My task for the Esposizioni at this time is the analysis of the rhetorical structure; specifically, I am keeping track of the rhetorical division of the commentary, which Boccaccio implemented in the expositions of his lectures. By following the unexpected divisions in which not only the text but also the commentary gets to be broken down, we watch a ‘reconstruction’ of the original text which displays Boccaccio’s own interests as well as the expectations of his audience. However, it is not easy to follow the divisions presented by the commentator, especially when one considers that we are no longer familiar with the majority of the references. In order to fully follow the explanations, and references to the commented text, it becomes necessary to rebuild the ‘lectio’, and c lean it of the endless diversions and subdivisions which can represent a true challenge.
The encoding of this ‘structure’ aims to reveal not only the practical organization of the lesson but also, and foremost, the ideology Boccaccio often desires to transmit. In fact, when we closely follow the structure Boccaccio offers for the lecture, and collate the series of ‘subdivisions’ he presents (and discusses), one comes across new categories and definitions. We know this by the fact that a certain noun, or adjective is carefully explained and often receives a lot of attention several times over the same canto or within the consecutive ones.
An interesting thing, even if very elementary, is how Boccaccio organizes his commentary. While discussing a certain verse, for example, he anticipates, or postpones various elements without respecting the chronological order of the original. For the purpose of clarity and/or the benefit of giving a complete definition of Hell, for example, Boccaccio does not hesitate to compress, in a relatively brief passage, Dante’s description, his own interpretation, Dante’s sources, and the topic(s) most familiar to the Florentine audience.
In the true spirit of the lesson, Boccaccio’s divisions and subdivisions appear to be are more dense in the first part of the commentary, that is, at the precise point where the audience needs the most a mental organization ready to receive what will be exposed later on.