Talk:Don Juan

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

Link between Don Juan and Casanova[edit]

There seems to be an inextricable link between Don Juan and Casanova. According to the Article, Casanova actually attended a play about Don Juan. Something I never knew until now. But here's something more interesting. Apparently one of Casanova's ancestors was named "Don Juan Casanova", though I highly doubt he has anything to do with the legend whatsoever. I'm not adding this to the article, but I quote:

" Giacomo Casanova 

                The memoirs of Jacques Casanova de Seingalt
                        VENETIAN YEARS—CHILDHOOD
                               CHAPTER I
                      My Family Pedigree—My Childhood

Don Jacob Casanova, the illegitimate son of Don Francisco Casanova, was a native of Saragosa, the capital of Aragon, and in the year of 1428 he carried off Dona Anna Palofax from her convent, on the day after she had taken the veil. He was secretary to King Alfonso. He ran away with her to Rome, where, after one year of imprisonment, the pope, Martin III., released Anna from her vows, and gave them the nuptial blessing at the instance of Don Juan Casanova, majordomo of the Vatican, and uncle of Don Jacob. All the children born from that marriage died in their infancy, with the exception of Don Juan, who, in 1475, married Donna Eleonora Albini, by whom he had a son, Marco Antonio.

In 1481, Don Juan, having killed an officer of the king of Naples, was compelled to leave Rome, and escaped to Como with his wife and his son; but having left that city to seek his fortune, he died while traveling with Christopher Columbus in the year 1493." Dessydes (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That reads like a badly invented tale. Pope Martin III (actually Marinus II) reigned 942–946, Pope Martin IV reigned 1281-1285. Str1977 (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shipman's Tale[edit]

Just reading the shipman's tale and noticed the adulterous monk Chaucer repeatedly refers to as 'daun John'. Any possibility of a connection here? Asking more out of idle interest than any real conviction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.38.67 (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unidentified Don Juan themed work[edit]

I have a recording of a song/album about Don Juan with no identification and I'm not sure if it's listed here. The music is symphonic and cinematic, possibly a film score, and the recording sounds to be from the 1960s or 1970s. Some of the lyrics are "Don Juan, you are Don Juan, you're a woman, sent from heaven, to hell, to hell..." The male vocalist sounds almost a bit like David Bowie. If anyone knows what or which work this is, it would be greatly appreciated and I would add it to the Works list if it's not already there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.205.247.9 (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange POV segment[edit]

Is "Don Juan's legendary stories makes for a great influence on its weak-minded readers. It has been documented that readers of Don Juan often change their lives to an anti-social mindset in attempts to idolize Don Juan" really part of this article and NPOV? It looks like something a troll put there.

– Uh, yeah. I'm taking it out. Wordie 15:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Why unlink Don and Juan? -- Error 22:02, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

La Celestina may be an earlier appearance, with Don Juan as a minor character. Sparky

Byron[edit]

Byron's famous version of the tale is somewhat different from the traditional Don Juan; does it perhaps deserve its own article?

If I'm not missinformed, Don Juan is now a catholic saint. We have all observed the complicated relation the Catholic church has to sex, but hopefully Don Juan had some other pages in his C.V. then just a string of conquests. 213.199.75.34 15:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps _I_ am misinformed, but how the hell could DJ be "now a catholic saint"? Seems an absurd idea on the face of it. How the above comment has lingered unquestioned for almost four years is intriguing. People apparently will believe any bizarre statement regarding the Catholic Church....

Other Don Juans[edit]

Don Juan is also a character who appears in Journey to Ixtlan, The Teachings of Don Juan and A Separate Reailty, all books by Carlos Castaneda. He is a hunter, sorcerer, teacher and guide to psychotropic plants. No relation to the Don Juan of the current article.

Also closely related is Chaucer's Daun John, who lends the money of a husband to a wife, is repaid in sex by the wife, then leaves after telling the husband his wife owes him the money. Since this was written around 1386, it deserves mention as one of the earliest recordings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.243.37 (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---Since Juan Matus is in no way related to this character, I am removing Carlos Castaneda's link from the article.

Most agree that Don Juan is based on a legendary 17th century Spanish nobleman Don Juan Tenorio.??[edit]

Most do not agree that he is based on Don Juan Tenorio. The family existed in Sevilla on Tirso de Molinas time, but no source exist about a libertine Don Juan Tenorio. Some have mentioned a Miguel Mañara as model for Don Juan, other have found likeness in contemporary theater, but it is all speculation and should be placed in a chapter called Speculations over the origin of the Don Juan character. I will erase it. Jakosa 11:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- There's a curious parallel in some mediaeval english poems - I know of 2 which feature a generic "Sir John" character as lover (and another 2 featuring a "Jack"). Could be that in Spanish as well it was the generic name for Johnny Q. Seducer types, but then got turned into a specific myth. (For reference: Penguin Classics' "Late Medieval English Lyrics and Carols", poems 109-112.) godescalc 18:02 27 November 2006 (GMT+1)

The Statue[edit]

My sources say the statue was in a church. However, the article says the statue was in a cemetery. I just want to know which is true, or whether they are both true. My sources say Don Juan was in a church, because he had committed a crime and hid in the church to hide from the authorities, since one could not be arrested in a church in those days.


-Technically they are both right. Most legends depict the graveyard as being attached to the church. According to Washington Irving's Don Juan: A Spectral Research the church itself and the graveyard are both part of a convent- specifically the convent of San Fransisco. This was also, according to legend, the same convent where Don Manuel de Mañara attended his own funeral. -ALD

it:Don Juan[edit]

I had removed the it:Don Juan link since it was linking to the "Don Juan" swedish tv series by Ingmar Bergman. The Italian Wikipedia doesn't have an article about Don Juan/Don Giovanni character yet. Unfortunately a bot added the it:wiki link again and I really can't start an edit war against a bot :D --Absinthe88 01:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Mozart[edit]

Don Giovanni is an opera comique by W.A. Mozart depecting the story of Don Juan that is completely unmentioned in the article. I personally do not know enough to write the article myself.

Pronunciation[edit]

It would be useful to have a pronunciation guide to how to say "Don Juan" - I've heard at least three ways of saying it. Davidbod 11:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem might be that "Don Juan" is pronounced differently in different parts of the world? In Sweden for example, it is common to pronounce it in swedish, rather than in spanish. Oddjob se 12:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I'm Swedish and have never heard anything else than a Spanish pronounciation (or at least an attempt of it). I'll come back when I hear someone say Herr Johan ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.46.246 (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except for radio announcers and university professors, who invariably pronounce it "Don Jew-Ann", most of us pronounce it "Don Won". No less an authority than Alex Trebek pronounced it that way on Jeopardy a couple of weeks ago, and went out of his way to point out that this was not a mistake, to avoid the letters, as he put it. So why is what sounds like a hillbilly affectation considered the "true" pronunciation? I consider this to be one of the great unsolved mysteries of this century. Ivan Denisovitch (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No less an authority than the poet intended a duality in the (mis)pronunciation of "Juan." The expected pronunciation would, of course, be "wahn," as you indicated. But the poet played on mispronunciation, and this is evidenced by the rhyme scheme. Byron wanted his poem to be read with the hero's last name pronounced "joo-wahn," as if to make fun of himself, his readers and his character. Granted, I haven't re-read the poem in twemty years and can't be bothered to look this all up, but am surprised it isn't common knowledge recorded here. My authority is the rhyme scheme itself: "new one" and "true one" in (as I recall) the opening canto. This isn't hard. Just read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salon Essahj (talk • contribs) 02:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only alternative pronunciation of which I'm aware is in Byron's Don Juan (Joo-ahn), which is only done to fit the rhyme scheme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamdummar (talk • contribs) 04:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this alternative pronunciation doesn't exist at all and Byron was just using slant rhyme.Samael jr. (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it with the J mostly from Brits (cf. Quixote rendered "kwik-sot", virtually unheard of in the US). Can anyone from the UK confirm whether this is common, or considered pedantic/pretentious even there?

And by "3 versions", I think the OP was including Jooan, 1 syllable, and Joo-ahn, 2 syllables, separately. Having rarely heard EITHER version (again, except among Brits), I cannot comment further.

Or perhaps he was distinguishing a "W" version from an "HW" version? A distinction mainly lost on my Yank ears, but stressed ad nauseum back in grade school English. 66.105.218.68 (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Don Juan's [don ʒwan]/[don ʃwan]. "J" was pronounced at the time (16th — 17th) century as [ʒ] or [ʃ] in the north (not consistenly). In modern Spanish was reduced as [x], which is extremely uncommon in the world. That's why modern Spanish Quijote is rendered Quixote in English or Quichote [ʃ] in French, as they represent the phonemic reality of Spanish at the time. México for instance is one word maintaining its original writing instead of Méjico (how it is pronounced). In the English language Don Juan would have enter pronounced with [dʒ], [ʒ] or [ʃ], but as Spanish changed its phonetics and Don Juan left the common speech, it may be confusing now. Since it has not varied its writing and has not the same cultural prominence of the Quixote, it would be prudent to pronounce it as closely to modern Spanish. Since most English speakers lack the phoneme [x] the closest, already use for other Spanish borrowings (jamón), would be [h]. --2A01:C50F:A480:4500:B43E:F4FD:E8C0:7977 (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don Juan and Don John[edit]

I always got the idea that Don Juan initially got started as indirect myths about Don John of Austria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Austria

Who supposedly thought of invading England and marrying Mary Queen of Scotts but died before it amounted to anything. It would seem a mistake far more easy to make when you read history books where Don John's name is translated into English as Don Juan rather than Don John.

Is it reasonable that the myth of Don Juan has nothing to do with Don John?

Editilde22 03:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John and Juan aren't even different names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.233.94 (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit comical to say the "Don John's name is translated into English as Don Juan rather than Don John", when "Don Juan" isn't actually a translation.
But given the banality of the name, literally translated "Sir John", the mere name is not enough to speculate about a link. Str1977 (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

religious themes[edit]

One thing the article doesn't mention is that several Don Juan plays had religious implications. In Molina's play Juan repeatedly says he will do penance later; and of course "later" never comes; in Moliere's version Don Juan is depicted as an sceptic who fears no punishment after death. The 19th century version focuses on whether Don Juan is redeemible, while Shaw's MAN AND SUPERMAN portrays topsy-turvy versions of Heaven and Hell. 76.122.75.89 (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They should also mention Don Juan's well known phrase "Tan largo me lo fiáis,” that he lives by. Which means that death and punishment is not something he'll worry about at the moment because he'll have time to do penance later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondragonj103 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing some refrences[edit]

Mainly the book by Lord Byron in 1819 if it is missing that one, which is by a relaitivley important person, then it is probally missing some more.

pronunciation[edit]

I removed the comment "close to the /ˌdɒnˈdʒuːan/ common in Britain today", since the sound value of /a/ is undefined. However, if someone can confirm what it was supposed to be, we might need a rewrite of the paragraph, since the US pronunciation isn't relevant. kwami (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also in Britain it would be /dɔːn/ not /dɒn/. Stuart M (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you clearly don't pronounce that like "dawn" in Britain. --88.65.127.73 (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the chronology[edit]

The chronology has so many entries in it as to render it next to worthless. The point of an encyclopedia is to point a person new to a subject to the important information. An exhaustive (or attempted exhaustive) list fails in that the person new to the subject has no way to figure out which entries are the important ones. As it stands the chronology has so many entries as to render it as bad as no chronology at all. Someone in the know really needs to trim probably 3/4's or more of it. Ekwos (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but only in part. The chronology needs some trimming, but mostly it needs detailed annotations as to the significance of the single works. For instance, which ones are "original" and which ones are imitations, parodies and derivative works of others, to which form or genre does each belong (which ones are operas, plays, novels etc.?), which has some special reason of interest (say, the first opera, the first work in English, a work that is wildly different from other works by the same author, and so on), which is well-known for some reason (a song from it has become popular, say), and so forth. All in all, it might become a well-structured survey of Don Juan-derived works, and perhaps a separate article. Goochelaar (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree, that the list of works should be shortened. I also noticed that they mentioned the work by Tirso de Molina as the original work, but they should add his real name to it. He was commonly known as Tirso de Molina, but his real name was Gabriel Téllez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondragonj103 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reverted spurious edits[edit]

Someone inserted that Don Juan originated with an azerbaijani spy, I thought this sounded spurious at best, and reverted it to the version that existed previously, from december 10th.

Donquigleone (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Seduced"?[edit]

Is it really accurate to say that Don Juan's behavior was consistently "seduction" all the way from his first appearance? True enough, his behavior in the first story would have at the time been called "seduction", but not today. Seduction suggests making the woman desire him, but in the original it seemed that his normal pattern was to trick women into sleeping with him thinking he was someone else, someone the woman was truly committed to. This isn't tempting or enticing the woman to infidelity. This is deceit, and even qualifies as rape under some jurisdictions, since the women would not have consented if they knew it wasn't who they expected. I recognize that all his incarnations have been described as a seducer, but I must question whether it's appropriate to say that the original was a seducer consistent with the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.50.240 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shapeshifter[edit]

Please explain the word 'shapeshifter'. 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:65BF:7DE1:C67C:7AE2 (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problem section[edit]

The section on Tirso de Molina's play has some problems. Disclaimer: I have not read Tirso's play or the reference for the section. (1) "Tirso felt that young people were throwing their lives away, because they believed that as long as they made an Act of Contrition before they died, they would automatically receive God's forgiveness for all the wrongs they had done, and enter into heaven. Tirso's play argues in contrast that there is a penalty for sin, and there are even unforgivable sins." As it stands, this is theologically illiterate: a proper confession before death can indeed bring forgiveness for sins (not "automatically", of course), although a long stay in Purgatory may be needed, and the Catholic church does teach that there is a penalty for sin (probably most Christians would agree). It may reflect Tirso's views, however; since I don't read Spanish, I can't check the reference. (2) "The devil himself ... cannot escape eternal punishment for his unforgivable sins." More illiteracy: the devil suffers eternal punishment not because he committed an "unforgivable" sin but because, as an angel, he was given a single moment in which to turn toward God or himself. "The angel by his intellect apprehends immovably.... after he has once adhered, he clings immovably." (Summa Theologica, I, 64, 2) (3) "Tirso de Molina's theological perspective is quite apparent through the dreadful ending of his play." What perspective? And "dreadful" is POV. — This section needs to be clearer and more impartial, preferably citing a source in English. Wgrommel (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Dragged down to hell by the stone statue'?[edit]

'The (original) play (by Tirso de Molina) includes most of the elements found and later adapted in subsequent works, including ... the dramatic ending in which Don Juan dines with and is then dragged down to hell by the stone statue of the father he had previously slain.'

This claim in the lede makes intuitive sense, since taking the statue's hand is the event heralding Don Juan's death. However, if you actually look at the texts, it doesn't seem to be true that the statue 'drags him down' in most notable works retelling the story, starting with the original by Tirso de Molina.

  • In the original version by Tirso de Molina, Don Juan takes the statue's hand, but the latter is apparently infernally hot and, having had his hand squeezed for some time, Don Juan just exclaims 'I am dead!' ('Muerto soy!') and promptly 'falls down dead' (cae muerto). We aren't shown anything more; the previous context has made it clear that Don Juan has been condemned to eternal perdition, so his soul presumably goes to hell, but we don't see that and there is nothing in the text to indicate that the soul is transported to its destination in any other way than the usual one - no 'dragging' by the statue is needed or mentioned.
  • In Molière's version, after taking the statue's hand, Don Juan feels that he is being consumed by an invisible flame, and in a few moments he is struck by lightning and the earth opens and engulfs him ('Le tonnerre tombe avec un grand bruit et de grands éclairs sur don Juan ; la terre s’ouvre et l’abîme ; et il sort de grands feux de l’endroit où il est tombé'). Technically, what brings Don Juan to hell here seems to be the opening of the earth under him, which would have produced this effect quite irrespective of whether the statue held his hand or not - even just due to the usual operation of the law of gravity, so to speak, with absolutely no need for the statue to pull him down. It is not stated that the statue itself went down with him, let alone that it was pulling him. In fact, it would have seemed somewhat inappropriate for the earth to engulf it on par with Don Juan, since the Commander is not depicted as deserving to be in hell. Not to mention that Don Juan has presumably just been killed by the lightning anyway, so even physically transporting his body to hell seems superfluous and is probably only done in this spectacular way in order to 'send a message'.
  • In the opera by Mozart and Da Ponte, the statue's purpose in holding Don Juan's hand is actually to warn him that his time is soon up and to make him repent (a role played by other figures in Molière's version); having failed to achieve that, the statue regretfully states that there is no more time left ('Ah! tempo più non v’è.') and simply disappears, leaving Don Juan to his fate, as the infernal flames and abyss that he has earned appear as scheduled (fuoco da diverse parti; il Comm. sparisce, e s’apre una voragine). The infernal abyss that then engulfs Don Juan is what the statue had been trying to warn him against, not something in any way brought about by the statue. Again, it is made clear that the Commander is a denizen of heaven, used to 'celestial food' ('cibo celeste'), so he had no business in hell - on the contrary, the invitation extended to Don Juan to 'dine' with the statue is actually a metaphorical invitation to go to Heaven, which Don Juan misunderstands as a mortal threat (and thus bravely accepts), but then effectively rejects by refusing to repent. All in all, a rather dismal failure of communication on the part of the statue, which is anything but unusual for Heaven and its messengers.
  • In Don Juan Tenorio by Zorrilla, the statue of the dead old man does try to pull Don Juan down to hell, but fails, because Don Juan is redeemed by the statue of the equally dead Doña Inés, the old man's daughter and Don Juan's love interest, which then somehow manages to die again (or to become even more dead), apparently just so that she can keep him company ('Cae Don Juan a los pies de Doña Inés y mueren ambos').

Really, the only notable work I can think of where Don Juan really is, basically, dragged down to hell by the statue is the version by Pushkin: both of them fall down into hell ('Проваливаются.') And that is assuming that this work really is 'notable' for anyone other than people like myself who already have some connection to Russian culture. Also, strictly speaking, even this isn't an example of Don Juan being 'dragged down to hell by the stone statue of the father he had previously slain', because the Commander is the husband and not the father of Doña Ana in this version. Anonymous44 (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don Juan comes back from the war by Horvath[edit]

It might be a good idea to add a reference to Ödön von Horváth’s play “Don Juan kommt aus dem Krieg”. It is set immediately after World War I in Germany, and features a Don Juan that is looking to reunite with his “bride”, who he abandoned before the war. 89.214.151.75 (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don_Juan&oldid=1220293173"