Talk:Gregory of Tours

"Vulgar Latin"

Gregory's Latin is peculiar, medieval, and not always strictly grammatical but calling it "Vulgar" is too far. It's not like the Latin of the Peregrinatio Etheriae. It does not accurately reflect the way common French people spoke in the 6th century AD. The full system of cases is there, long periods, complex rhetorical constructions, etc.

Agreed. There is nothing to support the contention, either, that his language was "calculated" to reach "Vulgar" speakers and readers either; Sandys (History of Classical Scholarship Vol. 1 p. 434) calls 'one of his favorite constructions' the 'accusative absolute,' and cites a multiplicity of instances in which Gregory 'veniam [precatur]' and pronounces himself 'sine litteris rhetoricis et arte grammatica' more than once. His errors provide full justification for his requests for pardon, but that does not make his Latin 'Vulgar'. The scholarly gambit cited in the introduction is removed until it can be moved to the body, in an appropriate place, with additional confirmatory citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.171.34 (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't really have a horse in this race, but "Vulgar" was frequently used by historians as the ordinary adjective describing some connection with the Vulgate, that is, the Latin translation of the Bible made in the the fourth century AD. It is certainly shown as that in the OED entry for the adjective (definition 2(b), but marked as now obsolete). "Vulgar Latin" would therefore be a normal way of describing the church Latin of the sixth century, and the word is not at all pejorative. The Vulgate was written in a form of Latin of its own time, different from classical Latin: in fact medieval, and not always strictly grammatical isn't a bad description, though the use of the word medieval is less helpful for a sixth century writer.Thomas Peardew (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is an extensive article on the correct use of the phrase Vulgar Latin so perhaps the distinction between commonly spoken Latin - Vulgar Latin - and it's literary equivalent, Late Latin, is still worth making. Gregory would have spoken Vulgar Latin, but he would have written Late Latin.Thomas Peardew (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Untitled

I do not think that Gregory was writing to please the Frankian kings at all! He was much more concerned with the Church and with religious matters.

Sorry, but I think that, like Einhard a couple of centuries later, he was also somewhat concerned with the people he served. Never underestimate the importance of patronage. Who are you? JHK

I agree with the contributor above. One must remember when reading the Historia Francorum that this is a royal history, and that Gregory was most likely writing to please his patrons. It it likely for that reason that one royal Frankish house is more generously treated than others. Gregory's chronicle just is not a 'house history' written for Merovingians, judging from the excerpts I've been reading (to which I'm creating links). I'm enlarging this entry, so there'll be plenty to pull apart. Wetman 17:04, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would agree that Gregory's Histories was affected by the kings he served (particularly given that he was arrested for slander by Chilperic whilst writing it), and because he, and Tours, were under the jurisdiction of so many of the different Frankish kings it's interesting to see how his opinions about people change (or become more forceful) depending on the time period, who's in charge and who's dead.

But for him religion is everything - the portents and the saints and the church are what seem to drive him to write. They're in everything and they explain everything (comets in the sky come before kings die, and bad times are coming whenever a giant shows up), in particular secular events. There was/is the argument that the History of the Franks wasn't the original name for the text, that it should be called simply the Histories. Ren 03:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All these Early Medieval chronicles and histories begin at the beginning with the Creation. It means that in a history of six volumes, no one reads any but the last two... --Wetman 05:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the reference near the bottom of the page that concerns how his canonisation hasn't affected the mainstream view of him as a historian. I don't see how it would affect this, and so it is unnecessary. His role as a bishop leads him to talk of miracles all the time in HF, and this may make the historian take him with a grain of salt, but the fact that he was a bishop is an issue separate from his being a saint. Carl.bunderson 23:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The birthdates disagree. I was under the impression that no-one is precisely sure of the date, but that it's probably 538.

Referring to the History of the Franks/Histories debate, in the books themselves Gregory of Tours never refers to it as the Historia Francorum but always the Historiae. As for Gregory's writing for kings I'd say not, in his general preface, he mentions writing about relgious matters far more than political ones, but that is the subject of a lot of historical debate.

--Narelon (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture

The picture on this page of "Saint Gregory with Augustine of Hippo" is not of Gregory of Tours at all, but rather of Saint Gregory the Great. You can tell because he's wearing a papal tiara, and the Holy Spirit is about to speak to him in the form of a dove. Someone should find a new picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.10.140 (talk)

Duly noted; thank you for noticing. Alekjds ^talk 03:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Narrow Christian Education without the Liberal Arts???

Nonsense! He bemoans the lack of such Liberal education in his introduction, quotes from Vergil twelve(!) times, and demonstrates his knowledge of the liberal arts curriculum in X.31. He wrote in the vernacular Latin of his time so that his works would be read. Obviously his Latin education was thorough! Even in Roman times, Vergil represented almost the entire educational curriculum. They didn't have the printing press yet! I am editing this section.Kozushi (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Reading Virgil, Horace or Livy once in a while, even citing them as renowned models (which everyone who had the benefit of some literary education at this time did), doesn't mean one would actually be able to write fluently in their idiom, their syntax, their kind of turns of words. Just as admiration for Shakespeare or Oscar Wilde doesn't make you able to write or talk in that kind of language, in the actual syntax of Willie or the studied periods and quick, fluent rhythm of Wilde. Gregory was a very busy man, he would rarely have had the time to read around at leisure and he didn't have the kind of libraries that existed back in the day at Rome. And he used the language he himself spoke, his grammar and style devices aren't really like those of the old Romans. Lewis Thorpe, in his introduction to Gregory's history in the Penguin Classics, hit it on the head when he said: there's no particular point in comparing his Latin to the language of Cicero, Virgil or Caesar, while it's unfair to compare it with the cleaned-up language of Rimbert and other writers of the Carolingian renaissance two centuries later (which has moved some way further into proper medieval Latin). 83.254.151.33 (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gregory of Tours/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.

The figure identified as Gregory of Tours in the first illustration is, in fact, Pope St Gregory the Great.

Last edited at 16:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gregory of Tours. 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/20070110221417/http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintg87.htm to http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintg87.htm

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) 01:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The man is.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)