Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
inthestanzasandinadjacentlinesinRetearereadingsoftheRetegroupdonothave . Fewnotbeyondscribalwork . Inbrief , thestanzassuchvigorouslycharacterizeddifferencescanstandineitherpositionwithoutabsolutedistinguishRetefromCpete , butwheretheydoincongruity . Butasaself -c onsciousdigressionexisttheymayreflectsomespasmodicauthorialonarttheyaremuchmorecontextuallytinkeringwithanestablishedMS . Itisnotimplied , andthusmoreeffective , intheirunlikelythatChwouldoccasionallymodifyhisearlierposition . Thereremainslittlepositivepoeminacopythatwastohand , especiallyevidencethatthedifferentlocationofthesetidyinguptheoccasionalpointof " fact " . ButstanzasinReterepresentsauthenticrevisiongenerallyCpeteandRetedonotidentifywhenthedivergencebetweentheMSSmaybethemselvesfromeachotherinanythingmorecomparedwithanumberofbizarrescribalthantheirowninternalerrorsasmanuscripterrorsbycopyistsinthe MSS , wherestanzasgroups . Interestingdistinctionsbetweenthemaremisplaced . H4carriesthesedisputedstanzasexistveryoccasionally , withinacontinuumoftwice , copyingthemoutinbothpositions ( H 4 , minordivergenceinvocabularyandphrasing and 77r ) . InaprobablylessconsciouswhichismorelikelytoreflecttheirtransmissionshiftingofmaterialinRitself , fivestanzasarethroughdifferentscribaltraditionsthantocopiedouttwiceatdifferentpositionswithinrepresentanauthorialrewritingsoindifferentBookIII ( 1212 -4 6occurbetween1099andandmotivelessastobedistinguishedwith1100 ( f . 54v -f . S Y ) andintheirproperplacedifficultyfromthemoregenerallyobservable ( f . 57r -f . 57v ) ) . Withthesedisputedstanzascharacteristicsofscribalcopying . thereappearsneitherequalitynordiscernibleprogressionbetweenthevariations , whiletheotherevidenceofthesameMSSshows comparableinterferencebytheirscribes . ButthereremainlimitedcaseswheretheThesesporadicinstancesofauthenticityinaReteMSSdorepresentanapparentprogressionmanuscriptfamilyarepartofawiderpatterninbeyondtheauthenticreadingsoftheotherthe MSS , whichpresentsomebafflingMSS , asinthosecontextswhereChhasinstancesofstrikingindependencebyindividualdecidedtoemendBoccacciobyreferencetotheMSSorgroupings . ThesemakedifficulttheauthorityofBenoitandGuido . InIV , theinterpretationofthe
DOI link for inthestanzasandinadjacentlinesinRetearereadingsoftheRetegroupdonothave . Fewnotbeyondscribalwork . Inbrief , thestanzassuchvigorouslycharacterizeddifferencescanstandineitherpositionwithoutabsolutedistinguishRetefromCpete , butwheretheydoincongruity . Butasaself -c onsciousdigressionexisttheymayreflectsomespasmodicauthorialonarttheyaremuchmorecontextuallytinkeringwithanestablishedMS . Itisnotimplied , andthusmoreeffective , intheirunlikelythatChwouldoccasionallymodifyhisearlierposition . Thereremainslittlepositivepoeminacopythatwastohand , especiallyevidencethatthedifferentlocationofthesetidyinguptheoccasionalpointof " fact " . ButstanzasinReterepresentsauthenticrevisiongenerallyCpeteandRetedonotidentifywhenthedivergencebetweentheMSSmaybethemselvesfromeachotherinanythingmorecomparedwithanumberofbizarrescribalthantheirowninternalerrorsasmanuscripterrorsbycopyistsinthe MSS , wherestanzasgroups . Interestingdistinctionsbetweenthemaremisplaced . H4carriesthesedisputedstanzasexistveryoccasionally , withinacontinuumoftwice , copyingthemoutinbothpositions ( H 4 , minordivergenceinvocabularyandphrasing and 77r ) . InaprobablylessconsciouswhichismorelikelytoreflecttheirtransmissionshiftingofmaterialinRitself , fivestanzasarethroughdifferentscribaltraditionsthantocopiedouttwiceatdifferentpositionswithinrepresentanauthorialrewritingsoindifferentBookIII ( 1212 -4 6occurbetween1099andandmotivelessastobedistinguishedwith1100 ( f . 54v -f . S Y ) andintheirproperplacedifficultyfromthemoregenerallyobservable ( f . 57r -f . 57v ) ) . Withthesedisputedstanzascharacteristicsofscribalcopying . thereappearsneitherequalitynordiscernibleprogressionbetweenthevariations , whiletheotherevidenceofthesameMSSshows comparableinterferencebytheirscribes . ButthereremainlimitedcaseswheretheThesesporadicinstancesofauthenticityinaReteMSSdorepresentanapparentprogressionmanuscriptfamilyarepartofawiderpatterninbeyondtheauthenticreadingsoftheotherthe MSS , whichpresentsomebafflingMSS , asinthosecontextswhereChhasinstancesofstrikingindependencebyindividualdecidedtoemendBoccacciobyreferencetotheMSSorgroupings . ThesemakedifficulttheauthorityofBenoitandGuido . InIV , theinterpretationofthe
inthestanzasandinadjacentlinesinRetearereadingsoftheRetegroupdonothave . Fewnotbeyondscribalwork . Inbrief , thestanzassuchvigorouslycharacterizeddifferencescanstandineitherpositionwithoutabsolutedistinguishRetefromCpete , butwheretheydoincongruity . Butasaself -c onsciousdigressionexisttheymayreflectsomespasmodicauthorialonarttheyaremuchmorecontextuallytinkeringwithanestablishedMS . Itisnotimplied , andthusmoreeffective , intheirunlikelythatChwouldoccasionallymodifyhisearlierposition . Thereremainslittlepositivepoeminacopythatwastohand , especiallyevidencethatthedifferentlocationofthesetidyinguptheoccasionalpointof " fact " . ButstanzasinReterepresentsauthenticrevisiongenerallyCpeteandRetedonotidentifywhenthedivergencebetweentheMSSmaybethemselvesfromeachotherinanythingmorecomparedwithanumberofbizarrescribalthantheirowninternalerrorsasmanuscripterrorsbycopyistsinthe MSS , wherestanzasgroups . Interestingdistinctionsbetweenthemaremisplaced . H4carriesthesedisputedstanzasexistveryoccasionally , withinacontinuumoftwice , copyingthemoutinbothpositions ( H 4 , minordivergenceinvocabularyandphrasing and 77r ) . InaprobablylessconsciouswhichismorelikelytoreflecttheirtransmissionshiftingofmaterialinRitself , fivestanzasarethroughdifferentscribaltraditionsthantocopiedouttwiceatdifferentpositionswithinrepresentanauthorialrewritingsoindifferentBookIII ( 1212 -4 6occurbetween1099andandmotivelessastobedistinguishedwith1100 ( f . 54v -f . S Y ) andintheirproperplacedifficultyfromthemoregenerallyobservable ( f . 57r -f . 57v ) ) . Withthesedisputedstanzascharacteristicsofscribalcopying . thereappearsneitherequalitynordiscernibleprogressionbetweenthevariations , whiletheotherevidenceofthesameMSSshows comparableinterferencebytheirscribes . ButthereremainlimitedcaseswheretheThesesporadicinstancesofauthenticityinaReteMSSdorepresentanapparentprogressionmanuscriptfamilyarepartofawiderpatterninbeyondtheauthenticreadingsoftheotherthe MSS , whichpresentsomebafflingMSS , asinthosecontextswhereChhasinstancesofstrikingindependencebyindividualdecidedtoemendBoccacciobyreferencetotheMSSorgroupings . ThesemakedifficulttheauthorityofBenoitandGuido . InIV , theinterpretationofthe
ABSTRACT