Talk:Orlando Furioso

This page is a mess: incorrect translation of foreign words and a fundamental misunderstanding of literature spring to mind.

Agree

Yeah, this definitely needs updated. Emphasis on Angelica as a figure of lust and the effects of lust on rationality need to be included. Story lines of Ruggiero and Bradamant also need to be added. Perhaps a bit of discussion of the transition from Mideval Epic into Renessaince individualism and humanism.

Ariosto is not Boiardo

The work was written in Ferrarese, the dialect used in Ferrara; it was translated into literary Tuscan to be better readable in the rest of Italy.

This sentence is correct for Boiardo, not for Ariosto, as any average manual of Italian Literature can witness. - εΔω 08:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Changes

I'm moving this to the talk page because it's unsourced and not entirely clear to a non-specialist reader what it means (I think I know what it's getting at but not everyone will...): "A work of its time, Orlando shows more clearly the so-called 'culture of contradiction' which also characterized some contemporary works by Erasmus and Rabelais." --Folantin 13:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

worth mentioning name variants

Do you think it's worth mentioning how certain names vary depending on which work you look at? My Italian isn't strong enough to even consider reading Orlando in the original, but I have both the Waldman and Reynolds translations, and certain names vary in spelling among them (e.g. Asfolfo, Astolpho). If you consider other works that retell some of the plot elements, like Bulfinch's Mythology , the spellings vary even more (Ruggiero, Rogero). Just a thought. --Kyoko 16:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've given the names in the original Italian. I think the variants like Astolph and Rogero appear in the older English translations (they probably go back to Harington). I've noticed that some of the main characters have their own articles (and a handful of others, e.g. Rodomonte, could do with their own pages too). Maybe it's best to link them and note the variants there. Alternatively, we can make a note of it in the section on "Translations" (which needs expanding). Cheers. --Folantin 17:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"See also" and characters

Hello, I was wondering if it would be a good idea to list all of the characters who have articles in the "See also" section. I'm unsure because while it would make it convenient to have major characters listed in one spot, it could potentially become unwieldy if many more characters are added. There are many characters in this work, some more prominent than others, but even the number of major characters can get pretty long when you think about it.

It might also be nice to provide links to related literature like Orlando innamorato and The Song of Roland. --Kyoko 14:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I've just written articles on Rodomonte and Ruggiero. I'm not planning to create many more because there are hundreds of characters, as you know. Some of the other main ones probably deserve articles of their own though, e.g. Marfisa, Ferraù, Brunello and Sacripante. Putting a few of the other Roland epics in "See also" would be a good idea too - I've just created an article on Pulci's Morgante which might be included here. --Folantin 14:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I approve of listing all the ones significiant enough to get their own articles. Note that if the list starts to get unwieldy, it could be put in two or three columns to tighten it up. Goldfritha 00:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just created an article for Brunello and Marfisa and Sacripante. --Folantin 14:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Cinque Canti

I added a reference and expanded a bit on the Five Cantos.Stammer 17:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I observe that this link also

uses Cinque Canti with two Cs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure the "Cinque canti" are, or are NOT a part of the final 1532 edition in 46 cantos. (??) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.10.24.209 (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It says "which he decided not to include in the final edition". --Folantin (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

ISBNs and reprints

Hello, when I supplied the ISBNs for the Reynolds translation, I was referring to the older Penguin printing. Penguin has since reprinted the first volume, as far as I can tell, but I have been unable to verify that the second volume was also reprinted. You would think that it would be. Anyway, the new edition (with the black cover) has a different ISBN than the old one. Should both ISBNs be listed, or only the older ones? --Kyoko 13:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

One ISBN; all books have the same problem; add that there is also a reprint. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

This is the English Wikipedia. We should follow English capitalization; I observe that the listed sources all do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I should add that in reverting to the less comprehensible style, Folantin restored several unfortunate phrasings; please be more careful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We follow Italian conventions for Italian titles, French conventions for French titles etc. We also discuss moves before they take place. This appears to have been moved without consensus and fixed so it cannot be moved back to its original title Orlando furioso. --Folantin (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not, and should not be, our policy; it does not contribute to clarity. Go to WP:RM and request an exception for this text, if you must; if this were not the established title in English for this work , it would be a different matter; but the references here confirm the obvious: English uses a capital F for Furioso. It may be worth distinguishing between the original and translation by switching back and forth between minuscule and majuscule, but it seems more trouble than the small amount of light shed will warrant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've worked on dozens of articles with foreign-language titles over the past two years. It's always been the case that we follow the capitalisation conventions of the language in question if it uses the Roman alphabet. You made the move, so it was up to you to bring this to Requested Moves - not me. --Folantin (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I regret hearing that this is an endemic error; this is the first instance I've seen. Works should be under their most common English title, per WP:NAME; as it also says, we are optimized for general readers, not for specialists. Your position appears to be contrary to policy, and, more importantly, to the good of the encyclopedia. Is it your invention, or is there a page where this misfortune should be discussed in general? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How come you've only just noticed this? Have you actually worked on any such articles before? For instance, all the opera pages which use foreign titles employ this convention. "Their most common English title" is irrelevant to works commonly known by their original titles. See this list of works by Balzac for another example [1]. --Folantin (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Cosi fan tutte is its usual English title; this is not so here. "Working on" would seem to be a claim of ownership; I came here as a reader, to find that my comprehension was being blurred by a foreign affectation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How exactly did the use of Italian-language conventions in an Italian-language title "blur" your comprehension? You're telling me that Orlando Furioso was intelligible but Orlando furioso was not? Are you going to go through every page which quotes some German and remove the capitals from common nouns to aid "reader understanding" because we don't follow the same convention in English? "Working on" implies a knowledge of the subject. The moment you start editing an article, you aren't just a reader you're an editor so WP:OWN applies just as well to you. The fact remains, you (or whoever it was) who moved the title should have asked on the talk page first. --Folantin (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I would not alter German text; a position which can only be defended by preposterous hypotheticals clearly has not much else to said for it. But I would hope that we would use the title used for a book in English: Elective Affinities, or The Sorrows of Young Werther, not Wahlverwandtschaften nor The Sorrows of young Werther. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a position defended by common practice as I've already demonstrated. You've made no reply to the evidence I've shown. Judging by your contribution history, you seem to have a obsession with edit-warring over naming conventions (and getting blocked for it). As the last admin to block you said: "Try getting consensus before you make controversial changes". --Folantin (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Demonstrating something requires evidence, of which you have supplied none. (Admittedly, this is a rare case, in which the normal English translation is the original Italian, recapitalized; the only parallel I can think of De Rerum Natura and similar classical texts, where the English capitalization differs from the modern conventions for Latin.)

There is not even any evidence that anyone else agrees with you; until someone does, it is pointless continuing this conversation. It is true that I have occasionally gone too far in dealing with POV-pushing cranks; thank you for the reminder not do so again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The evidence "anyone else agrees with me" is the fact, as I have noted, that all opera titles given in the original follow this practice on Wikipedia (per the conventions used by New Grove). I've worked on many foreign-language titles over the past two years and this convention has always been the one employed. Funnily enough, you are the first person I remember coming across to have argued over this. But given your history, that's hardly surprising. --Folantin (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That proves that you have failed even to understand what my position is. Cosi fan tutte is English usage, so is Orlando Furioso; we should follow in both cases. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny, because Google turns up quite a few Cosí Fan Tuttes and Cosí fan Tuttes. But I suppose instead of following an easily understandable convention (use Italian capitalisation practice for Italian titles when given in the original), we now have to do extensive research on each and every title to see which is the most common form of capitalisation employed by books published in the English-speaking world. Anyway, since I can't be bothered wasting my time learning how to move this page back over the redirect, you've got what you wanted here. Now please go and waste some other people's time with your endless wrangling over naming conventions.--Folantin (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I was done with this an hour ago; but I commend to you the simple rule: "Write in English; do what comes naturally to an English-speaker. When you're not sure, check." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Write in English; do what comes naturally to an English-speaker. When you're not sure, check." Write in English even when it's Italian, the English-speaker's natural form of expression. Hmmm. I'm out of here before my wits fly up to the moon.

E così tutte l'altre avean scritto anco

il nome di color di chi fu il senno.

Del suo gran parte vide il duca franco;

ma molto più maravigliar lo fenno

molti ch'egli credea che dramma manco

non dovessero averne, e quivi denno

chiara notizia che ne tenean poco;

che molta quantità n'era in quel loco.

--Folantin (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dead link

dead link to the English translation of the text 216.15.124.242 (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

fixed, of sorts. Thank you! ---Sluzzelin talk 17:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I'm sorry I have to put another section in here, but the fact is people keep modifying the first line with the italian pronunciation, so I would ask everyone to please refrain from inserting (again) the wrong pronunciation of the name ending in /-o:zo/ ì, which is regional and non-standard. In standard Italian, all esses have to be pronounced /s/ and not /z/, though the use of the latter sound is, unfortunately, a common and deeply rooted mistake in some regions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radrac (talk • contribs) 00:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry I have to reply to you and to explain to everyone the truth, but the fact is that you're convinced that only your regional (Southern) pronunciation is the correct one and that the other, proven to be equally not to say even more correct, is wrong. I said proven, because in the edit summary was added not once but twice this link: the DiPI, one of the most authoritative sources about Italian orthoepy, whose author is the noted professor Luciano Canepari, reports e-v-e-r-y adjective ending by "oso" with the IPA transcription /ozo/ first, and then, as secondary, /oso/. This is not about replacing the second pronunciation with the first, it's just about writing both spellings, as they're both correct. The one acting not according to sources but according to his own opinion, conditioned by his regional (Southern) pronunciation of Italian, is you. As you did here. You're kindly asked to stop with this behaviour of yours. If you ignore things, don't edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.182.111 (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Orlando Furioso. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030210053626/http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Orlando/ to http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Orlando/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Boldface in intro

I removed the boldface from the two translated titles in the intro, per WP guideline: "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold". In my experience this work is almost never referred to by an Englished title; thus the translations are not "significant". I think the Italian non-capitalized title also should not be in boldface, as it is simply a bit of information about Italian usage, but I left it in bold for the time being. Zaslav (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Orlando Furioso

[Moved here from user talk page. --Xover (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)]

Hi, I'm writing about your undoing on the page: Orlando Furioso. I've got to say, that I do not agree with it, since translating it with "Raging" totally exclude the prevalent meaning of "crazy" of the word. Roland, once he heard that Angelica and Medoro are in love, do not simply get angry, as "Raging" would suggest, he get crazy. He cries and screams all day, he runs all night randomly in the wood, he lied down in the grass staring at the sky without moving (and eating or drinking) for 3 days and 3 nights then he undress himself and naked uprooted a lot of huge trees with his bare hands, he swam to Africa etc. etc.. He so much lost his mind that Astolfo literally went to the Moon (where there are all the lost things) riding a hippogryph to recover it. In the poem this is called directly "Pazzia" (Crazyness) and he is called "Pazzo"(Crazy man). Thus, I think that raging is inadequate to describe it, considering that rage is only a minimal (and derivative)part of his madness. Mad I think would be the best choice, since not only it has his main meaning of crazy/mentally ill but it has also the meaning of "very angry", exactly as Furioso. So, would be that okay with you if I reverted your undoing? Thank you very much for your time. --LeonardoSaponara (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@LeonardoSaponara: Thank you for the note; but changes to an article should be discussed on that article's talk page. That lets other interested editors participate in the discussion, and it documents the discussion for future editors. Therefore I've taken the liberty of moving the discussion here.

As to the specific changes: I understand your argument, but I think your understanding of the connotations associated with the word raging is too limited. Consider "a raging fire" or "he was in a rage". In both cases the phrase suggests more than mere anger; both the fire and the person are wild, out of control, unpredictable, extreme. That is, they exhibit the sense of "madness" that you felt was missing.

You'll also find this form ("Raging Roland") in some sources, for example:

• Little, Charles E. (1933). "The Italians and Their Schools". Peabody Journal of Education. 10 (5). Taylor & Francis, Ltd.: 257–280. ISSN 0161-956X. JSTOR 1488505 – via JSTOR. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

Not that most sources bother providing a translation that I have seen; which is perhaps a sign that neither should we, but that's a different question. --Xover (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Xover: Hi, First of all I'd like to address the source. By a quick Google Books search we can see that "The mad Roland" has more or less the same occurrences than "the raging Rolans", so both forms have been used in history at the same time. Now, I think that raging still lack of the proper connotation of madness, at example, your "raging fire" is linked to his meaning of Violence. Let's compare the Merriam-Webster definition of raging and mad. (Bold is mine)

Raging

Mad

Causing great pain or distress VIOLENT,WILD: ·a raging fire EXTRAORDINARY, TREMENDOUS a raging success

1 : arising from, indicative of, or marked by mental disorder —not used technically 2 :a completely unrestrained by reason and judgment : unable to think in a clear or sensible way driven mad by the pain ·mad with jealousy b : incapable of being explained or accounted for a mad decision 3 informal : intensely angry or displeased ·What are you so mad about? ·Everyone was mad about the delay. ·That kind of behavior really gets me mad. ·I'm so mad I could spit. [...] 8 : marked by intense and often chaotic activity : wild ·a mad scramble

You can see yourself what word is more fitting for the madness of ROland. (I'm sorry for bad formatting, I'm still having problem using Wikipedia formatting). --LeonardoSaponara (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I think Xover has a point per expressions like "raging lunatic" etc. Perhaps you can agree on a few good english sources about Orlando Furioso and copy their style. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)