The late ancient exegetical production and the Servius commentary on Vergil in particular, suggests an interesting frame of reference for the use of the term phantasia, now permanently included within the scope of rhetorical theory and praxis. The analysis of occurrences shows the persistence of a semantic ambiguity between “objective” value (image produced) and “subjective” value (capability of producing images) with some interesting hints related to the relationship between author and character.
Phantasia vs. imago nel commento di Servio a Virgilio
COLAFRANCESCO, Pasqua
2009-01-01
Abstract
The late ancient exegetical production and the Servius commentary on Vergil in particular, suggests an interesting frame of reference for the use of the term phantasia, now permanently included within the scope of rhetorical theory and praxis. The analysis of occurrences shows the persistence of a semantic ambiguity between “objective” value (image produced) and “subjective” value (capability of producing images) with some interesting hints related to the relationship between author and character.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.
