Session Title

Petrarch in Dialogue

Sponsoring Organization(s)

Special Session

Organizer Name

Jennifer Rushworth

Organizer Affiliation

St. John's College, Univ. of Oxford

Presider Name

Alison Cornish

Presider Affiliation

Univ. of Michigan-Ann Arbor

Paper Title 1

"Quell'altro voler di ch'i' son pieno" (RVF 264. 73): Petrarch in Dialogue

Presenter 1 Name

Francesca Southerden

Presenter 1 Affiliation

Wellesley College

Paper Title 2

Grave Matters in Dante and Petrarch

Presenter 2 Name

Jennifer Rushworth

Presenter 2 Affiliation

St. John's College, Univ. of Oxford

Paper Title 3

Stoic Ideals and Petrarch's Augustinus

Presenter 3 Name

James McMenamin

Presenter 3 Affiliation

Dickinson College

Start Date

17-5-2015 8:30 AM

Session Location

Bernhard 212

Description

The purpose of this panel is to explore some of the dialogic aspects of the late medieval Italian author Francesco Petrarca. We understand dialogue as an interpretive tool in a number of different ways: first, as an explicit structural device particularly common in Petrarch’s Latin works (such as the Secretum); second, as a deliberate stance taken in relation to one’s writerly predecessors; third, as the product of identifiable if often hidden intertextual echoes and allusions. In the last two cases, Petrarch’s dialogue with Dante is of particular importance. The question of Petrarch’s dialogue with Augustine is, moreover, a common thread between the three papers, which move towards broader questions of the motivations behind and consequences of literary dialogue.

Jennifer F. Rushworth

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
May 17th, 8:30 AM

Petrarch in Dialogue

Bernhard 212

The purpose of this panel is to explore some of the dialogic aspects of the late medieval Italian author Francesco Petrarca. We understand dialogue as an interpretive tool in a number of different ways: first, as an explicit structural device particularly common in Petrarch’s Latin works (such as the Secretum); second, as a deliberate stance taken in relation to one’s writerly predecessors; third, as the product of identifiable if often hidden intertextual echoes and allusions. In the last two cases, Petrarch’s dialogue with Dante is of particular importance. The question of Petrarch’s dialogue with Augustine is, moreover, a common thread between the three papers, which move towards broader questions of the motivations behind and consequences of literary dialogue.

Jennifer F. Rushworth