Talk:Froissart's Chronicles

"Chronicles"

Why would the name of this work be considered a "title" in the same way as Les Liaisons dangereuses or Atomised? How would this be any different from the Anthony Roll or the Sforza Hours? And if this is generally known as "Froissart's Chronicles", why only italicize the descriptive and extremely common term "chronciles". The choice seems rather arbitrary.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The Roll and the Hours are objects. The Chronicles is a work. It is preserved in many different manuscripts and as a printed text. I thought this was explained well in an edit summary. Srnec (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The Anthony Roll and the Sforza Hours are works that happen to exist in just one copy. One of them is even on Wikisource. Is your definition simply "this comes in other versions"? Again, seem arbitrary.

The term chronicle is a very common term for historical accounts. In this case, it's a chronicle written by a person, so you get "<name of person>'s Chronicle" or "Chronicle of <name of person>". Both variants seem to exist in this case. So how did you come to the conclusion that "Chronicle" is the definitive title of this work? And if so, what is "Froissart's" doing in bold in the lead?

Peter ^Isotalo 06:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The Sforza Hours is not a (literary) work - it seems to have the standard, slightly variable and personalized, contents of any book of hours. The miniatures are of course highly individual, but illuminated manuscripts are always treated as objects, though (perhaps perversely) individual miniatures are often treated as having titles. Srnec is correct. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not my definition and it's not arbitrary. The distinction is as between Ivanhoe and my copy of Ivanhoe.

I did not say that Chronicles was the definitive title of this work. Some works do not have definitive titles, only conventional ones. In this case, Chronicles is universally used in some form or other. That it's a common word means nothing. There are many works with non-unique names. Srnec (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Ivanhoe? That's a very odd comparison since it's an unambiguous title of a modern work of literature. And object or work doesn't matter; they're both italicized. Or are you saying that the physical copy of the Anthony Roll is an object, but the text of it is a title?

Consider Beowulf, a title for a text; the unique A/S manuscript is part of the Nowell Codex, and also referred to as "the Beowulf manuscript", but the Anthony roll has not escaped from its original manuscript in that way. Also consider if Froissart had written another work. Discussion might then contrast the style of the Chronicles and the Something else, not "Froissart's Chronicles" every time. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"Non-unique names" is the very definition of descriptive names, ie not titles. Titles are a fixed, standardized or at least agreed-upon norm. "Froissart's Chronicles" is clearly a kind of generic, descriptive name. It's basically the literary equivalent of "Symphony" in musical terms like Symphony No. 5.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

What, like Beethoven's Symphony No. 5? Not sure how this is helping your argument. Johnbod (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, if it's a title, how come the lead refers to it in the plural, just as it would a purely generic, descriptive term? That would be like writing "Terms of Endearment are a film".

Peter ^Isotalo 19:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying that the Anthony Roll is a physical object with text on it, like a rune stone or my copy of Ivanhoe. We do not normally italicise the names of objects, but we do normally italicise the titles of standalone texts.

Many titles are non-unique (like Ivanhoe). That doesn't make them descriptive. We don't describe Jean Froissart's Chronicles, we cite it by its title. See the website http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/onlinefroissart/ — and not just the first page.

It's conventional with certain titles, like The Jungle Books or the Annals of Fulda, to use "are". Srnec (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You mean The Jungle Book? And Annales Fuldenses is pretty much a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-argument. You pick the examples that fit your views.

It's odd that you would single-handedly decide that the Anthony Roll is an object first (even though there's three of them) and a work second, which is more than a tad subjective. It's just as subjective as when you simply ignore other variants of the "title" of this work.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The Jungle Book and The Second Jungle Book are often published together under the title The Jungle Books, which is usually italicised and takes "are". To see, just search for "the jungle books are" in Google Books. The point is that sometimes a title is conventionally treated as a plural, usually when the work is made up of what is pluralised in the title (the Annales Fuldenses are a set of annals, The Jungle Books are a pair of books, Froissart's Chronicles are four chronicles).

Since two people think you are wrong, and nobody has come by who agrees with you, and I've cited sources and examples, how can you say "single-handedly"? Srnec (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Froissart's Chronicles/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article demonstrates excellent research and narrative, but is clumsily written. Editing now. Karweenie (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Karweenie

Last edited at 03:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Froissart's Chronicles. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021223152838/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/browse-mixed-new?id=FroChro&tag=public&images=images%2Fmodeng&data=%2Ftexts%2Fenglish%2Fmodeng%2Fparsed to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/browse-mixed-new?id=FroChro&tag=public&images=images%2Fmodeng&data=%2Ftexts%2Fenglish%2Fmodeng%2Fparsed

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) 08:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)