Ossian in Italia. Studio sull'influenza della traduzione cesarottiana nelle opere di Diodata Saluzzo, Vittorio Alfieri, Vincenzo Monti, Ippolito Pindemonte, Ugo Foscolo e Giacomo Leopardi

The aim of the paper is to continue the study already carried out during the Master’s degree. While on that occasion a comparative analysis was pursued between Ossian-Macpherson and Ossian-Cesarotti, in order to ascertain the transformation that the Ossian poems had undergone in the translation process, now the priority is the exploration of the influence of Ossian-Cesarotti in the works of the most important Italian writers who were active between the end of the Eighteenth and the beginning of the Nineteenth century. The structure and methods of the study are, however, the same as those used for the Master’s degree: a multidisciplinary approach to the literary phenomenon as far as possible, integrating philological analysis with the historical context, aesthetic issues and philosophical questions that affect the delicate period of transition from the Eighteenth to the Nineteenth century, or the birth of modern literature. First, the focus is on an examination of the explosive phenomenon of Romanticism, especially German Romanticism and on his implications with Italian Romanticism. Romanticism, that is, as a reservoir of ideas diametrically opposed to those of Winckelmannian-style Neoclassicism based on the idea of the mimesis of the ancients. The most obvious contrast can be seen in the conception of poetry: poetry as becoming or progressive poetry, according to the Romantics and poetry as decadence according to the Classicists. Ossian, considered by the Romantics as an “alternative” to Homer, stands as the main example of an innovative, and possible, way of making poetry, bringing with him images, themes and language that are completely new compared to the canons of classical literature. Later this opposition becomes a national-anthropological contrast: the poetry of Northern Europe against the poetry of Southern Europe. Subsequently the analysis focuses on Italy, where, at the beginning of 1816, contrasts arose between the main exponents of the two factions and the istitutions through which the controversies were conducted, namely the newspapers, particularly Milanese newspapers: «Il Conciliatore» and «Biblioteca italiana». Madame De Staël’s article translated with the title Sulla maniera e l’utilità delle traduzioni, which opened the first issue of «Biblioteca italiana», thanks to Giordani’s less than perfect translation, triggered a series of polemics and accusations, often in vulgar tones on the part of classicist publicists, which continued for over a decade. The main Italian writers take side, often more ideologically than factually. Once again Ossian finds himself at the centre of the controversy: loved by the Italian Romantics as a clear demonstration of a non-Classical poetic style, but not inferior, and hated by the Classicists as being responsible for the degeneration of taste in Italy. Ossianism is the object of the accusation, not Ossian himself, whose poetry is often appreciated even by the most intransigent classicists. Di Breme, Pellico, Borsieri and Berchet, although the historical context had changed radically and the political need for the Risorgimento was more pressing, accepted Cesarotti’s legacy of openness to foreign poetic influences, accepted his Ossian and continued the battle that the abbot had waged years earlier, again through Ossian, against pedants, language purists and Classicists. After the brief exploration of the literary and aesthetic context of the period, the analysis proceeds towards the actual focus of the study: the relationship of influence between Ossian-Cesarotti and each writer, trying to respect as much as possible a basic tripartite structure. Initially an exploration of the ideas of poetics and aesthetics of the author, trying to highlight his pronouncements, whether in favour of Romanticism or Neoclassicism. Secondly, a paragraph specifically dedicated to the relationship between the author and Cesarotti, obviously, where possible, making the most of the epistolary information. Finally, the last paragraph, which has a strictly philological nature, sets itself the ambitious objective of examining, in their respective poetic collections, the borrowings, in syntagmatic, atmospheric, thematic and typological terms, that are most directly attributable to the Ossian poems, obviously also taking into account the weight of the Italian tradition. In the totality of cases Ossian is statistically more present in the contexts of night poetry, contemplative of Nature captured in its stormy, sublime and Nordic essence as opposed to the beautiful and graceful more typical of the Arcadian experience, but also in the contexts of apostrophes to celestial bodies. An overall examination of this legacy reveals a different use of Ossian’s poetry in each case. Alfieri, for example, by the operation of postylation of the Ossianic poems, privileged Ossian’s style, crushed and harsh, before the images; Foscolo, especially in his youthful productions and in Ortis, exploited Ossianic strong sentimentality and stormy nature; Saluzzo, especially in her famous ode Le rovine, uses the nostalgic and elegiac language of many ruinous passages contained in Ossian; Leopardi, in addition to the apostropic echoes, is particularly sensitive, in the unpublished poems of his youth, to the heroic-sentimental epic typical of Ossian, as opposed to the fierce and objective epic of Homer. In short, an inheritance with multiple possibilities for re-adaptation. The study, following a circular perspective, closes with some overall reflections that in addition to briefly summarising the results achieved, return to the great season of Ossianism during the European Romanticism. Although Ossian had already exhausted his appeal by around the 1830s, his rise served to demonstrate that a non-classical poetics was possible, and that modern poetry was not definable as decadence, but as infinite becoming.