Jump to content

Talk:History of the Cyclades

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Initial comments

[edit]

A very interesting article, but it's rather apparent that it is written by Orthodox editors. The POV needs some ironing out before it progresses to FAC, as it should do. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to laugh out loud because I just did, so I'd like to share. I have written the major part of the article on fr:, and the translation on en: seems to be very close to the original. I'm not Orthodox, or Catholic, or even Christian, or even Pastafarian. I'm a serious french historian writing with the back-up of (numerous) books. Those books are all by Westerners (as in non-Orthodox) and they are using chronicles and texts by other Westerners : venitian medieval chronicles or texts by Jesuits (not your regular Orthodox). I wonder where you get that idea of a Othodox POV. Please enlighten me. Allow me also to add [Citation needed]. Cedric B. (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to say the same thing. I am Orthodox, but I'm a mere translator. In fact I wasn't thrilled to put in note 121, but if that's what the sources say, then I put it in. Biruitorul (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that one. I was not intending to hurt anyone's feelings. Cedric B. (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, not at all. I just wanted to point out the silliness of claiming the article has an Orthodox POV. But the Church is run by people, and some of them have acted in less-than-perfect ways along the centuries: if this was such an instance, then I have no objections to recording it. Biruitorul (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well I suppose you don't need to actually be Othodox to have an Orthodox POV - look at Steven Runciman! I suppose Stéphane Yerasimos may be "Western", I don't know. Some passages that need attention, on this or other grounds:
  • " Finally, the Barbary pirates also continued to pillage the islands from time to time. Thus the islanders sent a delegation to Constantinople to plead that they could no longer continue to serve two masters.[98] The Duchy of Naxos, to which Andros had been added, thus passed to Joseph Nasi, a confidant of the Sultan in 1566." - Neither "thus" seems to follow.
Alors and ainsi were translated literally; that is my fault. Minor rephrasing should do the trick.

 Done

  • "This situation brought about a differentiation between the islands themselves: on the one hand the depraved islands (chiefly these three), and on the other, the virtuous islands, headed by the devoutly Orthodox Sifnos, where the Cyclades’ first Greek school opened in 1687 and where women even covered their faces."
It should be clear that "depraved" and "virtuous" are indirect discourse and not meant to convey an authorial POV. Putting quotation marks around the words seems a bit pedantic, but something along those lines is not out of the question.
It doesn't work in English. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds fine to me, and English usage tends to mirror French. However, I remain open to suggestions. (Or perhaps a third party could comment as to whether this phrasing "works" in English.) By the way, I see you altered "God, His warrior saints and the last Emperor" to "God, his warrior saints and the last Emperor" - is that standard? Mind, I'm not trying to push a religious POV into the article, but I would have thought a capital letter should be used in a religious context of that sort.
There is an MoS ruling somewhere not to do this - which is in fact usual in academic/encyclopedic English. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done to "piratical" and "law-abiding". Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "morality" meaning is a bit lost : "depraved"/"piratical" meant whatever you can imagine about pirates' islands : prostitution, alcohol, etc. as the "other" Cyclades were "virtuous"... Cedric B. (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if en:WP attitudes to POV allow more! Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the rest of the Empire, grounds beautification was often entrusted to religious orders and Muslim religious foundations. As the latter were absent on the islands, this function fell to the Orthodox monasteries." What is "grounds beautification"?
It's "la mise en valeur des terres". "Land enhancement"? "Landscaping"? "Grounds improvement"? There's no exact translation, but that's the idea.
I doubt it; it sounds more like (economic) "development" than landscape gardening. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could be; let's have a native French speaker weigh in, shall we?
It's economic : let's try sthg along the lines of "agricultural development". Cedric B. (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but who was doing the "entrusting"? Is this land grants by the government, or leasing/arrangements to manage land made by absentee landlords with monasteries etc? Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done but "entrusted" needs clarifying - also now done. Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Ottoman Empire, land belonged (theoretically) to the Sultan. At first, he used to reward his followers and soldiers with land grants, then (gradually) land management was given to religious (mainly muslim) fondations/organisations as a source of income. On the Cyclades, there was no muslim fondations (because of the christian piracy among other reasons), so the land grants were made to orthodox monasteries. Also, government of the Milet-i-Rum (the "orthodox nation") was entrusted to the Patriarch of Constantinople, responsible for their behaviour (as his execution at the beginning of the greek war of independance shows). Land grants to orthodox monasteries was thus some sort of "payment" for this fonction, as part of the income was tranfered by the monasteries to the Othodox Church and the Patriarch. Cedric B. (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This done too. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the Orthodox reconquest was practically complete. It is in this context that the Catholic counter-attack is situated.[117]" and similar language earlier.
Well, "reconquest" is a word associated with Christian history and not intended to promote the Orthodox side. However, we could say something more pedantic if you wish, provided it preserves the substance.
The Reconquista was a series of huge military actions; these were not. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the difference, but the notion of "reconquering lost territories" remains the same regardless of scale. Again, feel free to modify the phrasing.
For the Orthodox it was a reconquest and from the Catholic point of view it was a lost of territories. War is not always military : look at the Cold war. Cedric B. (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless there is far too much militaristic language for non-military processes in this part of the article, which is liable to confuse, and has perhaps already - see last section here. We don't want to get into "jihad"-type ambiguities here, and there is no need. Much of this seems to come from Stéphane Yerasimos. If there was actual violence in Orthodox/Catholic relations at this time and place, that needs to be clearly stated. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done. Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but one must keep in mind the huge gap between western and eastern christianities since (at least) 1054, the 4th Crusade, the failed reconciliation at the time of Michael VIII Paleologos. For some Roman catholics (at the time) their actions in Greece were viewed as some sort of a crusade (as with the Albigeois in France in the 13th c.). No overt violence does not mean that war was not in mind. Cedric B. (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all tried to win over the Greek Orthodox inhabitants to the Catholic faith and to impose the Tridentine Mass.[93]" If they were Roman Catholic, they would go to the Tridentine Mass, if not, not.
As the Union of Brest and the Maronites show (and indeed, eventually, the Greek Uniates), one could be Catholic but not Roman Catholic at the time - Catholic and not follow the Tridentine Mass. In the Carpathians, Rome accommodated believers by allowing them to preserve their rite (which, at the parish level, was somewhat more important that the notional link to Rome); in the Cyclades, not only churches but also rites were duelling, and this affected villagers far more.
That they did not push the "Greek Catholic" route is worth expanding on; I'm not sure why it would affect villagers more - the clergy, and buildings would presumably be different in any case. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When the Romanian Greek Catholic Church was banned in 1948, all its buildings and most of its clergy (recusants went to prison) became Orthodox. Many of the buildings have since become Greek Catholic again, as have those of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, previously dissolved in 1946. This proves nothing directly about the 17th century, except that Byzantine rite-trained priests officiating in Byzantine-architecture churches can and have very easily switched back and forth between Rome and Constantinople. With Latin-educated priests (think too of the celibacy issue) in Latin churches, the changeover has typically not been as smooth. In sum: the Eastern rite (in use in the Cyclades since the 3rd or 4th century) changed to Western, and that was a big deal, more so to the average illiterate peasant than the fact that he was now "allied" with Rome. However, if for some reason you continue to object to the "Tridentine Mass" phrase, I suppose it can go. (What about "Tridentine rite"? That might be better.)
Sorry, but the pb of Tridentine Mass was also a problem in the West because of the struggle against Reformation and dissenssions among the Catholics. So, it was a double endeavour : trying to impose Catholicism and Tridentine Rite. Cedric B. (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are saying they were trying to impose Catholicism on the Orthodox and the Tridentine Rite on those already Catholic, that needs to be far clearer. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Nice one. I will use it to clarify that part on fr:. Cedric B. (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "“to win more easily the heart of the Greeks and for this we showed such action in their vulgar language and on the same day that the Greeks celebrate the feast" - what is the French? "such action" is not grammatical, and "vulgar" has a pejorative tone in English probably not in the French.
Pour gaigner [sic] plus facilement le cœur des Grecs et pour ce on a représenté telle action tout en leur langue vulgaire et au mesme jour que les Grecs célèbrent la fest de S. Chrisostome. "Such action", with 3.7 million Google hits, is probably grammatical, but I welcome a better phrase. We also speak of "Vulgar Latin" in English, but if you want "vernacular", "uncultivated", "common", "simple", "ordinary"...fine, but the intent was not to disparage Catholics.
The precedent or whatever for "such" is not clear, and an "action" is not obviously in a language. It is a legal phrase, as the great majority of the 3m ghits will show. "Action" surely means "the action" - ie the "drama" or "proceedings" here - in C18 English you could use action without a participle for this, but not now. "Vernacular" would certainly be better. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I see what you mean. My goal was to hew to the original (it being a quotation), but we shouldn't sacrifice intelligibility either.

-or meaning!  Done Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right but you must keep in mind that the vernacular greek was not as "noble" as the classic was. "Vernacular" has only the meaning of "everyday" or "used for common communications". The Jesuit knew perfectly well the difference between "vernaculaire" and "vulgaire" and choose the second meaning : the not noble common lower class uneducated language. I guess that one of the main problems in translation : meaning or intent. Cedric B. (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was there in fact a "High Modern Greek" in the islands at the time? And were the Jesuits actually pursuing the common people or, as they usually did, the middle & upper classes? I suspect you are forcing the source a bit here. I find it hard to imagine they adopted a "low" literary style here, at this date, if there was a choice in the vernacular. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Catholic piracy" - section head - all previous mentions have been "Christian piracy"
I'm not sure if the earlier pirates were exclusively Catholic - Cédric? The ones mentioned in the section were, but if you would rather have "Catholic pirates", to lessen the implication that the Church was the prime force behind the pirates (though it certainly was a force), we can discuss that.
You mean "Christian" above, I expect - Western, even Frankish might be better I expect the term was still in use locally. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I meant that "Catholic pirates" sounds less biased than "Catholic piracy" - the first refers simply to individuals who happened to be Catholic, while the second more directly implies RCC involvement. (Two other examples: "Jewish Bolsheviks" happens to describe such Bolsheviks as were Jewish, while "Jewish Bolshevism" is an anti-Semitic term implying a strong link between the religion and the political movement. Same with "Islamic terrorists" vs. "Islamic terrorism".) However, "Western" or "Frankish" works well, too. Speaking of which: in "Duchy of Naxos" ¶2 & 3, shouldn't “free nobles” and '“free” feudal system' actually be "Frankish"? I rendered "franc" as "free", but it looks like "Frankish" was actually meant.
Yes, I expect all those "Frees" should be "Frank" or "Frankish" - I'm sure a passage explaining & reffing the usage can be found in a Crusades etc article. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a evolution in piracy. Pirates or corsairs are the weapon of the weak (see for that any good military/naval history). When Ottoman Empire was gaining power, pirates were "ottoman" (see Barbarossa) ; when it was wtrong, pirates were christians (mainly local orthodox) ; when Venice was on the downfall and France (mainly) was trying to become a superpower, pirates were catholics. But, the battle of Lepante (see Fernand Braudel, La Méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen au temps de Philippe II, a bestseller, I'm sure it's been translated in english) was a major turning-point : the Ottoman Empire was no longer invincible, pirates started again to be muslims (see Barbaresque states in north Africa, the first real international intervention of the USA or the french conquest of Algeria). So, in general, for this part of the article, piracy was christian ; and a specific paragraph is dedicated to the catholic one.
The problem of pirates/piracy. Translation here, and political subtlety : there was a direct, but deniable, implication of the RCC and the western states.
Yes, all the Frees shoul be Franks or as an alternative Latins. Cedric B. (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There seems to have been a sort of symbiosis between pirates and Catholic missionaries. The former protected the missions from the exactions of the Turks and the progress of the Orthodox Church" - how did they do either?
I imagine they did this through armed force and terror, but I agree a further explanation would not be amiss.
Terror mainly : they kidnapped the Ottomans and sold them as slaves in Malta ; they threatened the orthodox priests. Cedric B. (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- and so on. Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod: I'm about to take a prolonged wiki-break and I trust any further modifications you make will be sound, as the ones up to now have been. However, two points: one - Cédric cautions the article is incomplete, so I for one would hold off on an FAC until the relevant sources are included - surely there's no rush? Two - "Tridentine" leads to a disambiguation page; did you perhaps mean "[[Tridentine Mass|Tridentine]] rite"? More substantively: is there a special reason to call it "modern"? In today's RCC it's not modern, and while I suppose it was so in the 17th century, I'm not aware that was its selling point. (Hm, on further reflection I suppose that makes some sense, but my reading of the original doesn't indicate Catholics on the islands ever used any but the Latin rite, that the intent was to simultaneously bring Greeks to the Catholic faith and the Tridentine rite. However, let Cédric pronounce the word here.) With that, Biruitorul (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't planning to do much more, except maybe some minor demilitarization. I'll sort out the Tridentine point. Enjoy your break! Johnbod (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship to Cycladic civilization article

[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Summary style, the "Cycladic civilisation" section of this article should be a three to five paragraph summary of the "main" article Cycladic civilization. Instead, it's (a) much longer and (b) contains material that isn't found in (and should be moved to) the Cycladic civilization article. If I had more of a personal interest in this, I'd do some fixing myself, but since that's not the case, I'm simply noting the problem, here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the Cyclades. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Cyclades. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Cyclades&oldid=1207556010"