Talk:Aureliano in Palmira
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aureliano in Palmira article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
The two Romanellis
[edit]Thanks for updating the librettist question, however the intro now suggests that two Romanellis may have worked on the text. That isn't likely is it? --Kleinzach 03:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is info from the sources. It is certainly possible that all three had a hand in this libretto, but according to Lindner's information, Romani would have joined in shortly before the premiere, since Luigi Romanelli retired on 14 December when Romani took his place as La Scala's house librettist and the premiere was on 26 December. The libretto had already been approved by the censors in June. Today nothing is known about Gian Francesco Romanelli except that he appears on the 1816 libretto as the librettist. Could he possibly have been a relative who agreed to help Luigi Romanelli, who was getting old and looking forward to his retirement? Maybe he did most of the work. All this is speculation, but the 1816 libretto is not easily neglected. Ricordi had motivation (increased sales) to use a (by that time) very famous librettist's name that would not be questioned (since he was La Scala's librettist at the time of the premiere) on a vocal score published in 1855. Perhaps we can find a more recent source which clarifies and refutes these conjectures. (BTW, I don't agree with Lindner's suggestion, that the publisher of the 1813 libretto meant a combination of Luigi Romanelli with Felice Romani, rather than Gian Francesco Romanelli. How does one get from "G. F. R." to Luigi? Maybe I'm missing something.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Surely it's "G. F. R." to Romani? --Kleinzach 06:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think you are correct and that I misinterpreted what he is saying. Here's the exact quote from Lindner: "But it seems possible that 'Gian Francesco Romanelli' is derived from Luigi Romanelli and Felice Romani, owing to later ignorance of the true meaning of the acronym. In 1813 La Scala's esteemed house poet, Luigi Romanelli, retired, and Felice Romani officially succeeded to the post on 14 December of that year; hence the tight chronological linking of the two could have easily prompted such a blend." So what he really means is that G F R only refers to Romani and the libretto publishers were confused by Romanelli's presence as the house poet and invented the names Gian and Francesco out of thin air. (Is that believable?) But the main thing, is to interpret what Liindner is saying correctly, and I think you are correct. I will alter the lead and the footnote. Thanks for making me look at this again. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- I had been reading Weinstock and Charles Osborne first and I think I was too influenced by them. BTW, Charles Osborne published in 1994, well after Marco Beghelli's 1991 work, so he may not have been as convinced by Beghelli's argument as Lindner was. I'll try to check whether he cites Beghelli's article. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Charles Osborne has no notes and a very limited bibliography, so he is of no help in this regard. Perhaps he was just unaware of Beghelli's work. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- I had been reading Weinstock and Charles Osborne first and I think I was too influenced by them. BTW, Charles Osborne published in 1994, well after Marco Beghelli's 1991 work, so he may not have been as convinced by Beghelli's argument as Lindner was. I'll try to check whether he cites Beghelli's article. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think you are correct and that I misinterpreted what he is saying. Here's the exact quote from Lindner: "But it seems possible that 'Gian Francesco Romanelli' is derived from Luigi Romanelli and Felice Romani, owing to later ignorance of the true meaning of the acronym. In 1813 La Scala's esteemed house poet, Luigi Romanelli, retired, and Felice Romani officially succeeded to the post on 14 December of that year; hence the tight chronological linking of the two could have easily prompted such a blend." So what he really means is that G F R only refers to Romani and the libretto publishers were confused by Romanelli's presence as the house poet and invented the names Gian and Francesco out of thin air. (Is that believable?) But the main thing, is to interpret what Liindner is saying correctly, and I think you are correct. I will alter the lead and the footnote. Thanks for making me look at this again. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Surely it's "G. F. R." to Romani? --Kleinzach 06:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aureliano in Palmira. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724020244/http://archiviteatro.napolibeniculturali.it/atn/generale/dettagli_autografi?oid=71006&descrizione=Correa&query_start=4 to http://archiviteatro.napolibeniculturali.it/atn/generale/dettagli_autografi?oid=71006&descrizione=Correa&query_start=4
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)