Talk:Chronicon Pictum

Is this the same thing?

Is this the same thing that is sometimes called "Kepes Kronika" ? --ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC) YesCristianChirita 14:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

A controversy?

This chronicle is nearly impossible to be found as a re-edition, and it is heavily guarded by the OSZK. Someone recently tried to make it publicly available (after acquiring the necessary permissions), but all they got was legal harassment[1]. Conspiracy theories, anyone? Does this deserve a mention in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by V. Szabolcs (talk • contribs) 17:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Multiple editions?

It seems that at least based on various images of the Battle of Posada, there are multiple medieval editions of this book. See commons:File talk:Viennese Illuminated Chronicle Posada.jpg#Medieval book edition and commons:User talk:Csanády#Battle of Posada - Medieval book editions. The Chronica Hungarorum article talks about different variants! I found a copy myself at the National Museum of the Union in Alba Iulia last fall. But that doesn't look like a medieval copy. Anyone knows more? --Codrin.B (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think things start to be clearer for why we have so many versions of the pictures. The Chronica Hungarorum article talks about Chronicon Pictum (1358–1370, ed. S. Ladislaus Endlicher 1827), Buda Chronicle (1473, with eleven(!) surviving copies out of which one is at National Széchényi Library and one at Eötvös Loránd University Library; don't know about the other nine!), and also Johannes de Thuroczs Chronica Hungarorum. From so many copies and variants, it is possible then that two of the Battle of Possada images (page 143 and page 146) are from different copies of the Buda Chronicle, while the other two images from other editions of it. Can someone clarify further where all these editions are and to which one the images belong? The commons:Category:Chronicon Pictum seems to contain images from a multitude of editions lumped together.--Codrin.B (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge from Chronica Hungarorum

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The two article are not large and clear enough to both exist. I think the content from Chronica Hungarorum should be merged to Chronicon Pictum. Also I think the different editions and names like Chronica Hungarorum, Buda Chronicle, Chronicon Pictum should be clarified. If the merged article grows enough and once different editions and names are clarified and deemed as distinct works, they should naturally grow into specific articles. Right now I find it very confusing.Codrin.B (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm traducing from English to French the biographies of medieval Hungarian kings and these articles frequently refer to the Chronicon Pictum, the Chronica Hungarorum and other Hungarian chronicles. On fr.wikipedia.org Chronicon Pictum redirects to Chronica Hungarorum. I agree with Codrin.B, this is very confusing, but it may be difficult to clarify because Middle Ages are a grey area. Maybe Borsoka, who wrote the aforesaid articles about Hungarian kings, could enlighten us. Regards, Red Maze (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the merger of the two articles would be very confusing. Chronica Hungarorum is the name of a medieval literary tradition of the history of the Hungarian people and Hungary. It was recorded in many phases from the 1070s, and it has been preserved in several manuscripts (including Chronicon Pictum, Chronicon Budense). Borsoka (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: It now seems that the articles have been improved and expanded, such that having them separate is clearer; the Chronicon Pictum is independently notable. Klbrain (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.