Talk:Gargantua and Pantagruel

[Resolved] Untitled
at time of writing, no "shit" is found in the article Untitled50reg (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

If the "epic journey" really "ends with Pantagruel producing a large shit," can we use a different word? This is probably wrong, however. Someone should check this and fix it.

[Resolved] "Shit"
at time of writing, no "shit" is found in the article Untitled50reg (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The work deals with bodily functions and excrement rather frankly, in fact the Raffel translation uses that specific word constantly. This spoiler could simply be in the satiric spirit of Rabelais. However, there is key information missing from the entry. I went in and worked on the first half of the first paragraph a bit, adding some of the background information, but the article still needs to be cleaned up. I personally haven't finished book five, so I don't feel comfortable editing things I've not yet encountered.

New Voice Here: I'm not quite sure how to contribute to this discussion, but I do feel it important to say something, as the article as presently constructed seems weak. And these remarks might lead it in the direction of making it weaker. My concerns: Blunt talk about bodily functions, usually using the vulgar terms, is characteristic of Rabelais (the quintessence of what we call Rabelaisian humor), especially in the sections where he is satirizing what he considered the more primitive old ways of what we now call the Moyen Age (Middle Ages). It would be preposterous and wrongheaded to soften the language, although you may choose excerpts judiciously to give a flavor of the writing without including FCC taboo words, if that's an important value to preserve. For example, the beginning of the prologue to to Gargantua (the second book about the family, but published second after Pantagruel), the French would translate something like: "Illustrious drunkards and you, precious syphilitics (it is to you and no other that I dedicate my work), ..." (my translation into English of the modern French translation by Guy Demerson from the Renaissance French [Paris: 1975-1996, Editions de Seuil]).

Zadig Shilon writing here : totally agree with the previous paragraph. "Correct" the word "shit" in the name of our stinking XXIst century's so-called moral standards, and you'll be acting just like the Church and the Sorbonne which accused Rabelais of blasphemy, when, actually, his only wrong was to be an enemy of all kinds of bigots. However (sorry I hadn't read the first paragraph concerning the Fifth Book), the sentence "The epic journey ends with Pantagruel producing a large shit, perhaps the ultimate commentary on the subjects of politics and religion which the books satirize" is completly wrong. The Fifth Book ends with the Chapter XLVII called "Comment avoir prins congé de Bacbuc delaissent l'Oracle de la Bouteille" ("How, after having taken leave of Bacbuc, they quit the Oracle of the Bottle"). I.e., the final speech of Bacbuc.

[Resolved] his burt
burth - birth

Bakhtin "Analysis"
The Bakhtin analysis on this page does absolutely nothing to give the reader a sense of the common interpretation of Rabelais's novels. Instead, it's an exhaustingly dry and very specific discussion that appears to have much more to do with Bakhtin's theories than with the works that are the topic of the entry. It should either be removed or put into a context that clarifies its relevance.
 * I agree with this. Analysis of other interpreters is needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC).


 * I agree as well, but I don't see the need to keep it around either. It's such an abstract analysis that it belongs in a dissertation, not an encyclopedic article. The information people go seeking for in an encyclopedia should be much more general than that.Maxamodos (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Bakhtinian analysis is quite integral to Bakhtin's theories, and his analysis of this work is a large part of his definition of the carnivalesque. I definitely agree that his take shouldn't be the only one, and also that the current treatment is far too theoretical for this article. I'd like to rework and move most of that section to the carnivalesque article (also a pretty weak one), then leave a simple explanation on this page. Does anyone have leads on other interpretations to diversify the section? Avram (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do go ahead and do that. The Bakhtinian section reads like psycobabble. I understand that some parts of the book satirise scholasticism. Should that be mentioned? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC).


 * I also agree with this. If any one Rabelais scholar should be mentioned, that should rather be Michael Screech. I don't think that this page gives a good representation of the depth and richness of Rabelais' works, and Bakhtin's theories as mentioned here don't help.

I intend to sort this out at some point, unless someone beats me to it. Untitled50reg (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I have changed my mind. I started reading Bakhtin's book, but do not intend to finish reading Bakhtin's book. Accordingly, I no longer intend to sort out this Bakhtin-bit (which is basically just copied and pasted from that book's article).

Untitled50reg (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[Resolved] "one of the first Frenchmen to learn Ancient Greek"??
rendered him a "polyglot"; went to source, and rendered "great number" of words Untitled50reg (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Somebody wrote: "Rabelais was one of the first Frenchmen to learn Ancient Greek,[citation needed] from which he brought some 500 words into the French language.[citation needed]" "one of the first"? This is nonsense: he learned greek in a French monastery and the French article mentions several of his friends who studied greek too. Also, Rabelais did invent many word (many of which were probably derived from Greek), and some became part of the language, but 500 isn't very believable. I'm removing this from the article altogether until citations are actually found. --Jules.LT (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of English Translations
This book has been recommended to me and I think it would be very useful for people with the knowledge to include thoughts and comments on the relative merits of the many English translations available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melvynadam (talk • contribs) 08:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have updated the translation section, including a section of the Third Book which I thought succinctly demonstrated what different translators were doing. I included likewise translator-aims where I could. I don't currently intend to acquire any other translations, so completeness here depends on others.

Untitled50reg (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

[Resolved] Citation needed of lists of vulgar insults
I have removed mention of lists of vulgar insults. Untitled50reg (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed the citation needed. Who ever added it was lazy. All you have to do it flip the book open, or click on the link to wikisource. Not that hard to verify there are extensive lists of vulgar insults.

[Resolved] Deletion from Intro
i doubt anyone will reinsert these poems. Untitled50reg (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

So I deleted this large bit of translation that was just shoved into the introduction without explanation. There was nothing explaining why it was there or contextualizing it within the work as a whole. If someone has a good argument for putting it there, I'd be happy to put it back, but I think it should

1. Be moved out of the introduction of the article 2. Be contextualized 3. Should be limited to one translation. There is no need to have two translations of the same passage here.

The text I cut:

The introduction to the series, in an English translation, runs:

Readers, friends, if you turn these pages Put your prejudice aside, For, really, there's nothing here that's outrageous, Nothing sick, or bad — or contagious. Not that I sit here glowing with pride For my book: all you'll find is laughter: That's all the glory my heart is after, Seeing how sorrow eats you, defeats you. I'd rather write about laughing than crying, For laughter makes men human, and courageous.
 * BE HAPPY!

The same verse again in English, translated by Thomas Urquhart: Good friends, my Readers, who peruse this Book, Be not offended, whilst on it you look: Denude yourselves of all depraved affection, For it contains no badness, nor infection: 'Tis true that it brings forth to you no birth Of any value, but in point of mirth; Thinking therefore how sorrow might your mind Consume, I could no apter subject find; One inch of joy surmounts of grief a span; Because to laugh is proper to the man.

[Resolved] Mistake
emendation apparently universally accepted. Untitled50reg (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

This sence is wrong : Although different editions divide the work in varying ways, the original book is a single novel consisting of five volumes. The novels were written progressively without a preliminary plan. Zythème (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

American analysis, versus Russian, on the English Wikipedia entry? Albert Jay Nock
It seems getting an American's perspective would be more appropriate for an English speaking audience: https://archive.org/details/journeyintorabel002378mbp/page/n9/mode/2up

I didn't even realize Nock wrote on the topic until I read the preface (only 12 pages long) from LeClercq's translation. It would be helpful to have direct links to the various translations available as PDFs (Archive_org is polluted with ~50 versions of the original 17th century translations). It's also come to my attention that according to Screech, it is unlikely Rabelais wrote the fifth book given the style and substance (I have zero standing to claim either way). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.246.119 (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)