MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2550536946 · doi:10.1353/esc.2004.0079

Cortigiana (La cortigiana) (1525) by Pietro Aretino

2004· article· en· W2550536946 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Salvatore Bancheri

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish studies in Canada · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRenaissance Literature and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComedyDictionReading (process)LiteraturePunctuationComicsVernacularArtLinguisticsHistoryPoetryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.804

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish studies in CanadaSame topicRenaissance Literature and CultureFrench-language works237,207