Talk:Purple prose

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 10 sections are present.

Unsourced Material

I've removed this text from the article; it's been tagged for needing refs since 2009. Please feel free to re-add with appropriate sourcing! Doniago (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced Material from Origins

Purple dye was rare in the Ancient World, with only the wealthiest able to afford it (this is why purple robes and trim came to be associated with the Emperor and, later, European royalty). During the Roman Republic, social climbers would sew purple cloth onto cheaper clothing to give an appearance of wealth. This was regarded as pretentious and gaudy.^{[citation needed]}

Horace was alluding to this practice, saying that passages marked by ornate rhetoric or elaborate poetic diction were like those "purple patches", ostentatious and inappropriate. Horace's advice was that a work should have a stylistic consistency appropriate to its subject matter.^{[citation needed]}

The Ars Poetica was first translated into English by Queen Elizabeth I (1533–1603), although her translation remained unfinished at the time of her death. A complete translation by Ben Jonson (1572–1637) was first published in 1640, with another by Wentworth Dillon, 4th Earl of Roscommon, (1633–1685) following in 1680. These were all highly influential, with Horace regarded as the ultimate authority on good writing. Through them, the terms "purple patches", "purple passages", and "purple prose" became a standard part of the English critical lexicon.^{[citation needed]}

Intra-article purple prose

The purple prose in the opening is funny and all, but is it appropriate for an encyclopedia? I'm not quite sure of the policy on this. 64.251.57.10 (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A better translation

I found a better -- and much more literal -- translation and put it in. The previous translation was very far from the original Latin. Nevertheless, it's preserved in the notes. But perhaps it's better to place it here in the Talk instead, for the record? Y-barton (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure where the previous one comes from. It exists (with modifications, I think) in the oldest version of this page. Have marked it as possible original research. --mathieu ottawa (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]