Talk:Divine Comedy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
2005
2006
2007

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Divine Comedy article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Divine Comedy as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Japanese language Wikipedia.


Contents

[edit] The inspiration for The Divine Comedy

I think the article should mention that a possible source of inspiration for Dante was Risalatu'l Ghufran by 10th century arab poet al-Ma'arri. I heard that some scholars have expressed this opinion, but I have no official references. However I have read both works, and while not being a trained scholar my self, I do find the similarities striking.

[edit] Comedy on Discovery/TLC/History Channel

Long time ago on one of the cable channels they did a show surroundings either the whole Comendy or at least Dante's Inferno. Does anyone remember it?

I just saw it what do you want to know about it.208.67.34.202 (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian/Greek mix

Shouldn't this article mention somewhere that intelectually this work mixes Christian (especially Catholic) theology and ancient Greek "science" and mythology (Aristotelean cosmology, minotaurs, cerberus etc.). These two worldviews are still hugely influential on Western thought and the continued influence of this text undoubtledly contributes towards this.

Why put science in quotes? Seven-hundred years from now I suppose our equally snobbish descendants will disparage our work by putting the word in quotes as well.
Seconded on the Science bit. It wasn't organized like our science is nowadays, but it was the real McCoy, at least as far as it goes. The fact that it was wrong on many points doesn't carry the edge to real scientists as it does to layman. Some science is always wrong.
I've added one (correct) observation about reflection, from Canto XV. Radagast3 (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Intellectually, this work follows the standard medieval European worldview, that is, Aristotelian-Christian. I'm not sure how much to say about that. Radagast3 (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ability to get out of punishment

Should it be stated that everyone can get out of their punishments? You see it directly with Paolo and Francesca of the fifth canto, with Ciacco the Hog of the sixth, Filippo Argentini of the eighth, two members of a tomb in the tenth canto, and Ser Brunetto Latino of the fiftienth, among others. Essentially, everyones punishment is of their own accord. --Naruto Tron 03:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This is true for Purgatory. It is not at all clear to me it's true for Hell. Radagast3 (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of virtue and sin

In the Purgatorio, each terrace contains exemplars of the sin that is being purged in that terrace and its opposing virtue. For example humility/pride, charity/envy. This is the first thing that Dante and Virgil see when they arrive at a terrace. Is it ok to add this or would this be too much detail? --Survivalism (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've briefly mentioned it. I'm not sure how much detail we need, but I think an example or two could be given. Radagast3 (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] lack of articles

Okay, seriousy, this is just out of line. The 3 parts of the divine comedy don't even get seperate articles?!?! We have a fucking article on every South park episode for god's sakes!!!!!!! This is totally messed up. The Divine Comedy is a super classic book, taught all over the world, and it doesn't even get more than one article about its contents?! Seriously, along with having a nude picture on every page, this is another thing that sucks about wikipedia. Uncyclopedia really is better. At least they dont claim to be a grand encyclopedia and then have nothing but things that are popular to write. I hate this place.

Although you are correct that the three canticles certainly warrant separate articles, the solution is to write the articles yourself. Carlo (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I imagine that the thing to do is expand the existing article, and split it into four when necessary. At present it's very sketchy in places. Radagast3 (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I have added a few images, and removed one which had no relation to the section in which it was placed. We now have 16 images:

  • 2 general ones
  • 8 on Hell
  • 3 on Purgatory
  • 3 on Paradise

Or, looking at it another way:

  • 6 from Doré
  • 2 other black-and-white
  • 8 colour

There is obviously some imbalance here, and we could use some (ideally colour) images to further illustrate Purgatory (there are no images illustrating ANY of the terraces) and Paradise. Radagast3 (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There are probably enough images now. Radagast3 (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you feel compelled to remove the image of Mahound showing his entrails in The Divine Comedy article? This event and image are integral to the story. I notice in an early edit that you referred to this image as one that 'might be offensive to some viewers.' So what? Please justify you repeated removal. (question by 137.186.236.76 moved from user talk page).

There are some general principles I've tried to follow for images:
(1) There should be a balance across the poem as a whole (different regions of Hell, Purgatory, Paradise) and a balance across artists – not just Doré (I believe we have that balance now).
(2) Images must be relevant to the passage they illustrate (the image you refer to is an 8th circle image someone had placed in the 9th circle for no reason that I can see, and I replaced it with a more relevant image – Ugolino is also integral to the story).
(3) There are many possible images, and we need to be selective (for example, the images I've added have been colour images where possible).
(4) If a passage is illustrated by a length quote from the poem, an image is less important (this is the case with the image you refer to). Radagast3 (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Nice try; please answer the question without all the BS. For your: 1) ...then you chould choose to leave the Dore images and remove the others, ya? 2) The said image and passage are perfectly linked. And, since you say that 'Ugoline is also integral...' then by definition the Mahound image must be integral. Why remove something integral? 3) Keep in mind all those Dore images are black-and-white. And, if 'we need to be selective' why did you remove someone else's selection? 4) Images speak a thousand words; or maybe we should remove all the images to support your belief that images are not important. Please recognise that your political correctness, trasparent as it is, is offensive to some readers. --137.186.255.201 (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It sounds to me like he DID answer the question without "BS." I think it's an improvement if only because it's one less Dore. "Mahound"? Frankly, it seems to me like YOU are the one with the political ax to grind. Carlo (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I realize my opinion may not be popular, but I have to say that I think the article now contains too many images. Deor (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that it should be three separate articles. If it was, there would be fewer pictures per. Carlo (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm also not sure why we need a plot summary of each cantica that's more detailed than the one we have already in this article. After all, the purpose of an encyclopedia article is different from that addressed by one of those "plots of 100 World Classics" books. I'd rather see the material on reception and criticism expanded in this article and, if it gets too long in the process, see the plot summary as a whole split out. Deor (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it certainly doesn't need more images. It could, I think, be sensibly split into a general article and three specific ones on each cantica. Ideally the latter will be not just a plot summary, but articles highlighting important aspects of the poem. But I'm sure that will generate even more complaints than any change made to the article so far. Radagast3 (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, despite all the work done on the article, I think it's a rather poor one for such an important subject. Not that I've done much to change that, of course. But this is one of the most important literary works ever, and the article is woefully incomplete. Carlo (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think better than it was before, but I agree with you. I encourage you to improve it further. Radagast3 (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Why Comedy

Does someone knows why it is called a Comedy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.91.170 (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the answer is in the article:
Dante called the poem "Comedy" (the adjective "Divine" added later in the 14th century) because poems in the ancient world were classified as High ("Tragedy") or Low ("Comedy"). Low poems had happy endings and were of everyday or vulgar subjects, while High poems were for more serious matters. Dante was one of the first in the Middle Ages to write of a serious subject, the Redemption of man, in the low and vulgar Italian language and not the Latin language as one might expect for such a serious topic. Boccaccio's account that an early version of the poem was begun by Dante in Latin is still controversial[11][12]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.91.170 (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)