Posted on 03/30/2021 5:53:04 AM PDT by SJackson
The news has been quietly making the rounds in European news outlets, following an initial report by the newspaper De Standaard that was picked up subsequently by several French publications: a new translation of Dante Alighieri’s Inferno, written between 1304 and 1307, is causing controversy following the translator’s alterations.
Valeurs Actuelles reported that Lies Lavrijsen, who was tasked with the translation of the famous book by the Florentine poet, decided to remove any mention of Muhammad altogether, in a push to make the text more “more pleasant and accessible.” Speaking on the Belgian radio station Radio 1, she defended her exclusion, stating “a widest possible accessibility,” especially for “a younger audience,” as her justification. She added: “We knew that if we left this passage as it was written, we would have unnecessarily hurt a large part of the readers.” Lies Lavrijsen even reveals that the decision was made “in the tense period that saw the death of the teacher Samuel Paty in France.”
This censored passage is a key element of the work, when Dante enters hell and meets many characters through several circles during his journey, recalls Courrier international. Historical figures are locked up “because of their more or less serious sins.” According to Lavrijsen, Muhammad was being punished for having spread “his religion, which had allegedly sown discord on Earth,” and “of all the sinners who appear in Hell, he is described in the most atrocious and denigrating way.”
The response following her appearance on the program has been widely negative. Many listeners, including Muslims, called in to complain saying that the translation was both “denigrating to Muslims and to young readers,” inferring that they would not be able to put the work in its context. Several other translators weigh on the matter for De Standaard, dumbfounded that such a work would be edited, and asking for the description of the book to be revised to “adaptation” as opposed to “translation.” Moreover, according to Moroccan writer Adbelkader Benali, who has read several Arabic versions of Inferno, the passage was in fact left in place in all of them. The authors had added footnotes, however, to “explain” the work in its context.
It is not the first time that Dante’s opus faces calls to be “cancelled” for its depiction of Muhammad as one of the lowest forms of evil encountered in hell. In 2012, an Italian NGO called for the “offensive and discriminatory” classic to be removed from Italian classrooms, but was met with a backlash for this attempt to take the masterpiece out of the curriculum. And a couple of years before that, Yale University Press refrained from publishing a depiction of the Inferno’s scene featuring Muhammad by the famed French artist Gustave Doré among other images in a book specifically dedicated to the subject of illustrations of Muhammad.
Nor will it be the last. In this age of crazed censorship and political correctness, coupled with escalating acts of violence towards those who dare “slander” Muhammad — as we have tragically seen with Samuel Paty and the latest case in the UK — it seems to be only a matter of time until the thought police edit anything “problematic” out of our culture, according to their definition.
If our literary works, statues and recorded historical events are all being rewritten or written off completely, and — above all — without our freedom of expression, what will we have left?
Having read Dante numerous times, there’s nothing about his works that are meant to be “accessible” to modern readers. Inferno is a dense philosophical work that requires several readings to even begin to grasp.
This whole “making X accessible” garbage is a ruse, and it’s growing more absurd with every new instance.
Who says that the 9/11 terrorist attack did not have its desired effect?
Let me guess, Shakespeare and Plato and Aristotle are up next for woke censorship.
They should publish a version of the Inferno in which all of the characters are perfect Christians. It would be offensive to mention any sinners of any kind.
Perfect reply.
Making Hell seem “more pleasant and accessible.”
Seems to be a liberal constant.
It seems the people of Dante’s time and subsequent were better informed about the evil within Islam than we of the modern world, who think we are so intelligent, so superior to past generations.
Literate people in Dante’s time read critically, studied philosophy avidly in all its nuances and were able to understand the depth, wisdom and beauty of Dante’s writing. Modern readers do not appreciate that Dante wrote from the perspective of a combat veteran who saw and participated in much horror or hell on earth.
Thieves, murderers, liars, adulterers, et al hardest hit, demand removal.
Modern readers
—
Of which there are fewer and fewer, instead relying on the opinions of others who rely on opinions of still others.
Yes, post-modern, post-rational people are so superior and good that they don’t even necessarily know what restroom to use.
Might as well burn the book if you’re going to rewrite it.
the 8th crusade began 1270
Acre fell 1291
Good point.
Probably modern day Muslims are less tolerant.
How long before there is pressure to produce translations of the Bible which omit verses which the gay activists object to? Not that they are big on Bible reading, but they don’t want others exposed to those verses.
This is why you must own books. Digital copies can be changed whenever some woketard finds something “offensive”. Your digital copy can be changed whenever there’s an “update” to an app. And to Hell with Mad Mo is just fine with me.
Islam is the ultimate Antichrist religion. It encourages sin, makes a victim of everyone, and blames those who believe in God’s son
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.