The Nineteenth-Century Italian Translators of Lord Byron’s <i>Marino Faliero</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tragic story of Marino Faliero, the Doge of Venice who was executed for high treason in 1355, came to the attention of writers and artists of various European countries during the early nineteenth century thanks to a number of historians who published insightful works on the history of the Venetian Republic. Among those who were fascinated by the irascible old warrior who tried to overthrow the oligarchy on becoming head of state was Lord Byron. In 1821, the English poet published the historical drama Marino Faliero, Doge of Venice on the tragic end of a hero whose personal grievances with the Venetian Senate intertwined with an ill-fated plebeian rebellion against the nobility. Byron’s popularity in Italy brought the story to the attention of Italian romantic literary circles, where it was not only appreciated as a tragedy of honour and revenge, but also for its ideological implications in the context of the Risorgimento. This study focuses on the three translators who produced the first complete Italian versions of Byron’s play published in the nineteenth century, namely Pasquale De Virgili, Giovan Battista Cereseto, and Andrea Maffei. Based on André Lefevere’s theory on rewriting, it analyses the ideological and poetological reasons behind the translations, how the translators’ intentions shaped the target texts, as well as the impact these translations had on Italian literature and the arts. The strategies adopted by the translators are also illustrated through a comparative textual analysis of a sample passage.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".