Talk:Saxo Grammaticus

Some clarification
Absolon’s will says "clericus". Not clerk not cleric not anything else, but clericus.

The name of the chronicle with he’s name is "Chronica Sialandie" - this is a Latin doc, thus it has a Latin name. The Danish name is Yngre- and Ædlre- Sjællandske Krønike (it’s a two part chronicle) and the English name would be Zealand chronicle, but nobody calls it that.

3rd please leave the "see the chronicle for...." else someone will come by and correct the year, thinking its wrong. How can he be born in 1150 and be mentioned in 1103 in a chronicle? Right? I will add the chronicle shortly for explanation. Twthmoses 03:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I changed "clericus" because it was linked to "cleric" and looked like an EAL error. Mea culpa. I changed "Zealand chronicle" back because neither article had a link. If people call it "Chronica Sialandie" (sure it's not Sialandiae? looks funny for Latin), then so be it. I removed "see the chronicle" firstly because there aren't any links to the chronicle anywhere (yet), and secondly (IMHO), instead of indirectly referencing a quasi-related document, you should either I believe we could have avoided this conflict if you had explained it in the article or created a stub at Chronica Sialandie. (added same time as below: I could've written a better edit summary, too.) IceKarma&#x0950; 04:34, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
 * 1) explain it directly in the article on Saxo Grammaticus (this being, on first appearances at least, the most relevant place for a discussion of why he's anachronistically mentioned in a document written 47 years before he was born), or
 * 2) leave it to anyone who cares enough to follow the link to the (forthcoming) article on the chronicle, and put an HTML comment like "see Chronica Sialandia for more on apparent error". (In fact, this conversation will likely be enough to keep conscientious editors from messing it up...)

Hm, information on the Chronica Sialandie seems to be very hard to find. Google yields one hit for '"chronica sealandie"' (a PDF on grain exports in Europe before 1350), one for '"zealand chronicle" -"new zealand"' (a copy of the Wikipedia article), and 104 for '"sjællandske krønike"', all in Danish (which I can't read, but I saw "Saxo" come up, so I presume some of them are relevant). The near-total lack of English references makes me question just what the English-speaking world calls it. I've also removed the link from clericus to cleric and italicised it, since from looking the article it could mean either cleric or clerk, its meaning is uncertain, and it's a foreign word. IceKarma&#x0950; 04:58, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 07:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet Connection or Not? What is meant by the "concrete subtleties" sentence?
As of 6/16/09, there is a sentence that says, "There is concrete evidence that suggests Shakespeare was aware of Saxo's original however it is not conceivable as Saxo's prose already contains many subtleties of Shakespeare's Hamlet."

I'm trying to unpack exactly what this sentence says. There is "concrete" evidence of Shakespeare knowing about Saxo's story? But the evidence only "suggests" it (but it is concrete?)? But it is "not conceivable" because Saxo's writing already had "subtleties"... I'm lost. Is there some debate about which came first? Or...

First: My thanks to whomever has done the research, bravo!

But I'm REALLY interested in what is meant by this sentence, and I can't decipher it.

Thanks to all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beagley (talk • contribs) 14:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence does seem to be contradicting itself, furthermore, whichever way it may be interpreted, such statements are generelly not accepted on Wikipedia without a citation. And even then it should probably elaborate on who thinks that Shakespeare was aware of Saxo (or not), as I would imagine there would be some controversy among scholars on that one. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)