ROME An article analyzing the work of Danto Alighieri was published in the German daily Frankfurter Rundschau. Instead of summarizing, however, it was an overwhelming critique of the “father of modern Italian” and the author of the Divine Comedy. The Italians didn’t like it.
“Despite his immorality, Shakespeare was a stellar year before Alighieri. Dante had to have an opinion on everything, to subject everything to his own judgment, “writes the literary critic Arno Widmann in an article in the Frankfurter Rundschau. He suggests that although Alighieri has taken Italian to new heights, children in schools have no chance of understanding the verses from Divine comedy, works from 1320.
The above work Divine comedy (The divine Comedy) is Alighieri’s most famous work. The epic poem consists of three separate parts – hell, purgatory and paradise. The main character is the author himself, who has to go through all the parts in an effort to do it again to meet with her love Beatricia Portinari. In hell and purgatory, the hero is accompanied by the famous Roman poet Virgil, and in paradise by Beatrice herself.
Alighieri did not write the book in Latin, as was the custom at the time, but in the folk dialect of Tuscany. It was he who, thanks to Alighieri in particular, became the basis of modern Italian.
The people of Italy feel that they must defend their national poet. Director of the famous Uffizzi Gallery Eike Schmidt (himself of German origin) he said in a radio interview about Widmann that he was ignorant. He also disagrees with the journalist’s claim that no one understands Alighieri.
“Except for a few words and religious concepts, Dante’s speech is still perfectly understood today. But this cannot be said at all about German or English from the 14th century, “said Schmidt.
Italian Minister of Culture Dario Franceschini responded to the article on his Twitter with a quote from himself Divine comedy: “Enough words about them, you see them and come on (Hell, Song Three. Verse 51).” Italian linguist Luca Serianni again described Widmann’s article as childish.
–
–
– .
