.MTM5Ng.MTIwNzQ1: Difference between revisions
KyroBrandon (talk | contribs) (Created page with "In only one passage are the two artists considered together, and an admirer a private like signia? unclear could hardly laif? to fund it ''unclear" This occur...") |
Jakemoore925 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In only one passage are the two artists considered | In only one passage are the two artists considered | ||
together, and an admirer a | together, and an admirer a priori like sigma | ||
Chiovenda could hardly fail to find it "eigen- | |||
This occurs in a letter to | artig."This occurs in a letter to Guido Sette (tam | ||
V) | , V, 17) which Wilkins dates around '42-'43, in | ||
which case Simone, who died in 1344, would have | which case Simone, who died in 1344, would have | ||
been still living, contrary to the impression to be gained | been still living, contrary to the impression to be gained | ||
from an unwary reading of the document, How- | from an unwary reading of the document, How- | ||
ever this may be the passage, although abruptly | ever this may be, the passage, although abruptly | ||
introduced, appears less extravagant when re- | introduced, appears less extravagant when re- | ||
lated to the general theme, than a letter to | lated to the general theme, than a letter to Sitle | ||
----removed the author. But seemingly irrevocably lost, | |||
probably | probably the earnings and goings of | ||
admirers | admirers! only the (reproach?) comparison which covers | ||
AFTER the passage, of having written a "pulera" | AFTER the passage, of having written a "pulera" | ||
little though being himself an "ignoble" man; (since | |||
Latest revision as of 20:24, 14 October 2021
In only one passage are the two artists considered together, and an admirer a priori like sigma Chiovenda could hardly fail to find it "eigen- artig."This occurs in a letter to Guido Sette (tam , V, 17) which Wilkins dates around '42-'43, in which case Simone, who died in 1344, would have been still living, contrary to the impression to be gained from an unwary reading of the document, How- ever this may be, the passage, although abruptly introduced, appears less extravagant when re- lated to the general theme, than a letter to Sitle
removed the author. But seemingly irrevocably lost,
probably the earnings and goings of admirers! only the (reproach?) comparison which covers AFTER the passage, of having written a "pulera" little though being himself an "ignoble" man; (since