![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What does the following sentence mean?
"Episodes are evolved naturally, and the usual devices adopted by the trouvères to reconcile their inconsistencies are absent."
I'm assuming the second clause means that the absence of literary artifice or genre conventions suggest that the narrative evolved from chronicles or some such, but the first clause — "episodes are evolved naturally" — perplexes me. Does "naturally" mean "realistically"? "Organically" (whatever that would mean)? "Logically"? "In chronological order?" Cynwolfe ( talk) 20:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Under texts, you've got the whole of the Lorraine Cycle (no article) rather than just Garin le Loherain, which refers to a specific circa 1200 epic poem. I will fix this in some way now (though I'm not keen to just remove all of it). Renard Migrant ( talk) 17:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
"This local cycle of Lorraine appears to have a historical basis."
Please elaborate! Several peoples involved are either fictional or anachronistic, and none of the characters (other than Pippin) has external proof of existence. A 19th-century French author saw some possible broad parallels with contemporary feuds (11th-12th c., the High Middle Ages), while an early 20th-century German critic suggested echoes of Late Antiquity wars (quite far apart, the two!), but neither of that justifies the statement. The difference between the two opinions rather contradicts the historicity altogether. Maybe the authors just produced a piece of fiction mixing in all the "thrilling" elements they could think of, while building a narrative that sounded plausible to the contemporary listener. We need a more recent and comprehensive analysis. Arminden ( talk) 12:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Confusing: 2 core epics + 1 prequel + 3 sequels = 6. Why are they so often talking of only "4 parts"? Let's say Garin-Girbert is seen as 1. Maybe Yonnet de Metz is not counted, as the original version is lost and we only have the prose adaptation by de Vigneulles. Then OK, 4 (Garin-Girbert, Hervis, Anseïs, and Yon/La Vengeance Fromondin). But chanson de geste had (until now that I've changed it), a list of another 4: Garin, Hervis, Gerbert, and Anseïs. I hope they were just sloppy. I edited based on frWiki, where all is, of course, worked out in detail and looks perfectly logical. Shame they don't apply the same strict inline citation standards as enWiki, which makes any material adopted from there look poorly sourced, as it's far too much work to re-read all the bibliography they offer (if they do it), just in order to find the exact sources. Arminden ( talk) 15:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus has formed to keep the current title based on the word "cycle" being descriptive as opposed to part of a proper name. ( non-admin closure) Hey man im josh ( talk) 13:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Lorraine cycle → Lorraine Cycle – Should probably follow the same naming customs as the Crusade Cycle, as per https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095651205+ Saksapoiss ( talk) 17:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. CollectiveSolidarity ( talk) 20:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. CollectiveSolidarity ( talk) 20:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky ( talk) 05:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
discussion moved from
WP:RM/TR
|
---|
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What does the following sentence mean?
"Episodes are evolved naturally, and the usual devices adopted by the trouvères to reconcile their inconsistencies are absent."
I'm assuming the second clause means that the absence of literary artifice or genre conventions suggest that the narrative evolved from chronicles or some such, but the first clause — "episodes are evolved naturally" — perplexes me. Does "naturally" mean "realistically"? "Organically" (whatever that would mean)? "Logically"? "In chronological order?" Cynwolfe ( talk) 20:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Under texts, you've got the whole of the Lorraine Cycle (no article) rather than just Garin le Loherain, which refers to a specific circa 1200 epic poem. I will fix this in some way now (though I'm not keen to just remove all of it). Renard Migrant ( talk) 17:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
"This local cycle of Lorraine appears to have a historical basis."
Please elaborate! Several peoples involved are either fictional or anachronistic, and none of the characters (other than Pippin) has external proof of existence. A 19th-century French author saw some possible broad parallels with contemporary feuds (11th-12th c., the High Middle Ages), while an early 20th-century German critic suggested echoes of Late Antiquity wars (quite far apart, the two!), but neither of that justifies the statement. The difference between the two opinions rather contradicts the historicity altogether. Maybe the authors just produced a piece of fiction mixing in all the "thrilling" elements they could think of, while building a narrative that sounded plausible to the contemporary listener. We need a more recent and comprehensive analysis. Arminden ( talk) 12:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Confusing: 2 core epics + 1 prequel + 3 sequels = 6. Why are they so often talking of only "4 parts"? Let's say Garin-Girbert is seen as 1. Maybe Yonnet de Metz is not counted, as the original version is lost and we only have the prose adaptation by de Vigneulles. Then OK, 4 (Garin-Girbert, Hervis, Anseïs, and Yon/La Vengeance Fromondin). But chanson de geste had (until now that I've changed it), a list of another 4: Garin, Hervis, Gerbert, and Anseïs. I hope they were just sloppy. I edited based on frWiki, where all is, of course, worked out in detail and looks perfectly logical. Shame they don't apply the same strict inline citation standards as enWiki, which makes any material adopted from there look poorly sourced, as it's far too much work to re-read all the bibliography they offer (if they do it), just in order to find the exact sources. Arminden ( talk) 15:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus has formed to keep the current title based on the word "cycle" being descriptive as opposed to part of a proper name. ( non-admin closure) Hey man im josh ( talk) 13:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Lorraine cycle → Lorraine Cycle – Should probably follow the same naming customs as the Crusade Cycle, as per https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095651205+ Saksapoiss ( talk) 17:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. CollectiveSolidarity ( talk) 20:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. CollectiveSolidarity ( talk) 20:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky ( talk) 05:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
discussion moved from
WP:RM/TR
|
---|
|