Talk:Quo Vadis (novel)

Comprehension
I'm having trouble comprehending this sentence in the article:

"One aspect seen in this very classic is that it is a masterpiece for adults, for people developing in a criteria of profound thought in christendom"

Could someone who knows what it could mean correct this sentence? Martijn Faassen 14:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I tried to do so by removing 2 words. Bigturtle 11 Jan 06

I don't get it, and the editing doesn't help. To be honest I think it's nonsense.82.156.33.187 00:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's nonsense. I removed the sentence. 67.40.85.23 03:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Novels about Real People category
I have restored the category "novels about real people"--two false claims were made to explain it's removal. First, there is the charge that these aren't real people. some are. some aren't, that is what makes it a jovel--and the real people fairly important roles, I would say. Sienkiewicz did intensive reaserch not just on the times but on his real characters--not as bases for fictional characters but to depict them as nearly as he could on their own terms. The article takes not of all of this and it should be obvious enough even had those things not been mentioned.

Second, there is the assertion that the is "not a real category"--but of course that is a very mistaken, misleading thing to say. categories become real when they are added--the instrcutions say so in just that way--to create a category, add it to an article. The question for any category is not whetehr it is "real"--but whether it is sueful enough that its' presence will be supported by consensus in the longer view. Even if that category were never added back here, it will be added to other novels, I am confident. The Novels project is so early in it's history that it is far too early to say that a category that ahsn't been added yet doesn't belong. The usefulness of this or many other categories will only become clearer as much-needed novels get their articles in due course. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clown in black and yellow (talk • contribs) 17:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC).


 * First of all I wrote "that category doesn't exist, and the main caracters aren't real people" You should be careful with your "false claims".


 * Second the main characters are fictional (e.g. Ligia, Vinincius, Ursus, Eunice, etc). Some of the secondary characters are real historical persons (Nero, St Peter, Petreonius, St Paul, Tigelinus, etc) but many things about them have been simply invented for the novel (e.g: It is very doubtful that Nero ordered the burning of Rome). This category Category:Novels about Real People doesn't exist as you can see by the fact the link currently leads nowhere (it is red). You seem to completly ignore the Category:Historical novels. I suggest you read the article historical novel (to make it really short: historical novels can be about Real peoples (or not) during real historical events even if somewhat fictionalized - which is clearly this case. The main characters can be completly fictional or not). Quoting Historical fiction may center on historical or on fictional characters, but usually represents an honest attempt based on considerable research (or at least serious reading) to tell a story set in the historical past as understood by the author's contemporaries. Those historical settings may not stand up to the enhanced knowledge of later historians. Therefore I can only conclude that your (non)existent category will only duplicate another allready existent and established category who also has the appropiate name (it is a official name used in the book buisness). Sorry Flamarande 22:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you ever read novel with all characters real? NOVEL, not BIOGRAPHY? Think about your words, before you'll write it. Cebi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.55.223.253 (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracy
There are inaccuracies here. Marcus Vinicius was mentioned by either Tacitus or Suetonius as one of three who rebelled against Nero. They were execured, so Sienkiewicz simply improved on his fate. But one thrust of the book was its parallels with Polish history and persecution, which isn't really discussed in the article.

The article quotes the New Testament story of Simon Peter's question to Christ, 'Lord, we know not whither Thou goest, and how then can we know the way?' as the origin of the novel's title. This is incorrect. In fact, Sienkiewicz chose his title on the basis of that other old legend, cited by several ancient Christian historians (and included as an event in the book) that the elder Peter, on his flight from Rome to escape persecution, allegedly saw a vision of Christ, to whom he said, 'Quo Vadis, Domine?' ('Whither goest thou, Lord?') Christ then replied to him (through the voice of a boy, Nazarius), 'I am going to Rome to be crucified a second time, since you are deserting my sheep. My people in Rome have need of you'.


 * Well I honestly believed that Marcus Vinicius was fictional, but I did not include the stuff about the bible passage. The first can easily be improved but I must adivise to find proper evidence for the second (perhaps something about the old legend and that Sienkiewicz was inspired by it). Still you can always correct such inaccuracies. Flamarande (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Right now the supposedly historical Marcus Vinicius points to an apparently historical figure that married someone else and lived at the wrong time (too early). If there was a mention of another Marcus Vinicius in Tacitus or Suetonius that does match the character in the novel, please provide a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.24.86.118 (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Suetonius' 'Lives of the Caesars': ... 'Nero' xxxvi ....

'the other (revolt) was that of Vinicius, at Beneventum. The conspirators were brought to their trials loaded with triple fetters. Some ingenuously confessed the charge; others avowed that they thought the design against his life an act of favour for which he was obliged to them, as it was impossible in any other way than by death to relieve a person rendered infamous by crimes of the greatest enormity. The children of those who had been condemned, were banished the city, and afterwards either poisoned or starved to death. It is asserted that some of them, with their tutors, and the slaves who carried their satchels, were all poisoned together at one dinner; and others not suffered to seek their daily bread.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prospyro (talk • contribs) 00:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Lygia and the Bull
Was this motif invented for the novel, or does it have some basis in ancient history? Several sculptures and paintings have been based on this, and WP should probably discuss it somewhere. Drutt (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This motif is much older, see Europa (mythology). A.J. (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not Europe, it was Dirce. And some Christian women were in fact executed that way in Roman arenas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirce — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.53.133 (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Sign of the Cross
As the play was first produced when only the first part of Quo Vadis had been published, is there any possibility that the novel drew from the play ? Or is it likely pure coincidence ? -- Beardo (talk) 05:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Reception
Whatever its accuracy in terms of literature alone, I don't really see the point in honouring the notoriously racist edgelord WC Brann by even mentioning his review. Surely a bestseller by a Nobel Prize laureate has been assessed in the meantime by some more acclaimed critics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.10.128.80 (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC) ‎

Under "Reception" there is only one critic's review presented and this is extremely negative. To be impartial, there should also be a positive review included. Regardless of any individual's opinion the novel has been widely read and the author has won a prestigious award for literature. 2600:100A:B1CE:4515:0:2B:872A:7201 (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Further to these two comments, the "Reception" section seems to place undue weight on a single review, which, in modern day terms, seems trollish. I've been WP:BOLD and removed it, so feel free to restore and discuss here. - Ttwaring (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)