Un inedito volgarizzamento dell'Achilleide di Stazio. Edizione critica e commento

With this work the critical edition of an unpublished vernacular translation of the Achilleid by Statius is offered; this is possible thanks the only two manuscripts that are known today: the former located in Florence at the Medicea Laurenziana library and the latter at the Estense library in Modena. Apart from three works that make an isolated mention of the existence of the work, there is no trace of a vernacular edition of the unfinished poem by Statius. In both copies, in addition to the almost complete translation of the classic work, there are the preface and the résumé of the poem; in the Estense manuscript other elements are included: an excursus of the pagan deities; a short description of pre-Christian religions. In the sections where the work appears to require more clarification, the translation of the letter is sometimes followed by a synthetic explanation of the meanings. The two manuscripts present a different version of the vernacular translation: the first in the Florentine language, whereas the second, which is more complete and detailed, in Venetian. The necessity of proposing two separate editions is due to two main reasons: the diverse extensiveness of the discussion and of the linguistic features; and the significant and numerous differences between the two versions of the work. Both editions are made of an apparatus which exposes the content of the manuscripts and, for each locus criticus, makes a comparison with the two; finally, it gives information on the vocabulary, it deals with the history of translation and it shows the association with the Latin original work. The introduction gives the most relevant information related to the textual elements and dating; it presents a synthetic reconstruction of the diffusion of the Achilleid during the Middle Ages and Humanism; and it offers a study on the relations between our work and the manuscript translation of the unfinished poem by Statius. The first chapter deals with a detailed comparison between the two versions of the work: a synoptic reading is given of each table of contents, of the presence/absence of chapters or paragraphs related to an historical or mythological excursus, of the additional elements or variations (more or less equivalent to the Latin original work), of the mistakes related to the work by Statius and, finally, of the shared omissions. Looking at the single editions that show a minute knowledge on the connection between the works, there’s an initial study on the relations with the Achilleid, the translations, and the variations and extensions. Thanks to the error analysis, the presence of coincidences and relevant omissions, it was possible to speculate on the existence of an archetype. In the section dedicated to the error analysis, both polygenic and non-polygenic, there are two charts that contain those variae lectiones that may be set as wrong variations or single omissions of the two manuscripts (this choice comes from the need to promote an easy comparison between the two manuscripts, that are so diverse even though bonded). Two linguistic studies based on the most recent editions of the vernacular translations were led, this was due to the demand for the establishment of the genesis and development of the two works. Hence, the Florentine version was analyzed from a diachronic point of view: the linguistic devices were not only interpreted in relation to their phonetic, morphological or syntactic nature but in relation to their historical development and distribution. Apart from the bibliography and the footnotes, the work end with a glossary compiled on the Venetian manuscript, this choice was dictated by two major arguments: the need of studies on vocabulary related to the Veneto-Venetian area, and unwitnessed elements present in this work.