Talk:Ludovico Ariosto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I don't have the time or the inclination to fix the rather severe stylistic errors in this page. It almost seems like it was mechanically translated from Italian and lightly proofed by someone who speaks English only as a second or third language. I think I caught most of the worst grammatical and spelling errors, however, and I think all of the sentences at least make sense, now.

Is there any chance we can have a link to the original Italian article? I could help with editing. [Scarlett McQueen]

There's a link to the Italian down the left column (with the other languages links) or it:Ludovico Ariosto. Is that what you are looking for? John (Jwy) 20:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian epic?[edit]

I really don't know why this has been described as a "Christian" epic. This isn't Paradise Lost. Yes, like (virtually) every Italian of his time Ariosto was a Christian, although AFAIK not an exceptionally devout one. Perhaps the editor is confusing Orlando furioso with the other great Italian epic of the 16th century, Tasso's Gerusalemme liberata, where Christian themes play a markedly more prominent role. On the other hand, Orlando certainly belongs to the genre of "romantic epic" and is described as such on the title page of Barbara Reynolds' translation. --Folantin (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Romance, not "romantic". There is a major difference. It is part Romance, but you cannot say something is a romantic epic, unless it was something similar to what Keats wrote in Hyperion. 2. This is a -Christian- epic. Quint describes it as such. Greene describes it as such. Dozens of major critics on epics describe it as such. Do you honestly think I chose the name "Ottava Rima" because I don't have a clue about Ariosto? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Lets cut to the chase. Christ is a major figure in Orlando furioso. Michael battles Satan who is helping the Saracens. God is involved quite often. To not call it a Christian work is OR. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not talking about Romanticism. "Romantic epic" is the critical term used to describe Boiardo and Ariosto's Orlando poems as well as Spenser's Faerie Queene. They used material from Medieval romances and had multiple plot lines (unlike Classical epics). Look up any decent book on Spenser for further details. Orlando furioso is notably absent from Chateaubriand's review of Christian epics in Génie du christianisme, whereas Dante's Divina Commedia and Tasso's Gerusalemme are all present and correct. Christ is a major figure in Orlando furioso? That's news to me and the index of characters in Reynolds' translation seems to confirm my impression. Saint Michael makes a cameo when he is sent to bring Silence and Discord to aid the Christians besieged in Paris, but any comparison between Ariosto and Tasso will show you how much more extensive and serious the latter's use of divine machinery is. Tasso is a devout Catholic poet, Ariosto is more ironic and imbued with the Renaissance humanism of the time. His hermits are just as likely to be lecherous as pious and the poet has great fun at the expense of the Donation of Constantine when Astolfo visits the moon. Calling this a "Christian epic" is giving the term undue weight. You might just as well call Othello a "Christian tragedy" because it takes place against the backdrop of the wars between the Christian Venetians and the Ottomans. BTW I'm not sure how user names are supposed to grant their bearers expertise in any given area.--Folantin (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
1. Romantic is for the Romantics. Romance is not Romantic. There is no adjective for Romance, because it is a genre. 2. If you think Christ isn't in Orlando furioso, then you obviously have not read the work. 3. Lets look at the scholarship (because it is obvious that you didn't): You could easily pick up Sergio Zatti's The Quest for Epic or David Quint's Epic and Empire to see how this is not "Romantic" epic, but is a cross between Romance and Epic, which are completely different. The hybrid genre, if you want to give it a name, is officially "syncretic romance epic". Now, about Christianity: (from Gregory's From Many Gods to One) "The poem's supernatural cast includes ghosts, giants, monsters, fays, demons, sorcerers, Proteus, God, the archangel Michael, and a spate of personifications". Now, did we forget the many stanzas with St John the Evangelist as a character? Now, why is it called Christian? (Gregory, p. 109) "In the Furioso God backs the Christians and the devil backs the Saracens". It is an epic from the Christian perspective. I could go on. I have 9 books of epic theory on my desk currently, but it is obvious that you have no ground to stand on. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Look, there's a good reason why Barbara Reynolds, perhaps the most famous modern translator of Orlando furioso into English (and a lecturer in Italian at Cambridge University), subtitled her version of the poem "A Romantic Epic by Ludovico Ariosto". If you've never come across the term "romantic epic" then I suggest you familiarise yourself with English-language criticism on Italian Renaissance poetry and its English equivalents. I believe there's a chapter in Graham Hough's A Preface to "The Faerie Queene" called "Spenser and the Romantic Epic" which might serve as a good introduction. Likewise, the rest of your reply just shows you haven't read my previous comments carefully enough. --Folantin (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Hahaha. Translators do not equal critics nor those who understand genres. Sorry, but using Barbara Reynolds shows a severe misunderstanding of genre classifications or scholarship. There are people who spend their whole careers with this. Reynolds was not one. And I think I have made it perfectly clear who does not understand the term. Zatti is the world class expert on Italian epic right now. He uses the term that Quint uses, who is the top New Historical expert on epics. I'm sorry, but this is a fight you lost when you claimed that the work wasn't Christian. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
And Folantin, here is a hint from a literary critic: use of the term "romantic" in literary criticism is reserved for one specific area. Anyone who uses it in another way is using it improperly. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Tell that to the authors of The Spenser Encyclopedia who seem quite au fait with the term "romantic epic". --Folantin (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
With thousands of people publishing on Spenser every year, one person making such a blatant error does not mean a thing. I have already provided you the correct term above. Also, I would love to point out that your dear Barbara is only a famous translator because the poem's length has discouraged other translators. If you compared her work with others, you would see the inferiority. She kept tune instead of meaning. The Italian is superior in all forms and always will be. I see you have already backed away from trying to claim that the work is no longer Christian. Now we are arguing over your use of an improper and unaccepted term. "Syncretic romance epic" is the proper term. Wikipedia only uses reliable terms that are accepted, not neologisms used by random authors. Here is a start for you. You can see the use and other sources that use the term. Then you can search them and go from there. Here is more for use of "romance epic" without the syncretic (the two are the same). Its not "romantic" except by amateurs. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Um, it contains Christian elements (some of which I pointed out). How reverential is Ariosto's attitude compared to (say) Tasso? It also contains pagan elements (which religion is Proteus from?), and - above all - Carolingian and Arthurian elements. Describing it squarely as a "Christian epic" is giving the adjective undue weight (this would not be the case with Tasso or Spenser). Reynolds was a lecturer in Italian at Cambridge University, whereas (IIRC) you didn't know what the word basta meant.--Folantin (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. The definition of a Christian epic is a work that relies on Christians as the protagonists. Thats it. As Zatti's The Quest for Epic reveals, Tasso received his understanding of the Christian epic from Ariosto then made it his own. And anyone can be a lecturer at Cambridge. Cambridge has many hacks and the rest. And giving an adjective undue weight? Sure, if you want to deny actual scholarship. And the word "basta" doesn't exist. The fact that you are in denial about actual scholarship, relying on two bit hack writers, and trying to make a claim that an epic in which Christians are battling Saracens is not a Christian epic, is rather appaling. Now, if you would like to continue this, I suggest not. You have no basis under WP:V or WP:RS, nor do your comments fit the conditions of WP:NPOV. You have already been proved wrong by direct quotes from scholarship. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Note for third parties - Barbara Reynolds is a scholar in Italian language, not genre nor epics as a genre. Sergio Zatti is an Italian who is. The fact that the above user is trying to size one up against the other is troubling to say the least. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
"And the word 'basta' doesn't exist". Basta il valor che con la spada mostri. "Anyone can be a lecturer at Cambridge..." I'm sorry, this is getting too weird for me - something seems to be lost round here. Maybe someone should organise a search party on the moon. Ciao! --Folantin (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Do you not understand the difference between "English" and "non-English" by chance? How about the fact that lecturer is a title that means very little. The fact that you don't even seem to know Sergio Zatti's name is troubling to say the least. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Zatti writes in Italian. In Italian the word for this kind of work is romanzo. As The Reader's Encyclopedia says: "romanzo (romance). Italian term for the genre of the romantic epic (sic!!!!!). In Italy this took the form of a long poem in ottava rima [...] the romanzi reached their artistic peak in the work of Boiardo and Ariosto, who wrote on the Orlando theme." (BTW Please cut out the circumstantial ad hominem attacks on scholars who don't fit your world view/ you can't be bothered to read. Barbara Reynolds, for one, is a scholar of Italian language and literature and has published a book on Dante, for example).
Now please explain the non-existence of the word "basta". --Folantin (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Except that he also knows English and made sure that the term was "Romance Epic" and not "Romantic Epic". Romantic epics is a reserved term for epics written by the Romantic poets. Didn't you even bother to look at the google books? And she is not a genre scholar. How do you not understand that? Barbara Reynolds is not a scholar on literature, and it is ridiculous for you to try and claim such. One book on Dante surely does not even meet WP:PROF notability for being a scholar. And for your other point, "basta" is Italian. Its not English. Therefore, its not a word. This is en.wikipedia. This is not Italian Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
"And for your other point, 'basta' is Italian. Its not English. Therefore, its not a word". Brilliant logic! Italian doesn't use words. "This is not Italian Wikipedia". Which is why all the authorities I've used are English-language works which employ common English usage in which "romanzo" is generally "romantic epic" (plus it appears Zatti didn't translate his own book into English). The term "romantic" is merely an adjective from "romance" and has many applications (or will you be suing Mills and Boon?). Romanticism as a movement cropped up rather late in the day and was partially inspired by these Italian romantic epics (for instance, Byron translated one canto of Pulci and used ottava rima in Don Juan, a work which has quite a lot of Ariostan irony and irreverence). Likewise, the word "Gothic" can apply to Wulfila's translation of the Bible, Chartres cathedral, Walpole's Castle of Otranto and (no doubt) Marilyn Manson. If you really want to make a distinction when talking about Hyperion then use a capital "r" ("a Romantic epic") as many authors do. --Folantin (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
No "authorities" use romantic epic. "romantic" is not an adjective of romance. Romance is its own adjective. I linked to google books to show the hundreds of books on "Romance Epics", not "Romantic Epics" unless they are dealing with the epics of Blake, Wordsworth, Keats, Shelley and Byron. I am a Romantic critic. I also specialize in epics. I know the basis of epic as a genre. I know the terminology. The fact that you quoted the wrong scholars, used the wrong terms, and still never admitted that Orlando furioso is about Christians vs "Pagans", and in epic classification falls under "Christian epic", is problematic. I have already quoted from the authorities in the field. If you are unwilling to listen, then fine. That will just sow that you are not here for the best of this project. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
"No 'authorities' use romantic epic." E pur si muove. I've given you a list of books by anglophone scholars who do use that term. But, according to you, they are all "hacks" and ignoramuses and not real scholars - unlike yourself. A perfect illustration of the "No true Scotsman" argument. "'romantic' is not an adjective of romance". But, according to the OED, "romantic" means "characterized by or suggestive of or given to romance." --Folantin (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Folantin, this is the last thing I will be saying to you on the matter. As I pointed out from the google books, the term is "Romance Epic". You can click on it and look a the hundreds of titles. Romance is also an adjective. Romantic is a term used for the late 18th/early 19th century movement. Anyone who works within the epic genre knows about this. They know that the terms mean two different things: romance means an open ended quest or story that is primarily focused on mortals and romantic means the idealization of a thought or image. They are very different in their meanings. Some Romantics relied on Romance. These are separate and unique terms. Harold Bloom uses them as separate and unique terms. Thomas Greene uses them as separate and unique terms. M. H. Abrams uses them as separate and unique terms. All major scholarship uses them as separate and unique terms. Furthermore, your "OED definition" is using romance meaning love, not Romance the literary term. This is a literary discussion. You work only within literary definitions. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, try looking for the term "romantic epic" within the Spenser Encyclopedia, for instance. I suspect there's very little difference in practice between "romantic epic", "romance epic" (or even "epic romance"), but it looks like a lot of scholars have been able to understand and use the term "romantic epic" without getting their knickers in a twist. No doubt their works should be put on the Index, the scallywags. "Folantin, this is the last thing I will be saying to you on the matter." Seeing is believing...--Folantin (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Ottava, perhaps you might consider there to be a difference between Romantic and romantic? At any rate, "Christian" certainly is misleading. Moreschi (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Christian is misleading how? Charlemange was not Christian? He was not battling against the "pagan" Saracens? God does not favor Charlemange? St John the Evangelist does not make an important entrance into the plot and talk about Jesus and destiny? Really, I'm at a loss as to how you can say this is not a Christian work, especially when the major epic critics declare it as such. Your comment seems to show as little understanding about the topic and the scholarship about the topic as Folantin's claims of conflating two genres that are three hundred years apart because of some shoddy fringe source made an error. Come up with some evidence from a reliable source to back up your claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Huh? Sorry, fringe how? We've got a whole article on Romance (genre), FBS! As for the rest, this has already been covered above. Moreschi (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Romance, not "Romantic". Romance is open ended plot structures that deal with humans questing. Romantic is idealization of ideas and theories. They are two very different things. Furthermore, it is fringe because Romantic is an improper term for this and pushing it as the proper term because of two minor people who aren't certified against hundreds of literary critics that are is fringe science. Genre studies is a science. here is the link. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't we just call it an epic?[edit]

Given that this is a little teensy bit in the lead, why not just call this poem an epic, without further qualification? Is there a reason why the first sentence of the article has to define exactly what type of epic poem the Orlando Furioso is? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, why not? This has been pretty amusing but it's starting to drag now. --Folantin (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to give way to a single user who refuses to listen or to look things up. I admit that "romantic epic" may give the uninitiated reader a little start, and should be properly introduced, in a way that perhaps assumes not everyone is familar with the term (e.g. "a prime example of the genre that came to be known as 'romantic epic'", or similar). Naively, if you read "romantic epic" compositionally, you are confused, because of course Ariost was not "a Romantic". It needs to be made clear that the compound "romantic epic" refers to precisely the genre of 16th century poetry under discussion here. It is one thing to struggle with the term a little or consider how it may be better explained, it is quite another to, as "Ottava Rima" did, make a huge fuss even after the case as been spelled out for you. Show some good grace, man, and admit that you have learned something new. --dab (𒁳) 09:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

To add to that: "The term 'romantic poetry' was first used of Ariosto and Tasso and the mediaeval romances from which their themes and 'machinery' were derived. It occurs in this sense in France in 1669, and England in 1674, and certainly Thomas Warton understood it to mean this when he wrote the introductory dissertation to his History of English Poetry (1774), 'The Origin of Romantic Fiction in Europe'." [1] (BTW Britannica also refers to Orlando furioso as a "romantic epic" [2]).--Folantin (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The OED examples (under 4d) shed some further light on the confusion

  • 1812 H. C. ROBINSON Jrnl. I. 84 We proceeded to Coleridge's first lecture... He spoke of religion, the spirit of chivalry,..and a classification of poetry into ancient and romantic.
  • 1833 W. MAGINN in Fraser's Mag. VIII. 64 ‘The noticeable man [sc. Coleridge] with large grey eyes’--the worthy old Platonist--the founder of the romantic school of poetry.

so, it seems no coincidence that Coleridge is both seen as the originator (although according to Folantin he isn't, really) of the terminology "romantic epic" applied to Ariosto as used by Folantin, and in turn called the "founder of the romantic [i.e. Romanticist] school of poetry" (I am saying, it was the Romantics who called the romantic romantic, which is largely why they were themselves called "Romantics"). Ottava Rima isn't to be blamed for being confused by this, only for then being an ass about it. --dab (𒁳) 09:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This [3] even says outright that "The Romantic period gets its name from the influence of Renaissance romances such as Ludovico Ariosto's Orlando furioso...". I hinted as much five days ago: "Romanticism as a movement cropped up rather late in the day and was partially inspired by these Italian romantic epics (for instance, Byron translated one canto of Pulci and used ottava rima in Don Juan, a work which has quite a lot of Ariostan irony and irreverence)." --Folantin (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
yes, but I am saying, it was also the 18th to 19th century "Romantics" who made "romance" a term relating to "fantastic/heroic quest literature": Originally, "romance" was a purely linguistic term, meaning "written in a Latinate vernacular". The Romance (genre) article is missing this, but I think it was Marie de France whose works were the first to be called "romance" by contemporaries, because in her day (12th c.!) it was rather exceptional to write in the vernacular. --dab (𒁳) 11:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. In fact, I was just reading Nicholas Ostler's Ad Infinitum: A Biography of Latin the other week. On pp.178-79 he describes how the literary term "romance" was derived from the linguistic term romanice ("popular language derived from Latin"). --Folantin (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann - the point is this. There are actual "romantic" epics. As mentioned in the source that Folantin produced on the fringe noticeboard, these were responses to neoclassicism. Logically, it would be impossible for Ariosto et al to respond to a period that happened long after their deaths. But that doesn't matter. The term "Romance" and term "Romantic" are divided clearly within the critical field. I think it is also misleading to use the term "romantic" when even Wikipedia has it go to Romanticism because that is where it belongs. We have two unique words, and Romance Epic is used within hundreds of books. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

...and the term "romantic epic" is used by The Cambridge History of Italian Literature to refer to works by Pulci, Boiardo and Ariosto [4] (p.243). Everything has been explained to you at enormous length but you don't seem willing or able to understand it. --Folantin (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Your link does not use the term in capitalized manner, nor uses it as a technical term. Thus, your link does not support your claims. Furthermore, as seen on page 238, "romantic" is used as "romantic-chivalric", and thus does not mean "Romantic" but is one half of a descriptive whole. Finally, this is not a "dictionary" of the term nor provides an actual definition. It is a minor use without any actual basis behind it. It is also not a technical work put together by epic genre scholars. It is a summary work bby critics that do not specialize in the area. Thus, it fails under WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. Please reread these two sections before trying to use a work improperly for support. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to chip in here, I agree that it's accurate to call Orlando Furioso a romantic epic; I suggested calling it merely an "epic" as a way to work around the argumentative tendency of a particular editor. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a vote. WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:FRINGE demand that only scholarly sources based on weight are allowed to have the decision. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Connoisseurs of irony might want to check out Ottava's philosophy of editing (and even perhaps leave comments there). Note that he appears to be under some kind of 0RR limitation so these endless talk page discussions are going to have little bearing on mainspace content. --Folantin (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actual uses of the term Romantic Epic[edit]

Since Folantin selectively chooses which sources to use and ignores the large majority, here is a list of sources that actually use the term correctly and are respected within academia: 1, [ttp:// 2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12].

Or, for more on just Keats and his use of the Romantic Epic, please see the references at User:Ottava_Rima/Keats.

As for the term "Romance Epic", which is the appropriate term, please see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Tobias Gregory's book, David Quint's book, Thomas Greene's book, etc, or any of the over 7,000 hits in google books for a lot more. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

it has already been granted that "romance epic" is acceptable too. Hint, you need to google for "romantic epic" (in quotes), not for +romantic +epic. sheesh.

Find sources: "romantic epic" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
Find sources: "romance epic" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

note how Ariosto comes up right at the top in the proper seach for "romantic epic" on google books. Sheesh, it is pathetic how this has become just about being right. You are right in claiming that "romance epic" is fine too. You were wrong all along in claiming that use of "romantic epic" is wrong. So there. If it makes you happy, we can use "romance epic" (which I grant is less ambiguous) and move on. --dab (𒁳) 21:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The hit under "romantic epic" for Orlando comes from Reynold's application of the term as a subtitle to the work (Furthermore - hit number four is for Romanticism and hit five is for a later epic, and this does not involve consideration of the authors or their background). This is purely her doing, and, as I pointed out above, her qualifications is in translation and not genre identity. Please see Geogre's response on his talk page for another literary critic's view. I am sure Awadewit and Giano II would probably also agree on Geogre's assessment. However, seeing as how people have thrown the word "troll" around, have stated that literary theory is just "opinion", and other views, I feel that experts would have very little influence in the current state of things. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
"This is purely her doing." "Dove, Diavolo, Messer Rima, avete pigliato tante coglionerie?" or, in plain English, what utter bollocks. I've given loads of examples of reliable sources which use the term "romantic epic" to refer to Orlando, including The Cambridge History of Italian Literature. The only reason I would agree to the change is to put an end to your relentless childishness. --Folantin (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
As I have pointed out, your sources were disqualified either because you mistook what they said or you are not linking to people who are qualified in the area. Please see User talk:Geogre#A_request for another opinion on the matter by another person with expertise in the area like myself. If you are still unsatisfied, then I don't know what to tell you. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

really. So which does The Cambridge History of Italian Literature p. 243 fall under, "mistook what they said" or "not qualified in the area"? The upshot is that once it is clear that the context is 16th century Italian literature, there isn't the slightest problem with using "romantic", while it can be ambiguous if the context isn't clear. Oh wait, you've let us know that it is 'a minor use without any actual basis behind it.' Wow. Let's toss Cambridge, then, and turn to Ottava Rima instead from now on. Ottava, you may argue that it may be better to use "romance" for this reason, but your continued insistence that Folantin's sources are somehow invalid is really childish. If you think that Geogre is on your side, how about you just sit back and let Geogre talk to Folantin. I know both as erudite and reasonable, and I have no doubt they will have a consensus between them in five minutes. --dab (𒁳) 16:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've been saying for days now, I believe the terms "romantic epic" and "romance epic" are interchangeable (and I've even provided an example where the two terms are used in the same book, i.e. The Spenser Encyclopedia). If Wikipedia readers (and at least one editor) can't handle the ambiguity of "romantic epic/Romantic epic", then I have no problem with the use of "romance epic" in this article instead. I won't change it myself but anyone else who wants to make the edit has my permission to do so (although I'd advise against "Romance epic" with a capital "r" as that might imply any epic written in a Romance language). --Folantin (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Dbachmann - the Cambridge History is a broad history of many different works. Those who put it together are not specialists in genre studies. They are also not specialists in epic in particular. There are thousands of variations, and these generic books cannot be head as an authority on specific topics. They are used for introductions only. They cannot override the claims put forth by the top scholars in the field listed above, "16th century context", the works were not called "romantic". As pointed out above, the term was coined by Coleridge, who was an 18th century individual. Thus, logic does not allow for such time travel to happen.
And if Folantin is "erudite" as you say, this has clearly not shown, especially with her choice of sources. However, others can testify that my degrees in the area are enough to verify my background, whereas Folantin has demonstrated no credibility on or off wikipedia. So your argument based on her authority fails. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Folantin - I find your comments rather absurd, especially since "romance epic" was provided from the very beginning as an alternative and you chose to attack me instead. Actions above words, so if you truly believe in it, change it yourself. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Whatever. You go ahead and change it if it makes you happy.--Folantin (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
My dear, you are the one who wants to put an alternative to "Christian" as an adjective. I gave you a proper term without any problems and you started a drawn out fight. You can choose to take the alternative or not. There is no position for me to take the alternative for you. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
No, this is really flogging a dead hippogriff...--Folantin (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
If that is the case, why did you click here and not here? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:CITE should be possible to grasp for everybody. We have references calling it a "romantic epic" and references calling it a "romance epic". The two terms in this context are exactly synonymous, and it is a matter open to discussion which we should prefer. Was any source cited that calls it a "Christian epic" on top of being a romance-tic one? If anyone is interested, the article could say "Fichter believes that even Ariosto's Orlando furioso is fundamentally a Christian epic"[5]. This is an opinion, and it amounts to OR to state such an opinion in Wikipedia's voice. Note the "even", which I submit would suggest that such a classification is far from obvious... Arguing that "the protagonists are Christian, hence it is a Christian epic" is silly, and the very definition of WP:SYN: on the same grounds, we could call it a "Frankish epic" and any number of other things. --dab (𒁳) 19:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"believes" is a term used in criticism to acknowledge an interpretation. Interpretations of evidence are not "OR", especially when they are used by highly qualified experts. The fact that you applied an on wikipedia term to something off wikipedia is rather unsettling. Your then attempt to claim that relying on multiple sources describing it as a Christian work and explaining how the Christian God operates within the work as a substitute for Classical gods (which is one major aspect of "epic" as per Greene et al) would be "Synthesis" shows a lack of insight into what that source actually says. To be blunt: Original Research is what an editor here says without a source saying it instead. Synthesis is taking two statements (green is good and trees are green) then combining them together to form a new idea (trees are good). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

wth, is there any point to this any more? You have been invited to change "romantic epic poem" to "romance epic poem" in the lead. You haven't done so. Are you here to improve articles, or just for a chat? If the above is your idea of a friendly chat, I don't wonder if you feel a bit lonely. Now can we please mind WP:TALK and stick to the point. If you want to do the "romance" edit, go ahead. If you don't, just drop it. If you want to discuss Fichter's or anyone else's opinions in detail, kindly edit the Orlando Furioso article. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 09:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we're dealing with some kid punching above his weight judging by this [6]. Ottava should really learn the distinction between poetry and prose before moving on to hairsplitting (non-)arguments about "romantic epic" vs. "romance epic" and accusing bona fide scholars who dare to use the former of being "two bit hack writers". Hint: Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur is not a work of "Renaissance poetry", at least not last time I looked; Langland's Piers Plowman is written in alliterative verse, not prose (though much of it is kind of prosaic). Hey, whatever, Ottava has had his "fix" of attention for over a week. He failed to goad anyone into calling him a "time-wasting moron" thus enabling him to cash in his "civility chips" at ANI, but you can't have everything...Now he can either change the "offending" word or move on.--Folantin (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Le Morte d'Arthur slides in just at the very beginning of the Renaissance. Most scholars tend to mark the end of "Middle English" and the beginning of "Modern English" after the death of Chaucer and just before Caxton was publishing. Along with de Word, Caxton's influence on the Renaissance is incomparable within English literature. Langland was clearly a slip as per this. But regardless, your actions are in direct violation of WP:HARASS. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused. You and Folantin agree that it should be changed but then mock me because I am unwilling to revert another? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Le Morte d'Arthur is a masterpiece of late medieval prose. Neither I nor Dab cares whether it's "romantic epic" or "romance epic", as both are equally accurate. You, however, seem excessively bothered by this issue and have spent thousands of words arguing about it. The solution is in your hands. --Folantin (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
How odd. You attacked me before for taking a 0RR stance, and yet you are trying to force me into breaking that? Why? And why deflect from your own unwillingness to change it yourself by attacking me? And "medieval prose"? Not at all. That shows a clear lack of understanding of the evolution of Middle English to Modern English. It would also surprise historians to be told that the time after the establishment of the printing press (wood block and the rest) in Europe post 1420s was still "medieval". Most historians end "Medieval" with Chaucer's death. Even looking at Columbus's expedition happening around the same time as the publication of Malory's work, which was only a few decades after the earliest attributed date, would make your claims seem rather absurd. But yes, according to you, printing presses, modern English, and Columbus are all medieval. Thats lovely. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

“Romantic epic” is a perfectly respectable term, commonly and accurately applied to works such as Orlando Furioso. I see Prof. Zatti frequently invoked in the discussion above. He may be an authority on Italian epic, but he is certainly not an authority on the English language, which is the point at issue. His book on epic is translated “by Sally Hill with Dennis Looney”, so what is actually being invoked is their usage. Like many other scholars, C.S. Lewis uses the term, “romantic epic” e.g. in the Preface to Paradise Lost (where he speaks of “the romantic or chivalrous epic of Boiardo, Ariosto and Spenser”). Pedantry may be irritating but it's only useful when it is accurate. Not when it's used to create a mare’s nest.Ettormo (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to claim a term "Romantic Epic" because the word "romantic" and the word "epic" merely appear in the same sentence. Furthermore, C. S. Lewis is not a philologist or a structuralist critic that specializes in the classification of genres. A Romantic Epic is a term used for the Romantic Poets. The epics of Southey, Keats, Wordsworth, etc, are -very- different than Spenser or Ariosto. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Yawn. "Romantic epic" is commonly applied to Orlando and other Renaissance works [7]. Professor Peter Marinelli uses it in The Cambridge History of Italian Literature (1999). End of story. --Folantin (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The Prelude is a Romantic Epic. I have already proven that the term does not connect as shown above. I have also proven how the google book trick was already wrong above. 223 hits specifically with The Prelude and "Romantic Epic". As for your "hits", the first one is a false positive and from 1912 before the genres were standardize. The second doesn't use the term (hence quote marks). etc. What is delightful is that when you look further you find the Romantic poets included there as they were influenced by Ariosto. The term "Romance Epic" does not have such problems. I have demonstrated time after time that -Romantic Epic- is properly used for the epics of the Romantic Poets and Romance Epic is used for epics that are partially Romances. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Nope. You've demonstrated time and time again you have no idea what you are talking about here. Your provincial focus on the literature of the English Romantic period doesn't help. You don't know more about Italian Renaissance poetry than Marinelli, for instance. "Romantic epic" is a term commonly applied to Orlando and other Italian works of the period. It may also be applied to later works of the Romantic era, but English Romantics don't "own" the term. Pedantic and wrong is not a good combination. --Folantin (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
By saying "Nope" and attacking me after I put forth a very strong argument that contradicts you, you have entered into the area of tendentious editing. I would immediately stop if I were you. And you don't know what I've published in Italian Renaissance poetry, especially since my background is in Christian Epic and I studied under many of the current major scholars in the field. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah right. You obviously know more than Professor Marinelli et al. about Ariosto then. Excuse me if I don't bow down to your authority as then I'd have to believe that: basta is the Italian for "bastard"; Malory's Morte d'Arthure is a work of poetry; the Persian Empire lasted from 600 AD to 1800 AD, among other gems. You know, you'd do a lot better if you just dropped the belief that you are infallible and admitted you are wrong every now and then. --Folantin (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Peter Marinelli is not an epic scholar. As has been pointed out, genre is a different field of study. Now someone like Tobias Gregory or David Quint -are- Epic scholars and have already been used to prove you wrong. I find it charming how you keep fighting by using people who aren't experts in the field. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
More forum-shopping? It's already been to one noticeboard. --Folantin (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Making claims of "forum shopping" when 1. that was 9 months ago and 2. you argued that it didn't belong in that forum because it was not a "fringe" issue, shows that you are acting inappropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah right. Let's get into wiki-lawyering. I'll stick with The Cambridge History of Italian Literature and hundreds of other works, grazie. --Folantin (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
A generalized encyclopedia by non specialists cannot be used to make claims about a very specialized field, especially when it is contradicted by reliable sourced specialists. You have failed to show how you would differentiate between the Romance/Epics and the Epics by the Romantic poets, so you have no grounds to not have a strict differentiation. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Marinelli is a specialist in Italian Renaissance poetry. If "romantic epic" is good enough for him and Cambridge University Press, it's good enough for Wikipedia.--Folantin (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Renaissance poetry does not equate to epic studies. There are specialists journals for it. Regardless, Zatti even has a book that translates as the Romance Epic. Il Furioso Fra Epos e Romanzo. Zatti is -the- world renown scholar on Italian epic. Tobias Gregory is just -one- of his proteges that I have quoted so far. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Zatti's book is translated. Marinelli writes in English. It is perfectly ridiculous to say that Marinelli is not qualified to write about Ariosto. --Folantin (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
No one claimed that Marinelli cannot write about Ariosto. He just can't contradict a long series of specialists who have trained in the area and are world renown for being specialists in the area. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Nowhere have you pointed to any academic debate where the term "Italian romantic epic" was consigned to oblivion by a consensus of scholars. --Folantin (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I have linked you plenty of sources from current scholars and notable scholars on the genre of epic as a whole who use "romance epic", and I have linked you to plenty of sources from current scholars and notable scholars (such as Harold Bloom) who use "romantic epic" for epics of the romantic poets. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
And I've linked plenty of scholars who use the term "romantic epic" to refer to Orlando. Now show me where there is a genuine academic debate over this issue. --Folantin (talk) 09:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I have posted many that call it a "Romance Epic". You seem unwilling to have a clear difference between the Romantic Poets writing epic and a Romance work that has epic traits. Is there any particular, policy based reason for that? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I've had enough of this. It's been amusing to see how far you would take it but...--Folantin (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Category: Catholic poet[edit]

This is not about "Christian epic" but in a way related to it. It makes sense to use this category for Dante Alighieri, Torquato Tasso and others who espressed in their works central concepts of Christian theology; but Ariosto - as far as I know - never did it. I suggest to cancel the attribution to this category. --Broletto (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, looking at the category page for Catholic poets [9], this should be for figures who are famous for composing religious verse and/or converts to Catholicism (e.g. Gerard Manley Hopkins). Simply being brought up in a Catholic country at a time when virtually everybody in Western Europe was baptised into the Catholic Church isn't enough. Ariosto isn't famous for his piety. --Folantin (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Andrew Frichter stated otherwise. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I regret my deep ignorance: couldn't find anything about Andrew Frichter. Can you please help me? Thanks.--Broletto (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Fichter. See above. in the first few sections and you will see the discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I should read again that discussion.--Broletto (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Citations required[edit]

This article has less number of citations kindly provide proper citations and try to improve article according to Wikipedia policies and if you allow my self I can certainly help you in expanding it. Thanks.-- Faizan Munawar Varya chat contributions 10:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ludovico Ariosto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)