Talk:Gregory of Tours

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Vulgar Latin"

message: 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)
thread_title: Picture

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Narrow Christian Education without the Liberal Arts???

message: Substituted at 16:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion