Re: going back to Folengo

12
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote: Given the differences in text, I presume that the Renda edition uses instead the editio princeps. The lack of marginal glosses in Portioli might be a clue that this is the case, so the redundant "è" in Renda might be his misprint or a misprint from the original 1526 edition.
Wrong - it seems Renda didn't even know of the 1526 edition - he tries to make a critical edition out of the 1527 edition and a 1547 edition (and yet, Cordié says that the 1527 edition didn't even contain the offending verses about the Pope and Popess - at least his edition doesn't contain the whole section with the verses) -
http://www.bibliotecaitaliana.it/exist/ ... ageNum=274

Renda's "MDXLVII" edition has the same edition information as Cordié's "MDXLVI" edition, so one or the other could be a mistake or typo - or there could be two editions.

Renda (1911) - "2° Chaos del Triperuno, e in fine: in Vinegia per Giovanni Antonio e Pie- | tro fratelli de Nicolini da Sabio MDXLVII. - "

Cordié (1977) - "In Vinegia per Giouvann'Antonio & Pietro fratelli de Nicolini da Sabio, M.D.XLVI."

So - all of this clears up nothing.

Renda says of Portioli's edition (whom Renier quotes) and his own edition, however -
(3rd edtion) nel terzo volume delle Opere di T.F., a cura di Attilio Portioli, Mantova, Mondovi, 1889. - Quanto abbiamo detto circa l'Orlandino edito dal Portioli vale, e ancora piú, per la ristampa del Caos da lui curata. Gli errori tipografici, di trascrizione, di interpunzione, di metrica e le lacune sono tali e tanti, che non è possible darne qui un elenco neppure approssimativo: il lettore, se ne avrà voglia, potrá procedere al confronto fra il testo del Portioli e il nostro, e di quanto asseriamo non tarderá a convincersi sin dalle prime pagine
Semplicissimo è stato il criterio da noi seguito nella presente edizione critica: sottoporre a un accurato raffronto le due stampe cinquecentesche, correggendo gli evidenti errori di stampa e rinovando la punteggiatura.
So - "What we have said concerning the Orlandino edited by Portioli goes even moreso for the reprinting of the Caos edited by him. The errors of typography, transcription, punctuation, metre and the lacunae are so many that it is not possible to give more than an approximate list of them: the reader, if he should want, may make a comparison between the text of Portioli and ours, and we are assured that he will be soon convinced from the first page.
It is quite simple to state the criteria that we have followed in the present critical edition: to accurately compare the two 16th century editions, correcting the obvious printing errors and renewing the punctuation."

The upshot - you are quite right, Marco, to demand a better edition. Particularly the 1526 edition, of which Renda was (apparently?) unaware - since Renda himself in his critical comparison of the 1527 (1526?) and 1547 (1546?) editions obviously also made mistakes.

Ross
Last edited by Ross G. R. Caldwell on 25 May 2009, 20:27, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Re: going back to Folengo

13
Thank you Ross.
Maybe one day we will have access to a copy of the 1526 edition, or at least the paper by Carlo Filosa about the "editio princeps". I imagine that the original version would not clear all the doubts, but it would certainly be good to know what the sonnet originally looked like :)

Marco
cron