Talk:Don Giovanni

Recent edits have changed the description of Don Giovanni's treatment of Donna Anna in the first scene from "seduced" to "raped", back to "seduced" (with an unkind edit summary) and then to "raped" again. There's plenty of literature about the character of Donna Anna: whether she was indeed raped or whether she was a willing participant in the clandestine liaison. Neither text nor music of the opera give an unambiguous explanation. On balance, it seems to me that te characterisation of "rape" has a whiff of a modern reading about it and seems somewhat anachronistic. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. Anna is not especially ambiguous about what she believes happened, which would seem to indicate, not necessarily that "rape" is the correct word to use in the summary, but that "seduce" is not sufficiently nuanced. What do you think of writing "rape or seduce" and including a footnote about different interpretations? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "rape or seduce" is good prose. We don't know what went on in Donna Anna's chambers. She cries: "Al traditore!" What does that mean? DG betrayed her trust? What trust? Leporello says: "Sforzar la figlia ed ammazzar il padre!" (force himself on the daughter and kill the father) – sounds like rape; but its' usually translated as "seduce the daughter and then dispatch the father" (possibly for reasons of metre?). When Ottavio arives, DA's only concern is to revenge her father's death. It's all very muddled. I'm not sure how to explain all that and the various comments in the literature on this angle in a footnote. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking more in "Or sai," but thanks for reminding me about Leporello. (The inaccurate metrical translation is irrelevant.) And yeah, we don't know what went on, and productions/interpretations vary, which is why saying in our summary that one thing or another is correct is a bad idea... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

What Leporello tells us is that Giovanni is "passing time" or dallying inside. Questions of what actually took place offstage or the motivations of witnesses belong properly to the reception history. Has L witnessed a seduction/been briefed by/lied to by DG? Does he later see a rape in the wings/leap to conclusions based on screaming, or is he pretending to be outraged in the context of negotiating for his unpaid wages? Is DA reassuring a fiance (whom she seems in no hurry to marry) after being found in an ambiguous situation, or is she enlisting him in revenge for being outraged/spurned/indirectly implicated in her father's death? Neither "seduction" "rape" nor "attempted rape" are necessary in the synopsis. Sparafucil (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not important at that line in the summary alone but it drives the rest of the plot. (And incidentally I see that at some point, someone removed "raped" again so I shall add it back.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not a rape. Donna Anna sings, "Do not expect me ever to let you escape, unless you kill me." Here is an analysis of this point: ^[1] The author of this article writes: "I take this to mean that she is taken with him sexually and wants to cling to him. The speech is ambiguous and could be interpreted as, "I am holding on to you until the police arrive," but I think not. It is the word "ever" that is the tip-off. "You will not ever leave me" is the sort of thing that would be said by a clinging lover, not someone making a citizen's arrest." Sbelknap (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you place it below, same topic, also old, but not that old. Everlasting, it seems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I support User:Michael Bednareks reversion of the info box up top for precisely the reason which he stated: "partly undid revision 638979534 by Meister und Margarita (talk): article needs a navigation box for WAM's operas."

With only an info box and no navigation box, we lack a direct link to other operas by this composer. That's why there have been changes on many other composers' articles (e.g. Verdi has an image of Verdi up top and a nav box down below).

Now, as I've expressed before (and have set up for many of the Bellini articles, for example), I am not opposed to info boxes per se, but we can't have one without the other.

Maybe we can prevail on someone to add to the Mozart nav box.....?? All the best for 2015, Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I've created a horizontal navigation box Template:Mozart operas (horizontal). I also agree with Viva-Verdi that an infobox + the horizontal navbox as a footer would be OK (and possibly an improvement). Having said that, the image used in the infobox was not a particularly good one for illustrating the opera to anyone unfamiliar with it. It's a very modern production, and so generic (a chap in a leather jacket sitting atop a pile of suitcases in a metal rack) that it could be anything. It would probably be better placed in the "Performance history" section, with something else used for the box. User:Meister und Margarita, please stop edit-warring to restore the infobox and discuss the way forward here on the talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The Mozart Opera Info box is simply ugly. There are now new pics on Commons. Maybe you like one of them.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I like the navbox and added it. (For some reason it comes with extra blank lines if not at the bottom.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

ps: In infoboxes for Bach compositions (for example BWV 243a), we have J. S. Bach instead of the long name. In Mozart's case, W. A. makes even more sense, as we all know that he never called himself Wolfgang Amadeus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I added the navbox to the linked items, - wondering if the general navbox Mozart should be kept. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

NAV box: Gerda, well we could combine the WAM with the Operas one, but I think you've got a nice balance here, allowing us to move forward to create info boxes for each article as we can. The key is to find dramatic images which represent what the operas are all about, and certainly I agree with User talk:Voceditenore that the image of the Don (?) sitting on a pile books hardly represented the opera. As I noted earlier today (Sun, my time), (see below) both the images I've posted say a lot more about the opera. Keep up the good work! Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it would be good to combine the two navboxes, - Mozart and operas (or we would also have to combine symphonies, piano concertos, ... - this has been discussed on Classical music as unwanted), rather suggest to omit Mozart from the individual operas, because it never more than one click away. I understand that a navbox should be in articles which are linked, - but I may be wrong. I wasn't bold enough to remove Mozart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, as far as an info box pic is concerned, either one of the following would work, although I do like the Mario one. Both are on Commons. Viva-Verdi (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I really like the Slevogt. Regarding navbox vs. infobox, both options lack something. The picture of Mozart, alone, is rather generic for my taste given the significance of this work, but I like having the list of his operas readily available. That said, the current version does not display premier and other information neatly presented in the opera infobox. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The navbox IS at the bottom. I would like any of the two pics for a lead image, the black Mario perhaps a little better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that there's now a navbox to all the operas at the bottom of the article, I'd go for the infobox. I don't mind either painting. The one with Mario is quite a classic depiction of the Don and more colourful, but the one by Max Slevogt is perhaps artistically of a higher quality (in my view). Voceditenore (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The scene numbering in the article is inconsistent with the score, both at NMA and at Naxos. Here's a rough-and-ready cut/pase from the libretto at Naxos:

I don't think it would be helpful to break the synopsis down into these scenes, but it is equally not helpful if the article pulls scene numbers seemingly out of thin air. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I found that Gounod had written essentially what is quoted under "Cultural Influences" and that Kierkegaard in the book cited there had a very high regard for Don Giovanni, but I could not find that Kierkegaard was quoting Gounod, except according to a book which is an assemblage of past WP articles. Marlindale (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

In an edit of the article just made, should "sevens" be "sevenths"? Marlindale (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks for noticing. I fixed it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Don Giovanni. 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/20110724114728/http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/ncm.2001.25.2-3.165 to http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/ncm.2001.25.2-3.165

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

it seems to me that Don Giovanni would have preferred seduction. After he is unmasked, things get unpleasant and he kills the Commendatore in a duel. Some sources call the Don Juan character a "libertine". Marlindale (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed here before; see #Raped or seduced. What changes do you suggest? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I had overlooked that, thanks for pointing it out. The choice comes up more than once. In the Synopsis first paragraph, it now says "attempting to seduce" whereas Act 1, Scene 5 of the Synopsis says "attempting to rape or seduce..." Apparently there have been switches back and forth a few times. I suggest that when Don G. was pursuing a woman he would first try to seduce her, but if not successful, he tended to turn to force. For example, when pursuing Zerlina, he first woos her with a seductive aria ("La ci darem la mano") but when that doesn't work he "tries to assault" her. In Act 1 Scene 5, maybe "attempting to have sex with"? Marlindale (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

1. I am removing (again) User Vlastimil Svoboda's addition to the short introductory summary of the SYNOPSIS, which ran:

As disgraceful as his earlier behavior was, it is only the commission of the crime of murder in the action of this drama that leads to his eternal punishment for a lifetime of immoral behavior. No earthly power can bring the resourceful Don Giovanni to justice; it is only supernatural forces that can overcome his ingenious aptitude for evading retribution.

This is not SYNOPSIS, it is ANALYSIS. It is also SPECULATIVE. There is nothing in the libretto which says which crime caused the dirty Don to merit damnation. How do you KNOW the statue wasn't pissed off at him for betraying Donna Elvira, or for beating up Masetto, or for telling Masetto's chums to look for someone dressed in the Don's clothes (Leporello) and beat him up (in "Meta di voi qu vadano")? You don't know, and nothing in the opera says; the statue only says "Cangia vita", does not say WHICH aspects of his vita he wants the Don to cangia. So this is not SYNOPSIS.

2. In his most recent reversion, User Vlastimil Svoboda's short description of the reversion says "HandsomeMrToad reveals himself now as a hypocrite, besides slanderer". This is not appropriate! You are supposed to ASSUME GOOD FAITH and not make personal ad hominem attacks. Discuss the edit, not the person, please.

3. As I said on User Vlastimil Svoboda's TALK page, I have no objection to the interesting Seville/not-Seville discussion now that it is sourced and located in an appropriate section of the article (not in the synopsis). I think it significantly improves the article. Nice job, Vlastimil!

Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, User:Vlastimil Svoboda doesn't seem to want to engage in any dialogue in this matter, not here, not on his talk page; his belligerent attacks in his edit summaries deserve to be condemned.

Although I think the disputed paragraph quoted above is not wrong in content, I agree with User:HandsomeMrToad that in this form it contravenes several Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Until it can be sourced from reliable and reputable sources, it ought to be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Michael Bednarek and HandsomeMrToad. The passage is completely inappropriate for the synopsis and shouldn't go anywhere else in the article until it is referenced to a reliable, published source. I have also notified WikiProject Opera of this discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. That opinion is sheer speculation, not even backed up by the events or libretto of the opera. (I think it's pretty clear to everyone involved that all of DG's actions were heinous and none of them were specifically singled out as the sole reason for his damnation. And "it is only supernatural forces that can overcome his ingenious aptitude for evading retribution" is another sheer hypothesis.) Softlavender (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, several authors, including Brigid Brophy, have commented on the notion that despite his multifarious crimes, DG is immune to societal prosecution and can only be punished by supernatural forces. Brophy postulates that it makes the opera an implicit rejection of Enlightenment values. There's a lot of stuff on the role the supernatural plays in DG, enough to justify a separate section on the subject , but it does not belong in the synopsis and it should not be written in Wikipedia's "voice". Voceditenore (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it's still analysis, and needs to be cited and attributed, not stated as fact. Softlavender (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely! Voceditenore (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Having followed this discussion for the last week or so, I too agree with the removal of the speculative sentence. If it is more than the speculation of a single Wikipedia editor, there would be an academic source whom the article could cite. No such source has been forthcoming. Syek88 (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Just yesterday there was a section titled "Other performances", it included the date of the premiere of Don Giovanni in London, in Italy, etc. This is an important subject, it's a proof of the reception of Mozart outside Germany/Austria and the opposition it faced. Why was it taken away? Who deleted it and why? Can it be recovered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.37.21.208 (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@188.37.21.208: I think you must be mistaken, I don't see that this page has been edited since April. We do have an "Other early performances" section in the article on Figaro and mention of a London premiere of Così? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Read the libretto! This is not a rape. Rape is clearly not what the libretto implies. The entire history of the Don Juan story in its previous instances is relevant and does not imply rape. The cited article makes this point as well. Yet the wikipedia article suggests it could have been a rape. Seduction of Donna Anna is still an evil act, as the consequences of seduction were potentially dire for the seduced women in a time when women were not financially independent, there was no effective contraception, social mores were harsh, and the social safety net was quite limited. Often, an unwed mother at that time was headed for the convent or the street. Some persons do not understand the social situation for women during Mozart's time. Don Giovanni may have tricked Donna Anna my impersonating another, or he may have made false promises, or otherwise acted unethically. But it was not rape. Donna Anna sings, "Do not expect me ever to let you escape, unless you kill me." Here is an analysis of this point: ^[1] The author of this article writes: "I take this to mean that she is taken with him sexually and wants to cling to him. The speech is ambiguous and could be interpreted as, "I am holding on to you until the police arrive," but I think not. It is the word "ever" that is the tip-off. "You will not ever leave me" is the sort of thing that would be said by a clinging lover, not someone making a citizen's arrest." Sbelknap (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC) Sbelknap (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Donna Anna's truthfulness or untruthfulness deserves some discussion and Hoffman/Kierkegaard don't yet have any analysis; the Don_Giovanni#Cultural_influence section is more reception than influence. But a synopsis describes what we're seeing, a highly ambiguous situation in which Donna Anna has raised a general alarm. Even the cited J. Kerns essay says: "I was indignant at the staging of the performance, which seemed to depart from the text to paint the Don as a villain." This is not the place to try to work out whether Leporello has misjudged the facts or to carry out analysis. Sparafucil (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not Anna was raped or seduced, Kerns's interpretation is pretty obviously wrong, and also from an unreliable source. Anyway, both interpretations have strong support in the literature (and the rape interpretation is arguably better supported by the libretto) so IMO there is nothing to be said about removing "rape" from the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Please explain how the Kerns analysis is wrong. Sbelknap

"Read the libretto! This is not a rape. Rape is clearly not what the libretto implies."

However, since an opera does not consist exclusively of the libretto, one should also consider the music, the musical setting. In Mozart's operas, it very often happens that the music says something different than the characters, e.g. through the modulations and keys used, the rhetorical motifs (passus duriusculus, dubitatio, etc.).

"The entire history of the Don Juan story in its previous instances is relevant and does not imply rape."

Even if it were, what relevance would it have to this discussion? The fact that other arrangements do not imply rape is certainly interesting, but it does not allow us to draw any conclusions about how Da Ponte and Mozart handle this issue.

"The cited article makes this point as well. Yet the wikipedia article suggests it could have been a rape."

And this is the only correct way to deal with this so far unsolved and hotly disputed question. No one knows 100% whether it is a seduction or an (attempted) rape, and this fact should be mentioned. Anything else would be an unsubstantiated interpretation. For every source that claims it is not rape, there is another source that claims the opposite. --DerFigaro (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Is "the cuts are rarely made" or is "the cut music is rarely performed" intended here. Op47 (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The infobox and the lead have recently been changed a bit, resulting in the loss of mentioning and linking Don Juan – still linked in the "Roles" section. I felt that a mention and link in the lead section ought to be restored as it had been there before an anonymous IP removed them on 28 April 2022, which I overlooked at the time. But when that link was recently removed from the infobox as well, I restored it. User:Masato.harada felt hat Don Giovanni is based on "a centuries-old Spanish legend, not Don Juan" and removed the name. When I pointed out that "the article Don Juan deals with that legendary Spanish figure, the subject of Don Giovanni Tenorio & The Trickster of Seville and the Stone Guest and restored the linked name, among some other not insignificant improvements, Masato.harada reverted my whole edit again, this time arguing, "Previous wording has stood since April 2022. Per WP:STATUSQUO, if you wish to change it, then please discuss on talk page first." This is factually wrong and it shows a flawed understanding of the essays WP:BRD (it's not BRR) and WP:STATUSQUO (they didn't initiate a "dispute discussion").

I suggest to restore the link in the lead as it provides historical context. The connection with Don Juan is widely documented, e.g. in Britannica, musicological literature, and thousands of program notes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• I don't find the assertion in the edit summary (that Don Giovanni is not based on Don Juan) to be credible. It is a strange omission. As for policy, the article body has sourced statements linking Don Giovanni back to Don Juan, and the lede is supposed to summarize the body. Einsof (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
• I support restoring the link, which offers more context and mentions the play as the first instance anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• My objection was grammatical, not whether the opera is based on Don Juan: by changing the grammatical subject of the sentence from "a centuries-old Spanish legend" to "Don Juan", the meaning of the statement in the lead section was changed, without discussion. How about "Its subject is a centuries-old Spanish legend about a libertine, Don Juan, as told by playwright..." Masato.harada (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I've changed it. I'm glad that we were eventually able to determine through this talk page discussion that the ask here was to move two words further down in a sentence. Einsof (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2026 (UTC)