Between historical distance and a performance of presence: entanglements of 'history' and contemporary reality in epic texts of the Italian Renaissance.

在阿里奥斯托的《奥兰多狂暴》中，纠缠的叙事技巧是对没有内在逻辑的偶然历史世界的认识论隐喻。只有叙述这个世界的诗人才有能力赋予它某种秩序，这种秩序是目的论对历史的建构总是预先假定的。基于这一点和第一个资助期的其他发现，后续项目调查阿里奥斯托开辟的复杂叙事可能性是否以及在多大程度上被随后的前塔西亚史诗采用，它们是否被编纂成正式的诗学，或者它们是否最终被抛弃。在这样做的过程中，该项目考虑到了宗教和诗歌方面的限制，这些限制对Ariosto来说还不具有同样的规范地位。与第一个资助期一样，牵连和其他形式的多线程和离题叙述将再次成为调查的中心。在这一背景下，该项目试图建立一个理论框架来解决两个主要问题：一方面，在现有叙事学学术中被普遍忽视的“多线程”概念需要进一步区分；另一方面，多线程叙事将作为一个认识论和方法论的习性与题外话联系起来，这是所述时期的特征，这种习性也影响到特定的理论和论辩话语体裁，即对话和蒙田式的散文。在此背景下，该项目将在当代关于长篇小说是非曲直的辩论背景下，将重点放在有争议的叙事变种的主题化上；鉴于前面提到的理论探索，有充分的理由期待超出现有研究范围的结果。此外，最重要的是，该项目将在阿里奥斯托之后进行叙事实践，这是一个到目前为止还没有引起学术关注的领域。基于大量鲜为人知和研究不足的史诗语料库，该项目的目标是探索这些文本是否以及如何部署多线程叙事，并建立相应的复杂叙事世界。另一个需要考虑的关键问题是，在偏爱这种叙事方法的背后，或者相反地，在拒绝这种叙事方法的背后，可以辨别出哪些认识论的倾向和‘意识形态’的前提。

In Ariosto’s Orlando furioso, the narrative technique of entrelacement operates as an epistemological metaphor for a contingent historical world that follows no inherent logic. Only the poet who narrates this world is capable of lending it the kind of order that teleological constructions of history always already presuppose. Based on this and other findings from the first funding period, the follow-on project investigates whether and in how far the complex narrative possibilities opened up by Ariosto were adopted in subsequent pre-Tassian epics, whether they came to be codified in formal poetics, or whether they were eventually abandoned. In so doing, the project takes account of religious and poetological restrictions which did not yet have the same normative status for Ariosto. As in the first funding period, entrelacement and other forms of multi-threaded and digressive narration will once again be at the centre of inquiry. In this context, the project seeks to establish a theoretical framework that addresses two major issues: on the one hand, the concept of ‘multi-threadedness’, largely neglected in existing narratological scholarship, is in need of further differentiation; on the other hand, multi-threaded narration is to be brought into relation with digression as an epistemological and methodological habitus that is characteristic of the period in question, a habitus that also exerts its influence on specific genres of theoretical and argumentative discourse, namely the dialogue and the essay in the vein of Montaigne. Against this background, the project will focus on the controversial thematisation of narrative varietà in the context of the contemporary debate over the merits of the romanzo; in light of the theoretical explorations previously mentioned, there is good reason to expect findings that go beyond the scope of existing research. Further to this, and most importantly, the project will engage with narrative practice after Ariosto, a field of inquiry that has attracted scant scholarly attention so far. Based on a substantial corpus of mostly little-known and under-researched epics, the project’s goal is to explore if and how these texts deploy multi-threaded narratives and set up correspondingly complex narrative worlds. Another key question to be considered is which epistemological dispositions and ‘ideological’ premises can be discerned behind the preference for this kind of narrative approach, or, conversely, its rejection.