Talk:Laonikos Chalkokondyles/Archive 1

Archive 1

Spelling of the name

Hi,

I was wondering what is the reason behind moving the page to Chalcondyles instead of Chalcocondyles. As far as I know, the surname that appears in most publications and mentions of the historian is Chalkokondylis (with K or C). More specifically on the matter, William Miller (in his article "The Last Athenian Historian: Laonikos Chalkokondylis" - cited in the article) mentions that Chalkondyles is "and an abbreviated version of [Chalkokondyles]" .

Furthermore, I would like to inquire on more information on the claim that Laonikos being an anagram of Nikolaos is based on "original research and is dubious at best" (by user Chris Weimer), I would like to point out a larger passage from the same article,

"Nicholas Chalkokandyles [...] can have been none other than the future historian, of whose surname there were several forms: Chalkokandyles ('the man with the brazen candlestick'), Chalkokondyles ('the man with the brazen pen '), and an abbreviated version of the latter, Chalkondyles, corrupted in the vernacular into Charkondyles." (Miller, William. "The Last Athenian Historian: Laonikos Chalkokondylis". The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 42, Part 1 (1922), pp. 36-37)

It is clear that Laonikos Chalkokondylis signed his named in a variety of ways, and so did his first name. I don't think there is any serious reason to doubt why Laonikos is not an anagram of Nikolaos, when his official name was the latter but he signed most of his writings with the former (and many variations of his last name).

I would move the page myself back to Chalkokondylis, but apart from not being able to (restricted for some reason), I would also like to know why the pages were moved/renamed in the first place. The general article on the Chalcocondyles family remains in the longer spelling, while the individual articles on Demetrius and Laonicus are in the abbreviated form.

-Jujimufu (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, not Chalkokondylis, which is very rare; even the abominable ODB style distinguishes iota from eta. But the quotation from Miller suggests that this is one of the ways Chalcondyles himself spelled it, and it is certainly common in Western languages - like English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a typo (the iota instead of eta).

I don't understand from the rest of your reply - do you agree that the article should be moved to "Chalkokondyles", or do you think it should stay as "Chalcondyles"? Jujimufu (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus at present. Closing due to backlog; feel free to re-propose with more research/compelling argument  Skomorokh, barbarian  09:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Laonicus Chalcondyles → Laonicus Chalcocondyles — For the reasons explained in the talk page, I think the name should be changed to the more standardised form of Laonicus Chalcocondyles.. Jujimufu (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for now; no good reason to move. The quotation above suggests that Chalcondyles himself used three forms, and all are certainly found in the literature. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

Ok - I still think that, although Chalkondyles is an abbreviation of his name, his name was Chalkokondyles (as the article's title implies as well).

And in relation to that, I would like to add that, being a descendant of Laonikos Chalkokondyles myself, the name in our family records is written as Chalkokondyles and not as Chalkondyles. The family tree in Kambouroglou's The Chalkokondyles' (Athens, 1926) traces the roots of the family back to the 14th century, on which all the names are written as "Chalkokondyles", not "Chalkondyles".

I could provide you with a copy of my ID/passport showing the name written there, if you would like (however - due to a non-standardised system of transliteration from Greek to English at the time, the name was written as "Chalkokondylis" in English, but properly with an eta in Greek, as Χαλκοκονδύλης).

Would that qualify as a good-enough reason as to the move of the article?

-Jujimufu (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No; to quote an English poet: "Family pride must be denied, and set aside, and mortified." Your passport is not a published source; and the deduction from this would be WP:SYNTH. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about family pride? I am just trying to make sure the spelling on the title represents the most commonly used name, and not an abbreviation of it. As I said in my previous reply, Kambouroglou's The Chalkokondyles' has an extended family tree that goes back to the 14th century, on which all the family names of Chalkokondyles are written as Chalkokondyles, and not Chalkondyles. This is a published source. So are books with texts of Laonicus which have his name as Chalkokondyles instead of Chalkondyles. I don't understand why the page was moved in the first place (I couldn't find an appropriate history entry), but unless there is good reason to use the abbreviated name, I think the page should be moved to the original spelling. -Jujimufu (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and there's a genealogy of the Esterhazys which begins with Adam I Esterhazy, Adam II Esterhazy, and Adam III Esterhazy "under whom God created the heavens and the earth." Family histories, especially ones reaching back to the fifteenth century, are rarely reliable sources on points related to spelling, chronology, or descent, especially when idiosyncrasy may gain a notable ancestor for their client.

All three spellings are original, and our only concern is communicating with a reader interested in Byzantine historians. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notes for further development

• Kaldellis has written 3 articles published in Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, which are available online; I have so far used only one of these.
• J. Darké wrote two articles on Chalkokondyles that are published in Byzantinische Zeitschrift. While I have copies of them I have not had the time to read either, although from Kaldellis I am aware the first contains Darké'a argument that C. wrote his Histories around 1490 (an argument Miller attributes to Vossius while disagreeing with it), & the second proposes identifying C. with a Orthodox priest from Cyprus of the later 15th C.
• According to Kaldellis, C.'s work influenced how both Greeks & non-Greeks saw the events of the 15th century; 30 manuscripts survive of his work. Doukas survives in a single manuscript; Sphrantzes' account is too fragmentary to provide enough details on its own, & was supplemented by the later additions of Makarios Melissenos, who is an unreliable source. Critoboulos' History was not known until the autograph was found in the Seralio library in the 19th century.
• Need to better discuss the character of C.'s History, which is a very challenging read; Kaldellis' notes frequently mark one passage or another as obscure, & his chronology is confused, especially for events before C. was born. On the other hand, C.'s Herodotian digressions on foreign peoples & lands are considered entertaining & insightful -- & misunderstanding his comments on English women Gibbon famously took great offense at what C. wrote. -- llywrch (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Work

The section on his work has so few footnotes that the evaluation reads like the writer's opinion. If it comes from some other party, it is not sourced. Sources please. 100.15.120.122 (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)