Reconsidering the tradition of so-called authorial philology, the essay insists on the one hand on its definition all the way upstream of Contini’s variant criticism, and on the other on the not strictly linguistic-stylistic interest from which some major undertakings in this field originated. After a quick overview of significant editions of Renaissance texts and cases of various importance, Gianfranco Contini’s essay “Come lavorava l’Ariosto” is examined, particularly the variants analyzed there and their categorization, here verified in the context of the work and assessed in a different way.
Historical Reasons of Renaissance Authorial Philology. With Preliminary Observations on “How Ariosto Worked”.|RAGIONI STORICHE DELLA FILOLOGIA D’AUTORE RINASCIMENTALE. CON OSSERVAZIONI PRELIMINARI SU COME LAVORAVA L’ARIOSTO / Albonico, S.. - In: NUOVA RIVISTA DI LETTERATURA ITALIANA. - ISSN 1590-7929. - 26:1(2023), pp. 49-74. [10.4454/nrli.v26i1.412]
Historical Reasons of Renaissance Authorial Philology. With Preliminary Observations on “How Ariosto Worked”.|RAGIONI STORICHE DELLA FILOLOGIA D’AUTORE RINASCIMENTALE. CON OSSERVAZIONI PRELIMINARI SU COME LAVORAVA L’ARIOSTO
Albonico S.
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
2023
Abstract
Reconsidering the tradition of so-called authorial philology, the essay insists on the one hand on its definition all the way upstream of Contini’s variant criticism, and on the other on the not strictly linguistic-stylistic interest from which some major undertakings in this field originated. After a quick overview of significant editions of Renaissance texts and cases of various importance, Gianfranco Contini’s essay “Come lavorava l’Ariosto” is examined, particularly the variants analyzed there and their categorization, here verified in the context of the work and assessed in a different way.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
