Talk:L'incoronazione di Poppea/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

L'incoronazione di Poppea - Plot

The "morale" of Poppea is the subject of some controversy. There is no consensus about the view stated in this article. The prologue suggests a quite different understanding for example. I'll get back to this, but would love some input and further backing of the current state of the article. 80.202.84.36 (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Article expansion

As notified on the opera project talkpage, I have begun work on expanding this article with a view to its joining Agrippina and The Bartered Bride as featured opera articles, and also as part of a general effort to raise Monteverdi'd Wikipedia profile. To show intent, I have posted an extended synopsis (which may well require further work). I hope that by about the end of this month the article will be sufficiently developed to go for peer review. One area where help would be especially welcomed is that of finding or creating appropriate sound files. Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Recordings

Super work, so far, Brian. For the recordings section, in addition to the naked cross-reference to the full discography, I suggest that you present a narrative paragraph summarizing what have been the best received recordings and then giving a selection of the best and most popular ones. Let the reader have the most important information here, and then if they want more, they can click to the more complete article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that I would have to make personal judgements about what were the "best received" recordings. Can you suggest a way in which such a selection could be made more objectively? Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I would normally say go to Radio 3 Building a Library, but I can't see a recommended recording of Poppea there. Going through the Gramophone archive, I can see e.g. John Steane preferring Harnoncourt to a new recording and other comparisons [1] and "I F" making a similar choice here in 1991. Steans has some interesting views on what can help someoen make sense fo a recordings approach. I thought that Gramophone used to have somewhere on the front page with a recommended recording, but I can't see it on the redesigned site. I don't know whether anyone can suggest other online resources. The Penguin Guide to Recorded Classical Music or similar books give ratings to recordings or give a few recommendations.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Peter, the point isn't that I don't have access to the reviews, I have all the access I need. The difficulty is that per the above I would have to make personal decisions about which reviews to choose, It's like the one-time arguments about "selected recording" sections. Anyway, I've decided what I will do: as you indicate, there will be comparisons between recordings in the Gramophone archive. I will use these as the basis for a short summary of the leading recordings. I won't be doing this for a few days, though. Brianboulton (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you could do a brief paragraph focusing on the recording history (rather than evaluation) which I recently did for La bohème. The Opera-dis database is invaluable for this (and may also provide a useful reference/external link for the discography page). Here's the page for Poppea. Note that the discography also includes "pirates" from broadcast performances but clearly indicates those and as well as those which have been commericially released, and lists the the periodicals in which the recording has been reviewed. If any recording has won a major award, e.g. Grammy, Diapason d'Or, Gramophone Award, Echo Klassik etc. that could also be mentioned.Voceditenore (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I will work on this. Brianboulton (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This looks like the right amount of material to me. I leave it to audiophiles here to make any further tweaks. I copied it onto the discography article - I think it's useful to repeat it there, but if you disagree, you can delete or revise. BTW, I wikified the discography article, but I did not bluelink the names of the record labels. Should they be linked? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Carter refs

Sometimes your Carter refs specify 2002 or 2007, but a few don't say which. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed I hope Brianboulton (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Morality

The reason given for calling POPPEA "immoral"--virtue ends badly and vice, happily--is certainly not true of DON GIOVANNI! And while it happens in DON CARLOS, sort of (it doesn't really end happily for anyone) the music is not happy about it like in POPPEA. I think saying that they are in some kind of tradition together is totally wrong. SingingZombie (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is with Rosand rather than with this article, which is reporting, not endorsing her analysis. Brianboulton (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Roles" section and other revisions

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia editing and therefore, unreflectingly, revised the article on "L'incoronazione di Poppea" rather substantially without yet having a user name and without categorizing all the changes I made. Sorry for that. However, I am an opera scholar and Monteverdi specialist, and the article struck me as suffering from a number of minor inaccuracies and out-of-date assumptions (concerning dating, sources and other matters), just as it wasn't up-to-date with the most recent research on the field (cf. my revision of the section "Roles", which draws on my own recent article for the Cambridge Opera Journal). I also omitted the section "Historical context", which almost exclusively dealt with Monteverdi's prior life and oeuvre, which seemed to me out of context in an article on an individual opera. I am sorry that my revisions didn't follow standard procedure, but hopefully, if you disagree, you won't simply undo them all under one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stockholm Opera (talk • contribs) 07:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC) ¨Stockholm Opera (talk) 07:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

on one hand it is correct that something as major as the deletion of a whole section needs to be discussed here first; on the other, undoing all the other edits at the same time seems foolhardy IMO. I have reinstated that section, but have not undone the other edits almost-instinct 10:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this - and for your suggestion. I couldn't find out how to reinsert the deleted section without changing the whole, so great that you helped with this: I'm definitely not interested in starting an edit war! :-) Stockholm Opera (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I would keep the "Historical context" section, frankly. I think most readers would find it useful. Flipping back and forth between articles is possible but not always optimal. But as Almost-instinct says, chopping out a massive chunk from a Featured Article which has gone through extensive review and evaluation without any discussion and consensus is not on in the first place. The information on the roles is another matter. These changes/additions may well be a great improvement. I haven't got access to the Cambridge Opera Journal article but it would be very useful to see what the sources/reasoning are leading to proposing the names of the original cast members and the doubling. The removal of the anachronistic mezzo-soprano term is definitely an improvement. The removal of the entire notes column doesn't seem to be an improvement, unless everything in that column was inaccurate. Can you explain why you removed it wholesale? Voceditenore (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I admit that the deletion of the "Historical context" section was a mishap: being new to the procedures of Wikipedia editing, I didn't realize what it means that an article is featured, and hence it's fine that this section has been restored. I have offered my apologies, and I hope we can leave it at that :-) The "roles" section (and also my expansion of the article on Anna Renzi) is based on my own research, published in the COJ. The full argument is rather too extensive for this context, I think, but I will expand the section somewhat (thanks for pointing that out). Here is why I deleted the notes column, which included the following information: 1) Nerone and Ottone were originally castrato roles (this is now mentioned elsewhere in the section); 2) Amore may be sung by a treble voice (this was originally a castrato role, of which the former editor was probably unaware, and I don't see the point of suggesting here that the role should be sung by a boy: it could equally well be sung by a countertenor or a female soprano, which is more often the case, in fact); 3) the nurses may be performed by male cross-dressers (and so they were in 1643, as I write elsewhere in the section, for which reason this point seems unnecessary); 4) The lines of the Choro di Virtù and Nerone's revellers have not been set to music (this is the only information from the column that perhaps should be included, I think, though perhaps not in the table itself, which will become too messy this way. The thing is that the new table refers directly to the 1643 premiere of the opera - as do most of such tables in the entries to individual operas - whereas the former table referred to modern casting possibilities, probably inspired by Alan Curtis' preface to the score (1989). I suggest, instead, that reference to the non-set roles (and those of the two Amori) is made after the table itself: if you agree, I will insert that). Stockholm Opera (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Note - As a courtesy, I have notified the primary author and FAC nominator of this discussion. --Laser brain (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thanks LB; it would have been nice had Stockholm Opera discussed these edits before making them. However, I am not standing on my dignity. I am always happy when knowledgeable editors improve articles I've worked on, and in this case SO's reasoning looks solid enough, though I have not yet looked at individual edits. I do not claim to be a Monteverdi scholar, though I do have a certain level of knowledge and take considerable care that what I include in an article is in accordance with reliable sources. More recent sources, or a wider range, can of course alter the perspective of an article. I'd be happy for SO to complete his/her work on the roles section; but maybe pause and discuss before tackling other sections? Brianboulton (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, BB, for this, but as I have said above, I have become wiser since I became a Wikipedia editor yesterday :-) I have now expanded a little on my introduction to the table in "Roles", as requested by VdT. Please tell me what you think, anyone. If you have reservations or want me to expand further, please let me know. Stockholm Opera (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

With pre-19th century operas, it's useful to also discuss modern performance practices in casting in the Roles section. Otherwise, readers may get confused and/or make "corrections" based on a recent production they've seen or read about. See the preamble to the Roles section in The Marriage of Figaro, for example. If you put it after the role table, people often miss it. Voceditenore (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Some initial thoughts on the table: I have not seen either of the main sources (Schneider and Ziosi) on which the new table is based, so I am unsure about the level of conjecture rather than established fact. Is there hard evidence, as against theory, that the Venetian premiere employed only 11 singers? Or is this a plausible scenario for what might have happened? Again, how certain are we that these named singers were associated with these roles – are they conjectural too? Carter (2002) is very circumspect about who may have sung which role, which is why I left names out of the original roles table.

I am worried that the new table may appear to present information as established fact when it is not. There is a caveat in the preamble which indicates that this is a "suggested reconstruction", but most readers will miss that and take the table as truth. Would it not be better to have a table of roles for the original performance based on what is irrefutable? I'm sure Schneider won't be the last person to present a theory of what could have happened; do we then replace him with the next theory?

It is more than three years since I did the main work on this article, so it will take me some time to absorb other significant changes that have been introduced. Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: there don't appear to be many significant changes to the prose, but I have restored material cut from the lead without any rationale. Brianboulton (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

First, I absolutely share the view that Wikipedia should not be the place for unfounded conjecture or subjective opinion, and that the readers should be able to make up their own mind. Secondly, I think you should read my (Magnus Schneider's) article before passing a final verdict: the argument, which convinced the editor of the COJ sufficiently to have it printed, is 42 pages long and is hard to boil down to a few lines (I will be very happy to send you a copy, if we can find a channel). Thirdly, I think it is possible to accomodate both Brianboulton and me, somehow.

BB asks what is fact and what is conjecture. I can understand why you hesitated to reproduce Carter's doubling chart: unlike me, he relies almost exclusively on vocal ranges and tessituras, giving little attention to the historical (archival, performance-practical) context, and hence his doubling chart is, indeed, most conjectural. As for your certainty that I won't be the last person to present a theory of what happened, this is of course true (this is indeed the given condition of all historians!!), and of course the article should be revised again when new documents emerge (this is what's great about Wikipedia: that it's so easy to revise!). However, I do beseech you to distinguish between interpretations that are based on the scrupulous unearthing of circumstantial evidence and interpretations that uncritically project modern conceptions and performance-practices onto a 17th opera: surely, the latter will be refuted much faster than the former. Anyway, these are some (and only some!) of the facts that I present in the article:

1) Anna Renzi did sing Ottavia, and Anna di Valerio was engaged and offered the role of Poppea, which Busenello had "destined" for her, but no other character in the opera can be definitively tied to a specific performer.

2) there is no evidence that the production included 11 singers, but we know that di Valerio (soprano), Renzi (soprano), Costa (castrato soprano, singer of serious male leads), Rabacchio (young castrato soprano, excelled in buffoons), Ponzanino (young and untried soprano), Fritellino (voice type not mentioned, but he was apparently to sing one of the two male leads in "La finta savia" and may be identical with "a contralto" mentioned elsewhere), a Roman tenor (described as "very adequate"), Zucchi (a young bass, later a leading performer in Venice), a Florentine bass, and Antonio Agnadini (a third bass, who I think may only have sung in "La finta savia", since the theatre manager accidentally hired too many basses, as he wrote in a letter) were hired for the 1643 carnival at the theatre, and we know from Venetian contracts that singers were employed for the season, not for the individual production. Captain Pompeo Conti was an elderly singer who had sung male leads 20 years ago (probably a tenor; his military rank excludes the possibility that he was a castrato), who still appeared with success at SS Giovanni e Paolo in 1642 and who functioned as talent scout for the 1643 season: we know that he came to Venice in December together with four other singers, and hence he is likely to have sung in the 1643 season, too. These are the singers we know, but at least one more singer (for the nurses) would have been needed to fill the cast, and we know that such a singer had sung at the theatre in 1642: the correspondence only refers to singers who came from outside Venice, and hence the possibility cannot be excluded that more singers were already in Venice.

3) From 17 surviving cast lists covering the period 1637-68 we know that opera productions in Venice included 9-13 singers, including 2-4 women (the first production known to have included more than two women was in 1648 when women on stage had become more common), and we have no reason to believe that "Poppea" was an exception in this regard. Carter's doubling chart presupposes a cast of 13-15 singers (Curtis's, 15 singers).

4) We have 13 librettos and 5 scores for operas in which Anna Renzi is known to have created a leading role, and in most cases we also know the role she sang. In all her other operas she appeared on stage in about a third of the scenes; Ottavia, who appears in 4 out of 34 scenes, is exactly half the size of her second-smallest part: her debut role. There are other reasons, too (far too many to be enumerated here), why it is highly unlikely that she - the greatest star of the period - would have agreed to appear in such a small and limiting part as Ottavia, which gave her little occasion to show off her most famous skills (contrasting comedy and tragedy, feigning innocence, showing off her command of differing musical styles, exploring the full range of her soprano voice) - unless she doubled in another role. She indeed appeared in such a double role in 1644, though here within the fictional frame of the drama (the lamenting Deidamia disguised as the jolly and amorous Ergindo). Similar arguments can be used with reference to some of the other singers.

I don't expect you to engage in the details of my argument (indeed, I hope you won't before you've read the article), but only to give you an impression of what I mean by the difference between unsubstantiated conjecture/subjective opinion and the sound scholarly interpretation of historical materials, which is what the writing of history is about, after all. By no means should my doubling chart be represented as bare facts, but to withhold from the public (and Wikipedia communicates to a broader public than scholarly articles) that Ottavia and Drusilla in all likelihood were conceived as a virtuoso double role for a legendary transformation artist (which alters the meaning and effect of the opera quite fundamentally, drawing it away from the anachronistic concept of "psychological realism" and questioning the universally accepted view of the ending as the "victory of the villains" - not that this needs to be discussed in the article), doesn't seem right either, in my opinion.

In fact, this carries right into the issue raised by Voceditenore: how shall we address the issue of historical performance practice? In modern productions, for example, Ottavia is almost invariably cast as a mezzo and Drusilla as a light soprano, though they have the same range (apart from Ottavia's single low C in I.5), and though we know from other sources that Renzi was certainly no mezzo. My point is that it's impossible to discuss historically informed performance without taking the doubling practice into account. Hence I suggest, as a compromise, that we have two tables: one listing the characters, their voice types (using historically appropriate terms, i.e. no mezzo-sopranos) and perhaps their range, and one reproducing my doubling chart in a slightly revised form: names of the singers, with everyone but Renzi and di Valerio in parenthesis, and the scene numbers. The latter can be introduced with a preamble as Voceditenore suggests, perhaps reproducing some of the arguments presented here, and discussing the 17th-century concept of the operatic voice, which explored the whole range and didn't give a fig about preferred tessitura.

Finally, as for your undoing of some of my edits, I hope you will reconsider the following (in the opening section): 1) when maintaining that "Details of the original cast are few, and largely speculative", you don't take Ziosi's findings into account: though the distribution of roles may correctly be described as largely speculative, it is no longer entirely true that we only have few details about the cast; 2) it is not correct that "there is no record of the opera's initial public reception": one letter (cited by Margaret Murata in 1995) and five poems (the said one in the libretto + 4 in "Le glorie della signora Anna Renzi romana") reflect audience responses to the performances. And in the section "Early Performances": 3) it is known for a fact that the opera premiered in 1643 and not 1642: the Bentivoglio correspondence shows clearly that Poppea came after La finta savia and hence premiered late in the Carnival (see Whenham 2004); 4) the scenario does give the year of the premiere (1643), though not the date; 5) while it is true that Naples 1651 is the only known revival of the opera, it might be worth mentioning the very possible revival at the SS. Giovanni e Paolo in 1646 (see Whenham 2004 again), and the planned production in Paris 1647, which may or may not have taken place. Over and out! Stockholm Opera (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed explanation. I still have a basic problem with the revised table: I accept that it is a scholarly summary of what might have transpired at the first performance of Poppea in terms of who may have sung what, but the general Wikipedia reader will expect to see a much simpler "list" of roles", as in common in all opera articles. That information is lacking from the article at the moment.
Possible solutions
  • Two tables? I think absolutely not; danger of further overcomplication
  • Revise format of existing table so that it can perform a dual role. I would like to investigate this further
  • Restore the former "list of roles" table, and add brief explanatory text with appropriate references relating to the projected distribution of forces at the premiere. I rather like this idea, as the roles table would be unchanged over a period of time, while the text can be amended in the light of future scholarly research. But the text would need to be within certain limits, to avoid unbalancing the article.
  • Restore the former table, and delegate the specific issue of roles distibution, speculative or otherwise, to a subarticle linked to the main text. This would have the advantage of allowing the theories of Schneider, Ziosi and others to be more fully explored, without unbalancing the main article. Worth considering.
Finally, I restored the original lead text only until we have resolved the treatment of his issue, at which point it can be appropriately reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for these constructive suggestions. You are probably right that two tables would be too confusing, and I also see and agree with your point that the readers will need a list of roles similar to the one in the earlier table (and this should also include, at least, the Amori). May I suggest a combination of some of your proposals: the section "Early Performances" is moved to an earlier place in the article so that it immediately precedes the "Roles" section; it is revised and expanded to include some of the results of Ziosi's and my research on the original cast, roughly corresponding to my above comments, i.e.: presenting the singers who with some degree of certainty sang in the production, without conjecturing what roles they might have sung, but introducing such performance-practical issues as the average number of singers and women in a production, company hierarchy and the doubling convention. This section could then also expand more on Anna Renzi's performance profile (cf. my Wikipedia article on her). Then follows the "Roles" section, which - from left to right - lists: 1) name and description of character; 2) voice type (+ range?); 3) scenes in which the character appears; 4) hypothetical casting, the preamble making clear that this is a hypothesis. For the sake of clarity, I suggest that the vertical ordering of the characters in my table is retained, i.e. starting with the female soprano roles and ending with the bass roles and finally with the characters that didn't appear in 1643 at all. Stockholm Opera (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That sounds promising. Could you mock up your proposed revised table in a sandbox so that I and others can view it and sort out any pesentation difficulties? We can settle on questions of explanatory text a little later. Brianboulton (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I will do so, but I will first have to learn how to use the sandbox: I just lost an hour's work because I wasn't able to save the table I had worked out, and I may not find the time to recreate it for the next few days. If you want to revert to the previous table in the article until we are ready to revise the section, it's therefore fine with me. Stockholm Opera (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Take your time. I have tweaked the table in the article, merely swapping the column order of singer and role, so that it now resembles a roles table. If you get a chance, see what you think; possibly no futher change required? We will need to give further attention to the text, so give me a message on my talkpage, here, when you've given further thought. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Ponzanino and Fritellino need to be reversed like the others. In view of your reservations above about presenting this cast list as established fact (which it isn't in all the cases), perhaps it would be better to 1) place the column with the singers to the far right, and 2) make individual rows for each of the characters, which will also make it graphically clearer, especially if people look at the table on a small screen. Arguably, the characters could then also be listed according to their importance in the opera, and not according to their voice type. Later, I will write an introduction to the table as I suggested above, in a sandbox. What do you think? Stockholm Opera (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't clearly visualise the table you have in mind, and need to see it. I suggest you work it up in a sandbox and we can look at it. If you need to contact me, I suggest you use User talk:Brianboulton as I am not watching the article talkpage all the time. Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

An infobox has been (re)added to this article, with the claim that if one person agrees it constitutes a discussion. As this is a FA, it would be more appropriate to have an actual discussion. The infobox "summarizes" the first sentence of the article; I would suggest removing it, and restoring the more useful navbox providing navigation to other Monteverdi works. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Just pointing out that the article already has a footer navbox linking to all of the articles on Monteverdi's operas, as well as those on his other works, so another one at the top is actually redundant. Incidentally, I merely edited the contents of the infobox placed by another editor. I personally don't care one way or another, but as this is a Featured Article, I'd be inclined to go along with the preferences of those who brought it to FA status. So far they haven't expressed any. Voceditenore (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
An infobox has been added to the article, by me, being bold, after project opera offered the option. It was reverted by user:Nikkimaria without a discussion. I discussed on her talk page that I would accept the revert of a main author to the article. I like the infobox much better than the redundant navbox, but am out of this, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I invited you to discuss; you re-added instead. But when making such a change, to an FA, in an area that you know to have been previously contentious, caution is more prudent than boldness. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Replied your talk, because it has nothing to do with this specific work. - The area of infoboxes for operas (!) has not been contentious, to my knowledge. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Gerda: an infobox here could indeed be regarded as contentious. I'm speaking from personal experience. If you look at the edit history, you'll see I removed one from this article in 2006! So I think it would be better if you asked the other editors before adding boxes. I wouldn't characterise your actions as WP:POINT attacks but they are gradually approaching that. How about relaxing a little and stop provoking these situations? --Kleinzach 14:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
As my personal experience doesn't go back to 2006, I suggest to relax a bit, look at the recent consensus found in project opera for an optional infobox in operas, and at the future. Do you seriously suggest that I ask every editor of the estimated 1000 opera articles before suggesting an improvement? I have a simple 1RR rule outlined above, 1RR with the Main author whose importance has been stressed so much in recent discussions.
Back to this article: can we speak about content of the infobox, by which I replaced the navbox for this opera, a navbox which is duplicated at the bottom of the article and thus of limited value for the reader? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
In answer to your first question: you should suggest what you believe to be an improvement before implementing it. Your second: I would support removing the navbox from the bottom if needed, but your proposed infobox duplicates what is right next to it and is thus of even more limited value for the reader. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I am here for project opera. From your answers I deduct that you did not follow the project's intentions in creating the template. Be so kind, do so now, {{infobox opera}}, general questions should be raised there. It's in its beginning, feedback is welcome, feedback from readers would also be welcome, readers who probably don't study suggestions on talk pages. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The project did not create the template. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Identibox

As the primary editor of this article (I expanded it from Start-class to FAC) I have experimentally replaced the Monteverdi template with what I have called an "identibox". There is discussion of the identibox concept at Talk:L'Arianna#The experiment. Briefly, the identibox is a minimalist infobox that provides an immediate identification of the article's subject without duplicating detail contained in the first paragraph of the lead, and without duplicating the navbox information that appears at the article's end. Designed for use in opera articles but possibly capable of wider adaptation, it provides an option whereby the lead image can help to illustrate aspects of the opera, rather than merely showing the composer's portrait.

Bear in mind I am not advocating that the identibox concept should be generaally adopted, only that it should be available as an option. Please do not revert, but by all means add your thoughts. Hopefully we can discuss the matter constructively, rather than merely taking up positions on the basis of the traditional and well-aired arguments for and against infoboxes. Brianboulton (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. I personally like the idea that Brianboulton has suggested. This is preferable to a redundant infobox in my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Seneca's character

The "Libretto" section gets it exactly wrong: in the opera Seneca is portrayed as more virtuous and noble in character than he really was. I have corrected the section accordingly, with a reference to Suetonious' The Twelve Caesars, which describes some of Seneca's real-life character defects. Goblinshark17 (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:L%27incoronazione_di_Poppea/Archive_1&oldid=1180047721"