Talk:Mont Ventoux

Part of the Alps?
I have heard elsewhere that Ventoux is "not part of the Alps", and I didn't believe it then, mostly because I've seen maps, showing convincingly that Ventoux is part of the Alps. It may be considered a peripheral part, but a real part nonetheless. I don't know who started the myth that it was separate from the Alps, but can we please abandon it here? --Stemonitis 15:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The fact is that the Mont Ventoux is very much a stand-alone mountain, surrounded by plains. It is not part of the Alps per se, but may be considered as being located at the external limit of what is sometimes called "Pre-Alps". Maybe the following description from could be translated and inserted into the WIkipedia article" "Le Mont Ventoux est l'un des derniers contreforts sud-occidentaux des préalpes françaises". olivier 11:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

South route gradient?
The article here states that the last 16 kilometers of the climb are an average of 10% gradient. That would mean that 1600 meters of the 1606 total are climbed in that last 16 kilometers. I know from experience that riding or even driving such a distance at 10% grade is unusual and it seems like an error. More likely there are sections that are 10% or more but not an average over 16 clics. __

The last 16 kilometers have an average gradient of 8,9%, actually. 1387 meters are climbed in the last 15,6 kilometers exactly. There's a small error but 8,9% over 16 km is still tough. Changed on the page.

Petrarch
The following assortment of googled direct quotations on Petrarch and Mont Ventoux are from the  deprecated article, Birthday of alpinism. They should not be included as quotes (that's what Wikisource is for) but some of them may be useful citations for this article, or a future one on Petrarch's letter.

This is a pure dump; I would not have put Famous First Facts between Burckhardt and Mattingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Quotes
In a letter dated April 26 of the year 1336 by the Italian poet Francesco Petrarch to Francesco Dionigi of Borgo San Sepolcro, a close friend of Petrarch's who was an Augustinian monk, he gives his account of the ascent. Petrarch was about 30 years of age when he did the ascent. This letter reads in part: "Today, I ascended the highest mountain in this region, which, not without cause, they call the Windy Peak. Nothing but the desire to see its conspicuous height was the reason for this undertaking." InThe Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy Jacob Burkhardt [sic Septentrionalis PMAnderson ]describes Petrarch's ascent as the first time mountain climbing had been undertaken just for the sport of it.
 * Mentioned here; will belong in article on letter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not what Burckhardt says; see link to translation; I presume the reference to Iphigenia auf Tauris can be sourced. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Famous First Facts: International Edition credits the Italian poet Francesco Petrarch for writing of the first account of mountain climbing of importance, "In April 1336 'to see what so great an elevation had to ofer,' he climbed the peak of Mount Ventoux in Provence, France, which is 6,203 feet high (1,909 meters). In a letter to the Augustinian monk Dionisio da Borgo San Sep, he later wrote: 'I stood like one dazed, I beheld the clouds under our feet, and what I had read of Athos and Olympus seemed less incredible as I witnessed the same things from a mountain less famous.'
 * Tertiary source. Omit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Morris Bishop's book, Petrarch and His World, has a long chapter titled "The Ascent of Mont Ventoux" on the ascent Petrarch made to the top of Mont Ventoux. He says in this chapter,  "There is no clear record that anyone ever climbed a mountain for pleasure or mere curiosity from the time of King Philip of Macedonia to that of Petrarch. True, there is the case of King Peter of Aragon in the thirteenth century, who is said to have climbed Mount Canigou in the Pyrenees only to see what was on the summit. There he found a lake with monstrous hovering dragon, darkening the face of heaven with his breath.  I think we may rule this out.  We may rule out also the Alpine hermits, who sought their high retreats only to escape the world; and even Empedocles, who climbed Mount Etna in order to throw himself in the crater.  Of course there were hunters, pursuing game to the upper fast-nesses, and shepherds seeking stray sheep or goats.  However, Petrarch remains the first recorded Alpinist, the first to climb a mountain because it is there....Probably by design, for Petrarch had a great sense of anniversaries, he planned the ascent for April 26, 1336, exactly ten years from the day he and Gherardo had left Bologna." ''
 * Largely repetitious; but may belong in article on letter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Garrett Mattingly, a professor of European history at Columbia University, writes of Petrarch's ascent on Mount Ventoux much in his book Renaissance Profiles (co-author John H. Plumb) and refers to him as being the "Father of Alpinism." Morris Bishop also calls Petrarch "the first alpinist" because of his ascent of Mount Ventoux in 1336.
 * Reference inexact; nor does Garrett Mattingly need to be idenrified to a literate audience. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

In another article of December 2006 Quadrant Magazine says, "One small episode in late medieval history is often singled out for special mention by historians, especially those with an interest in environmental history. This concerns the ascent of Mt Ventoux in France by Petrarch in 1336. Kenneth Clark, the noted art historian, supposes that Petrarch "was, as everybody knows, the first to climb a mountain for its own sake, and to enjoy the view from the top" (Landscape into Art, 1949). Many other historians quote this same event as providing the earliest example of the new humanistic, Renaissance spirit where nature was enjoyed for its own sake. I have come across this assertion in several history books and commentaries on the man-in-nature question."
 * Another tertiary source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Bruce MacLennan identifies in his article '"Some Remarks of Hillman on Renaissance Neoplatonism and Archetypal Psychology" the rediscovery of soul and its paradoxical nature in Petrarch's descent from Mont Ventoux: "James Hillman, one of the founders of modern archetypal psychology, which is a further development of Jung's ideas, has written about the roots of archetypal psychology in Renaissance Neoplatonism. He makes the argument that what enabled the Renaissance was not (as is commonly supposed) the rediscovery of humanity or nature, but the rediscovery of soul and its paradoxical nature, for while it is in us, we are also in it. That is, the imaginative world of the soul has an objective existence independent of our individual egos. He identifies Petrarch's descent from Mont Ventoux as the turning point because, as you will recall, it was there that he consulted Augustine's Confessions at random and, from what he read, realized that the world inside is just as large and real (just as given) as the world outside. In that passage Augustine described his imagination as 'a large and boundless chamber,' both a power of his and a part of his nature, yet beyond his comprehension. 'Therefore is the mind too strait to contain itself.'"
 * May belong to article on letter, but see WP:UNDUE. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)



A classical historian would put the ascent of Mount Ventoux by Petrarch and his comrades as a symbolic act marking the beginning of the new humanistic "Renaissance" spirit. The ascent of Mount Ventoux in the spring of 1336 by Petrarch correlates directly with humanism, personal growth and self-knowledge. Pope Innocent III in his classic non-humanistic work Misery of the Human Condition asked the same question of why people climb mountains. He came up with the same answer as Petrarch: "the need to see the vista." This event of Petrarch's ascent to the top of Mount Ventoux just to see the view of the landscape is in the cultural history of Europe regarded iconographically as "the beginning of a conscious perception of landscape." Petrarch is known for being the father of Italian Renaissance humanism. Greek ideals were taken up then when he wrote of the philosophical concepts found in the birth of alpinism event. Of Petrarch's Epistolae familiares none provide a vision quite so stunning as that offered by the description of the ascent of Mont Ventoux. Petrarch has the ability to evoke, through narrative powerful images of the world, his own inner life as is expressed in his letter The Ascent of Mount Ventoux.
 * OR. The first sentence is "sourced" to Petrarch himself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Church Fathers taught in the Dark Ages that mountains were considered sacred and that no person should trespass upon them. Petrarch broke away from this tradition by ascending Mont Ventoux for the beginning of the birth of Alpinism. He was later filled with secret shame upon his descent that he had had the boldness to trespass upon such sacred ground.
 * From Rudolf Steiner. Nonsense, as may be expected. Inclusion, even as Steiner's view, may be undue weight. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Summary
I see no reason why any of this randomly googled pother belongs in this article, or any other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't belong here, but if someone were to write an article about Petrarch's letter (not the actual climb, but its literary representation), then some of these links/sources might be useful. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Granted; I must be in a bad mood reading this indiscriminate heap of information Especially since the Kimmelmann article above denies the factual assertion that Petrarch was first:
 * Petrarch was not the first man in his day to climb a mountain for the sake of the climb aGerman writers in the 10th and 11th centuries described various ascents, and Jean Buridan, a Parisian, left an account of climbing Ventoux early in the 14th century, just before Petrarch. But Petrarch wrote more extensively and better about the experience than anyone before him. His account is full of esthetic gratification. Hence he is regarded by mountain climbers today as proto-modern, though a closer reading of his work compels a more nuanced interpretation: at the moment of his deepest satisfaction, on top of Ventoux, he is overcome by doubt. As he tells it, he picks up his copy of Augustine's Confessions, which he has taken along, and by chance, he says, his eyes fall on a passage chastising people who wonder at the heights of mountains'' when they should recognize God's presence in humbler circumstances.

Holm Oak is not deciduous.
The holm oak is an evergreen not a deciduous tree. The correct term in the context is hardwood and I will edit to correct.MidlandLinda (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Gaulish
The ancient names given in the introduction are really questionable. While Vintur is still just plausible as Latin or Gaulish, Ven-Top looks nothing like either Gaulish nor Latin; -p at the end of a noun is extremely atypical for Latin if not impossible, and in Gaulish would only appear after the disappearance of a final vowel (perhaps in Late Gaulish) – but the spelling still looks really strange and un-ancient. Other language versions of Wikipedia (and Wiktionary) mention forms like Vinturi, but only French Wikipedia really explains the issue in any detail: the attested form in Latin, in the 2nd century AD, is VENTVRI or VINTVRI, which is apparently a dative presupposing a Latin nominative Vintur with two short vowels. However, the "Gaulish god of the summits" appears to be baseless speculation.

*Ven-topp, on the other hand, is merely a reconstructed form – on which basis remains unclear –, that, with its double -pp at the end of the word, looks even less than Latin or Gaulish, and, I'd say, is plain impossible according to the phonotactic rules of either language (certainly in the 2nd century AD or earlier). Rather, it looks like (West) Germanic from about the 4th century AD on, which is supported by the given meaning 'snowy peak' – see Wiktionary.

Or rather, like a compound of a word from an entirely unattested and speculative late form of Gaulish, (certainly significantly later than the 2nd century AD!) *ven, from Proto-Celtic *windos, with West Germanic *topp. Had such a compound been formed and attested in a Latinised form in the 2nd century AD, the expected form would be *Vindotoppus, compare Vindobona and Vindolanda.

This would be conceivable in principle, although there do not seem to have been any Germanic speakers anywhere near the region at the time (only significantly further to the north, on the lower Rhine and the upper Main). And of course, *Ventopp is incompatible with this. It's a purely speculative, arbitrary reconstruct (i. e., not even a plausible hypothetical reconstruction) that is plain incompatible with what we know of Gaulish, Latin and even Germanic in the 2nd century AD – let alone earlier.

At French Wikipedia, doubts about this reconstruction are also noted, especially its inability to explain the attested form Vinturi, whose stem ends in -r rather than -p(p), i. e., a completely different consonant (there's no plausible way /p/ could have changed into /r/). And finally, looking at the references in French Wikipedia, a certain Paul Peyre (apparently a serious Provençal linguist and etymologist) is cited and Encyclopédie Ventoux, which may be ''Le mont Ventoux. Encyclopédie d'une montagne provençale (2007), though the ultimate source given (in Peyre's work, apparently) is Bullet, 1784''! It's not even clear what Peyre says about it – perhaps he merely mentions it in the context of a review on historical attempts to etymologise the name and makes the observation found in French Wikipedia itself: that it is a completely implausible, amateurish, scientifically untenable attempt to explain the name.

If Ven-topp is really an 18th-century concoction (which I strongly suspect: I've seen "Celtic" words on Wikipedia several times before in attempts to explain toponyms etymology, curious words that were no more Celtic than Elvish is, and at least in one case I was able to trace it back to a similarly old book still set in blackletter; keep in mind that Celtology has made incredible strides in the 20th century, while ancient Celtic languages were barely known before, and are still obscure to non-linguists and most amateur etymologists), we can safely dismiss it. While there were a few pioneering brave souls working on historical linguistics using methodically rigorous principles already in the 17th and 18th centuries, in the wake of the Scientific Revolution, their work appears to have been largely isolated and the comparative method did not become more mainstream before the 19th century.

I have seen outdated scholarship naively cited at face value in Wikipedia before, but rarely a case this extreme; I suspect it (or similar cases) comes from a work (perhaps an encyclopedia) that was uncritically used because it was in the public domain – and thus handy for the editor as it was easily available on the Internet: a cardinal mistake. It's as if, in biology, a Wikipedia article passed off an 18th-century taxonomic scheme, perhaps by Linné himself, as current, or presented the steam engine as an exciting new invention. Etymology as done by actual 21st-century scholars, however, like historical linguistics in general, is just as much a science as biology or physics is, and we've come a long way since Voltaire's (alleged/apocryphal) dismissive quip about etymology. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)