Scan barcode
A review by dolorsitamet
Dulcitius by Hrotsvitha
2.0
*1.8
I can't say I cared for it too much. Maybe it would've been better in the original (Latin)?
The translation felt overly terse – or perhaps that is not an artifact of the language so much as the stylistic convention at the time. Either way, it seemed half (or more) of the dialogue's purpose was to describe what they were doing. It was funny only in a very surface way – and perhaps this is just me being me and generally not appreciating comedies so much – but like, a guy tries to kiss(/rape) a bunch of pots and pans. It quickly felt more preachy than comedic to me. The martyrs were far more annoying than sympathetic, and the clear good vs evil, purity/goodness vs foolishness made the message all the harder to believe.
Interestingly, taking a modern lens to it (i.e. if one were reading this with the knowledge that it was published today) one might call it satire and get the complete opposite message, due to how out-of-touch with these ideals we are today.
But it was not a play I particularly enjoyed reading, or even saw much of the merit in reading for a lit (as opposed to history) class. Or at least, in analyzing/thinking about it deeply – I suppose reading for exposure to the norms of the time in lit is worthwhile.
despite all that, I'm not upset I read it. Mainly because of the last bit of the above paragraph.
I can't say I cared for it too much. Maybe it would've been better in the original (Latin)?
The translation felt overly terse – or perhaps that is not an artifact of the language so much as the stylistic convention at the time. Either way, it seemed half (or more) of the dialogue's purpose was to describe what they were doing. It was funny only in a very surface way – and perhaps this is just me being me and generally not appreciating comedies so much – but like, a guy tries to kiss(/rape) a bunch of pots and pans. It quickly felt more preachy than comedic to me. The martyrs were far more annoying than sympathetic, and the clear good vs evil, purity/goodness vs foolishness made the message all the harder to believe.
Interestingly, taking a modern lens to it (i.e. if one were reading this with the knowledge that it was published today) one might call it satire and get the complete opposite message, due to how out-of-touch with these ideals we are today.
But it was not a play I particularly enjoyed reading, or even saw much of the merit in reading for a lit (as opposed to history) class. Or at least, in analyzing/thinking about it deeply – I suppose reading for exposure to the norms of the time in lit is worthwhile.
despite all that, I'm not upset I read it. Mainly because of the last bit of the above paragraph.