Scholars have long studied the so-called Breve chronicon de rebus Siculis as a key source for im-portant historical information, including the crusade of Frederick II. At the same time, however, this source provides crucial and concrete clues that identify the typical process involved in the re-writing of chronicles. Two main manuscripts transmit this work, yet each manuscript offers widely variable texts at several junctures. The conclusion of the Breve chronicon de rebus Siculis, for example, is to-tally discordant in the two manuscripts, but throughout each manuscript their scribes transmit factu-al data in remarkably different manners. For instance, one can look at the place in which the chroni-cler speaks of the destruction of Siponto and the exile of its inhabitants: the years of exile and the names of the sovereigns who allowed their return vary in the two manuscripts, but the changes are absolutely congruent with chronology. If we look at this phenomenon abstractly, regardless of how medieval chronicles effectively circulated and how they were copied, at least one of the two texts altered the historical information. However, this text does not constitute a “forgery” since the philo-logical interpretation of a chronicle is completely different from the interpretation of a document. The writing of history is an irrepressible part of the human experience and anyone who holds a pen in his hands feels compelled to write information on the present and past. But at the same time in which he retrieves and transcribes information, he also starts to alter everything because in the pro-cess of composition, he ultimately expresses an essential part of himself. Furthermore, a copying scribe, especially if he is not a professional one, selects and summarizes news in order to adapt them to his own interests and his own world.

Tradizioni testuali e (ri)scrittura della storia. Il caso del Breve chronicon de rebus Siculis

DELLE DONNE, FULVIO
2016-01-01

Abstract

Scholars have long studied the so-called Breve chronicon de rebus Siculis as a key source for im-portant historical information, including the crusade of Frederick II. At the same time, however, this source provides crucial and concrete clues that identify the typical process involved in the re-writing of chronicles. Two main manuscripts transmit this work, yet each manuscript offers widely variable texts at several junctures. The conclusion of the Breve chronicon de rebus Siculis, for example, is to-tally discordant in the two manuscripts, but throughout each manuscript their scribes transmit factu-al data in remarkably different manners. For instance, one can look at the place in which the chroni-cler speaks of the destruction of Siponto and the exile of its inhabitants: the years of exile and the names of the sovereigns who allowed their return vary in the two manuscripts, but the changes are absolutely congruent with chronology. If we look at this phenomenon abstractly, regardless of how medieval chronicles effectively circulated and how they were copied, at least one of the two texts altered the historical information. However, this text does not constitute a “forgery” since the philo-logical interpretation of a chronicle is completely different from the interpretation of a document. The writing of history is an irrepressible part of the human experience and anyone who holds a pen in his hands feels compelled to write information on the present and past. But at the same time in which he retrieves and transcribes information, he also starts to alter everything because in the pro-cess of composition, he ultimately expresses an essential part of himself. Furthermore, a copying scribe, especially if he is not a professional one, selects and summarizes news in order to adapt them to his own interests and his own world.
2016
Das so genannte Breve chronicon de rebus Siculis ist eine wichtige Quelle für historische Daten wie den Kreuzzug Friedrichs II, aber, zur gleichen Zeit, kann es konkrete Beispiele für den typischen Wiederbeschreiben von Chroniken bieten. Zwei Haupthandschriften übertragen die Arbeit und sie haben sehr unterschiedliche Texte in vielen Orten bieten. Der letzte Teil beispielsweise ist in den beiden Handschriften völlig disharmonisch, aber auch einige Informationen sind in einer ganz ande-ren Art und Weise neu geschrieben. Hier beobachten wir den Ort, an dem der Chronist spricht von der Vernichtung von Siponto und des Exils der Einwohner: die Jahre des Exils und die Namen der Herrscher, die ihre Rückkehr erlaubt, in den beiden Handschriften sind verschieden, aber die Ände-rungen sind absolut deckungsgleich mit Chronologie. Wenn wir auf dieses Phänomen in abstrakter Weise beobachten, unabhängig davon, wie mittelalterlichen Chroniken zirkulieren kann und wie sie kopiert wurden, zumindest eine der beiden Texte verändert die historischen Informationen. Aller-dings dieser Text bietet keine „Fälschung“, weil die philologische Interpretation einer Chronik ist völlig verschieden von der Interpretation einer Urkunde. Die Geschichtsschreibung ist eine unbän-dige Teil des menschlichen Wesens, und jeder hält einen Stift in der Hand muss er schreiben Infor-mationen über die Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Aber zur gleichen Zeit, in der er abruft und über-trägt Informationen, fängt er auch alles ändern, und wenn er schreibt, äußert er einen wesentlichen Teil seiner selbst. Der Kopist, vor allem wenn er ein professioneller, wählt und fasst Nachrichten, und passt sie an seine eigenen Interessen und seiner eigenen Welt.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11563/125982
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact