Abstract
This paper intends to show the importance of Byron’s intertextual relation to Italian Renaissance chivalrous epic in ottava rima. Luigi Pulci’s Morgante, Ariosto’s Orlando furioso and Byron’s Don Juan were chosen to provide textual comparison elucidating problems related to Don Juan’s style and genre. The seemingly improvisational element in Don Juan is, in fact, explicable by the influence of Pulcian colloquial style. As far as the genre is concerned, the novelistic nature of Don Juan is primarily the result of Byron’s intertextual connection to Italian Renaissance chivalrous epic. A hitherto unnoticed intertextual echo is presented as part of the analyses. Pulci and Ariosto influenced Don Juan with rhetorical devices deeply rooted in the medieval semi-oral tradition. The more general aim of this article is to investigate formal aspects of Romantic irony (on the basis of Friedrich Schlegel’s conception) as manifested in Don Juan. The phenomenon of self-reflexivity is focused on and understood both as an aesthetic attitude closely associated with Romantic irony and a general narrative principle seen also in Pulci and Ariosto. The “technique” of Romantic irony encompasses the formal aspects of Don Juan associated with self-reflexivity (laconic narrator’s interventions, passages referring to style and genre of the text) as well as the transitional formulas associated with digressiveness and echoing formulaic techniques of interlace. Byron’s irony in Don Juan is fertilized by the mock-heroic tone of the Pulcian style.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Primary Material
Ariosto, L. (1995). Orlando furioso (“Orlando Enraged”). The Project Gutenberg EBook. http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/615/pg615.html.
Ariosto, L. (2010). Orlando furioso. Milano: Mondadori.
Byron, G. G. (1986). Don Juan. In J. J. McGann (Ed.), Lord Byron: The complete poetical works (Vol. 5). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Pulci, L. (1992). Morgante. Milano: Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli.
Secondary Material
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Barton, A. (1992). Byron: Don Juan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bendinelli Predelli, M. (1999). Cantari e dintorni. Roma: Euroma La Goliardica.
Bone, D. (2000a). Byron. Tavistock: Northcote House.
Bone, D. (2000b). Romantic irony revisited. In M. Procházka (Ed.), Byron: East and West (pp. 237–247). Prague: Karolinum.
Boyd, E. F. (1958). Byron’s Don Juan: A critical study. New York: The Humanities Press.
Brand, C. P. (1977). L’entrelacement nell’“Orlando Furioso“. Giornale Storico della Letteratura Italiana, 154, 509–532.
Cochran, P. (2012). Byron and Italy. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Conrad, P. (1978). Shandyism: The character of romantic irony. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Davie, D. (1967). Purity of diction in English verse. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Davie, M. (1998). Half-serious rhymes: The narrative poetry of Luigi Pulci. Dublin: Irish Academic Press.
Durling, R. M. (1965). The figure of the poet in Renaissance epic. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Esterhammer, A. (2008). Romanticism and improvisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Garber, F. (1988). Self, text, and romantic irony: The example of Byron. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hempfer, K. W. (1976). Textkonstitution und Rezeption: Zum dominant komisch-parodistischen Charakter von Pulcis Morgante, Boiardos Orlando Innamorato und Ariosts Orlando Furioso. Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 27, 77–99.
Hempfer, K. W. (1998). L’autoriflessività narrativa e il Furioso. In K. W. Hempfer (Ed.), Testi e contesti: Saggi post-ermeneutici sul Cinquecento (pp. 83–118). Napoli: Liguori Editore.
Marchand, L. A. (1968). Byron’s poetry: A critical introduction. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
McGann, J. J. (1968). Fiery dust: Byron’s poetic development. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
McGann, J. J. (1976). Don Juan in context. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Mellor, A. K. (1980). English romantic irony. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Ogle, R. B. (1973). A Byron contradiction: Some light on his Italian study. Studies in Romanticism, 12(1), 436–442.
O’Neill, M. (1997). Romanticism and the self-conscious poem. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Schlegel, F. W. (1956). Schriften und Fragmente: Ein Gesamtbild seines Geistes. Stuttgart: A. Kröner.
Stabler, J. (2002). Byron, poetics, and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stierle, K. (1980). Die Verwilderung des Romans als Ursprung seiner Möglichkeit. In H. U. Gumbrecht (Ed.), Literatur in der Gesellschaft des Spätmittelalters (pp. 253–313). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Strathman, C. A. (2006). Romantic poetry and the fragmentary imperative. Albany: SUNY Press.
Strohschneider-Kohrs, I. (2002). Die romantische Ironie in Theorie und Gestaltung. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Vassallo, P. (1984). Byron: The Italian literary influence. London: Macmillan.
Vinaver, E. (1984). The rise of romance. Cambridge: Brewer.
Waters, L. (1983). Pulci and the poetry of Byron: “Domestiche Muse”. Annali d’Italianistica, 1, 34–48.
Zaiser, R. (2009). Inszenierte Poetik: Metatextualität als Selbstreflexion von Dichtung in der italienischen Literatur der frühen Neuzeit. Berlin: LIT.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kurzová, I. Byron, Pulci, and Ariosto: Technique of Romantic Irony. Neophilologus 99, 1–13 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11061-014-9402-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11061-014-9402-8