{"title":"Bonvesin da la Riva低俗作品新评论版序言","authors":"Raymund Wilhelm","doi":"10.1515/zrp-2023-0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Our perception of the vernacular works of Bonvesin da la Riva is still largely shaped by the editions of Gianfranco Contini (1941 and 1960). A reassessment of Bonvesin in terms of language and literary history can only start from a reflection on the textual basis of his works. The high quality of the Berlin manuscript (ca. 1300), which contains about half of Bonvesin’s oeuvre, is undisputed. However, the “retranslation” of the texts contained exclusively in later manuscripts which converts them into the form of the codex optimus, as still practised by Gökçen (2001), seems unacceptable today. Rather, the aim should be to identify different linguistic, stylistic and textual tendencies of the individual works by making recourse to the entire textual tradition. In this context, the assumption of an absolutely regular metrical form of the alexandrine, which has been advocated since Salvioni and Contini, is becoming increasingly questionable. It is suggested that Bonvesin’s poetry should be considered in the light of the tradition of anisosyllabism, which was well attested in the 13th century. The hypothesis of a “dialectal authenticity” of Bonvesin’s language is also problematic. Rather, an edition must preserve the constitutive polymorphism of the medieval scripta. Overall, the aim must be to recognise the distinctive personality of the medieval poet in the heterogeneity and variability of the surviving texts, beyond anachronistic expectations of a “classic”.","PeriodicalId":44119,"journal":{"name":"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ROMANISCHE PHILOLOGIE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prolegomena a una nuova edizione critica delle opere volgari di Bonvesin da la Riva\",\"authors\":\"Raymund Wilhelm\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/zrp-2023-0008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Our perception of the vernacular works of Bonvesin da la Riva is still largely shaped by the editions of Gianfranco Contini (1941 and 1960). A reassessment of Bonvesin in terms of language and literary history can only start from a reflection on the textual basis of his works. The high quality of the Berlin manuscript (ca. 1300), which contains about half of Bonvesin’s oeuvre, is undisputed. However, the “retranslation” of the texts contained exclusively in later manuscripts which converts them into the form of the codex optimus, as still practised by Gökçen (2001), seems unacceptable today. Rather, the aim should be to identify different linguistic, stylistic and textual tendencies of the individual works by making recourse to the entire textual tradition. In this context, the assumption of an absolutely regular metrical form of the alexandrine, which has been advocated since Salvioni and Contini, is becoming increasingly questionable. It is suggested that Bonvesin’s poetry should be considered in the light of the tradition of anisosyllabism, which was well attested in the 13th century. The hypothesis of a “dialectal authenticity” of Bonvesin’s language is also problematic. Rather, an edition must preserve the constitutive polymorphism of the medieval scripta. Overall, the aim must be to recognise the distinctive personality of the medieval poet in the heterogeneity and variability of the surviving texts, beyond anachronistic expectations of a “classic”.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44119,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ROMANISCHE PHILOLOGIE\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ROMANISCHE PHILOLOGIE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/zrp-2023-0008\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ROMANISCHE PHILOLOGIE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zrp-2023-0008","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
摘要我们对Bonvesin da la Riva白话作品的看法在很大程度上仍然受到Gianfranco Contini(1941年和1960年)版本的影响。从语言和文学史的角度重新评价邦维辛,只能从对其作品文本基础的反思入手。柏林手稿(约1300年)的高质量是无可争议的,其中包含了邦维辛大约一半的作品。然而,像Gökçen(2001)仍然实行的那样,对后来手稿中所载的文本进行“重新翻译”,将其转化为最佳法典的形式,这在今天看来是不可接受的。相反,其目的应该是通过求助于整个文本传统来识别单个作品的不同语言、风格和文本倾向。在这种情况下,自萨尔维奥尼和孔蒂尼以来一直提倡的亚历山大的绝对规则韵律形式的假设越来越令人怀疑。本文认为,邦维辛的诗歌应该从13世纪就已得到充分证明的异音传统的角度来考虑。邦维辛语言的“方言真实性”假说也存在问题。相反,一个版本必须保留中世纪圣经的构成多态性。总的来说,我们的目标必须是在现存文本的异质性和可变性中认识到中世纪诗人的独特个性,超越对“经典”不合时宜的期望。
Prolegomena a una nuova edizione critica delle opere volgari di Bonvesin da la Riva
Abstract Our perception of the vernacular works of Bonvesin da la Riva is still largely shaped by the editions of Gianfranco Contini (1941 and 1960). A reassessment of Bonvesin in terms of language and literary history can only start from a reflection on the textual basis of his works. The high quality of the Berlin manuscript (ca. 1300), which contains about half of Bonvesin’s oeuvre, is undisputed. However, the “retranslation” of the texts contained exclusively in later manuscripts which converts them into the form of the codex optimus, as still practised by Gökçen (2001), seems unacceptable today. Rather, the aim should be to identify different linguistic, stylistic and textual tendencies of the individual works by making recourse to the entire textual tradition. In this context, the assumption of an absolutely regular metrical form of the alexandrine, which has been advocated since Salvioni and Contini, is becoming increasingly questionable. It is suggested that Bonvesin’s poetry should be considered in the light of the tradition of anisosyllabism, which was well attested in the 13th century. The hypothesis of a “dialectal authenticity” of Bonvesin’s language is also problematic. Rather, an edition must preserve the constitutive polymorphism of the medieval scripta. Overall, the aim must be to recognise the distinctive personality of the medieval poet in the heterogeneity and variability of the surviving texts, beyond anachronistic expectations of a “classic”.
期刊介绍:
The journal Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie (ZrP), was founded in 1877 by Gustav Gröber. In the field of literary history the subjects covered by the journal include Romance literature up to the Renaissance, as well as the entire scope of Romance language studies and related studies.