Talk:Divine Comedy/Archives/2007

spoiler or no?

i think that most of the page should be under a spoiler warning. i know most people dont read it for just the plot, but still, some do, (including me) and it would suck to lose the joy of really knowing that you got dante all on your own.71.102.172.40 05:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Response and criticism

In my opinion pretty much everything after the first paragraph under Response and criticism should appear under Derivative Works. Maybe Derivative Works should be made a subheader under Response and criticism. Unless somebody objects I will change it that way. Conrad Leviston 13:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd hate for Response and criticism to be turned into a big list like Derivative Works is now. (Big lists seem to look better at the ends of articles.) I'd say: Keep the first three paragraphs of Response and criticism and add the rest (the part composed of a big list) to Derivative Works. --Instant Classic 01:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with instant classic. Well, partly at least. I don't want derivative works to be a subsection of response and criticism. That's all. It should be as it is.

EliasAlucard|Talk 05:57, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

The substantive part of this section then needs to be expanded to cover both those periods when Dante's reputation was at low ebbs as well as when he was on a high. I'll try to look up some refs I have at home over the weekend. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:46, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but that doesn't mean it has to be merged with the derivative works part?

EliasAlucard|Talk 10:51, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of moving anything that remains a list to Derivative works, but not until the R&C section is rewritten. Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:13, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Just cleaning up language, I changed "Later authors as disparate as William Blake, T. S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Samuel Beckett, and James Joyce have drawn on it for inspiration." It now reads, "Later authors, such as..." Eliot, Pound, Beckett, and Joyce can hardly be considered disparate, as they knew each other, intellectually collaborated, edited each other's work, and can be grouped (if one is painting in somewhat broad strokes) as some of the primary figures in a single literary movement.132.241.48.134 01:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)MOB

Regarding the inspiration

Won't happen. Has been tried 19/06/2006, which resulted in instant deletion since bringing up the issue was regarded as "original research" despite the literature and debate over the source being a hot topic in Dante circles since 1919 when Palacios published "Islam and the Divine Comedy".

You need to provide a balanced account of all sides and not present the 1919 source as the final word. A lot has been said on this topic since 1919, no? Really it's better off in its own article on Palacios with a link to it from here. -- Stbalbach 00:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Tut tut. What a little squabble we have here. Won't do, my dear Stbalbach. If balance is what we are after then the 1919 book needs a paragraph in this article at the very least. Water under the bridge it may be, but excision is not warranted. Otherwise we don't have that balance do we?

Kneeslasher.

Bravo for the recent edit. I think we can live with that. The Spanish Wikipedia has much more detail on the issue.

Kneeslasher.

I'll just weigh in with my opinion: I see no problem with mentioning Palacios's ideas in the article; but I do think that giving them their own section is a bit much, and the treatment of them is too extensive in the context of the article as a whole. Deor 01:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Satan trying to escape?

End of the Inferno: "His six wings beat as if he is trying to escape, but the icy wind that emanates only further ensures his imprisonment as well as all the others in the ring." Is Satan really trying to escape? I didn't get that impression, at least from the translation I read (Mandelbaum) - it seems more like his wings are flapping specifically for the PURPOSE of creating that icy wind. Does someone have a source for this, or at least an explanation? --MarkusRTK 19:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My Dutch translation states that Lucifer is trapped in the ice as punishment for his disobedience to God, and that his own attempts at escaping (flapping his wings) cause the wind that in fact keeps him down. He punishes both himself and the (other) traitors in this way. Qwertyus 03:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ice is the metaphorical tool to show that Satan is imprisoned in Hell. And yes, Satan is trying to escape! Wouldn't you?

I read the John Ciardi translation, and it definitely says that Satan tries to escape Hell. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 20:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Left & Right: The Way of the Devil

Okay, long ago (late 1990s maybe) there was some movie, maybe called 'Bless the Child,' faintly I remember there was a symbol of a pitchfork with its prongs jutted left, to which one character explained 'was the way of the devil.' Anyway, during the Inferno portion of the story, whenever the direction of Virgil & Dante's movement is mentioned, they always head left (except for once at XVII.32 (before entering the sixth circle), only on those two occasions do they move rightward.) Is there any religious significance between left and right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.173.64.171 (talk • contribs) 03:20, March 13, 2006 (UTC)

In some ancient cultures, the left side was indeed considered the "evil" side. See the etymology of the word "sinister."

In LaVeyan Satanism the "left hand path" is considered the way of "evil." Seeing as the movie you have mentioned was made in the 1990's this would make since as Satanism was well established by this time. 72.189.197.44 06:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hostiensis

Somebody removed Hostiensis from the fourth circle of paradise despite this ref. [1]. Wikisource has "Ostiense". Needs clarifying. Cutler 00:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably just a pronunciation difference. The H can be silent. It works either way I believe. 72.189.197.44 06:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hostiensis is Latin and becomes Ostiense in Italian. See further here. Wareh 15:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Miguel Asin Y Palacios

Miguel Asin Y Palacios is referred to variously as "Palacios", "Professor Asin", "Asin Palacios". My knowledge of Spanish surname patterns is not quite good enough for me to feel confident about making a change myself, but I'm pretty sure that the name should be one of "Asin" or "Asin Y Palacios"; "Palacios" on its own is, I think, incorrect. Here's a page on spanish surnames.

Update - got advice from a Spanish speaker, it looks like all of the names used are OK from their perspective but it's odd to have such a mixture. Canonicalised, using Asín Palacios. Cheers, Gpjt 00:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to do some work on this section right now (including repositioning it in the article). The problem with the link can be fixed by piping. Someone really should move the article on Asín Palacios to a different title—even if the "y" is retained in the title, it should be lowercase. Deor 01:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed re: the naming of the Asín Palacios article - happy to do it if there's a WP newbie's guide to moving pages - will otherwise leave to the experts :-) Cheers, Gpjt 01:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sower of discord

I've removed (twice) this passage:

In the Inferno section of Dante's trilogy The Divine Comedy, Mohammed is described as being one of the "Sowers of Discord," showing his entrails to Dante and Virgil in the Eighth Circle of Hell

If you want to include a proper explanation of 14th century views and put it into historical context, and have a reason for even bringing it up, that is fine, but just saying that and nothing else is POV. -- Stbalbach 14:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dante wrote that Mowhummud was included in the Eighth Circle of Hell as a Sower of Discord. It is a matter of reccord that he wrote same. Whether Mohummud truly is a Sower of Discord is wholly irrelevant; the Article is about Dante's Divine Comedy, not Moehamed.DocEss 18:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions. First, I'd respectfully ask DocEss to read in full my suggestions above. Perhaps you don't like the form in which the message is reaching you from Stbalbach, but there are other considerations. To my mind, this is not really a POV issue at all. I would agree with you that the sentence you're adding is a statement of fact. The problem is that

• The fact is already mentioned in a place where it is more appropriate qua fact (the Inferno summary). (If you want to expand that part, I wouldn't see anything wrong with that as long as you remain factual.)
• The fact is already mentioned in this section ("This was particularly ironic, in light of the fact that in Canto XXVIII of the Inferno Dante consigned the Islamic supreme prophet Muhammad to the eighth circle of hell, as a "seminator di scandalo e di scisma" - a "sower of scandal and schism" - in line with then-current Catholic dogma regarding Islam, as evidenced by the title of the first Latin translation of the Qu'ran: Lex Mahumet pseudoprophete") I disregarded this when I wrote my previous suggestions. Because it's there, I'm deleting the addition as redundant.
• As a mere fact, the addition is irrelevant to this section. (Again, see my remarks above, "Muhammad Edit-War.") Finding appropriate scholarly opinion about its relevance is a small price to pay if you want this text to be more prominent in this section. Library research, always a great way to improve Wikipedia!

Wareh 19:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ya got it all wrong: the sentence goes with the picture. I was adding the picture and its description. Man...verbose!DocEss 19:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't clear. In that case, move the image to where it would be relevant: beside the appropriate section of the Inferno summary. If it isn't clear to you why there would be more relevant than where you're putting it, then please give some more consideration to what I've said here (admittedly verbosely!). No new article text is needed to add an image, since we already have discussion of Muhammad in the Inferno twice in the article. Wareh 19:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

okee dokee. I think we got her whipped now. Exxxxcellant.DocEss 19:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't get the image to work right!DocEss 19:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Help?

Actually, it looks fine, and is appropriately positioned relative to the others. There's some mild formatting issue that gives "Bolgia 9" two square bullets instead of one for me, but I can't diagnose that. Wareh 02:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must admit that I'm inept at navigating all the inticate and picky details of formatting in Wiki-world. I give up.DocEss 16:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does the writer say "then-current Catholic dogma regarding Islam"? As I understand it, Muhammad taught that Jesus was not the Son of God, but merely a prophet; this is clearly heretical according to Catholic teaching at any time. I have not presumed to change the text, however, as perhaps the writer has some reason for saying this. Grommel, 14:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Epic poem?!?!!

The Divine Comedy is NOT,at all, an epic poem. It's everything but an epic poem. It's a complex show of Dante's political, philosophical and metaphysical view of the world. The main characters (Dante, Virgilio, Beatrice) are no heros or mythological creatures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.3.56.20 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

The Epic Poetry page defines an epic poem like this:

“ The meaning of the term epic, however, has evolved to refer to prose works, films, and similar works which are characterized by great length, multiple settings, large numbers of characters, or long span of time involved. As a result of this change in the use of the word, many prose works of the past may be called "epics" which were not composed or originally understood as such. ”

So, I don't think that refute the fact that the Divine Comedy is long. So, it is possible to call it an epic poem, even if it wasn't written as such. Actually, the Divine Comedy is listed as an epic poem on the same page under the 14th century. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Note, from Italian Text

At the beginning of the sory's description: "Dante is thirty-five years old, half of the biblically allotted age of 70 (Psalm 90:10), lost in a dark wood". In English translations is first a common "mistake" due to the differrent language. In the Italian the word for "lost" is "smarrita"; there are actually two verbs "to loose" something: "smarrita" is intended to use for something you have lost, at the moment, but that you may find again if you look well, in contrast with the word "perduta" wich means that the object cannot be found and is probably definitively missing. The verb "to get lost" in English pictures that the guy (Dante) entered the forest and subsequently he got lost in the intricated terrain. This in not correct, text says: "I found myself into a dark wood, because the straight path had been missed". First, he lost his way; then, when he realized that he had come to a gloomy forest he says that he was so scared that when he thinks to it he is still feeling fear. Another note of the beginning: the "Opportunists" translates the italian word "Ignavi". This means actually an "insulse or coward person" which does not take his active part to life. It isa a remarkable difference because 1) in italian there is a word for "opportunist" and 2) some of the people in this circle are defintly NOT opportunists, the do not take personal advantages not even opportunistic decisions, but simply they don't take a personal part, they avoid difficult choices or important positions (they are just not to be praised tor anything). Beside the allusion to Celestino V, there is not just Pontius Pilate but a number of equally "famous" equivalents (in Dante's view), among them Roman emperors and biblical characters. 87.1.50.237 Utente:Aki 01 01:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeated phrases?

In the first paragraph of first section, there are some repeated concepts. I mean, there are two (or more) phrases repeating there are 33 canti on each cantica, plus one introductory, adding up to 100. As I've just said this is repeated. :)

Could some good English speaker/writer please fix or rewrite this paragraph? CrazyTerabyte 16:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture Problem

There is some text covered by one of the pictures near the "First Circle" section. Being unable to figure out how to fix it, would someone with far greater power fix that if it is possible? jbraptor_4 20:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Saladin

I'm not sure why an editor's recent addition mentioning Saladin's presence in Limbo was summarily reverted (diff). I know we can't pack everyone in the Inferno into this article, but Saladin's presence is interesting, and his position aloof from the other souls in Limbo certainly makes him a memorable and significant part of Dante's own deliberate presentation of Limbo. I'd suggest that this reversion be undone, but I thought it better to suggest it here first. Wareh 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah his presence in Limbo is indeedly interesting. -Dark Dragon Flame 03:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I too saw no reason to delete it, which is why I just edited it. Deor 04:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

verifiability

having just read this i have noticed a lot of unverifiable/non-encyclopedic phrasing along the lines of this "great work" or "its influence on culture cannot be overestimated" "greatest works" these phrases while defend-able are ultimately expressions of opinion not fact and are not true wikipedia style, and therefore should not be included in this article. Beckboyanch 02:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Any decent library has an entire shelf of books devoted to carefully footnoted studies of this work's extensive influence, etc. Concurrences of opinion can be cited, true, but it's also important not to fall into the trap of seeking trivial citations to back up common knowledge. The significance of the Divine Comedy — the reason it's in the encyclopedia in the first place — is as a poem that has exercised an influence, and excited admiration among informed and influential readers, as few other poems ever have. While we should shoot for the ideal of a well-footnoted section on the Comedy's Rezeptionsgeschichte, meanwhile, it's better to have these uncontroversial assertions of what is the case than to speak of excluding from the encyclopedia some of the most basic information about this topic's significance. Wareh 14:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Heaven box

Is there anyone other than I who finds the box "Concepts of Heaven" at the end of the Paradiso section unnecessary and distracting? Deor 18:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. Its visual impact on the article is way out of proportion with any benefit it offers. The Paradiso is one poetic version of heaven, not a major topic in a survey of human views of heaven. I'd say, wait until Paradiso gets spun off as its own article, and has a whole section on how Dante's view of heaven fits in with Christian & other conceptions of heaven—then the box will have a place more than now. Wareh 19:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to be bold and delete it. Please insert objections (if any) here. Deor 00:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Stupid edit summary

In my edit summary of 19:30, 15 March 2007, I meant to say, of course, that anger is a noun, not an adjective. Deor 19:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

in medias res?

"The poem begins on Good Friday of the year 1300, "In the middle of our life's journey" (Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita), and so opens in medias res. Dante is thirty-five years old, half of the biblically allotted age of 70 (Psalm 90:10)"

"Our life's journey" is interpreted as the "biblically allotted age of 70", and Dante's age (35) is "in the middle" (half) of this 70 years. The passage is metaphorically telling Dante's age; it is not stating that Dante's decent into Hell happened in the middle of the work as a whole. To the contrary, Dante begins in Hell and moves up through Purgatory to Heaven. This is supported by John Ciardi's notes in his translation of the Comedy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.32.247.255 (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

In medias res does not mean "in the middle of the work as a whole." To the contrary, it refers to the way a work begins. I suppose what the article means is that the poem does not feel the need to tell us how exactly the character Dante ended up in the selva oscura, etc. Wareh 23:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in medias res does not mean "in the middle of things" at all (which would need to be "in mediis rebus" in Latin), but "into the middle of things," as the linked Wikipedia article correctly explains. Thus "...opens by jumping to the middle of the story" would get across the sense better than "...opens in the middle of things." But why not just drop the Latin tag entirely from this article, rather than editing its use? It contributes nothing. Dante is not jumping into the middle of a plot as Horace (see linked article) recommends doing. Mstarli 04:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Original treasure of Vatican

Botticelli, Sandro, The Chart of Hell. It is the 11th treasure on http://libraries.theeuropeanlibrary.org/VaticanCity/treasures_en.xml

Should this be mentioned somewhere here? I have asked a similar question on the page of Botticelli. Greetings, Fleurstigter 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The image was and is actually part of this article. However, it was placed in an illogical section (with Paradiso). I've tinkered with image placement so that this image, the one of Dante's barque, and the one of Paolo and Francesca are all more logically located. Botticelli is briefly mentioned at Dante and his Divine Comedy in popular culture (an ill-named article in my opinion, since it includes non-popular culture in its lists). It would be great if you or someone else wants to expand the treatment of Botticelli there. Wareh 19:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving the image - good one Wareh! From my part - no longer the image lacks a reference to the Original work. I tried to do this best I could (referring to external links). Maybe somebody else can do this better? Fleurstigter 09:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't understand any sense in which the external link you added is "the Original work." You were right that "Check external link" is awkward & not normal style. But my reason for removing the link is simply that it seemed to have nothing but rudimentary information, and a high-res image no better than what you get by clicking on the thumbnail in the article. If this external link has a proper place, it would be at Dante and his Divine Comedy in popular culture, where (as far as I'm concerned) you could put it right there next to discussion of Botticelli's painting, at the appropriate place in the list (not down in external links with another "check external links"). I hope that seems reasonable. Wareh 15:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

by 'original work' I meant this: the Vatican has the original drawing in her possession. As a member of the Conference of European National Librarians, the Vatican City has chosen to display it via The European Library (and add a note on the exact location of the works in the library of the Vatican City). That's why I like to refer to it and use the words 'original work'. You can varify this via http://libraries.theeuropeanlibrary.org/organisation/aboutus_en.html

Fleurstigter 15:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Divine Comedy in the arts

-In the The Divine Comedy in the arts section it says "as one of the most well known and greatest artistic works in the Western tradition, its influence on culture cannot be overestimated." I really can't overestimate its influence? It sounds like POV to me not like an encyclopedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.131.225.102 (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Does my March 9 answer under "verifiability" speak to your concerns? I think if you spend 30 minutes in any decent library looking for sources to support the thesis "Dante's Comedy had an immense influence on the subsequent visual arts of the West," you'd find that you had a pretty ridiculously easy assignment. Wareh 19:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Dante lived in a Europe for which the door between the Christian west and the Islamic east had largely been shut

Erm... Muslims did rule Spain for a couple hundred years you know.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.157.7 (talk • contribs)

I agree with the point you're making here, though it has to be put a bit more carefully. Dante lived during a period where the "door" was much more open to philosophical and literary influence from the Muslim world than in many later periods. The particularly vibrant contacts in Spain (see Alfonso X of Castile) are certainly part of that. The sentence you quote was apparently added by someone with an agenda who let a POV strongly approving of a scholarly polemic get into the article itself. I'll see if I can't begin to redress this. Wareh 19:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the sentence to remove the POV and link to a couple of Wikipedia articles that make plain the fruitful literary & intellectual influence that was at work during Dante's age. I believe I've stuck to the obvious; if not, we can discuss any issues here! Cheers, Wareh 19:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox questions

Hello, I just changed the infobox so that it lists Allegory under the list of genres, even though allegory isn't exactly a genre. I'm also curious about why this infobox lists such details as "publisher" and "release date", because this text is so old that there is no original publisher (indeed, there is no original manuscript!), and therefore there isn't any actual release date as such. --Kyoko 19:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Might be just a default for articles on books. You could remove it or put N/A if you really wanted to I suppose. Cheers 06:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Reason Behind the title??

Does anyone know why this book is called "divine Comedy". I see nothing comedic behind, hell, purgatory, and other religious and moral scenes from the book. Does anyone know, its been bugging me. Thanks 81.145.241.179 19:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the article, which explains this accurately: Dante called the poem "Comedy" (the adjective "Divine" added later in the 16th 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. In other words, Dante does not seem to have had in mind any common meaning of the modern English word "comedy" (though like other comic plots Dante's poem celebrates a happy ending). Wareh 20:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

section on various translations should be added

I decided to read Dante on my own and was struck by how many translations to english are available. I ended up getting a copy of Inferno translated by Mark Musa, just by random. I was wondering if tehre is any info out there about the difference between translations or the superiority of one translation over another. If anyone has this information please write a section about it on this page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.51.199 (talk • contribs)

Such a section would improve the article, although drafting it without any editorial POV would be essential (with attribution of any critical assessments preferable). (See Iliad for an example.) Meanwhile, you've chosen a quite readable and well-regarded translation. Some general pointers to notable content for any such eventual section: Longfellow's and Binyon's, I believe, are the only older verse versions worth attention for their merits. Durling and Martinez, when finished, will have pretty much superseded all previous prose competitors. Mandelbaum is still the reigning king among modern verse versions (though obviously the Hollanders have their fans). Wareh 18:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

100 Cantos?

It looks like the following passage has an error:

The Divine Comedy is composed of three canticas (or "cantiche") — Inferno (Hell), Purgatorio (Purgatory), and Paradiso (Paradise) — composed each of 33 cantos (or "canti"). The very first canto serves as an introduction to the poem and is generally not considered to be part of the first cantica, bringing the total number of cantos to 100.

If there are 3 canticas and 33 cantos per cantica, you have 99 total cantos. If you discount the first canto (because it serves as an introduction), that brings the total number of cantos to 98, not 100 as stated above.

Perhaps I'm not following the logic, but it seems like this should be changed.

The first canto is part of the poem; it's just not considered part of the first cantica. Three cantiche containing 99 cantos, plus the introductory canto, make for 100 cantos in the Commedia. Deor 23:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's true: i'm Italian and the Cantos (Canti in Italian) are 100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.50.182.116 (talk • contribs)

Sullen=Lazy?

I have read through that part of the book and it doesn't suggest that the ones who were beneath the wrathful were lazy, they just called them sullen. Also if you look up sullen it gives definitions none of which match laziness. Can someone elaborate how the connection was made? Father Time89 23:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

in the right hand side bar: "written in 1337". I'd change it, but I don't like to mess wit wiki articles.

81.156.56.153 16:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not vandalism, and it is not an error. The Trivulziano manuscript was written in 1337.[2] Perhaps you misunderstood and believed the reference was to when the Comedy itself was written? Wareh 13:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It just now occurred to me that many readers would instantly suppose it was being claimed that the 14th c. manuscript was written in 1337... Wareh 14:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Redundant sentence

The following sentence from the Inferno summary:

"It is important to note that it was not Dante's position that all sodomites were destined for hell fire, for repentant sodomites can be found on the top of Mount Purgatory."

is utterly redundant, since the same is true of ALL the "sins" Dante describes: repentance is what determines whether the victim goes to Inferno or Pugatory. It sounds to me a like a feeble attempt to link Dante's attitude to modern debates on homosexuality. CharlesTheBold 04:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, so I've been Deor the Bold and removed the sentence. Let's see if anyone objects. Deor 05:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

response to sullen=lazy, and other subjects

You asked for some sources.

Dorothy Sayers, in the notes to her translation of the Commedia, observes that the Italian word "accedia" is much broader than the English "slothful" or "lazy". It means lack of zeal, and can be applied to emotions that English would render as "apathetic" or "debilitating depression". "Sullen" might fit as well.

Mark Musa, in HIS translation, speculates directly that the sullen were supposed to represent "accedia". His theory seems to be that Dante started off using the Seven Deadly Sins in the Inferno (lust in Circle 2, gluttony is Circle 3, averice in circle 4, wrath/accedia in circle 5, possibly pride in the Farinata scene) but abandoned it further down, leaving out "envy" and imposing Aristotle's classification instead.

Concerning "Islamic influence": Dante treats Averroes and Avicenna as respected philosophers. Even his shocking description of Mohammed shows that he was aware of the Ali controversy (the present Shiite/Sunni split). Thus his own poem implies that he has some acquaintance with Islamic culture, so you can't just claim he was out of touch with Islam altogether. That still leaves open the question of whether he was familiar with the "Night Journey" legend.

The discussion of the "Heaven of Jupiter" cantos leaves out a very crucial piece of Dantean theology, although it is mentioned in the Limbo section: that God can and has released people from the Inferno. Cato, Trajan, and Ripheus are examples but there is no proof that they are the only ones. CharlesTheBold 22:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC) [edit] Sullen=Lazy?

Surrender as you enter every hope you have

I have the most recent translation, part of the Penguin Classics, translated by Robin Kirkpatrick (ISBN 978-0-14-044895-5). If you think it's notable, you can add its version of Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'intrate, "Surrender as you enter every hope you have", to the quotes. (I think it's a nice edition, anyway: it's got the Italian and everything...) ZanderSchubert 07:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What is that?

What connection the Divine Comedy has to do with Islam? I'll delete it every time it'll be rewritten. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.115.29.209 (talk • contribs) .

If you read the section, you will find that it does not make the claim that "The Divine Comedy has something to do with Islam." While, obviously, the Commedia does directly deal with some Islamic topics, that is not the subject of this section. In fact, Islamic versions, available to Dante in Latin translations, of fantastic journeys to see paradise and Hell, have been a major and continuing topic of research and discussion among Dantisti throughout the world. Whether it is right to conclude that Dante was directly inspired by these available sources remains controversial, but it's an important area of scholarly inquiry, and that's why it's in the article. (I didn't put it in there; the extent of my involvement was to add a scholarly footnote giving more accurate information about the date of the Latin version of Liber Scale Machometi.) If you think the topic is relatively unimportant, please address the imbalance by adding quality sections on topics that haven't been treated well enough (I don't know, maybe Aristotelian philosophy in the Commedia?)...

Please, 192.115.29.209, have a look at your talk page, where the complaints of vandalism and arbitrary edits are piling up. At Wikipedia, the answer to issues like this is not to make threats, but, either (A) to discuss it here and develop a consensus for the major alterations you would like to see, or (B) to add information that will make a section more rigorous and balanced (in this case, please feel free to add summary and footnotes to expand on the views of scholars who have argued against the importance of Arabic sources). Even better, take the plunge to register as a Wikipedia editor and familiarize yourself with its ethos and policies. I assure you, you will find that they do make it possible to use reason and scholarship to correct real deficiencies in articles (though the process takes work and time). Wareh 14:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, some muslim guys appear in the Comedy: Salah-Eh-Din is in Limbo, and Muhammad is in lower circles of the Hell. But the Comedy wasn't written in order to give any moral judge about Islam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.3.56.20 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

This claim is clearly in line with Islam's philosophy of claiming ownership of great works of art. There is much speculation in the islam section, and I think has nothing to do with the Christian story, and should be removed. - Eisenmond 18:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific as to what you consider speculative in that section? I don't see any speculation there passed off as fact. Yes, it reports scholarly theories about Dante's sources, but it is careful to present those as theories. These theories have been very influential in Dante scholarship. They have received at least as much discussion by scholars as many aspects of the "Christian story" qua Christian story. Proof of this is very easy to obtain: see the 50 hits on JSTOR for palacios islamic dante! Wareh 20:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The topic is notable and legitimate, but it obviously unbalances the main article. Tens of thousands of scholarly articles have been published about the "Comedy". Devoting half of the article to this issue amounts to giving it undue weight. It should be moved to a separate article, titled perhaps "The Comedy and Islam", which could be linked to main article.Stammer 11:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that devoting half of the article to this topic would be excessive. Fortunately, it takes up less than 10% of the article, which seems fine. If anyone wants to cut down the treatment from 500 words to 150 words and create a separate main article for the subject, fine, but it shouldn't be done based on gross exaggeration. Wareh 14:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Let me be more precise. Beside the descriptive part, this is the only scholarly topic discussed in the article. It actually takes up more than 50% of the non-descriptive part of the article. That surely overstates its relevance for an understanding of the subject matter. Moreover, the topic has been and is the subject of a complex debate that is not properly reflected in the article as it is currently written. Personally I have little doubt that Islamic sources exerted a significant influence on Dante and on the structure of the Comedy. Islamic culture had a decisive and pervasive influence on the whole of European culture in the late Middle Ages, as Dante himself implicitly acknowledges when he puts Averroes and Avicenna among the "spiriti magni" in the Limbo, side by side with Aristotle and Plato. However, as it currently stands, the article does not represent scholarly consensus. It appears improper to devote more than half of the non-descriptive part of the article to a one-sided presentation of controversial claims.Stammer 16:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I did do some consolidation of the section, while still retaining what I saw as its important points. It still could use further work by the hand of someone who could accurately describe the present state of scholarship (consensus or lack thereof) on the issue. Froggy88 21:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Performing Arts, Digital Arts, etc.

It is very awkward to lump movies and computer games along with purely visual arts like paintings, illustrations and watercolors. Breaking these out into their own categories. Intersofia 02:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

    If this is true, where does computer virus makers and hackers go? Which part of hell?--Jhon montes24 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox?

I think the "Infobox" in this article is particulary unhelpful, and detracts from the article. I would like to remove it, unless there is a consensus of the editors of this article to keep it.Paul August ☎ 19:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is it any more unhelpful than any other infobox? --Goochelaar 19:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it a) contains virtually no non-obvious information, all of which is contained in the first sentence, b) contains fields for "publisher" and "publication date" which are not applicable, c) adversely affects the layout of the page, and d) is generally unattractive. Paul August ☎ 20:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care whether it stays or goes, but I think that the image of the Trivulziano manuscript should remain in a prominent position. Wareh 20:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course. Paul August ☎ 20:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I only partially agree... The obviousness of the information depends of course on the knowledge of the reader, and most infoboxes contain some redundance with respect to their article's text. Would it be possible to modify it to remove the useless fields? And, more to the point, is it the case that the infobox has other uses than just being read? Couldn't its preformatted structure be useful for, say, some search engine or to categorise information? Just a doubt. Bye, Goochelaar 23:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure those fields could be removed, but I wasn't able to quickly figure out how. In theory the infoboxes might make it easier for parsing by some program, but for such a purpose, it would not have to be visible to the reader. Paul August ☎ 01:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As there seems to be no consensus for keeping, I've removed it. Paul August ☎ 18:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth..

is the presence of mohammed in dantes inferno not mentioned? Surely being a pretty massive figure in history, much more so than people such as Pope xyz III his presence should be mentioned along with all the others? Thedreamdied 02:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

See "Bolgia 9" under "The Eighth Circle." Deor 02:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah thank you. I must have mistyped in the search function. I'm surprised there isn't more detail though - i was under the impression that mohammed had quite a specific torture awarded? Thedreamdied 02:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There are many people there who were important figures, and Mohammed's punishment is no more specific than anyone else in that particular circle. I think this article is already too long, and it isn't the place for a blow-by-blow recounting of Inferno Carlo (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Cfortunato, you won't get off that easily; Doer is correct. If one reads the relevant passage (Cirlce 8, Bolgia 9) he will see how important the inclusion of Mahomet is to the entire story. From the Longfellow English version: "How mutilated, see, is Mahomet; In front of me doth Ali weeping go, Cleft in the face from forelock unto chin; And all the others whom thou here beholdest, Disseminators of scandal and of schism. While living were, and therefore are cleft thus." Even Dore thought the inclusion as important when he drew his famous sketch of a mutilated Mahomet showing his bowels to Dante. But the article as written now implies that Mahomet was merely a helpful little observer when in fact his was a deserving inmate as a Sower of Discord. I suggest the only reason Cfortunato contends that the article is already too long for any additions is that he's a scardy-cat and can't stand the impending firestorm of criticism that'll result from inclusion of the necessary descriptions and images. Maybe we should burn the book and wipe it from existence --- would THAT satisfy you trembling fawns? Look we can't critique what Dante wrote --- our job is to describe what he wrote.137.186.139.172 (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As the person who inserted (in June 2006) the current line about Muhammad, I can assure you that there was no intent to shy away from what Dante wrote. There are many levels of detail that one could use in a summary of the Inferno. What I chose to do was to describe the sin for each circle or region and the punishment for that sin, to briefly mention anyone who Dante spoke with at length, and to cite the corresponding canto or cantos. The fame of any particular sinner was not a factor -- hence Ciacco and Ciampolo are mentioned, while Caiaphas and Julius Ceasar are not. I also thought that it was beyond the intended scope to go into detail regarding individual punishments. If one were to do so, one should include a description not only of Muhammad's punishment from Canto XXVIII, but also those of Curio and Bertran de Born (from the same canto), which are just as individualized. There is no cause to specifically single out Muhammad in this regard. Finally, I saw no need to keep saying over and over that everyone Dante meets is a sinner guilty of the sin punished where they are located. I assumed that the reader was smart enough to know that Hell didn't have any docents hanging around to be "helpful little observers." Froggy88 (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Divine Comedy and Islamic Philosophy

Here's my point: why should there be a section on "The Divine Comedy and Islamic Philosophy" and not a section on "The Divine Comedy" and all sorts of other things? "The Divine Comedy and CHRISTIAN Philosophy"; "The Divine Comedy and the Catholic Church"; "The Divine Comedy and Renaissance Thought"; "The Divine Comedy and the Italian Language." This is a work with whole libraries worth of books and dissertations written about it, on MANY subjects, many of which are major and legitimate fields of inquiry. Why should there be a section about this one particular discussion out of hundreds? Is there a reason, beyond it being some user's loved theory? I'm not saying that it's not a real or legitimate subject; I'm saying that I fail to see that it is the single most important subject related to the Divine Comedy, that it should be the only one highlighted and discussed as a separate section in this article.

It seems to me that the article should basically tell you what the poem is about in both a literal and allegorical sense, and not be a place for an explanation of specific scholarly discussions, of which there are no end. Carlo (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Carlo: we should either have a (long) article analytically detailing each major trend in the reasearch about the Divine Comedy, or avoid giving undue weight to just one or a few of them, albeit interesting. Goochelaar (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And it seems to me that this article should be packed full of every single bit of Comedy-related info we can find and substantiate, aside from the cultural reference list which has its own page. Thanos6 (talk) 08:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And do you think there should be a separate article for the various scholarly discussions, like The Divine Comedy and Islamic Philosophy? Carlo (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No. I believe it should all be put into this article here. Thanos6 (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. I think all that stuff should be in a separate article, because this one will just get gigantic. I also think it's an important enough subject that it justifies sub-articles. What do others think? Carlo (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That may one day be the case, but the article can always be branched off later on. I agree that the current section is a violation of WP:UNDUE in that it devotes considerable space to a relatively minor issue (at least in relation to the other possible topics mentioned). As it stands, the proposed information should be worked into the article. If the size of the article reaches the danger zone, we can create Views on the Divine Comedy, or perhaps Interpretations of the Divine Comedy, or something to that effect.--C.Logan (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion above is getting unnecessarily complicated. WP:UNDUE is an important policy, but it concerns giving undue prominence to matters that are not really notable enough for the amount of coverage they are getting in the encyclopedia. The subject of (disputed and hypothetical) Islamic sources of Dante's Comedy is 100% notable of treatment in the encyclopedia. The current article is unbalanced because this important topic is thoroughly discussed but other important topics are not mentioned at all. The solution is the same as for any article with an overgrown subsection—split it off into its own article, Islamic sources of Dante's Comedy. This can happen as soon as someone takes the trouble to write a summary paragraph to replace the extensive treatment here. WP:UNDUE does not come into at all, since, yes, of course, the Wikipedia should have long and informative articles on every topic as important as this one. The fact that the articles haven't yet been written on some other important topics doesn't mean remove the material we've got! Views on the Divine Comedy and Interpretations of the Divine Comedy are bad ideas, because we don't have the ready material to create balanced articles on those topics. We do have the material to create Islamic sources of Dante's Comedy, and there is no Wikipedia policy whatsoever to keep that from going forward. Wareh (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt anyone is unaware of the situation between WP:UNDUE and the article in this instance- the problem being the extensive coverage of a minority view with no coverage at all of much more developed and widely-supported viewpoints. The removal of the section is not a necessity, but it is certainly important that the appropriate topics find proportionate coverage here. I don't believe anyone is actually arguing against the inclusion of this information, but rather they are concerned that it is placed in perspective and not over-represented here.

Despite the solutions offered in moving the information to its own article, I don't think it's the answer as-of-yet. Develop this and other sections in the womb of this article until the point where they've justifiably grown large enough for their own treatment- there doesn't seem to be enough information for the split to be viable. I obviously disagree that the proposed ideas are "bad", because it seems you feel they are "quick fix" solutions- the idea behind the proposals is that they will offer a NPOV and informative solution to the possible future issue of various "views and interpretations" outweighing the other sections of the article.

Again, to needlessly create a sub-article on a topic seems misguided when one can simply introduce information on the currently-neglected views, and therefore keeping all the information in its most appropriate place. We shouldn't be in a rush to branch information. Additionally, although it is only an example, the proposed title of "Islamic sources of Dante's Comedy" brings up a real POV concern.--C.Logan (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is 42k. If even a couple of equally or more important topics were treated here, the article would simply swell beyond the acceptable limits for any article. That said, I agree with you and would rather keep everything as is until either this section grows to an unmanageable size, or a proliferation of other worthy topics makes the article cumulatively too big. But it's certainly there as an option and may eventually be needed; Aristotle would not be improved by the reincorporation into it of Aristotelian ethics. The best title is of course something that we should seek consensus for. The word "source," if it seems to have existential import, could easily be avoided; given the material now present, "Islamic eschatology" would cover it. Wareh (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course. And as a note, per WP:SIZE, the more accurate indicator of article size (readable prose) shows the article to be 37kb. Still up there, but a difference worth mentioning.--C.Logan (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Limbo

It states that pre-Christian pagans who were not faithful enough to their own gods are here, but that wasn't how I understand the verse. According to Christian religious concepts, God sent Jesus to Earth as a sacrifice to God so that humans may go to Heaven. It was therefore impossible for anyone born before that time to go to Heaven. Parmadil (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Your 'understanding' betrays your lack of knowledge. Jesus saves all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.251.55 (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Casella

I can't believe nobody noticed that, while speaking of Dante's arrival on the Purgatory shore, it was written that "they were attraced by a performance from Casella, but hey are reprimented by Cato". It looks like long-standing, hidden, sneaky vandalism. So I removed it and mentioned in replacement how the Purgatory mountain was made. --Attilios (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that just the reference to Casella, the town in Liguria, is wrong. Casella (not to be confused with Alfredo Casella either) was a musician and a singer, and Dante mentions him at length in Purgatorio, II, 76-117: "Casella mio, per tornar altra volta / là dov' io son, fo io questo vïaggio," / diss' io; "ma a te com' è tanta ora tolta?" (91-93). Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

This article has been renamed from The Divine Comedy to Divine Comedy as the result of a move request.

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move

It's a very minor point, but I think the usage of italicized The Divine Comedy is so uncommon in well-edited literature about Dante's poem that it should be changed. A quick tour through Google Books shows that perhaps the most common form of reference is to the Divine Comedy (which is not too odd, cf. the Bible), but that when italics are used, it is the Divine Comedy (e.g. [3]). I suppose this also means that this article is misnamed (cf. it:Divina Commedia). Of course more punctilious and recent scholars refer rather to the Comedy in English (e.g. Moevs, The Metaphysics of Dante's Comedy, Oxford UP, 2005). Wareh (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you: translated titles of classical and medieval works have tended to be preceded by a lowercase roman "the"--hence, "the Iliad", "the Odyssey", "the Aeneid", "the Romance of the Rose", etc., though one also sees a capped and italicized "the" frequently, particularly in nonscholarly writings. But unless the article is moved to Divine Comedy, I would plump for consistency with the article title (and within the article). Deor (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm converting this to a move discussion, and we'll see if there's any disagreement. Wareh (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No disagreement here. Move and redirect. Carlo (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

None here either Jackkrauser09 (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment The result of this discussion was to move to Divine Comedy --Lox (t,c) 10:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Funny translation

In translation listing, verbatim is incorrect: "Leave (lasciate) every (ogne) hope (speranza), ye (voi) that (ch') enter (intrate)." should be changed to: "Leave (lasciate) every (ogne) hope (speranza), you (voi) whom (ch') enter (intrate)." there is no mean to translate "voi" with "ye", it is not archaic or dialect in Italian. "ch'" is for "che", but it is used for people, not objects, so according to Merriam-Webster it should be "whom". 80.182.67.189 (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You are partially right in what you assert, since, as all the translators know, voi in modern Italian is not an archaism. On the other hand, your English "whom" is a grammatical impossibility. "Who" would be possible but not necessary. Bottom line, there is nothing incorrect about the English translation. Wareh (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, while "ye" is somewhat archaic, it is also plural, and more modern English has no specifically plural "you." Carlo (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)