Abstract
Between the 17th and 18th century the general attitude towards Dante’s work is deeply influenced
by the ongoing antimarinist literary renewal. Just like Marino, Dante is considered obscure and
unable to deal with philosophical subject-matters in depth. Moving from this viewpoint, Colombo
analyzes the critical essays written by Arcadian classicists, still thoroughly based on quotations from
the ‘Comedy’, and those written by Florentine scholars: Lorenzo Magalotti’s comment is the result of
teamwork between Rome and Florence, while Benedetto Menzini’s prescriptive empiricism is still
linked to Renaissance in attitude. Gianvincenzo Gravina outdoes the ordinary pseudo-Aristotelian
interpretations of the ‘Commedia’, because several cultural influences, from Benvenuto da Imola to
Galileo, from Boccaccio to Campanella, allow him to underline the symbiosis of poetry and philosophy
in Dante and ascribe the obscurity of the poem to the concealment imposed by doctrine. Gravina’s
study of Dante is compared with the more conventional essays written by Muratori and Crescimbeni.
Scipione Maffei’s case is particularly interesting because it explains clearly the importance of
Crescimbeni’s essays in influencing the way Dante was studied in Rome.
Titolo tradotto del contributo | [Autom. eng. transl.] For the edition of the Dante commentary by Baldassarre Lombardi |
---|---|
Lingua originale | Italian |
pagine (da-a) | 322-373 |
Numero di pagine | 52 |
Rivista | RIVISTA DI STUDI DANTESCHI |
Stato di pubblicazione | Pubblicato - 2011 |
Keywords
- Baldassarre Lombardi, Dante Alighieri, Commedia