Talk:Banquet of Chestnuts

Inappropiate Image

The painting portrayed in the "In popular culture" section has very little to do with the topic of the article, while also being quite explicit. I don't think it belongs in the article, therefore I will remove it.--JoanXXIII (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Enciclopedicity

hmmm. Is it my imagination or does this not look exactly encyclopaedic? user:sjc

I added a couple references. I guess it is as reliable as the testimony of Burchard, who was there. By the way, Manchester gives a date of October 30 rather than November 30 -- not that it matters, but that's why I'm changing it. Antandrus 03:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would be nice if we could actually read what you have to say on this. "what," in your opinoin, makes it not, sjc? Your religious POV? --69.214.227.51 03:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rename?

If this is "known more properly", should it be renamed to "Ballet of Chestnuts"? —Ashley Y 04:46, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

#REDIRECT is your friend. Pavel Vozenilek 22:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but what should the article title be? —Ashley Y 23:34, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Burchard's account

The account of the Banquet contained in this article does not correspond to that contained in Johann Burchard's Liber Notarum and is inaccurate in several important details. I have corrected these points but they have been changed back to the inaccurate forms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.43.58.100 (talk • contribs).

Sorry about that; I don't have the text on hand, so I was going by memory. However, the edit did duplicate some information, specifically that about the offer of prizes. Could you clean that up to reflect the more accurate acount? Thanks... Mindmatrix 19:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Excerpt from source text?

It would be nice to read a translation from the source texts(s) of this event. I'm still not clear if this really happened or if it was just propaganda.

Here is an English translation of all that Burchard wrote about this event: 'On Sunday evening, 30 October [1501], Don Cesare Borja gave his father a supper in the apostolic palace, with 50 decent prostitutes or courtesans in bright garb in attendance, who after the meal danced with the servants and others there, first fully dressed and then naked. Following the supper, lampstands holding lighted candles were placed on the floor and chestnuts strewn about, which the prostitutes, naked and on their hands and knees, had to pick up with their mouths as they crawled in and out among the lampstands. The Pope watched and admired their noble parts. The evening ended with an obscene contest of these women, coupled with male servants of the Vatican, for prizes which the Pope presented. Don Cesare, Donna Lucrezia and the Pope later each took a partner of their liking for further dalliances'. In context it is clear that the 'male servants of the Vatican' are the same 'servants' who danced after the meal - not Cardinals as some sloppy writers claim. I think that the main page is based on embellished reports, but I can't be bothered to get into an edit war about it so I'm just writing this here. Also, in relation to the Sabatini argument immediately below, apparently the only part of Burchard's diary that we have in his own hand is about later events - which the edition published early in the 20th century put together with subsequent copies that might have been added to by anti-Borgia or anti-Catholic scribes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy Dispute?

I believe an accuracy dispute warning would be appropriate for this article because not all biographers of the Borgia family think that this event actually took place. Rafael Sabatini argues that the style of writing employed in Buchard's account conflicts with the style of the rest of Buchard's Diarium and therefore that the credibility of this particular section is called into question. Sabatini argues that the only other piece of evidence that records this event as taking place is the anonymous Letter to Silvio Savelli, a letter that is seemingly anti-Borgia propaganda. Sabatini suggests that if this event actually took place and there was credible knowledge of it at the time (as opposed to rumour) then we should expect there to be more evidence than just these two questionable pieces.

Sabatini, R. (2008), The Life of Cesare Borgia, BiblioBazaar, pp. 228–237, ISBN 9781434675446

Tristanasclark (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Don't see that factual accuracy might be questioned this way. One author's opinion does not superseed the other authors works.--138.88.103.233 (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

We do not have this part of the diary in Burchard's original hand. Will Durant (Story of Civilization V: The Renaissance, various editions - look up Burchard in index) says that "Of the original manuscript only 26 pages survive, all concerning the period following Alexander's final illness. Of the remainder of the Diarium only copies exist. All these copies carry the story. It may have been interpolated by a hostile scribe..." Durant also notes that Burchard does not say he was present and that his character was such that he would have withdrawn; in his Diarium he normally included only eye-witness reports and reports by reliable witnesses. This is the same part of the Diarium that also includes the highly implausible horse sex story of Alexander calling for stallions to be loosed on mares, the scene viewed from the papal windows (a bit of a coincidence that those mares were on heat!) The Florentine ambassador, no friend to the Borgias, reports only "dancing and laughter" that night. And would Alexander really have jeopardised the marriage of Lucrezia and risked a vital diplomatic alliance with Ferrara by alowing her to be involved, when Rome was already replete with Ferraran agents ready to accompany her back to her new husband? Put all that together with the Sabatini-Savelli theory and the whole thing looks highly implausible. And I am no apologist for the Roman Catholic church, unlike Sabatini. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)