Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Aretino, Pietro. Cortigiana (La cortigiana) (1525). Translated by J. Douglas Campbell and Leonard G. Sbrocchi. Introduction by Raymond B. Waddington. Carleton Renaissance Plays in Translation 38. Ottawa: Dovehouse editions inc., 2003. Pp. iy8. My first approach in reading this translation of Aretino’ s Cortigiana was to simply enjoy the comedy per se as a completely new creation, to take pleasure in what happened on stage, to laugh at the foolishness of Messer Maco and Parabolano, and to appreciate the dialogue, the freshness ofthe imagery, the language itself. I was not concerned with the original Italian version nor did I compare the efficacy of the translation: I read the comedy as a creation of Campbell and Sbrocchi, not Aretino. The language used by the translators definitely reflects the tone used by the Renaissance writer, the “range of diction, from high to low or, always a feature of daily life, the specialized vocabulary of the trades and professions” (20). What is not reflected in this excellent translation is, however, the “range of dialect and accents”(20) used in the comedy, from Sienese to Neapolitan, from Spanish to Sicilian. This setback, however, is inevitable; and almost as compensation, Raymond B. Waddington, in his introduction, dedicates two brilliant pages (19-21) to the analysis of the language in the Cortigiana. In my opinion, there is no doubt that this translation makes Aretino’s text more acces sible not only to an English-speaking reader but also to advanced students of Italian as a second language. This is mainly because of the almost 150 textual annotations (141-156), whose purpose is twofold: 1) to explain the numerous references to Renaissance history, people, events, allusions; 2) to justify the translation of difficult idiomatic expressions of that period or obscure lines that even a modern Italian-speaking reader would not have otherwise understood. This is definitely an act of philological recovery of the original text. The philological accuracy of the translators is also evident in the fact that they have chosen as the base-text the 1525 edition, a choice that is meticulously justified in Waddington’s introduction (“ La cortigiana in Aretino’ s Theatrical Achievement,” [9-10] and “the Two Cortigiana Texts” [11-12]). The 1525 edition, in fact, suits better one of the purposes of the Carleton Renaissance Plays in Translation series: that is, to keep the per former in mind as well as the reader. As stated by Waddington, The two texts differ substantially, reflecting Aretino’s altered circumstances in various ways.... Other changes are indica tive of Aretino’ s absorption in the print culture of Venice. La cortigiana ’34 has been described as a print text conceived for 244 IBancheri readers in contrast to the performance text of’25. It also takes care to spell out physical actions for the convenience of the reader who must imagine the stage scene (11-12). Theatrical vividness, adds Waddington, “is perhaps “the most memorable quality of the Cortigiana ‘25” (10), as in it Aretino anticipate techniques developed in the commedia dell’ arte. The scholarly solidity of the entire volume is also evident in Wadding ton’s critical essay (about 50 pages). This introduction is both concise and informative, written with both the scholar and the students in mind, as well, as mentioned before, the performer. It encompasses everything one needs to know in order to have an excellent understanding of the comedy and its political and literary setting during the Renaissance. Beside the sections mentioned above—Aretino’s theatrical achievement, the two Cortigiana texts, and the language of the Cortigiana—one will find a short biography of Aretino, an explanation of the title, a discussion on Commedia erudita and Aretino’ s attitude towards it in Cortigiana, a description of the Leonine Rome in 1517-27, a comparison between Castiglione’ s Book ofthe courtier and the La cortigiana, the presentation of Cortigiana as a virtual tribute to Pasquino and his pasquinate, an analysis of how Aretino’ s comedy is a mirror of Leo x’ s papal court, and a bibliography of primary and second ary sources. The explanation and interpretation of the title is perhaps a key section in understanding the organization of Waddington’s introduction. The fact...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».