Petrarch and the Textual Origins of Interpretation

Edited by

Teodolinda Barolini and H. Wayne Storey

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2007

CHAPTER FIVE

PETRARCH READING BOCCACCIO: REVISITING THE GENESIS OF THE TRIUMPHI Martin Eisner What are the origins of Petrarch’s Triumphi? The question posed in this manner admits of certain ambiguities. What can it mean to search for the origins of a work of art? Martin Heidegger addresses the question from an aesthetic perspective in one of his more inuential essays and, after attempts to avoid the gure of the artist altogether, has to concede that one must examine “the activity of the artist in order to arrive at the origin of the work of art”.1 How can we access an artist’s process of conceptualization? What materials are available to us? The world may have been created in six days, but the gestation period of a work of art, in which the artist faces the daunting task of creatio ex nihilo, lasts considerably longer. It is the product of long considered ideas, slowly accumulated observations, and sudden insights. It would be foolish to hope to perceive all of the elements that went into a work’s construction, or hope to reduce “the complexity of the Trion’s inspiration”,2 but it is worth attempting to discover the most decisive moment in its creation and the most decisive model of its literary form. The philological apparatus of a work can furnish us with certain clues to this process, but the textual situation of Petrarch’s Triumphi is anything but certain. There is debate about which Triumphi constitute the nal version and what their proper order should be, in addition to a high number of variants that further complicate the work’s textual stability.3 The date of composition, furthermore, remains problematic and open

Heidegger 1971, 58. Baranski 1990, 75. 3 Pasquini 1975 takes issue with the ordering of Appel 1901, which follows the vulgate of the poem that circulated following Petrarch’s death. While the vulgate version does have the advantage of presenting the work as it came to be known and interpreted, the possibility that Petrarch’s nal version was different from the vulgate may be conrmed by Zenone Zenoni’s use of the rst terzina of Triumphus Mortis II as the principio of the poem as a whole. On Zenone Zenoni, see Feo 1979, 30–36.
1 2

132

martin eisner

to various interpretations. It is no wonder that Emilio Pasquini has spent over thirty years preparing a new critical edition. While these materials may be an impediment to the establishment of a critical edition, they also present the critic with a wide array of opportunities to interrogate the work at various moments of its coming into being. The philological confusion that confronts the textual critic is a mine of possibilities for the critic who wants to investigate the work’s genesis. Exploring these philological materials, this essay revisits a hypothesis rst proposed by Vittore Branca and Giuseppe Billanovich, which sees Boccaccio’s Amorosa visione as the decisive mediating text in Petrarch’s conceptualization of the Triumphi. Scholars have proposed other works, both literary and visual, that may have inuenced Petrarch’s poem, but according to this hypothesis there is no work that has contributed more to the inspiration of the unique literary form of the triumph.4 The reconstruction outlined by Branca and Billanovich needs to be revised in some signicant ways, but the general pattern of circulation described by Branca whereby Boccaccio’s Amorosa visione inuenced Petrarch’s Triumphi, which in their turn prompted Boccaccio to revise his poem, remains persuasive. Although Branca felt condent asserting this model as “certain” in Boccaccio medievale, recent editors of the Triumphi have been less convinced of Boccaccio’s role.5 In the introduction to his edition of the Triumphi, for example, Marco Ariani relegates the issue to a brief footnote, preferring instead to emphasize Petrarch’s relations to Dante’s poem.6 Marco Santagata, on the other hand, addresses the question in his introduction to Vinicio

4 On possible visual inuences, see Ciccuto 1988 and 1991b. Calcaterra (1942, 145–208) argues for the importance of the Roman de la Rose in the origins of the Triumphi. 5 Branca 1986, 315: “Ma quella circolazione è certa: come l’Amorosa visione suggerì il disegno e lo sviluppo dei Trion, così l’intervento—a diversi livelli—del Petrarca, il suo interesse per il poemetto ne sollecitò prepotentemente la ripresa e la nuova redazione da parte dell’autore. E se l’idea, la struttura, la tradizione stessa dei trion ha come iniziatore il Boccaccio, forse mai quella sua afosa ed infelice prova, in cinquanta canti in terza rima, avrebbe avuto la forza di avviare e di imporre e di far sviluppare largamente alla letteratura del Rinascimento un ‘genere’ di così caratteristico gusto tardogotico”. In the same essay, Branca proposes the connections between Rvf 323.6–11 and Decameron V 8.15 as another example of Boccaccian inuence on Petrarch. On Boccaccio’s importance as a transmitter of genres to the Renaissance, see Orvieto 1978. 6 Ariani (1988, 10n12; 45–52) explores other possible sources, but not Boccaccio’s poem. Ariani (1999, 291) also briey compares the works in terms of the experience of the narrators, but the distinction drawn seems too schematic and fails to give enough credit to the variety of narrative techniques adopted by Boccaccio in the poem.

11 Contini’s main objection to Billanovich’s thesis anticipates those of Pasquini and Santagata. 99n1. ma è un rifacimento di uno spregiudicato editore cinquecentesco.petrarch reading boccaccio 133 Pacca’s edition. Boccaccio revised his Amorosa visione (which he had composed between 1342 and early 1343) and sent it to Petrarch. ed è questo un ulteriore e denitivo avallo (se ce ne fosse ancora bisogno) contro ogni possibile dipendenza di Petrarca dal Roman de la Rose. since he also nds it unlikely that Petrarch would have been inspired by this second redaction. Pasquini 1999.8 When the question of the relationship between the Amorosa visione and the Triumphi is addressed. Billanovich suggested that this copy of the second redaction that Boccaccio sent to Petrarch was the edition from which Girolamo Claricio’s editio princeps derived its text.9 Billanovich’s elegant story. who visited Petrarch in Avignon in October of the same year. proposes that after meeting with Petrarch in March of 1351. while the studies that Santagata cites to support his declaration that “[t]otale è stato il crollo del rapporto Triumphi-Amorosa visione” likewise only argue against Boccaccio’s authorship of a second redaction. peggio ancora dalla cosiddetta seconda redazione dell’Amorosa visione”. Girolamo Claricio”. 7 8 . but also “un po’ romanzesca” to Gianfranco Contini. Finotti 1997 notes the limited relevance of these works cited to the larger question they are marshaled to support. . which both editors question. 11 Contini 1946. Santagata 1996b. Pasquini’s remarks clearly refer only to Billanovich’s reconstruction. 17.7 Emilio Pasquini similarly urges that the importance of the Boccaccian poem be disregarded: “Senza lo spartiacque di Laura morta non si comprende la genesi dei Triumphi. . editors of Petrarch’s work confront only Billanovich’s reconstruction of events in which Petrarch would have read the second redaction of the Amorosa visione. 9 Santagata 1996b cites Raimondi 1948a and Pernicone 1946. in its elegant integration of a wide range of materials. probably through Forese Donati.] [g]li studi hanno infatti dimostrato che la presunta seconda redazione non è opera di Boccaccio. but only in order to demolish it: “Totale è stato il crollo del rapporto Triumphi-Amorosa visione [ .10 This reconstruction already seemed “ingegnosissima”. xxix. 10 Billanovich 1946b and 1947. who makes his observations in the very same issue of the Giornale storico della letteratura italiana in which Billanovich set forth one of the most complete versions of his hypothesis.

is there any evidence. genuine. but see the reservations of Santagata 1990. the signicant ties adduced by earlier critics between the Triumphi and the Amorosa visione remain. One reason for this omission might be that scholars have preferred to examine the Triumphi in light of Petrarch’s direct reading of the Commedia. of which only three depend upon the second redaction. in addition to the textual echoes adduced by Branca. Once scholars had established that the echoes of Dante’s poem were too numerous to support Petrarch’s claim. a recent study by Francesco Colussi has reconsidered the whole question of the second redaction of the Amorosa visione. Nonetheless. for the most part. In the course of arguing for the second redaction’s authenticity (which he takes to be. he supports the thesis that Petrarch read the Amorosa visione in its rst version before writing the Triumphi. although marked by various editorial interventions of Claricio). By addressing only Billanovich’s thesis or ignoring the Boccaccian poem altogether in favor of the complex relationship between Dante and Petrarch. 13 Branca 1941.14 Leaving the whole question of the second redaction of the Amorosa visione to the side. critics welcomed the opportunity to observe the manner in which Petrarch’s “anxiety of inuence” expressed itself in his poem.13 Moreover. 12 . Might Petrarch have known the rst redaction of the Amorosa visione? Critics have largely ignored this possibility. Boccaccio’s work no longer seemed necessary as Petrarch’s point of reference when he conceived his terza rima dream vision. Vittore Branca’s exploration of the relations between the two works lists over fty connections between them.12 Having established that Petrarch read the Commedia before 1359. 14 Colussi 1998.134 martin eisner These once and future editors of the Triumphi appear to reject the possible inuence of the Amorosa visione out of the conviction that the second version is not authentic. these editors overlook the possibility that Petrarch might have known the rst redaction of Boccaccio’s poem. that Petrarch read this rst version of the Amorosa visione? The key text is Trovato 1979. 79–91. an approach that had not seemed licit in light of Petrarch’s claim not to have read Dante until 1359 in Familiaris XXI 15. even if one accepts that Petrarch did read Dante directly. but Billanovich’s reconstruction is not the only possibility.

he continued to work on it for quite a while and transcribed it into Vat. 17 Belloni 1992. 11r sometime between 1336–1337 and the early 1340s. The rst 89 verses of the canzone were transcribed on c. 10–31. Variants provide access to both of these histories. descrivono le correzioni degli autori”. “ci dà l’occasion impareggiabile di seguire le prime fasi della composizione di molti testi”. which.H. see Dutschke 1977. 3196. 3196. studied by Contini to examine Petrarch’s notion of “correction” in his poetics. 20 For the annotations in the codice degli abbozzi and the expansions of Petrarch’s abbreviations I have used Paolino 2000 and Romanò 1955. 210–13. on the basis of paleographic evidence.16 The importance of this collection was recognized immediately by Petrarch’s followers and it was widely used from the Cinquecento on as an important document to help understand Petrarch’s style. For a full analysis of the various dates proposed for Nel dolce tempo. As Contini notes. 15 16 . 83–92. 3196 in two stages. Lat. 5. as Cesare Segre writes. “una direttiva. while the later period is advocated by Rafti 1995. Segre 1999. 36. and revision that we can coordinate with the development of the Triumphi. and Petrucci 1967. Lat. Lat.17 The early variants and forms of Latino 3196. Wilkins. The draft of the canzone provides chronological information about composition. an extraordinary witness to authorial decisions. A work’s coming-into-being depends not only upon a poet’s evolving expressive precision.18 also provide markers of Petrarch’s reading. I will focus on Petrarch’s copy of Nel dolce tempo de la prima etade (Rvf 23).15 It is one of the earliest documents of its kind. 18 Segre 1999. followed by E. 22 The early dating is supported by Wilkins 1955.21 While Petrarch composed the poem quite early. e non un conne. dates to 1333–1334. Lat. the collection of some of Petrarch’s worksheets. 7.19 These variants capture the shift in a work’s conceptualization and often date the moment of its redirection. Rather than address the Triumphi themselves as they are found in Vat. 11v of Vat.20 which Ruth Phelps. transcription. 21 Phelps 1925.petrarch reading boccaccio 135 Convincing proof that Petrarch read the Amorosa visione during his preparation of the Triumphi can be found in the margins of Vat. 19 Contini 1970. 3196. Petrarch notes that Nel dolce tempo “est de primis inventionibus nostris”.22 Petrarch then copied the rest of the poem on the verso of See Paolino 2000. In the lower margin of c. 29–30. but also on his relations with other poets and other texts.

Santagata 1990. The early date of composition of Rvf 23 proposed by Phelps concords well with the evidence of its circulation outlined by Santagata. 3196. the whole of Petrarch’s canzone must have been circulating before then. 1: 15. Citations of canzone 23 (Nel dolce tempo) are from Pacca and Paolino 1996.23 As its long gestation period attests. 26 On the date of the Caccia. is provided by Boccaccio’s Caccia di Diana. that is well before the date of its transcription in Vat. which describes Petrucci 1967. moreover. 1: 3. was one that Petrarch prized.26 The connections between the Caccia and Petrarch’s canzone begin in their opening lines. 219–22. both works contrast the season’s rebirth to the poet’s suffering. Lat. 100. ch’i’ non so in qual parte pieghi [Rvf 70]). this canzone “delle metamorfosi”. 27 Boccaccio’s engagement with Petrarch’s poem is evident by comparing their openings. The entire plot of the Caccia. is probably the earliest witness to that poem’s early circulation. in its parody of the nal stanza of Petrarch’s poem. sol pensando mi stava che riparo potessi fare ai colpi che forando mi gian d’amor il cuor con duolo amaro. Petrarch’s poem begins: Nel dolce tempo de la prima etade. It has the privilege of being not only the rst and longest canzone in his lyric collection. perché cantando il duol si disacerba Boccaccio begins his work with obvious echoes of the Petrarchan canzone: Nel tempo adorno che l’erbette nove rivestono ogni prato e l’aere chiaro ride per la dolcezza che ’l ciel move.25 More compelling and precise evidence. 112. but also the only one of his own poems that Petrarch cites in his “canzone delle citazioni” (Lasso me. see Branca 1964–1992. according to Santagata. which imitates the nal stanza of Petrarch’s canzone. Since Monachi died in 1348. 23 24 . 25 Santagata 1996. che nascer vide et ancor quasi in herba la era voglia che per mio mal crebbe. 836. as it is sometimes known. the verses from Boccaccio’s Caccia di Diana are from Branca 1964–1992. which must have been composed before 1334 and. may be read as a parodic reversal of the nal strophe of Nel dolce tempo. 11 on 3 April 3 1350.136 martin eisner c.24 A solid terminus ante quem for the composition of the whole poem is Ventura Monachi’s sonnet Come Attheon si fe’ subito servo.27 both of which describe with signicant syntactic and lexical similarities the conventional scene of a poet suffering in spring. before transcribing it “in ordine post multos et multos annos” on 10 November 1356. In imitation of the convention.

but also changes the end of the story:29 Vero dirò. forse e’ parrà mençogna. . Ch’i’ sentì’ trarmj de l’usata ymago. Petrarch’s version of the Acteon story provides the necessary background information for the strange state of Boccaccio’s protagonist in the Caccia. see Dutschke 1977.31 Petrarch’s version omits the death and ends the story with an unresolved pursuit. 106) and Sturm-Maddox (1985.28 Indeed. 23) underscores Boccaccio’s treatment of the myth of Circe and the Ovidian nature of Petrarch’s Rvf 23: “la metamorfosi nale a cui fa assistere il poemetto boccacciano è tutta nuova. 24) note that Petrarch alters the expected ending. of Diana and Acteon. not to mention the exquisite Ovidian remake by Petrarch in Nel dolce tempo de la prima etade”. Acteon-Petrarch will not be killed by his own dogs. e nelle tracce del suo ‘mescolato’ è possibile riconoscere l’intento da una parte di rovesciare il mito di Circe. 30 Paolino 2000. of Apuleius’ Lucius. who begins the poem as a stag and then changes back to a man after Venus’ intervention. reinforced by the use of the present tense both for the metamorphosis (“mi transformo”) and the ight itself (“et de’ miei proprij can’ fuggo lo stormo”). The basic premise of Boccaccio’s confusing “rst ction” makes a good deal more sense if it is read as 28 Franco Fido (1979. the irony seems directed against the myths it overturns.32 The suspended ight imposed on Petrarch’s Acteon by Laura’s Diana is thus parodically resolved by the transformation of Boccaccio’s stag-protagonist back to his original human state at the behest of Venus. Branca (1996) remains silent on Petrarch’s mediation of the myth for the Caccia. 200–9.30 Contrary to all precedents. dove il poeta si autopuniva come novello Atteone”. Et in un cervo solitario et vago Di selva in selva ratto mi transformo: Et de’ miei proprij can’ fuggo lo stormo. 150) notes “If [the Caccia] is ironic at all. of Circe. Both Rivero (1979. since Petrarch’s adaptation of the Ovidian story not only eliminates Diana’s companions and attributes Acteon’s sight of her to intention rather than to accident. Cf. Boccaccio’s narrator seems to have jumped out of Petrarch’s stanza. Muscetta (1972. 29 For a detailed comparison of the Ovidian and Petrarchan accounts. 31 A survey of the various versions of the Acteon myth in Forbes-Irving (1990. 32 In reviewing Boccaccio’s various uses of Acteon. dall’altra di capovolgere la situazione ovidiana cantata dal Petrarca nel suo poemetto lirico Nel dolce tempo della prima etade.petrarch reading boccaccio 137 the metamorphosis of Acteon. 319. 80) observes that “in every account it [Acteon’s metamorphosis] is immediately followed by Acteon’s death”. Illiano 1984.

as the evidence of Vat.34 While the connections between the Caccia and Petrarch’s canzone do suggest the early circulation of Petrarch’s poem. . 3196 demonstrates./dicendo: “E’ non sarà così niente’ ” (il discorso è rivolto a Diana.35 In his commentary to verse 81. implicita protagonista dell’ultima trasformazione petrarchescha: si osservi inoltre che nel cap. which does not consider the possible importance of Boccaccio’s Caccia.138 martin eisner a parody of Petrarch’s poem. Caccia di Diana XVI 46–48 ‘Udito questo. the verse reads “Ella parlava sì che là ov’io era/tremar mi facea dentro a quella petra”. 100: “i riscontri con la Caccia di Diana di Boccaccio (e in particolare quelli addotti al v. the common elements of the angered goddess Diana and imminent metamorphosis establish a clear relationship between these two parts of their respective texts. 34 I take the phrase from the title of Wilkins 1948. la donna piacente/si dirizzò turbata nello aspetto. Lat. Santagata interprets the relationship of inuence as one that originates in Petrarch and is received by Boccaccio. see Cassell and Kirkham 1991.36 As Santagata notes. Lat. it is more likely that Petrarch was inuenced by Boccaccio’s work. 112. 11–12)”. The emphases are his. but the evidence of the textual history of Nel dolce tempo de la prima etade found in Vat. another piece of evidence adduced by Santagata to support his argument proposes a more complex and dynamic relationship between the two works than Santagata allows. In the partial transcription of Nel dolce tempo found on c. Nor is it likely that Petrarch would have oscillated between the two versions. se non sono casuali. 11r. 81). Santagata writes: “soprattutto colpisce la vicinanza con Boccaccio. in this instance. proverebbero che la canzone circolava già nei primi anni Trenta”. 3196 suggests that. which has been dated between 1336 and the early 1340s. 35 Santagata 1996a. The problem with Santagata’s argument is quite simply that verse 81 of Petrarch’s canzone did not read “Ella parlava sì turbata in vista” until well after Boccaccio composed the Caccia. 36 Santagata 1996a. XVIII avviene la trasformazione inversa del narratore. ‘di cervio mutato in creatura/umana’ vv. Santagata places particular emphasis on the echoes between the Caccia’s climactic scene and verse 81 of the canzone (“Ella parlava sì turbata in vista”).33 and its dependence on a Petrarchan model to generate meaning provides excellent evidence of the early circulation of this lyric during Petrarch’s lifetime. since the description of Diana as “sì turbata 33 For a recent summary of various interpretations of Boccaccio’s poem. a phrase that has no signicant connection to Boccaccio’s Caccia. 3–95.

the verse was still not revised. 5. and perhaps surprising. but in this instance his desire to marshal further evidence of the canzone’s early circulation leads him to neglect the canzone’s own complex history. 173. or De casibus virorum illustrium III xiv 6 where he is “preceptor inclitus meus Franciscus Petrarca” in Branca 1964–1992. thanks to Petrarch’s annotation to the working copy on c. Santagata is an attentive reader of Boccaccio’s inuence on Petrarch. that reading remained unchanged.39 The history of this single verse not only provides evidence for a general methodological corrective. 11r in 1351.1: 666. which. The same annotation that dates his revisiting of c. 37 38 . in his turn. found a solution to a weak part of his beloved poem in the climactic moment of Boccaccio’s work. 246–70). sequence of events. Such an oversight is particularly surprising. . but it also shows the importance of continuing to use these philological materials for all the information they can provide. Lat. 11r of Vat. Petrarch’s inuence on Boccaccio has been a commonplace of criticism from the time of Boccaccio’s own characterizations of their relationship in his writings. but this variant shows a more interesting and uid relationship at play. 39 For Boccaccio’s portrayal of their relationship. . but can also serve as witness to the Romanò 1955. Furthermore. 3196. makes it clear that he is planning to revise the canzone. see his Epistola XIX 27. 9: 264.] preceptor meus” in Branca 1964–1992.37 When Petrarch transcribed the rest of the canzone on the verso of the same charta on 3 April 1350. where he calls Petrarch “vir inclitus [. given Santagata’s sensitivity to Petrarch’s borrowings from Boccaccio (see. 3195. for example. Santagata 1990. The revision “drammatizza una situazione lirica che rischiava di incepparsi in una pacica tautologia (là ov’io era—dentro a quella petra)”. since he calls it “nondum correcta”. At the time he was composing the Caccia. can be dated to 10 November 1356. The rst evidence of Petrarch’s revision is in the transcription of the poem in Vat. then.38 The continued consultation and integration of these philological materials into our readings can help to alter and disturb our received ideas. over twenty years after Boccaccio wrote the Caccia. however. whereby Boccaccio was inspired by Petrarch’s canzone for the particular Acteon-like protagonist of his Caccia while Petrarch. and when he returned to the charta on 28 April of the next year.petrarch reading boccaccio 139 in vista” is clearly a superior characterization of the scene. which would have proposed a very different. this variant suggests a more dynamic relationship between the two works. Boccaccio could not have read this verse of Nel dolce tempo because it did not exist. Lat.

the fact remains that the collection circulated in this stable form and was read and copied as such by its earliest readers. 156–65. It is unlikely. which can nonetheless be attributed to Boccaccio. proposing that this trilogy was provisional. When Petrarch met Boccaccio in Padova in March of 1351. ma non sso”. Nardelli 1988. are described in Branca 1958. 42 These manuscripts. because. which includes only six extant manuscript witnesses. It is a collection that Branca attributes to Boccaccio or to one of his admirers. see Branca 1958. 303–8.41 Indeed. Biblioteca Riccardiana 1059. 126.43 This so-called “nucleo primitivo” consisted of what are now Triumphus mortis II and Triumphus famae Ia. however. the Caccia is almost always grouped with Boccaccio’s other works in terza rima: the terza rima-ballata hybrid. we must ask a more basic question: how might Petrarch have come into contact with Boccaccio’s Caccia di Diana between April 1351 and November 1356? The poem did not have a very wide circulation. While Petrarch had begun to explore the possibilities of terza rima before meeting Boccaccio. of the eight manuscripts for which we have any evidence only two miscellanies contain the Caccia without the Amorosa visione. 149–51.140 martin eisner larger issue of Boccaccio’s role in the genesis of Petrarch’s Triumphi. Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale II ix 125 and Florence. Florence. however. it is signicant that these works lack what Pacca calls the “apparato triunfale” that is 40 Two codices containing the Caccia were catalogued but are now lost. that Boccaccio would have sent the Caccia di Diana alone. to judge by its limited transmission history. he was most likely already at work on compositions in terza rima that would eventually become part of the Triumphi. might he not have taken inspiration from the Amorosa visione for his Triumphi? The dating of this variant itself can be coordinated with the chronology of the Triumphi to provide valuable evidence for Boccaccio’s possible role in shaping Petrarch’s work. which also concords with the chronology proposed by Petrarch critics for the genesis of the Triumphi. Fluid or not. Contento quasi ne’ pensier d’amore. . For the history of the Caccia’s transmission and the lost exemplars.40 It is most likely that Petrarch would have received the poem from Boccaccio directly. an example of what she calls a “uid” codex organized “in un ordine logico. 508 qualies this claim.42 The basic elements of Billanovich’s narrative (with the rst version in place of the second) seem conrmed by this analysis. 43 Pacca 1996. If Petrarch could borrow from Boccaccio’s Caccia. and the Amorosa visione. 41 Branca 1958. in its manuscript transmission. Before addressing the Triumphi.

Pacca 1996. beginning with Triumphus cupidinis I. he joins it to a ballata. who was a great experimenter in the form. Dante may have invented it for a singular work. too. 286–96. Boccaccio would also have sent a copy of the Commedia that is now Vat. della cultura e della vita spirituale europea nell’appassionante Trecento”. In his most technically daring effort. One can imagine that Boccaccio would have shared these various experiments with Petrarch and it seems likely that. he deploys terza rima not for its usual narrative abilities. the initial letters of each terzina of the Amorosa visione spell out an acrostic that Boccaccio forms into three sonnets. In the Comedia delle ninfe orentine. sometimes called capitoli. see Ahern 2003. 44 45 . In Contento quasi. after their meeting in Padova. Lat. but as the meter for the lyric interludes in that work’s prosimetric structure. At the same time. 46 Billanovich 1946a. 308. On the verse summaries. several works like Fazio degli Uberti’s Dittamondo and a variety of poems by Antonio Pucci explore the range of the poetic form Dante invented for his Commedia. version with the Caccia di Diana and Contento quasi.44 One can speculate that.47 This chronology accords with the dates established for the development of the rst of the properly “triumphal” Triumphi. Boccaccio’s interest in terza rima can be seen in the variety of ways in which he uses the meter in four early works. see Pier Giorgio Ricci 1985. The earliest works in terza rima are summaries of Dante’s poem.46 Boccaccio would have sent Petrarch a collection of his terza rima poems.petrarch reading boccaccio 141 characteristic of the poem’s other chapters. Petrarch would have been fortunate to meet Boccaccio. just as the majority of the manuscript tradition transmits them to us. Billanovich suggests. 47 This conjectured delivery of materials to Petrarch is still open to debate. but Boccaccio explored its range of possibilities. which Boccaccio. 2. 3199 and all these codices would have been brought to Petrarch in the care of Forese Donati in October of that year. 9. The earliest examples are those of Jacopo Alighieri. which Billanovich calls “una delle vicende fondamentali della storia della letteratura italiana. The Caccia appears to be the rst work written in terza rima that is not directly tied to the exegesis of the Commedia. not second. This collection would have contained the Amorosa visione in its rst. would compose later in life for his copies of the Commedia. he explores different ways of using the form in subsequent works. having just begun to write in terza rima. for example. Following Boccaccio’s Caccia and Amorosa visione.45 It is also the last work Boccaccio would write solely in terza rima.

and. It shows a way of negotiating that inuence which Petrarch tried so explicitly to avoid. There is no need to repeat those examples here. testo che probabilmente giunse in tempo (ad Avignone nel 1351. The Amorosa visione does not substitute for the inuence of the Commedia. 50 Carlo Vecce 1999. l’attuale Vaticano Latino 3199) ad impressionare Petrarca all’inizio della composizione dei Trion”. 311: “Quali potevano essere i modelli della lunga pittura di Petrarca? Sul piano letterario non si può non rinviare alla ‘lunghissima pittura’ dell’Amorosa visione del Boccaccio. indeed. his reading of the Amorosa visione (in concert with a reading. Without the Amorosa visione.142 martin eisner Triumphus cupidinis I. Branca has outlined the similarities in the poems’ moral structure and narrative design.50 and a strategy of organization. 4. Petrarch received Boccaccio’s poems at a decisive moment in his explorations of terza rima. Further evidence reinforces the connections between the Amorosa visione and the Triumphi. suggesting that Petrarch was thinking of Nel dolce tempo at the moment he composed the Triumphus cupidinis I. 17) argues that the poem is really unthinkable until Laura’s death in 1348. 171) observes that the proposed dates “oscillano fra il 1350–51 (Branca). the Triumphi in the sense that we know them today would not warrant such a title. The recent attention to the possible inuence of a direct reading of Dante’s Commedia. then.51 Boccaccio’s poem provided Petrarch both with a model for a long. which Petrarch would modify and transform into the triumph form. 46. Feo (2003. which Petrarch calls a “lunga pictura” (Tr.48 This revised version of Billanovich’s hypothesis. Feo (1979) and Rico (1974) support the 1350s. il 1351–52 (Billanovich). it seems safe to propose.165). Several 48 Pacca 1996. 307 emphasizes that the Boccaccian triumphs constitute an organized series. cup. moreoever. encyclopedic poem in the vernacular. and lists over fty correspondences between them in terms of narrative moments and groupings of people. .49 The vital point is that Boccaccio’s Amorosa visione provided Petrarch with techniques of representation. need not be disregarded. which arranges these visions into a series. Chi scrive [Feo] propende cautelativamente per il 1351–53”. Melodia e C. Pasquini (1999. insieme al codice della Commedia. 49 Branca 1941. Appel) e il 1357 (Carducci). of the Commedia) led him to reconceptualize his poem in terza rima. or perhaps rereading. il 1352–53 (G. According to this hypothesis. 51 Branca 1986. Although Calcaterra (1942) and Ariani (1988) propose the early 1340s. for which Pacca gives April 1352 as the terminus post quem. ts with both the dates established for the relation between Nel dolce tempo and the Caccia di Diana and those established for the Triumphi.

the result is metamorphoses and ight. the poet sees a naked god and stares. Petrarch’s revisitation of Nel dolce tempo in this rst chapter of his Triumphi (which he seems to recall 52 See Pacca 1996. già del pianger oco. sovra l’erba. Vidi un victorïoso e sommo duce. che gioir di tal vista non soglio per lo secol noioso in ch’i’ mi trovo. 924.10–27. però non maglia o scudo. and contributes to an understanding of the Triumphus cupidinis I as. fra l’erbe. vinto dal sonno. Following a series of periphrases establishing its time and place. In the canzone. who follows Appel 1901 for the text of this passage. alzando gli occhi gravi e stanchi. un poco”) accompanied by the annotation “attende nel dolce tempo”. but here the vision provokes no such fear. l’abito in vista sì leggiadro e novo mirai.53 As in the nal stanza of Nel dolce tempo. pur com’un di color che ’n Campidoglio triumphal carro a gran gloria conduce. 5–7. The two codices and one incunabulum which contain the variant lectio are: Roma. vie più che neve bianchi. ch’altro diletto che ’nparar non provo: quattro destrier. This note suggests that Petrarch had the canzone Nel dolce tempo in mind when he wrote the rst of the “triumphal” Triumphs. 53 Triumphus cupidinis I. in quell’ora.10 (“ivi. and Portilia 1473 (copy in the British Library in London: Inc. a rewriting of the Acteon scene in the nal stanza of Nel dolce tempo. the actual vision begins: Ivi. Three of these manuscripts52 present a variant reading of Triumphus cupidinis I. 54–56. pien d’ogn’orgoglio. which—Pacca suggests—refers to Rvf 23. nulla temea.petrarch reading boccaccio 143 manuscripts contain variant readings and authorial annotations copied from now lost early drafts of the poem. in some ways. London. vidi una gran luce.111 (“gittaimi stancho sovra l’erba un giorno”). The nal version of the poem would eliminate this memory of Nel dolce tempo by revising the line to read “Ivi. Harley 3264. e dentro assai dolor con breve gioco. sovr’un carro di foco un garzon crudo con arco in man e con saette a’ anchi. fra l’erbe. vòto d’ogni valor. tutto l’altro ignudo. IB 25926). già del pianger oco”. British Library. Biblioteca Casanatense. ma sugli omeri avea sol due grand’ali di color mille. I’. I quote from Pacca 1996. .

regardless of the reasons. Petrarch constantly dramatizes his encounters with classical texts. we possess no such dramatic accounts. but. Ventoux (Fam.54 Petrarch represents the scene as the viewing of an antique event to which he is unaccustomed: “gioir di tal vista non soglio/per lo secol noioso in ch’io mi trovo”. or an element of what one might call his “self-fashioning”.152–53. Petrarch generally 54 Both Ariani 1988 and Pacca 1996 note the connection between Triumphus cupidinis I. V 2). the former of which clearly expands on the rhetorical device of delay or suspense suggested in the latter. It is an unexpected event: Petrarch chooses to recount his vision of antiquity in the new vernacular literary form. perhaps most famously in the account of his ascent of Mt. 55 Petrarch expresses similar sentiments in his Epistola metrica III 33. 1–6. but provides little substantive evidence. nor do they excite the hope for inspiration that compels him to stare at the Greek letters of his copy of Homer. 56 See Epistola XX in Branca 1964–1992. Such disregard may be a pose on Petrarch’s part. With the exception of his assertion that one can achieve more in the vernacular since it needs cultivation (Sen. Petrarch has left very little information about his vernacular reading. Boccaccio’s solicitation of information about the Triumphi from Petrarch’s family after the poet’s death suggests that the work was a topic of conversation between them. 5. Petrarch chooses to express this antique event in the newest of poetic forms. despite his inability to read them. Anthony. the vernacular dream vision in terza rima. IV 1) in which he explicitly imitates and inserts himself into the tradition of conversion reading (or listening) that occurs in Augustine’s Confessions and the Life of St. whose formal poetic structure ultimately derives from Dante’s Commedia but whose representational strategies and architecture as a series of triumphs owe its inspiration to Boccaccio’s Amorosa visione.16–21 and Rvf 23. but these lines also express a signicant irony at the heart of the project of the Triumphi. particularly since Petrarch regards the canzone as the expression of his youthful innamoramento. so it is not surprising that we have no external record that Petrarch received Boccaccio’s poems. his attitude towards vernacular texts is remarkably consistent.55 And yet.56 In any case.144 martin eisner syntactically in verses 16–21) may be attributed to internal reasons. Of Petrarch’s vernacular readings. . the vernacular texts of others do not seem to stimulate in Petrarch that same desire for intimacy that can be found in his letters to Cicero.1: 674–89.

60 Petrarch was far less open to recording his vernacular debts. ego compositionum tuarum avidus ex illis scribens summebam copiam” (Branca 1964–1992. it is only as a preface to his Latin translation in Seniles XVII 1–4 of its famous nal novella about Griselda (Decameron X 10). but also thematized in those works themselves. respectively. but it does seem borne out by the connections between their poems in terza rima. 58 Even as Petrarch claims to have read only the beginning and end of the Decameron.57 Likewise. 5. See in this instance Giunta 1993. see Fracassetti 1869–1870 for the Latin text and Bernardo.61 Interest in Petrarch’s complex relationship with Dante should leave aside neither Boccaccio’s central role in mediating Petrarch’s encounter with Dante. 61 Cf. when he acknowledges Boccaccio’s gift of the Decameron. .1: 574). begins by paying homage to Giotto’s superhuman representational abilities. for example. Despite his ofcial claims of disengagement. 60 Amorosa visione IV 10–18 and V 70–88 in Branca 1964–1992. by contrast. see Rossi 1997.62 The preference to read 57 For the Latin text of the Familiares. Boccaccio’s Epistola X 5: “Tu sacris vacabas studiis. Lat. presents further evidence of Petrarch’s debts to Boccaccio’s poem. however. in which he does not read the Commedia and reads only the beginning and end of the Decameron. in which he refuses even to mention Dante’s name. nor his independent inuence on his friend. 333–43. see Santagata 1992. XXI 15).58 the worksheets of Vat. while addressing the “memoria di Dante nei Trion”. and proceeds to crown Dante with the laurel he never received in his lifetime. 3195 testify to the extent of Petrarch’s continuous labor on his vernacular productions.59 Boccaccio’s deep engagement with the contemporary cultural climate. his assertion that he has heard it attacked may be a memory of the Introduction to Day IV. who. 426–28. English translations can be found in Bernardo 1975–1985. is not only manifested in his extensive literary and scribal production. The vision proper of the Amorosa visione. Levin. Lat. For the Seniles. and the reordering of the nal poems in Vat. but his long friendship and correspondence with Boccaccio suggest that in Boccaccio Petrarch had found an interlocutor who could respond in person. The scene Boccaccio describes of them working side by side during his stay in Padova may be an idealized vision of their relationship. as he writes in his letter to Boccaccio on Dante (Fam. 3196.petrarch reading boccaccio 145 considers vernacular works as the products of youth intended for the multitude. and Bernardo 1992 for English version. 62 The study of Dante’s place in the Triumphi needs to be supplemented by a consideration of Boccaccio’s poem. 59 For a reading of Petrarch’s reordering of the last poems of the collection. 3: 34 and 38–39.

The current critical interest in reception. .146 martin eisner the Triumphi in light of the Commedia alone needs to be supplemented by a reconsideration of the Amorosa visione. is understandable. particularly given the editorial and interpretative fortuna of the Triumphi. It is difcult philological terrain. but an analysis of Petrarch’s datable variants conrms the hypothesis that Petrarch’s reading of Boccaccio redirected the development of Petrarch’s own terza rima poems into the triumphal model for which it is still known today. but it has left the issue of the work’s conception unresolved.

In Dante for the New Millennium. 1–15. Paris: Belles Lettres. Teodolinda Barolini and H. 1988. 1990. Augustinus. ed. NY: Forum Italicum Books (Forum Italicum Library 8 [Supplement]). Milano: Cisalpino. Problemi di critica dantesca: prima serie (1893–1918). Albanese. Teodolinda. 1–27. Halle: Niemeyer. Ahern. “Mediolani illuminatus: Pétrarque et l’enluminure milanaise”. “Cominciandomi dal principio inno a la ne (VN. ed. 1993. Atti del Convegno di Gargnano del Garda (2–5 ottobre 2002). ed. . Barolini. 175–92). Rudolph. Maria. 2006. “Le Antiquitates romanae di Petrarca”. “The Constraints of Form: Towards a Provisional Denition of Petrarch’s Triumphi”. 1992. di insegnamento. XXIII. “La corrispondenza fra Petrarca e Boccaccio”. Maria Teresa Balboni Brizza. ——. 1989. The Undivine Comedy. 1891. Avril. “Editing Dante’s Lyrics and Italian Cultural History: Dante. 1893. 1965. Wayne Storey. New York: Fordham University Press. Modern Language Notes 104: 1–38 (now in Barolini 2006. Guy. Foster-Boyde. Francesco Petrarca. In Lo studio bolognese: campi di studio. Lettere Italiane 56: 509–42 (now in Barolini 2006. Baños. ——. “Ernest Hatch Wilkins”. El arte epistolar en el Renacimiento europeo 1400–1600. François. ——. Olschki and Department of Italian. ——. “What Did the First Copies of the Comedy Look Like?”. Firenze: Sansoni. di ricerca. ed. 1994. In Petrarch’s “Triumphs”: Allegory and Spectacle. Le postille del Petrarca a Quintiliano (Cod. Achard. ——. . Milano: Museo Poldi-Pezzoli. 245–72). 1934. 2003. Le confessioni. Altrocchi. 7720). Contini. In Quaderno di studi sull’arte lombarda dai Visconti agli Sforza per gli 80 anni di Gian Alberto Dell’Acqua. Pedro Martin. Firenze: Bemporad. 1–2 giugno 1992. 63–83. ed. Giornale dantesco 1: 1–19. 1994. Triumphi. Girolamo. ——. di divulgazione. 193–223). Baranski. 1932. Firenze: Le Lettere. Francesco Petrarca. Rhétorique à Herennius. ed. 1990. The University of Western Australia (now revised in Barolini 2006. 39–98. ——. Michele. . Opere di Sant’Agostino. 1999. Boccaccio. Roma-Cortona. trans. Ottawa: Dovehouse. Ariani. Barbi. ed. Mario. “Studium fuit Bononiae”. Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto. Dante and the Origins of Italian Literary Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1901. In Motivi e forme delle “Familiari” di Francesco Petrarca. Arnaldi. Die Triumphe Francesco Petrarcas. 15): Forging Antinarrative in the Vita Nuova”. Carl. ed. ——. 213–39. 2003. Roma: Città Nuova Editrice. La “Vita Nuova” di Dante Alighieri. Italica 23: 258. In Preveggenze umanistiche di Petrarca. 1946. Petrarca . Stony Brook. Roma: Salerno. 119–40. Milano: Mursia. ——. Konrad Eisenbichler and Amilcare A. Zygmunt G. Florence and Perth: Leo S. Gabriella. 7–22. Halle: Niemeyer. John. Appel. ed. Aurelius. Pisa: Edizioni ETS. Barbi. Leda Giannuzzi Jaworski. 2005. ed.. “The Making of a Lyric Sequence: Time and Narrative in Petrarch’s Rerum vulgarium fragmenta”. Parigino lat. Iannucci. Zur Entwickelung italienischer Dichtungen Petrarcas. New York: Fordham University Press. “Gli studi danteschi e il loro avvenire in Italia”. Vincent Moleta.WORKS CITED Accame Lanzillotta. In “La Gloriosa Donna de la Mente”: A Commentary on the “Vita Nuova”. Atti delle giornate petrarchesche di Tor Vergata. 2004. 1989. Reprinted and expanded in Barbi 1934. 1988. 7–16. De Robertis”. Claudia Berra.

Venezia: Aldo Manuzio. Storey. ——. Aldo S. 1975a. 1960. 2003. 2008. “Percorso tra le testimonianze gurative più antiche: dai mosaici di San Vittore in Ciel d’Oro al pulpito della basilica”. Padova: Antenore. 3 vols. “The Selection of Letters in Petrarch’s Familiares”. Torino: Einaudi. Arquà Petrarca. Francesco Petrarca. Bernardo. 1947. vol. Wayne Storey. ed. 2004. Italia medioevale e umanistica 3: 1–58. Billanovich. Victoria Kirkham and Armando Maggi. Rosanna. ed. Speculum 35: 280–88. 1995. ——. 1984. H. lat. Le cose volgari. “Dalla Commedia all’Amorosa visione ai Trion. 1986. 2003–2004. In Belloni. Canzoniere. Carlo. 3195”. ——. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bernardo. 1501. Giuseppe. Belloni. Petrarca letterato: I. “Artistic Procedures Followed by Petrarch in Making the Collection of the Familiares”. Firenze: Sansoni. Bianchi. Rime. Salvatore Settis. . 6–8 novembre 1970. Bezzola. 1946a. Berra. Bembo. Saul Levin. Lo scrittoio del Petrarca. Francesco Petrarca. “Petrarch’s Attitude towards Dante”. Enrico. In Il Petrarca ad Arquà. 1. Annali d’italianistica 4: 45–72. 2: Books X–XVIII. 1949. Pietro. Albany: State University of New York Press. Guido. 1992. New York: HarperCollins. Milano: Rizzoli. Roma–Padova: Antenore. 2 vols. “Francesco Petrarca sulle arti gurative”. 1. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Rerum memorandarum libri. 1994. Furio Brugnolo. ——. ed. Bertelli. Letters of Old Age: Rerum senilium libri I–XVIII. Maurizio. ——. and Zamponi 2004. Gino. 1958. ——. ed. ed. ——. Firenze: Sansoni. 1946b. ed. ed. New York: Fordham University Press. PMLA 70: 488–517. Venezia: Regione Veneto and Marsilio. “Petrarch’s Autobiography. Atti del Convegno di studi nel VI centenario (1370–1374). Circularity Revisited”. 1975. Francis Petrarch. Bettarini. Dante for the New Millennium. and Reta A. Rerum vulgarium fragmenta. ——. Padova: Antenore. “Letter-Splitting in Petrarch’s Familiares”. A Concordance to the “Familiares” of Francesco Petrarca. Barolini. Belloni. 1992. Torino: Einaudi. and Stefano Zamponi. anastatica dell’edizione Valdezoco Padova 1472. ed. Gino. ed. 2: 73–104. ——. 1955. Canzoniere–Trion–Familiarium rerum libri. Brugnolo. Milano: Electa. Francesco Petrarca. Atti del Convegno di Gargnano del Garda (2–5 ottobre 2002). “Nota sulla storia del Vat. Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. 2003. Rerum familiarium libri. A Splendor of Letters. “Rerum vulgarium fragmenta: The Self in the Labyrinth of Time”. “Nella biblioteca del Petrarca”. Rerum vulgarium fragmenta. In La basilica di Sant’Ambrogio: il tempio ininterrotto. Basbanes. Nicholas A. Codice Vat. The Panoptical Petrarch. Napoli: Pironti. 1976. Francesco Petrarca. ed. Harvard University. vol. 2001. ——. Milano: Cisalpino. 271–74. 2. Bettini. 2 vols. Rerum vulgarium fragmenta. ——. Speculum 33: 236–88. 1 [2003]) and Commentario all’edizione in fac-simile (vol. 2 vols. 80–91. ed.” Giornale storico della letteratura italiana 123: 1–52.246 works cited ——. PhD Diss. 2005. ed. and H. Wayne Storey. Claudia. edizione in fac-simile (vol. In Memoria dell’antico nell’arte italiana. Teodolinda. Opere. 2 [2004]). Motivi e forme delle “Familiari” di Francesco Petrarca. ed. lat. Laura tra Petrarca e Bembo: Studi sul commento umanistico-rinascimentale al “Canzoniere”. Francesco Petrarca. 1960. ——. ——. 3195. vol. vol. Giuseppe Billanovich and Giuseppe Frasso. 221–67. 2003. trans. ——. ed. 1943. 1975–1985. Francesco Petrarca. Padova: Antenore. Francesco Petrarca. Suggestioni di cultura e d’arte fra Petrarca e Boccaccio. “Il censimento dei codici petrarcheschi”.

Dictionnaire historique des marques du papier dès leur apparition vers 1282 jusqu’en 1600. Charles Moïse. ed. 1979. Roberto Cardini. La tradizione del testo di Livio e le origini dell’umanesimo. 1944. intro. Blair. Brambilla Ageno. “Dalle prime alle ultime lettere del Petrarca”. Bologna: Cappelli. 1941. Ernest Hatch Wilkins. Studi petrarcheschi nuova serie 2: 15–52. Firenze: Sansoni. Furio. xiii–xxv. Ferrara: Panini [revised and expanded in Brugnolo 2004]. 1974. “Un carme ignoto del Petrarca”. Nella selva del Petrarca. ——. 1550–1770”. 1980. Briquet. Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. evemerismo trasgurante. ed. Arquà Petrarca. . ——. Edward L. In Belloni. ed. ——. Lucia Cesarini Martinelli and Giovanni Pascucci. 121–38. L’edizione critica dei testi volgari. 4 vols. Knopf. Milano: Mondadori. and Zamponi 2004. ——. 23–24 maggio 1972. Preface to Foresti 1977 [1928]. Franca. 1991. 2004. 1975b.112 fac-similés de ligranes. New York: Alfred A. Un primo elenco dei codici e tre studi. ——. Ann. Calcaterra. Bologna. 41–119. Roma. Boxer. C[harles] R[alph]. Il Petrarca ad Arquà. La Rinascita 4: 681–708. 1977. Vittore. con un’appendice iconograca”. The Dutch Seaborne Empire: 1600–1800. “Reading Strategies for Coping with Information Overload. 13–50. 9–23. Studi petrarcheschi nuova serie 5: 101–25. Trois essais de codicologie quantitative. 2d ed. ——. Ohio: Oberlin College. 5690 della Bibliothèque Nationale di Parigi.works cited 247 ——. Brugnolo. 6–8 nov. L’amorosa visione. 1985a. “Libro d’autore e forma-canzoniere: Implicazioni graco-visive nell’originale dei Rerum vulgarium fragmenta”. Carla. “L’Orazio Morgan e gli studi del giovane Petrarca”. Tradizione delle opere di Giovanni Boccaccio: 1. Paris: Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientique. Brugnolo. narrativa esemplare. Modern Language Notes 94: 146–52. 1988. Andrew. 1984. Giovanni Boccaccio. ——. Journal of the History of Ideas 64: 11–28. Bongiorno. “Libro d’autore e forma-canzoniere: implicazioni petrarchesche”. Ferdinando. ——. 1986. by J[ohn] H[arold] Plumb. “L’Atteone del Boccaccio fra allegoria cristiana. 2003. Critica del testo 6. 1970. and Ezio Ornato. Storey. 1967 [1966]. “Il Virgilio del Petrarca da Avignone a Milano”. 1996. Firenze: Sansoni. Padova: Antenore. Giovanni Boccaccio. ca. ed. Miniature e ricerche protoumanistiche tra Napoli e Avignone alle soglie del Trecento: costatazioni ed ipotesi. Les ligranes. Pour une histoire du livre manuscript au Moyen Âge. 1964–1992. Carlo. 1942. In Tradizione classica e letteratura umanistica per Alessandro Perosa. 1966. Boggs. “Il ‘Tito Livio’ n. Bozzolo. ——. Eugenio Garin. ——. Tutte le opere. Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. 1958. 10 vols. In Colloquio ItaloUngherese sul tema: Gli Angioini di Napoli e di Ungheria. ——. ——. Padova: Antenore. Boccaccio medievale. La Bibliolia 40: 460–68. Oberlin. Branca. Roma: Bulzoni. “Cino and Petrarch”.1: 499– 514. 1985b. “Il libro di poesia nel Trecento”. Studi sul Boccaccio 24: 193–208. 2003. 1880–1966: A Memorial Minute. 1989. ——. New York: Hacker Art Books. Marco Santagata and Amedeo Quondam. In Il libro di poesia del copista al tipografo. Atti del Convegno di studi nel VI Centenario (1370–1374). Padova: Antenore. “L’editio princeps dell’Amorosa visione del Boccaccio”. “Per la genesi dei Trion”. “L’apocope poetica prima e dopo Petrarca”. ——. 1938. “Foresti e Petrarca (e Carducci)”. Avec 39 gures dans le texte et 16. ed. Giuseppe Billanovich and Giuseppe Frasso. visualizzazione rinascimentale”. 2: 105–29. Lectura Petrarce 11: 259–90. 1965. 1981.

Giles. Condello. Cecil H. Franco bolognese). Vincenzo. 1991. ed.” Quaderni d’italianistica 12: 7–20. Rivista internazionale di diritto canonico 3: 125–71. La vita del Petrarca e la formazione del “Canzoniere”. In Cultural Aspects of the Italian Renaissance: Essays in Honor of Paul Oskar Kristeller. 1976. Vincenzo. . Christophe. 1899. 26–28 aprile 1996. Firenze: Franco Cesati. ed. Memoria. Ceserani. Simone Martini. 1964. 1928. “Un sistema di indicatori metrici nell’originale del Canzoniere petrarchesco”. “Sulla seconda redazione dell’Amorosa visione”. and Giovanna Murano. Ezio. Roma: Lexis Progetti editoriali. In Dizionario biograco degli italiani. “The Cult of Antiquity: Letters and Letter Collections”. Turnhout: Brepols. 141–160. Studi Medievali 19: 951–1032. In Francesco Petrarca. Pétrarque. Condorelli. “Die Zeichnungen Petrarcas”. 1997. and Giuseppe De Gregorio. Les remèdes aux deus fortunes. “Le Antiquis illustrioribus”. 1995. Studi petrarcheschi 1: 63–96. 103–9. Biblioteca Malatestiana. Diana’s Hunt. Cesena. scrittura. Ius Comune. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann. trans. Roma: Treccani. Ceccarelli. Francesco. 1991a. Firenze: Sansoni (rpt. general editor Pasquale Stoppelli. 1992. Carraud. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Colussi. Giosuè. Amedeo Quondam and Marco Santagata. Marcello. ed. riscrittura. De remediis utriusque fortunae 1354–1366. ——. 2002. Grenoble: Editions Jérome Millon. Rivista di storia della miniatura 6–7: 85–90. “Immagini per i testi di Boccaccio: percorsi e afnità dagli Zibaldoni al Decameron”. Chines. De remediis utriusque fortune. Carrara. ed. 1933. Michelangelo Picone and Claude Cazalé Bérard. ——. Giacomo”. In Il libro di poesia dai copisti ai tipogra. 89–96. Guido.3)”. 2004. Studi sul Boccaccio 26: 187–263. 1949. “Dall’eterno nel tempo. Lettere autobiograche. Remo. 1978. Carducci. Boccaccio’s First Fiction. and Severino Ferrari. Colli. Chiòrboli.248 works cited ——. Figure di Petrarca (Giotto. Capovilla. ed. Orazio. Cassell. Clough. Le rime di Francesco Petrarca di su gli originali. trans. by Ernest Hatch Wilkins. Le sottoscrizioni dei copisti dalle origini all’avvento della stampa (Atti del seminario di Erice. Emma. 2002. vol. Chiovenda. 2001–2002. Maria. ——. 1989. Constable. Modena: Edizioni Panini. Zeitschrift fu Europaische Rechtsgeschichte 24: 1–23. ——. S. “Belvisi. ed. Atti del Seminario internazionale di Firenze-Certaldo. Scribi e colofoni. 1976. 1966. Manchester: University of Manchester Press. Studi sul Boccaccio 17: 344–402. Lucia. “Bononiae triennium expendi”. Opera Omnia. Milano: Feltrinelli. Archivum Romanicum 17: 1–61. 1997. Caccia di Diana. Francesco Petrarca. Ciccuto. 1998. 1948. Coccheti. Le rime sparse. ed. Antony K. 1998. Colli. 1924. Napoli: Federico & Ardia. “Trion e uomini illustri fra Roberto e Renato d’Angiò”. 33–67. Roma: Carocci. “Un codice d’autore con autogra di Giovanni d’Andrea (ms. Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo. Lettere dell’inquietitudine. 1991b. Severino. Francesco Petrarca. Fra la Bibbia di Gerona e il Livio di Petrarca”. “La biblioteca di Giovanni Calderini”. Milano: Signorelli. ed. In Gli Zibaldoni di Boccaccio. Enrico. 8. ——. Caprioli. Francesco Petrarca. ed. and Victoria Kirkham. Milano: Trevisini. Letters and Letter-Collections. X Colloquio del Comité international de paleographie latine (23–28 ottobre 1993). Lucio. “Dalle ‘Quaestiones Mercuriales’ alla ‘Novella in titulum de regulis iuris’”. Studi petrarcheschi 2: 7–22. Loredana. 1988.II. and Emanuele Lelli. Juristische Buchproduktion in Mittelalter. 1957). “Per l’origine dei Trion. ed.

1964. “Veteres e novi. Nuovi annali della Scuola speciale per archivisti e bibliotecari 1: 63–106. Una raccolta di saggi (1938–1968). Francesco Petrarca. Il codice chigiano L V 176. Canzoniere. Albert. Urbino: Argalia. 5–31. ed. Torino: Einaudi. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1998. Le Familiari Libri I–XI.). De Robertis. Scuole e botteghe 1270–1340. ed. Rivista di cultura classica e medievale 1: 26–43. externi e nostri. 2001. Wayne Storey. Maria. 1978b. Devoti. Francesco Petrarca. 1965 [1946]. “Wilkins nella formazione del canzoniere di Petrarca”. UK: Cambridge University Press. Varianti e altra linguistica. ——. ——. 1946. 1959. Petrarca e la scoperta della coscienza moderna. ed. Review of Branca 1944. Cudini. Contini. Rerum vulgarium fragmenta. 5 vols. Francesco Petrarca. “Contiguità e selezione nella costruzione del canzoniere petrarchesco”. Milano: Feltrinelli. New York: Arno Press (rpt. 2002. Parma 27–30 settembre 2000. ed. 1979. ——. Torino: Einaudi. Torino: Einaudi. 1970 [1943]. Milano: Mondadori-Electa. “I Promessi Sposi nelle loro correzioni”. Aristotle. Klaus Bergdolt and Giorgio Bonsanti. Un nome per il miniatore milanese del Petrarca”. “Completus in textu et in glosis. Arturo Carlo Quintavalle. Cope. ed. Francesco Petrarca. Giornale storico della letteratura italiana 150: 1–20. In Condello and De Gregorio 1995. Postremi esercizî ed elzeviri. Torino: UTET. ——. ed. 1974. . Del Puppo. Bologna: Edizioni ALFA. “Aspetti della produzione del libro a Bologna: il prezzo di copia del manoscritto giuridico tra XIII e XIV secolo”. ed. 419–27. 1973 [1877]. 2001. autografo di Giovanni Boccaccio. Firenze: Le Lettere. ed. Belfagor 28: 271–94. Italica 80: 295–312. Dotti. .works cited 249 Conti. “Minietur ligeturque . Derolez. In Le Opere di Dante Alighieri. Gli artisti di Petrarca: per una rilettura”. 433–55. 1981. ——. 1974. La miniatura bolognese. Devoti. ——. ed. 1974. The Rhetoric. The Palaeography of Gothic Manuscripts: From the Twelfth to the Early Sixteenth Century. Del Puppo. Alessandro. 1995. Dante Alighieri. Cambridge. Ponchiroli. Studi di lologica italiana 43: 45–66. ed. Il libro giuridico a Bologna tra XIII e XIV secolo: il mercato dell’usato”. “L’ottavo libro delle Familiari”. per magistrum Benedictum. 37–56. Paris: Tallone. ed. ——. The Diaries of Northrop Frye 1942–1955. 2d ed. 2 vols. Milano: Cisalpino. 1983. ——. Courcelle. Dante Alighieri. I “Triumphi” di Francesco Petrarca. and H. 1949. Donato. In Opere e giorni. 1994. La felicità mentale: nuove prospettive per Cavalcanti e Dante. 1978a. ed. Domenico. Piero. Gianfranco. 1999. 1973a. “I primi sei libri delle Familiari del Petrarca”. 2003. . Venezia: Marsilio. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi. Dario. “I Triumphi e il libro di poesia del Quattrocento”. Pierre. 1998 [1974]. ——. Maria Monica.2003. ——. 113–130. “Saggio d’un commento alle correzioni del Petrarca volgare”. Francesco Petrarca. Corti. Giornale storico della letteratura italiana 123: 69–99. Torino: Einaudi [revised edition of Contini 1949]. Dario. Roma: Archivi edizioni. Studi su mille anni di arte europea dedicati a Max Seidel. ——. ——. Claudia Berra. Canzoniere. annotazioni di D. 2003. 1973b. Torino: Einaudi. Ugo. Rime. In Medioevo: immagine e racconto. Scrittura e Civiltà 18: 77–142. Rime. Denham. ed. Milano: Garzanti. Robert D. Milano: Garzanti. Dante Alighieri. Epistole. Luciana. ——. Luciana. and Caterina Tristano. “Pétrarque lecteur des Confessions”. Edward Meredith. ——. 189–200. “Pourquoi les copistes signaient-ils leurs manuscrits?”. ed. Rime. 1985.

Francesco Petrarca. ed. ——. ——. Fedele. Il Canzoniere e i Trion. Saggi petrarcheschi. 2006. Fabio. Review of Hollander 1977. Arnaldo. Roma: Archivio Guido Izzi. Editing and Reading Medieval Manuscripts and Texts. 1976. Padova: Antenore. Roma: Archivio Guido Izzi. Durling. ——. Bern–New York: Lang. 2003a. “Sull’edizione commentata del Canzoniere petrarchesco curata da Marco Santagata”. 3 vols. Firenze: Cadmo (Saggi di “Letteratura italiana antica” n. Nicola. Enrico. ——. Le Familiari. Ravenna: Longo. “Census of Petrarch Manuscripts in the United States: Supplement II”. Friends Hold All Things in Common: Tradition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Pio. In Enciclopedia Virgiliana. Petrarca a Parma. Francesco Petrarca. Roma: Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana. 1997. ——. “Francesco Petrarca”. Siân. Firenze: Le Lettere. Claudia Berra. 2003b. Francesco Petrarca. immagine. 2004. Festa. Lettere Italiane 49: 523–30. ——. Echard. Roma: Salerno. 1997. Foresti. 3. ——. De sui ipsius et multorum ignorantia. 1996. Padova: Antenore. P[aul] M. 4. Atti del Convegno di Gargnano del Garda (2–5 ottobre 2002). New Haven: Yale University Press. Studi petrarcheschi nuova serie 17: 6–10. Franco. ed. 1993. 1993b. Vita di Petrarca.250 works cited ——. and Stephen Partridge. 4. Robert M. 1999. Livres VIII–XI. Dennis. 1986. Reggio Emilia: Diabasis. New Haven: Yale University Press. ed. New York: Oxford University Press. ——. trans. 2 vols. Finotti. Petrarca nel tempo: Tradizioni lettori e immagini delle opere. Petrarch’s Lyric Poems. 139–98). ed. 2002–2005. Canzoniere. 1993–1994. Le Senili. C. ed. Mostra 19 maggio-30 giugno 1991. “Francesco Petrarca e Giovanni d’Andrea”. 1926. 1988. 1. The Book Unbound. 2004. “Fili petrarcheschi”. 53–78. 5 vols. Bari: Laterza. Michele. Kathy. Review of Pacca and Paolino 1996. ed. Livres IV–VII. Viareggio-Lucca: Baroni. Milano: Mursia. ——. 549–89. Livres XVI–XIX. Hermeneutics and the Rhetorical Tradition: Chapters in the Ancient Legacy and Its Humanist Reception. 1979. 2003. Livres I–III. 1993a. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. 5. Michele Camillo. Ferrari. ——. 1979. L’Africa.. 1998. ed. Firenze: Sansoni (rpt. Il “Liber sanctae crucis” di Rabano Mauro: testo. Census of Petrarch Manuscripts in the United States. Ephemerides iuris canonici 30: 201–25. Le Familiari. Roma: Archivio Guido Izzi. Secretum. Italianistica: Rivista di letteratura italiana 27: 455–94 (now in Fenzi 2003b. Intellectual Property. ed. Francesco Petrarca. ed. vol. ——. 1998). Francesco Petrarca. Francesco Petrarca. Forbes-Irving. Pontedera: Bandecchi e Vivaldi. 1999. ed. ——. In Motivi e forme delle “Familiari” di Francesco Petrarca. Fenzi. Feo. 1. ——. 1990. ——. 1974. contesto. Codici latini del Petrarca nelle biblioteche orentine. Anedoti della vita di Francesco Petrarca. ed. Francesco Petrarca: Canzone XXIII from First to Final Version. and the “Adages” of Erasmus. Roma: Donzelli. Rinascimento 19: 3–89. Dutschke. Livres XII–XV. 1987. “Petrarca e la scrittura dell’amicizia (con un’ipotesi sul libro VIII delle Familiari)”. ——. Francesco Petrarca. ed. 1977. ed. Milano: Cisalpino. 2001. 1991. Le Lettere. 1977 [1928]. . Lettres familières. Fido. Eden. ——. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 5). Antonia Tissoni Benvenuti. 2002. vol. 2. Metamorphosis in Greek Myths. ——. Speculum 54: 148–52.

2003. ——. Franciscium). Grandi. quibus referta erant. Vita Nova. Rivista di letteratura italiana 11: 411–52. “Metamorfosi e redenzione in Petrarca. “Images of Higher Education in Fourteenth-Century Bologna”. In Alla lettera. Guerrini. 1932. ——. Torino: Bottega d’Erasmo (facsimile rpt. “Zur frage der Abfassungszeit der Novelle des Johannes Andreä zu den Dekretalen Gregors IX”. Goldin Folena. 145–53. ed. 2002. ed. In Medieval Architecture and its Intellectual Context: Studies in Honour of Peter Kidson. diligenter expurgatis. Fracassetti. Gillmann. “Per un’ipotesi di petrarchismo ‘popolare’: ‘vulgo errante’ e codici dei Trion nel Quattrocento”. 1977. 269–81. Francesco Petrarca e Ludovico Beccadelli. 1869–1870. Giunta. In In sextum decretalium librum novella commentaria ab exemplaribus antiquis. and trans. Giovanni d’Andrea. London: Hambledon Press. Linge. . vol. Memoria e scrittura: L’autobiograa da Dante a Cellini. Francesco Petrarca. “Memoria di Dante nei Trion”. 1859–1863. Firenze: Le Monnier. Berkeley: University of California Press. “Pluristilismo del Familiarium rerum liber”. Gemma. Teil)”. Marziano. ed. 1996. Claudio. Accademie e biblioteche d’Italia 54: 12–33. In titulum de regulis iuris novella commentaria. of Venezia: Apud F. attinenze medievali. Guglielmo. Frasso. Dante Alighieri. Torino: Einaudi. Giuseppe. Torino: Einaudi. nunc impressa. Claudia Berra. In Motivi e forme delle “Familiari” di Francesco Petrarca. Archiv für katolisches Kirchenrecht 104: 261–75. ——. Poggibonsi: Antonio Lalli Editore. Pietro Paolo. In Boccaccio visualizzato. 1966. 18–43. Narrare per immagini fra Medioevo e Rinascimento. ed. “On the Scope and Function of Hermeneutical Reection”.works cited 251 Foster. 1990. 2 vols. Francisci Petrarcae Vergilianus codex ad Publii Vergilii Maronis diem natalem bis millesimum celebrandum quam simillime expressus atque in lucem. ——. Franz. Firenze: Le Monnier. Francesco Petrarca. 1924. Guarneri. Truth and Method. Torino: Bottega d’Erasmo. 1979. and Patrick Boyde. 2 vols. and Achille Ratti. 1976. Atti del Convegno di Gargnano del Garda (2–5 ottobre 2002). Inuenza agostiniana. 1986. “Das Prinzip der Imitatio in den romanischen Literaturen der Renaissance (I. Hans-Georg. Bologna: Istituto per la Storia di Bologna. Marshall. mendis. Gilbert. “Familiarium rerum liber: Petrarca e la problematica epistolare”. Lettere senili di Francesco Petrarca. David E. 1966 [1581]. 1997. New York: Crossroad. Hermann. ed. ed. Lettere Italiane 30: 3–16. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Romanische Forschungen 46: 83–360. Adriana Chemello. 1967. 1930. Gerosa. trans. Dante’s Lyric Poetry. Torino: Einaudi. Gorni. Epistolae de rebus familiaribus et variae. Giovanni. Guerini. Gibbs. I monumenti dei dottori e la scultura a Bologna (1267–1348). Eric Fernie and Paul Crossley. Galbiati. Daniela. Umanesimo cristiano del Petrarca. Milano: Hoepli. 1989. Francesco Petrarca e l’epistolario. 1983. ed. Vittore Branca. 1978. 1988. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Kenelm. Padova: Antenore. ed. In Philosophical Hermeneutics. 5 vols. Studi sui “Rerum vulgarium fragmenta” e i “Triumphi”. Creighton. ——. Studi di lologia italiana 55: 23–64. Milano: Cisalpino. Il senso della forma Correggio del Canzoniere”. 1999. Lettere Italiane 54: 571–98. Guglielminetti. “Pallide sinopie: ricerche e proposte sulle forme pre-Chigi e Chigi del Canzoniere”. 1993. Giuseppe. ——. 1982. Robert. “La devozione di Giovanni Boccaccio per gli artisti e l’arte”. Renzo. 261–90. Sandro. 51–82. I. Gmelin. Teorie e pratiche epistolari dai Greci al Novecento. 1. ed. Gadamer. Milano. ed. “Sulla nuova edizione delle Rime di Dante”.

Michael. “Introduction”. 931–36. 1920. Los Altos Hills-London: Anderson-Lovelace. 1997. 1971. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1977. New York: Oxford University Press. 2 vols. ed. Hans Robert. Firenze: Sansoni. 1963. ed. trans. In Miscellanea geronimiana. Torino: Bottega d’Erasmo. Albert Hofstadter. Druck. Holter. ed. Terence. Roman. Thought. Milano: Feltrinelli. Revue d’Histoire littéraire de la France 6: 957–94. Boccaccio’s Two Venuses. ed. Stephen. Stephen. Heidegger. Kennedy. v–xvi. Antonio. Jakobson. “The Figure of the Reader in Petrarch’s Secretum”. In Alterità e modernità della letteratura medievale. “Georg Misch’s Geschichte der Autobiographie”. 2d ed. . 1985 [1961].. “Conditions and Limits of Autobiography”. Roman. New York: Columbia University Press. New York: Harper Collins. Poetica e poesia. Jauss. ——. In Autobiography. Roma: Tipograa poliglotta vaticana. Rpt. trans. History and Theory 2: 20–22. Jakobson. Pattern Poetry: Guide to an Unknown Literature. Harold. Francesco. München: W. Willi. 1977. “The Image of Ranke in American and German Historical Thought”. 139–58. Liber de laudibus sanctae crucis: Vollständige Faksimile-Ausgabe im Originalformat des Codex Vindobonensis 652 der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. and Linda Waugh. Georges. 1966 [1960]. in Bloom. 1999.252 works cited Gullick. Hollander. Lanzoni. “Poesia della grammatica e grammatica della poesia”. Martin. David. 28–48. Brownrigg. 181–218. 1987. In Ioannis Andeae in Quinque Decretalium Novella Commentaria. Irwin. Iggers. Linda L. Indianapolis: Hackett. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civil Discourse. La charpente phonique du langage. Kahn. Victoria. Paris: Sirey. Italica 61: 312–34. by Aristotle. “Linguistica e poetica”. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri. “The Speed of Scribes”. 1985. Torino: Einaudi. “De l’autobiographie initiatique à l’autobiographie genre littéraire”. Gumbert. “Theorie der Gattungen und Literature des Mittelalters”. Questioni di teoria e analisi testuali. 339–352. 1980 [1979]. Annali d’Italianistica 4: 30–44. Girolamo”. pp. 1973. Higgins. 1962. Language. “Iohannes Andreae and his Novella on the Decretales”.u. 327–58. 1989. 1986. 20–41. “La leggenda di S. 1901. of the Venetian Edition of 1581 (“Introduction” rpt. vol. Konstan. PMLA 100: 154–66 (rpt. 1965. 1984. Essays Theoretical and Critical. The Jurist 24: 393–408). Robert. as Kuttner. 1991.P. trans. 1975. Iung. 195–201. “The Origin of the Work of Art”. Dick. Francesco Petrarca e la sua corrispondenza epistolare. and intro. J. Kraus. 1995. Études du Droit canonique dédiées à Gabriel Le Bras. Kuttner. Kurt. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit. Alterität und Modernität der mittelalterlichen Literatur: Gesammelte Aufsätze 1956–1976. Illiano. ——. 1995. Albany: State University of New York Press. Petrarch: Modern Criticial Views. Franz Xaver. 57–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Making the Medieval Book: Techniques of Production. Friendship in the Classical World. Saggi di linguistica generale. by Aristotle. Fink. Teoria dei generi e letteratura del Medioevo. 39–58. New York–Philadelphia: Chelsea House). George A. Verlaganst. 1964. In Poetry. Georg J. ——. Graz: Akadem. Gusdorf. Nicomachean Ethics. 1989 [1972]. In Condello and De Gregorio 1995. James Olney. 1. 1980 [1956]. 219–56. ——. “Per una rilettura della Caccia di Diana”. Scritti vari pubblicati nel XV centenario dalla morte di San Girolamo. “How Fast Did Scribes Write? Evidence from Romanesque Manuscripts”. “The Apostillae of Johannes Andreae on the Clementines”.

1. A History of Autobiography in Antiquity. Milano–Napoli: Ricciardi. Domenico. Mario Quinto. 1955. In Studi Petrarcheschi 6: 245–46. Guido. London: H. Ettore. 52–71. e Zamponi 2003–2004. ——. Modigliani. 109–22. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Lejeune. 2 vols. “Vita e morte della presunta doppia redazione della Vita Nuova”. Misch. 657–69. “Petrarca. Leclerc. 1995. and Pietro Paolo Trompeo. Illuminating the Law: Legal Manuscripts in Cambridge Collections. Revue du Moyen âge latin 2: 63–70. Heinrich. Milano: C. Mario. Canzoniere italiano inedito del secolo XIV (Beinecke Phillipps 8826). Il patto autobiograco. Wilkins”. Storey. “Pietro de’ Cerniti Bolognese maestro di diritto di Francesco Petrarca”. Martellotti. Lo Monaco. Le pacte autobiographique. L’autobiographie. Giornale storico della letteratura italiana 52: 56–70. Ernesto. Theodore E. Munich: Max Huber. ——. Brugnolo. 1974. Mario.works cited 253 Lausberg. Mignani. Archivio paleograco italiano 1. Mestica. ed. series ed. Suppl: 1–82. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. ed. May. Lettere Italiane 12: 220. Itinerario in Terra Santa 1358. Francesco. Lo Parco. 1974. qualis epistola!’ A New Petrarch Letter”. Atlanta: Scholars Press. “ ‘O deus. Georges. 1988. Firenze: Sansoni. 2001. 1904. J[acques] P[aul] Migne. “Petrarch’s Conception of the ‘Dark Ages’”. 2 vols. 2. and Robert Gibbs. 1942. Canzoniere –Trion –Familiarium rerum libri. Ancient Epistolary Theorists. fasc. ——. Italia medioevale e umanistica 17: 207–50. Roma: Martelli. Il manoscritto vaticano latino 3196 autografo di Francesco Petrarca. ed. ——. “Benintendi Ravagnani. 1979. Prose. Bologna: Il Mulino (trans. Mommsen. La Bibliolia 58. 1908. Giuristi medievali e falsicazioni editoriali del primo Cinquecento: Iacopo di Belviso in Provenza? Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann. Giovanni. 1960. In Francesco Petrarca. Francesco Petrarca. 1946. 1979. Susan. vol.1. Maffei. without color in Belloni. Hieronymi Opera Omnia. “Cartaginesi a Roma”. Jean. Lupinetti. Martini. Opere. ——. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik.: Greenwood Press. Martelli. Opere. Le rime di Francesco Petrarca restituite nell’ordine e nella lezione del testo originario sugli autogra. Firenze: Sansoni. Medica. of Lejeune 1975). vol. 1896. 1975. Francesco Petrarca. L’Engle. Miller. 1965. l’umanesimo veneziano”. Conn. In Petrarca. Guido. Series Latina. vol. vol. Nuova Antologia 430: 254–64. Giuseppe. 1956. Martianay. 1. Marti. Firenze: Barbèra. Philippe. Massimo. In Patrologiae cursus completus. Francesco Petrarca. Balsamo. 22. “Francesco Petrarca e Tommaso da Caloiro all’Università di Bologna”. Francesco Petrarca e il diritto. 1975. Bergamo: Lubrina. Monaci. 1895. 1990. ed. Mann. Venezia e il Veneto. In Studi in onore di A. ——. ed. 1986. 1975. Martellotti. psicologia e stile”. Schiafni. Giorgio Padoan. xiii–xlvii. 1943. ——. Nicholas. Giotto e le arti a Bologna al tempo di Bertrando del Poggetto. Firenze: Olschki. 1887. ed. “Le genre epistolaire au Moyen âge”. ed. 1920. Il Petrarca. 2: 181–383). Malherbe. Westport. 1973. Speculum 17: 226–42. 1890. Rigo. Jean. Francisci Petrarche laureati poete Rerum vulgarium fragmenta. Review of Wilkins 1956. ed. Roma: Società lologica romana (rpt. 1960. Francesco. Abraham J. Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo. Torino: Edizioni dell’ Orso. Georg. Firenze: Sansoni. “Un umanista americano: Ernest H. 5–6: tav. “La bottega di un cartolaio orentino della seconda metà del Quattrocento”. riprodotto in eliotipia a cura della Biblioteca Vaticana. 1976. 1956. Paris: Garnier. . Studi e memorie per la storia dell’Università di Bologna 4: 27–180. ed. 2005.

Livres XII–XV]. 4. Paris: Champion. “Canzoniere”. 3. ——. Franca Petrucci. Winter. Giorgio. Giorgio. 1951. Livres IV–VII. Nota. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier. 1997. 1907. Giovanni. and Daniele Ponchiroli. Montecchi. “Per una storia del libro manoscritto volgare: i codici dell’Amorosa visione”. 2002–2006. Petrarque et l’humanisme. “Autobiography as an Art Form”. ed. 1974. 1960. Il suono dei sospiri. 1892. Giorgio. 1886. 1958. Oldradus da Ponte. Codice degli abbozzi. 2. Il codice degli abbozzi. ed. Paris: C. Pancheri.J. . Saggi di bibliologia. ed. ed. Firenze: Le Monnier. Rime. Carlo. 2d ed. Alphonsus de Soto. Bari: Laterza. Vorträge des VII Kongress der internationalen Vereinigung für moderne Sprachen und Literaturen in Heidelberg. Vinicio. ed. Boccaccio. Roma: Viella. Consilia et quaestiones. Torino: Einaudi. Nicoletti. Le canzoniere autographe de Pétrarque. Il libro a Bologna dal 1300 al 1330: Documenti. Apologia dell’apogeo. Cultura Neolatina 2: 327–33. 1972. Champion. “Boccaccio mediatore di generi o dell’allegoria d’amore”. “Aus einem Katalog des Fulvius Ursinus”. revised ed. 1886. Torino: Einaudi. Nencioni. Studies in the Theory and Practice of Medieval Rhetoric. Pakscher. Milano: La Storia. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 10: 205–45. Milano: Mondadori. Pétrarque. Ezio. Giuseppe. 2000. Francesco Petrarca. 2 vols. Nardelli. Laura. Saggi di lingua antica e moderna. Lettres de la vieillesse. ——. In Medieval Eloquence. Livres I–III. James J. Nardi. Gianfranco. M[alcolm] B. Arthur. Roma: Apud Sanctum Marcum. 1994. Parma: Guanda. Berkeley–Los Angeles: University of California Press. Il libro nel Rinascimento. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. ed. Trion. 1965 [1892]. Rime estravaganti. Paolino. J. The Rationale of ‘Written Reason’ in Some Consilia of Oldradus da Ponte”. 1978. Orelli. 1996. Pétrarque et l’humanisme d’après un essai de restitution de sa bibliothèque. 1959. Roy. 1978. Francesco Petrarca. Bologna: Zanichelli. Muscetta. Paris: H. 1959. Lettere disperse. “Un caso di polimora della lingua letteraria dal sec. Pasquali. Bruno. ——. In Stil. and Laura Paolino. Interpres 2: 7–104. Orvieto. Francesco Petrarca. “Roman Law and the Emperor. “Trion”. Universitätsverlag. 4 vols. 128–42. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1942. Design and Truth in Autobiography. 1478. Paolo. 1989 [1953]. Con uno studio sul contratto di scrittura nella dottrina notarile. 1989. Storia della tradizione e critica del testo. Muscetta. 1994. 114–19. [1. Gerald. Elvira. Edizione e storia del manoscritto Vaticano latino 3196. Pierre de. Firenze: Vallecchi. 2 vols. Pascal. “S’ha da credere a Dante o ai suoi critici?”. Paul Böchmann. Nolhac. Autobiograa e letteratura fra Rivoluzione e Risorgimento. Francesco Petrarca. Murphy. Orlandelli. ed. Roma: Viella. XIII al XVI”. Paris: Honore Champion. Rhetoric in the Middle Ages. 2000. La memoria illuminata. Ornato. Milano–Napoli: Ricciardi. Klincksieck. Divagazioni sulla storia del libro nel tardo medioevo.254 works cited Montagu. ——. ed. 1962 [1952]. Heidelberg: C. Rivista di Letteratura Italiana 6: 501–16. History of Political Thought 15: 1–56. Trion e poesie latine. Pacca. rime varie e una scelta di versi latini. 1990. 1988. “Punctuation or Pause and Effect”. Parkes. 11–188. ed. Livres VIII–XI. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Alessandro. Milano-Napoli: Ricciardi. Pétrarque et l’humanisme. Murphy.und Formprobleme in der Literatur. Sul Petrarca volgare. Neri. Federico. Carlo.

Burton. oratoris. New Haven: Yale University Press [trans. Figure foniche dal Petrarca ai petrarchisti. “Preliminari all’edizione dei Trion”. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. by Aldo Scaglione. Gerhard. 145–68. of Petrucci 1984]. History of Classical Scholarship 1300–1850. Petrarcha con doi commenti sopra li Sonetti & Canzone [et] li Triumphi. .]. “Descrizione e trascrizioni dei facsimili. Hampshire. 66–104. 2002. Canonists and Texts 1150–1550. 199–240. University of North Carolina and The Newberry Library. as chapter 19 of Pennington. Bologna: Il Mulino. 22–38. 1984. Comparative Litterature 28: 326–42. Radding. Il poema sacro. Claudia Berra. Maria. ed. In Il Petrarca ad Arquà.] Opera quae extant omnia. Piccard. et poetæ clarissimi [. . 1975. . . Nicolò. Luigi. Rudolf. ed. Venezia: Albertino da Lissona Vercellese.works cited 255 ——. Kenneth. Pinkney. Cesare Questa and Renato Raffaelli. Charles M. “Dantismo petrarchesco. Petrucci. David. ouero Riccio Marchesiano sopra li Triumphi [. Ancora su Fam. . ——. Great Britain and Brookeld Vermont: Variorium). Francesco Petrarca. Psterer. Kohlhammer. ——. Pizzorusso. ——. Bullettino dell’Archivio palaeograco italiano 2: 163– 216. Mario. Chapel Hill–Chicago: Department of Romance Languages. ed. “Minuta. “Strutture foniche nei Rerum vulgarium fragmenta”. Ulrich. A Symposium. 1965 by Gregg Press. 1994. 1503. ed. Picchio Simonelli. Francisci Petrarchae Florentini. In I “Triumphi” di Francesco Petrarca. Pike. 1925. Venezia: Marsilio. In Motivi e forme delle “Familiari” di Francesco Petrarca. Armando. Petrarca. Abbozzi autogra di Francesco Petrarca”. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Phelps. Pennington. 1910. 2003. La scrittura di Francesco Petrarca. ed. Firenze: Licosa. Autograph. . Johannes Herold (opera vulgarium). In Francis Petrarch. “Johannes Andreae’s Additiones to the Decretals of Gregory IX”. 15 e dintorni”. Tiziana. 52–71. Basle: Per Sebastianum Henricpetri [reissue in 1581. Pernicone. et] con lo commento del eximio miser Nicolo Peranzone. 1968. ed. ed. Padova: Antenore. Arnaldo. Milano: Cisalpino. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pagine stravaganti di un lologo. Ai margini dell’autobiograa. Pelaez. 1993. 1980. and trans. ed. ed. in 1 vol. philosophi. “Minute. ——. 1503). Pfeiffer. Pagine meno stravaganti. Nicolò. Emilio. 1967. I: Pagine stravaganti vecchie e nuove. Author’s Book”. 1976. ed. Epistole autografe. 1999. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. 1946. Ridgewood. The Earlier and Later Forms of Petrarch’s “Canzoniere”. Vita by Girolamo Squarciaco. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. American Historical Review 86: 3–4. XXI. 1975. 1995. Pasquini. Pietrobono. 1915. vol. Donatello und die Entdeckung der Stile 1430–1445. . Urbino: Università di Urbino. Petrarcha con doi commenti sopra li sonetti et canzone [. Wasserzeichen Fabeltiere. Bologna: Zanichelli. ——. 399–414. Claudia Berra. Plebani. Venezia 1469: la legge e la stampa. München: Hirmer Verlag. Vincenzo. of Peranzone. ——. ed. “American Historians on the European Past”. “Girolamo Claricio collaboratore del Boccaccio”. Popes. Peranzone. Aldershot. 2. Ruth Shepard. rpt. 2005. Francesco. Milano: Cisalpino. 1554. 1507. tav. 11–37. 1978. ed. Milano: Scinzenzeler (rpt. Kenneth. 2 vols. Padova: Antenore. 1988. Il libro e il testo. Giuseppe Billanovich and Giuseppe Frasso. In Writers and Readers in Medieval Italy. New Jersey]. ——. Firenze: Casa Editrice Le Lettere. 1986. “Time in Autobiography”. Six Centuries Later. Atti del Convegno di Gargnano del Garda (2–5 ottobre 2002). 1976. “Il testo: fra l’autografo e i testimoni di collazione”. autografo. Kanonistische Abteilung 74: 328–47 (rpt. 1981. Belfagor 1: 474–86. libro d’autore”.

Parma: Zarotto. ed.. Rabanus Maurus. 1: 125–33. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. In Motivi e forme delle “Familiari” di Francesco Petrarca. ——. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Napoli: Tipograa di Enrico Maria Muca. Ratingen: A. Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. Roma: G. Ezio. “Il latino del Petrarca nelle Familiari”. Lucius Annaeus Seneca. ——. Rafti. Reynolds. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Il lessico lologico degli umanisti. ——. Manfredi. Atti del Convegno di Gargnano del Garda (2–5 ottobre 2002). ——. ——. Quillen. Pier Giorgio. Milano–Napoli: Ricciardi. vol. 1974. Bardi. Claudia Berra. and the Language of Humanism. Dionisotti. Andrea. 2006. 1974. and Jill Kraye. “Petrarch’s ‘Nel dolce tempo de la prima etade’ ”. Quarta. Modern Language Notes 94: 92–112. “Il nucleo della ‘Posteritati’ (e le autobiograe di Petrarca)”. .256 works cited Porena. 1. ed. Convivium 17: 108–34. ed. trans. ——. I. ——. 1976. Rico. In Convegno internazionale Francesco Petrarca (24–27 aprile 1974). 1973. A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature. 1955. In The Uses of Greek and Latin. Prose latine. L[eighton] D. Brian. Studi sul testo delle rime del Petrarca. “Il Petrarca e l’epistolograa”. Richardson. Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales. London: Oxford University Press. ——. L[eighton] D. Trion. 1948b. Di alcuni nuovi studi sull’ordinamento del Canzoniere petrarchesco. Print Culture in Renaissance Italy: the Editor and the Vernacular Text. Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Patrizia. Giovanni Boccaccio. Viscatale de Losa. 1965a. Silvia. Napoli: M. 1941. Reynolds. Metodo di un lologo umanista”. 1473. Viscatale de Losa. Angelo. ed. 1976. Carol. Augustine. “Alle origini dei Rerum vulgarium fragmenta”. Milano–Napoli: Ricciardi.. Henn. Rivero. ed. In Studi sulla vita e le opere del Boccaccio. ——. 1965. 1985. A. Napoli: M. Libri I–IV. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina. Res seniles. 1–19. 1994. 41–56. 1902. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1938. lat. Francisco. Department of Romance Languages. Francesco Petrarca. ed. Portilia. Epistole.. Sull’ordinamento delle ultime rime in morte di Laura e di alcune altre parti del Canzoniere petrarchesco. Scrittura e civiltà 19: 199–221. Opere in versi. 1937. Sonetti e canzoni. Studien zur Uberlieferung und Geistesgeschichte mit dem Faksimile-Textabdruck aus Codex Reg. ——. 2d ed. “Evoluzione nella scrittura del Boccaccio e datazione degli autogra”. “‘Rime sparse’. Lectura del “Secretum”. Il codice degli abbozzi (Vat. Corbaccio. 3196 autografo del Petrarca. Francesco Petrarca. C. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 1948a. 286–96. Studi petrarcheschi. 125–34. Wilson. and N[igel] G. Milano: Cisalpino. Il codice vaticano lat. Hrabanus Maurus: De laudibus sancta [sic] crucis. Firenze: Le Lettere. 1998. Trattatello in lode di Dante. “Correzioni medioevali. Rereading the Renaissance: Petrarch. 1995. 436–59. 1973. ed. Rizzo. Petrarch’s “Remedies for Fortune Fair and Foul”: A Modern English Translation of “De remediis utriusque fortune” with a Commentary by Conrad H. Albert J. correzioni umanistiche e correzioni petrarchesche nella lettera VI del libro XVI delle Familiares”. 1965b. 3196) di Francesco Petrarca. 124 der Vatikanischen Bibliothek. Conrad H. 1991. “Il Claricio. 258–311. Francesco Petrarca. Romanò. Anthony Grafton. Nino. Vida u obra de Petrarca. 1979. Medioevo Romanzo 3: 101–38. Lat. Raimondi. Ricci. 2003. ‘Rerum vulgarium fragmenta’: para el titulo y el primer soneto del Canzoniere”. 1988. Rawski. University of London. London: Warburg Institute. Scribes and Scholars. Rawski. The Medieval Tradition of Seneca’s Letters.

ed. Binghamton. Studi sul Petrarca e sul Rinascimento. 2000. Francesco Petrarca. Il Petrarca con dichiarazioni non piu stampate. Atti del seminario internazionale di Firenze-Certaldo. 1906. Bologna: Il Mulino. ed. 2. 1930b. Le Familiari. Santagata. Dal sonetto al “Canzoniere”. Luca. 2 vols. ——. Firenze: Sansoni [vol. ——. 1989. ——. 1998. The Forms of Autobiography. 1558. Sabbadini. I frammenti dell’anima. 1971. Firenze: Le Lettere (reprint of Rossi 1933–1942). ——. “Contributi alla biograa del canonista Giovanni d’Andrea”. “Un archetipo abbandonato di epistole del Petrarca”. Per moderne carte: La biblioteca volgare del Petrarca. 1996b. 1914. Spengemann. Consilia et quaestiones. ed. Shailor. Epistulae ad familiares. revised edition. Lyon: Rovillio. 1999. Giancarlo. Forum Italicum 18: 203–16. 7 vols. “Un pioniere dell’autograa boccaccesca”. Rossi. Harold Bloom. 1984. edizione critica. Francesco Petrarca. Annali della Cattedra petrarchesca 3: 55–73.. ——. New York–Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers. Cambridge. 1932. by Marcus Tullius Cicero. Serianni. Alphonsus de. 4. Soto. Canzoniere. D[avid] R. 1980. trans. Savinio. Francesco Petrarca. “Classical Heritage and Petrarchan Self-Consciousness in the Literary Emergence of the Interior I ”. 3. ed. 2001. by Marcus Tullius Cicero. 2 vols. Memorable Doings and Sayings. 1957. New Haven: Yale University Press. scrittura. In Petrarch. tratte dalle dottissime Prose di Monsignor Bembo. 1992.works cited 257 Rossi. ed. 2d ed. 1965–1970. London: Cambridge University Press. Barbara. Le varianti e la storia: Il “Canzoniere” di Francesco Petrarca. ed. Aldo. Valerius Maximus. Scritti di critica letteraria. Padova: Liviana. Gu[g]lielmo. ——. à chi di rimare leggiadramente. Bologna: Il Mulino. ed. vol. ——. vol. Scritti di critica letteraria.. 2004. Remigio. Firenze: Cesati. Catalogue of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Introduzione alla lingua poetica italiana. 39: 369–88. ed. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1990. ——. Le scoperte dei codici latini e greci ne’ secoli XIV e XV. 1977. Firenze: Sansoni. Storia e critica di testi latini. In Pacca and Paolino 1996. Le Familiari. New York: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies. Letters to Atticus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri. Segre. . Studi sul Petrarca e sul Rinascimento. Shackleton Bailey. ed. riscrittura. “L’autobiograa in Italia e i nuovi metodi di analisi critica”. Marco. Milano: Mondadori. Roma: Carocci. ——. Milano: Mondadori. Memoria. Scaglione. 2: Libri V–XI. William C. 1989. Firenze: Sansoni. ed. 333–48. trans. “Sulla formazione delle raccolte epistolari petrarchesche”. Francesco Petrarca. ——. 1933–1942. “Introduzione”. Cesare. Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere. Rovillio. 175–93. 26–28 aprile. ——. 1984. ——. Michelangelo Picone and Claude Cazalé Bérard. Insieme alcune belle Annotazioni.. 93–167. 2. ——. e senza volere i segni del Petrarca passare. In Gli zibaldoni di Boccaccio. cose sommamente utili. Yale University. Episodes in the History of A Literary Genre. 1930a. Vittorio. ed. Rendiconti del R. “Il codice latino 8568 della Biblioteca Nazionale di Parigi e il testo delle Familiari del Petrarca”. Roma: Apud Sanctum Marcum [Vitus Puecher?]. Oldradus da Ponte. vol. Umberto Bosco]. ——. 1997 [1942]. 1996a. 4 vols. si prende cura. Rivista trimestrale di diritto e procedura civile 4: 391–456. 1478. serie 2. “Il primo nucleo della biblioteca del Petrarca”. ed. Giovanni. vol. Firenze: Sansoni. Padova: Antenore. Canzoniere. 125–37.

Brugnolo. 2006. Struever. 1948. 1981. 1992. Suitner. 1997. ed. Brian. Storey. Firenze: SISMEL. Heinemann Tamassia. 1998–99. Loredana Chines.2. In Belloni. vol. 2: 385–92. 1. ed. “A proposito de la correccion en manuscritos latinos medievales. Starobinski.3 y VI de San Isidoro de Leon”. Wayne. Theory as Practice: Ethical Inquiry in the Renaissance.2”. Milano: Cisalpino. 2004b. Roma: Lexis Progetti editoriali. studio storico generico. 1995. Leo. “A proposito di sinopie petrarchesche”. Padova: Liviana. Pasquale. Strada. vol. “Le style de l’autobiographie”. and Zamponi 2004. ed. trans. Padova: Poligrafo. 1999. and Roberta Capelli. Reprints. Wayne. Sebastiano. Padova: Cedam. Petrarca e la tradizione stilnovistica.. and Harris Rackham. Storey. 1–4 diciembre de 1993). 495–506. 2 vols. “L’edizione diplomatica di Ettore Modigliani”. Atti del Seminario Internazionale di Bergamo (23–25 ottobre 2003). Atti dell’Istituto veneto di Scienze. “Watermarks are Twins”. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2006b. Nino. Marie-Hélène. Petrarch’s Metamorphoses: Text and Subtext in the “Rime Sparse”. 1993. Stock. Opera Omnia. Atti del Convegno di Gargnano del Garda (2–5 ottobre 2002). Stevenson. Stoppelli. In Il Petrarchismo. Odofredo. Un modello di poesia per l’Europa. “Pétrarque lecteur de Tite-Live: les annotations du manuscrit latin 5690 de la Bibliothèque nationale de France”. Rossi. Nancy S. In La cultura volgare padovana nell’età del Petrarca. Lettere ed Arti. 2004a. objetivos y procedimientos de correccion en los codices III. Sturm-Maddox. 121–29. 1961. ——. 83–98. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. 1985. ——. and Zamponi 2004. 2d ed. León: Universidad de León. 291–310. ed. Revue de la Bibliothèque nationale de France 2: 37–41. In Motivi e forme delle “Familiari” di Francesco Petrarca. Lettere ed Arti 157: 577–627. “Il codice Pierpont Morgan M. libellus prima e dopo Petrarca. 231–53. ed.2: 1–5. “A Question of Punctuation and ‘ear[s] for dissenting voices’: Introduction to Textual Cultures 1. 2. ——. 502 e i suoi rapporti con lo scrittoio padovano di Petrarca”. Elena. Claudia Berra. Scienze Morali.258 works cited Spitzer. After Augustine: The Meditative Reader and the Text. Transcription and Visual Poetics in the Early Italian Lyric. “The Problem of Latin Renaissance Poetry”. Firenze: Olschki. ——. Claudia Villa and Luca C. ——. Contexts and Interpretation 1. Francesco Petrarca. Maurilio Pérez González. H. 487–504. 2006a. artices. Milano: Cisalpino. In Actas: 1o Congreso Nacional de Latin Medieval (León. L’oeil vivant. fragmenta. “Voce e graa nei Triumphi.1. Ana. Tesnière. “Canzoniere e Petrarchismo: un paradigma di orientamento formale e materiale”. “All’interno della poetica graco-visiva di Petrarca”.. In Belloni. 2001. III. La genesi del metodo del Lachmann. ed. 1999. Edward W. Allan.” In I “Triumphi” di Francesco Petrarca. . ed. ed. London: W. Textual Cultures: Texts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Jean. 2: 131–71. Franco. Storey. ——. by Marcus Tullius Cicero. H. 169–86. Studies in Bibliography 4: 57–91 and 235. CI. Roma: Bulzoni. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1951–1952. New York–London: Garland. 2006c. Claudia Berra. “Modalità di ordinamento materiale tra Guittone e Petrarca”. Paris: Gallimard. III. Sutton. [1894] 1967. 1955. Storey. ——. Suarez Gonzalez. De oratore. In Scritti di storia giuridica. In Liber. Studies in the Renaissance 2: 118–38. Timpanaro. Sara. Furio Brugnolo. Brugnolo. 1977. 2003. “Il liber nella formazione delle Familiari”.

Fabio. New York: Century Company. “Notes on Petrarch”. Two Addresses. I codici petrarcheschi della Biblioteca Vaticana. 1915. Oberlin. 1993. The College and Society. Most.. Claudia Berra. Roma: Salerno. Modern Language Notes 32: 193–200. 1908. Modern Language Notes 102: 32–38. 1905. Roma: Tipograa Poliglotta Vaticana. Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura). Berthold. Scrittura e civiltà 5: 147–68. Milano: Cisalpino. ——. ed. PMLA 61 (Supplement): 1320. “Il De vita et moribus Francisci Petracchi de Florentia del Boccaccio e la biograa del Petrarca”. 1642. ——. ——. ——. Freeport. “Le correzioni linguistiche del Petrarca nel Canzoniere”. “An Hour in the Renaissance”. 2000. 2005. La lingua del “Canzoniere” (“Rerum vulgarium fragmenta”) di Francesco Petrarca. “Gerarchie grache e metodi di correzione in due antichi codici gioachimiti (Laur. Italia medioevale e umanistica 17: 365–468. Berthold L. 1987. Le volgari opere di Petrarca con l’esposizione di Alessandro Vellutello da Lucca. Conv. “The ‘Enueg’ in Petrarch and Shakespeare”. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (trans. Carlo. di Marco Tullio Cicerone. Bologna: Zanichelli. “Le postille del Petrarca nel Vaticano lat. Vitale. ——. Proposals for Changes in the American Plan of Higher Education. Velli. ——. 1947. Ubaldini. The Genesis of Lachmann’s Method. 241–45). 1955. codice Vaticano Latino 3195. ——. Federigo. Padova Ant. 1932. ——. Trovato. Transactions of the American Philological Association 54: 21–38 (rpt. 1917. Marco. 1960. 299–315. Mediaeval Studies 55: 273–83. . 1929. Maurizio. ed. “Petrarch’s Favorite Books”. 1923. “La ‘lunga pictura’: visione e rappresentazione nei Trion”. ed. Venezia: Giovanni Antonio [ Nicolini] e Fratelli da Sabio. ——. 1999. of Timpanaro 1981). ——. Paolo. ——. Princeton: Princeton University Press. and trans. Muses of One Mind: The Literary Analysis of Experience and Its Continuity. Bologna: Il Mulino. Glenn W. Wesley. Studi di storia della lingua italiana. Modern Philology 13: 495–96. Vellutello. Carlo. Frontino. ed. Wilkins. “Reminiscences”. Per un inventario dei dantismi nei “Rerum vulgarium fragmenta”. 1937. Dante in Petrarca. 118–37. Studies in the Italian Renaissance. Living in Crisis. Ohio: Press of the Oberlin Printing Company. trans. Sopp. Modern Philology 26: 283–94. New York: Books for Libraries Press). Il testo della “Vita Nuova” e altra lologia dantesca. Roma: Grignani. Trimpi. Students Against War. 1946. Vecce. 1979. Vegezio. Vattasso. Boston: Marshall Jones Company (rpt. 3 vols. 358. ——. “The Dates of Transcription of 3195”. 13–47. 1996. Firenze: Olschki. Milano: LED. 1992 [1988]. Troncarelli. Francesco Petrarca estratte da un suo originale. 1936. “‘Decora correctio’: un codice emendato da Cassiodoro?”. In I “Triumphi” di Francesco Petrarca. ——. Alessandro. “Horace’s ‘Ut Pictura Poesis’: The Argument for Stylistic Decorum”. 1985. Caterina. 1974. 1923. ed. Padova: Antenore. 2193 (Apuleio. In North East Modern Language Association Bulletin December: 11–12. 322)”. Tristrano. 1525.works cited 259 ——. Vitali. 1978. 1983. in Ullman. Ernest Hatch. L’originale del Canzoniere di Francesco Petrarca. Milano: Hoepli. ed. 1991. Le rime di M. Lettere ad Attico. Palladio)”. 1967. The Historical Outlook 14: 203–5 (revised in Wilkins 1959. Giuseppe. Traditio 34: 29–73. ——. Con ogni diligenza corretto: la stampa e le revisioni editoriali dei testi letterari italiani (1470–1570). “The Presidential Address: Petrarchan Byways”. Ullman.

260 works cited ——. Wolff. Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius. ——.. 1994. G. ed. and Zamponi 2003–2004. Speculum 35: 563–71. 2004. 4. 1”. T. P. In Somnium Scipionis commentarios selecta varietate lectionis ornavit.C. Le Genre Epistolaire Antique et Ses Prolongement Europeens. ed. Brugnolo. ——. 379–85. Heinemann. ——.F. 1958. London: W. by Marcus Tullius Cicero. In Langue. 1960a. “Petrarque et le genre epistolaire: reexions sur Familiares I. The “Epistolae metricae” of Petrarch: A Manual. Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. 1927–1929. Tedeschi. Price. Quintilian. The Invention of the Sonnet and Other Studies in Italian Literature. 1963. Bartle Library. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. Paul. 1955. by Marcus Tullius Cicero. 3 vols.” In Belloni. “On the Circulation of Petrarch’s Italian Lyrics During His Lifetime. ——. Zamponi. 17 Edili 3 Segniano 1 . New York: G. Letters to his Brother Quintus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. De ofciis. 1–8). 1975. ——. 1970.10 MS 331 XLI 17 LIII 35 XC inf. Archival Materials BERLIN BINGHAMTON (New York) Staatsbibliothek Binghamton University. 1960b.” Modern Philology 46: 1–6. Letters to his Friends. Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. Williams. Ambrosii Theodosii Macrobii Saturnalia apparatu critico instruxit. Putnam’s Sons. énigme. ——. 1956. 1948b. “Il libro del Canzoniere: modelli.201. ——. Padova: Antenore. by Marcus Tullius Cicero. Zimmermann. 165–80. “Autobiographie au Moyen Age?”. Louvain: Peeters. 1961. Department of Special Collections. Storey. Glenn G. “Confessions and Autobiography in the Early Renaissance”. Speculum 33: 339–44. Vanni. ——. Oxford: Clarendon Press. strutture. 1971. William Glynn. ed. Institutionis oratoriae libri duodecim. texte. “Peregrinus ubique”. Firenze: Sansoni. 1948a. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Michael. in Wilkins 1951a. 1959. Boxes 3. Leipzig: B. ed. Stefano. ——.: Mediaeval Academy of America. Cambridge. 1951a. Baron. “Works that Petrarch Thought of Writing”. Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. 2002. Willis. Studies in the Life and Works of Petrarch. Studies in Philology 45: 445–53 (rpt. Leon Nadjo and Elisabeth Gavoille. Petrarch’s Correspondence. trans. Zumthor. Winterbottom. The Prose Letters of Petrarch: A Manual. 1951b. trans. 121–40. In Renaissance Studies in Honor of H. James. New York: S. funzione. ——. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ed. Collegio di Spagna Museo Civico Medievale (Massachusetts) Harvard University Archives (UK) Fitzwilliam Museum Biblioteca Mediceo-Laurenziana Hamilton 90 BOLOGNA CAMBRIDGE CAMBRIDGE FLORENCE MS 273 MS 4134 UAV 161. Teubner. Life of Petrarch. 2: 13–57. The Making of the “Canzoniere” and Other Petrarchan Studies. Anthony Molho and John A. ed. “We Answer a Letter”. 1989 [1972]. Etienne. Mass. ——. Ernest Hatch Wilkins Papers. ——.

5690 lat. 8569 Biblioteca Casanatense 924 Vatican Library Chigiano L V 176 Latino 145 Latino 2534 Latino 3195 Latino 3196 Latino 3197 Latino 3199 Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Latino XIII 70 . 106A. 6069 F lat. 11. 22 MS 222 MS 706 Marston MS 99 M. 2923 lat. 2508 lat. 5816 lat. 106. 502 LONDON MILAN NAPLES NEW HAVEN NEW YORK OBERLIN (Ohio) PARIS ROME VATICAN CITY VENICE The Morgan Library & Museum Oberlin College. 6802 lat. 1989 lat.works cited Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Biblioteca Riccardiana British Library Biblioteca Ambrosiana Biblioteca Nazionale Yale University. 49. Bibliothèque Nationale lat. 5720 lat. Boxes 2. Correspondence. 6069 I lat. Wilkins to Donald Love. Beinecke Library 261 II iii 47 II ix 125 Banco rari 50 1059 Harley 3264 Inc. 8082 lat. IB 25926 Sala del Prefetto 10/27 B42 Bibbia I. 7880 I lat. 7720 lat. 26 February 1960. Wilkins Papers. B.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful