative, and it is also correct. I suggest just rook. After all that is the English variant of the ancient chess term, even though it has no meaning in English, other than in chess. Hastein ( talk) 21:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
It is a widespread misconception that the piece was called bishop only in Iceland and that they used unrelated words with no clerical connections elsewhere. Source criticism is often lacking, and people keep citing each other. For example, it is not correct that the piece was called runner in Scandinavia in old times. It was called bishop before, as even old dictionaries show. In addition there are several medieval Scandinavian bishops in museums. Runner is a late term in Scandinavia. It was imported from Central Europe in the 17th century. Moreover, the term bishop for that piece was used for the first time in Latin texts, which neither are Scandinavian nor Icelandic in origin. The term is not mentioned in any text dating back to the time The Lewis Chessmen were made. Hastein ( talk) 01:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if we should change it, but the mitre's "peaks" are called cornua mitrae in Latin. Cornu means horn, plural cornua. I believe they often are called horns in English in the context of The Lewis Chessmen but I don't know what is most usual. Maybe "peaks" is easier to understand? I have also read that the chess piece was called cornu somewhere a very long time ago, probably the non-figural bishop. Anyway, there are three alternatives 1) peaks 2) horns 3) cornua. English is not my mother tongue so someone else must choose the best word. Hastein ( talk) 20:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey all, I'm a student preparing to make a brief small edit to this article to add information and citations regarding the design and clothing styles of the game pieces. Feel free to edit or look over what I make, I will try my best to properly add information with citations. I am focusing my edits based on this source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1cfr79q.52 LYX9 ( talk) 19:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Game pieces of the Lewis chessmen hoard was copied or moved into Lewis chessmen with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Thincat ( talk) 19:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The British Museum do not seem to provide photographs with a sufficiently free copyright licence for us so I have had to use images from a 1909 book, supplemented by photographs taken by visitors. The National Museums Scotland also does not offer suitable copyright but some enterprising person/people have arranged a licence which apparently satisfies WP:OTRS here. Thank you, folks! Thincat ( talk) 19:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I asked about this at the reference desk. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2020 February 4#Likeliest number of chess sets. Thincat ( talk) 20:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Madden lived a long time ago and was rather imprecise, and some of his ideas are passé. Many still call the rooks among the Lewis Chessmen "warders". They never were. People just use the word Madden invented for these pieces. Back when the Lewis Chessmen were made, they used the Old Norse word hrókr for that piece, which meant a hero or special warrior. That's why the rooks among the Lewis Chessmen, and other medieval Scandinavian rooks, are depicted the way they are. It wasn't before the 17th century they started to import alternative terms from Central Europe, like tower instead of rook, and runner instead of bishop. Other figural Scandinavian rooks are not called warders, and the berserkers certainly don't look like warders. There is no logical reason to use a special terminology for The Lewis Chessmen, except that Madden invented the word, and others (but not all) use it. Rook is a neutral term and it is actually more correct. Warrior is an alternative, and it is also correct. I suggest just rook. After all that is the English variant of the ancient chess term, even though it has no meaning in English, other than in chess. Hastein ( talk) 21:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
It is a widespread misconception that the piece was called bishop only in Iceland and that they used unrelated words with no clerical connections elsewhere. Source criticism is often lacking, and people keep citing each other. For example, it is not correct that the piece was called runner in Scandinavia in old times. It was called bishop before, as even old dictionaries show. In addition there are several medieval Scandinavian bishops in museums. Runner is a late term in Scandinavia. It was imported from Central Europe in the 17th century. Moreover, the term bishop for that piece was used for the first time in Latin texts, which neither are Scandinavian nor Icelandic in origin. The term is not mentioned in any text dating back to the time The Lewis Chessmen were made. Hastein ( talk) 01:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if we should change it, but the mitre's "peaks" are called cornua mitrae in Latin. Cornu means horn, plural cornua. I believe they often are called horns in English in the context of The Lewis Chessmen but I don't know what is most usual. Maybe "peaks" is easier to understand? I have also read that the chess piece was called cornu somewhere a very long time ago, probably the non-figural bishop. Anyway, there are three alternatives 1) peaks 2) horns 3) cornua. English is not my mother tongue so someone else must choose the best word. Hastein ( talk) 20:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey all, I'm a student preparing to make a brief small edit to this article to add information and citations regarding the design and clothing styles of the game pieces. Feel free to edit or look over what I make, I will try my best to properly add information with citations. I am focusing my edits based on this source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1cfr79q.52 LYX9 ( talk) 19:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)