narrative strategy ini promessi sposi

NARRATIVE STRATEGY IN I PROMESSZ SPOSI

Narrative communication structures

According to structuralist theory, each narrative text has two essential parts: the story or content, i.e. the chain of events (actions and happenings) as well as the existents (characters, setting) and thediscourse, i.e. the means by which the content is communicated. As Chatman observes, “in simple terms the story is the what in a narrative that is depicted, discourse the how. “’ We may represent the above distinction as:

Narrative text

story (Content)

Discourse (Expression)

Events

Existents

Actions

Happenings

I

Characters

Setting

Since a narrative is a communication, it presupposes a sender and a receiver. Senders may be further subdivided into the real author, the implied author, and the narrator (if any); receivers as the real reader, the implied reader, and the narratee (if any)?

Narrative text

Real Implied author author

Implied + (Narrator) -+ (Narratee)+ reader ----+ R=ier

The real author and real reader are flesh-and-bones people who sit at desks writing narratives or in armchairs reading them; they are outside the narrative transaction as such. The implied author is “implied” because he is reconstructed by the reader from the narrative. He is the ultimate designer of the fable or story, the principle that invents the narrator as well as everything else. However the implied author can tell us nothing since he has no direct means of communicating. His counterpart is the implied reader, i.e. the audience presupposed by the narrative itself. Like the implied author, the implied reader is always present. An acceptance of implied readership is necessary to the elementary comprehension of the narrative.

The narrator (if there is one) is the speaker or the one currently “telling” the story as opposed to the implied author who decided whether to have a narrator and, if so, how prominent he should be. A narrative that does not

Neophilologus 68 ( 1984) 2 14-224

Joanna Richardson - “I promessi sposi” 215

give the sense of a narrator’s presence or which has gone to lengths to efface it, may be called, according to Chatman, “nonnarrated” or “unnarrated”. And just as there may or may not be a narrator, there may or may not be a narratee, i.e. the narrator’s interlocutor. Within a story, the narratee per- forms as audience for the narrator. And just as the narrator may or may not ally himself with the implied author, the implied reader furnished by the real reader may or may not ally himself with a narratee.

“L’introduzione” to the novel

“L’Historia”, begins the imaginary, anonymous, seventeenth-century narrator, “si pub veramente deffinire una guerra illustre contra il Tempo.“3 Such third-person narration is short-lived. The io of the manuscript’s narrator readily reveals its presence: “alla mia debolezza”, “mi accingo di”, “mia Verde staggione”, “quest0 mio rozzo Parto”. The narrator is con- cerned about the narratee’s reading of the text; he invites him to identify with his own point of view, e.g. “nostri tempi”. The narrator goes so far as to define his reader: “ne alcuno dira questa sij imperfettione de1 Racconto”; “the quanto agl’huomini [nella Filosofia] versati, ben vederanno nulla mancare alla sostanza di netta Narratione”(2).

Any further communication between the seventeenth-century and his narratee is effectively broken by the interruption on the part of the nineteenth-century narrator: “Ma, quando io avrb durata l’eroica fatica di trascriver questa storia da quest0 dilavato e graffiato autografo, e l’avrb data, come si suol dire, alla lute, si trovera poi chi duri la fatica di leggerla?” (2). This interruption is significant in that it introduces many of the elements which will later assume importance within the novel: “io” (first-person narrator); “questa storia” (with its double meaning of story and history); “fatica” (the artistic representation of History as an arduous task); “quest0 dilavato e graffiato autografo” (relationship between two creations of implied author, i.e. nineteenth-century narrator and “l’anonimo secentesco); “come si suol dire” (the world external to the text [which excludes narratee]; the world immanent to the text [which includes narratee]);4 and “chi duri la fatica di leggerla” (the narratee).

The “new” narrator, whom De Castris describes as “io-regista e angola- tore focale della vicenda”,s is quick to assert his immediate reactions to the manuscript: “mi fete sospender”; “dicevo tra me”; “me ne Iavo le man?‘; “mi sapeva male”; “a me era parsa bella”; “pensai”. The io is a harsh critic: “com’e dozzinale! corn.2 sguaiato! com’e scorretto!” However, the io is not the only voice of the narrator. A re-thinking of his attitude toward the manuscript brings with it a didoublement: il manoscritto -+ il nostro manoscritto; il buon secentista -+ il nostro autore; and, of course, io + noi (abbiam voluto; ci siam messi [6]). And in this paragraph (3-4) in which the narrator formally introduces noi as his principal Porte-parole, he also ex-

216 Joanna Richardson - “I promessi sposi”

plicitly refers to ii lettore: “il lettore sarebbe piu tentato di negarla”. In fact, just as “L’introduzione” began with an attempt by I’anonimo to define his reader as some allied with him, so it ends with a similar attempt by the nineteenth-century narrator: “per due ragioni the il lettore trovera certamente buone” (4-5)6.

Narrative commentary

Before examining the narrator in his most obvious manifestation, i.e. directly addressing his audience, it is proposed here to examine briefly several of those narrative devices most commonly used in order to elicit a pre-determined response from the narratee. Commentary, since it is gra- tuitous, conveys the overt narrator’s voice more distinctly than most other features and includes interpretation, judgment and generalization.’ The latter is the idea of self-evidence as characteristic of reason. As Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca observe, “self-evidence is conceived both as a force to which every normal mind must yield and as a sign of the truth of that which imposes itself because it is self-evident.“8 For example,

Expression l’uomo the vuole offendere . cerca

naturalmente alleati e cnmpagni la ragione e il tort0 non si dividon mai

con un taglio cosi netto tant’e vero the un uomo sopraffatto da1

dolore non sa pih quel the si dica Ma the sa il cuore? Appena un poco di

quell0 the t gia accaduto. E una delle facolta singolati della

religione cristiana, . . Una delle pih gran consolazione di questa

vita e I’amicizia Ne’ tumulti popolari c’e sempre un certo

numero d’uomini the . . Ma e una tendenza generale degli uomini I1 delitto t: un padrone @do. Ma noi uomini siam in generale fatti cosl

16

17

46

116

147

160

184 218 276 390

Such “truths” presuppose a particular socio-economic-moral outlook on the part of the narratee.9 They are culturally derived and are designed to provoke, as a response, “Oh, but of course. How true!” On the other hand, the narrator may on occasion use, what I call, frequency of occurrence as a mechanism to justify an obvious comment as well as an explanation of a dubious result:

e come peri, si fa sempre in casi simili 363 (come spesso le accade) 397 come accade le piu volte 503

Here, it is the umpteenth repetition of an act which justifies its inclusion by the narrator in the story.

Ioanna Richardson - “I promessi sposi” 217

The use of simile is of particular interest in I promessi sposi when contrasted with those instances in which the narratee is actually told by the narrator to imagine this or that sentiment or action: “pensate”; “potete immaginare”, etc. Unlike those instances simile is considerably more subtle; it usually appears without undue fanfare:

come il cane the scorta . . ., cost il pellegrino 108 come un branco tomavano i bravi 153 Fete come una donna stata giovine, the . 170 I’innominato. come se un demonio 273 come fa chi . 472 come di chi pensa . 502

Like ideas of self-evidence, they presuppose an obvious cultural back- ground on the part of the reader. However, simile is, I suspect, directed at the implied reader rather than the narratee - precisely because of its very nature. Manzoni’s narratee, as we shall shortly see, is generally led around by the nose, poked and prodded - at least, initially in the novel. The narrator’s relationship with his narratee is not always what one might call “subtle”.

Unquestionably one cannot overlook the prolific use of the first-person plural possessive pronoun: nostro :

if nostro Abbondio il nostro manoscritto al nostro fra Cristoforo alla nostra poveretta nostri tre poverettr il nostro giovine questro nostro nostri autori t-rostra povera Lucia nostri lettori nostro autore nostro anonimo nostri personaggi nostri due corrispondenti il nostro celebre Francesco Birago i nostri tre fuggitivi i nostri i nostri tre il nostro viaggiatore la nostra buona gente

16 4

73 129 158

194 489 270 270 274

305 353 4 305 406

341 378 517 539 343 381 424 45.5

371 380 413

413 540 420 483 540

Nostro creates three distinct possible relationships: it may refer “royally” to the narrator; it may mean, exclusively, “you, the narratee” and “I, the narrator”; or, inclusively, “not only we two but every other ‘reasonable’ person in the world.“rO Naturally the difficulty arises in determining which relationship is actually being specified. The autori are nostri inasmuch as they belong to the same cultural heritage of both narrator and narratee. L’anonimo is nostro, especially towards the end of the novel, when presumably both narrator and we/narratee are allied against the historical

218 Joanna Richardson - “I prom& sposi”

perspective for which I’anonimo stands. The personaggi are nostri because the narrator carefully orchestrates our/the narratee’s reaction to them; they are also ostensibly a joint creation of both the seventeenth and nineteenth- century narrators, both of whom have, in turn, been created by the implied author.

As we have seen, the narrator’s presence derives from the audience’s sense of some identifiable communication. It may be interpretative in terms of explicit description; the adjectives belong to the narrator, not to the character:

disse, con un fare di malizia e di schema, con una vote the smentiva la parola la macchina fatale i conforti di queue orribili voci si trovB con un sottilissimo e invisibile

file, attaccato . . . comincib a fare i pi8 brutti e arruffati

sogni de1 mondo

92 95

183 278

366

456

Interpretation may be used to explain that which a character cannot - because of ignorance, dramatic impropriety or, especially in the Promessi sposi, inarticulateness: “di tal genere, se non tali appunto, erano i pensieri di Lucia” (117). Although the narrator may protest “chi pui, ora entrar nel cervello d‘Antonio Ferrer?” (171), he does in fact generally make every attempt to interpret inarticulated thoughts, thereby reassuring his audience that he is in complete control of the writing process:

pareva the gli dicesse: ma perch& non avete saputo esser voi il piti forte?

II suono delle parole era tale; ma il modo con cui eran proferite, voleva dir chiaramente. bada .

ah? interiezione the significa Uh, the formicolaio! dava a destra e a sinistra occhiate, le

quati significavano

17

73 83

174

306

In addition to interpretative commentary, the narrator may communicate judgments, which, in turn, may or may not presuppose a set of norms quite contrary to the one that the implied audience presumably entertains. Within Ipromessisposi, one finds such key phrases as “per buona sorte” (183,206, 442); “per fortuna” (487); “per disgrazia” (435) and “per grazia de1 cielo” (438). In such cases, the narrator quite naturally has expected the narratee to make forecasts about the forthcoming state of affairs and either confirms or contradicts the narratee’s worst hopes or fears. In addition, the Man- zonian narrator is forever addressing events or existents in a varied range of tones:

Povero Griso! (ironic) 155 povero Renzo! (compassionate) 239 (ah, Agnese!) (reproachful) 336 e con ragione (matter of fact) 375

Jounna Richardson - “I prom& sposi” 219

quella stupida e micidiale fiducia (sarcastic) 430 Oh forte mirabih e dolorose (reproachful) 445 cosa notabile! (amazed) 274 cosa strana! (amazed) 280

In such cases, the narratee is generally no longer the one supplied by the real reader (you and I in our armchairs) but rather a) the narrator himself, e.g. “quellastupida . . .” orb) a character, e.g. “povero Renzo”. We may share the narrator’s sentiments, but those sentiments are not really addressed to us.

The alternative story

The narrator may at times assume the power to report what a character did not in fact think or say: “If I had but known”, etc. Such narration may be represented as:

\ \ ! \ 1 \ \ ‘\+ N---

The straight line represents the story; the dotted lines are those directions in which the story could have gone had the hypothetical statements been realized. l l For example,

Forse sarebbe stata meno awersa ad esse, se avesse saputo

lontane com’erano dafl’unmaginare if vero motivo Lo sventurato vicario. lontano perb dal

sospettar real1 e parpagliole, the se avessero potuto parlare Se Renzo si fosse trovato h andando a spasso Se quel signore avesse potuto appena sospettare

148 1.50

180 197 240 316

In each example it is implied that the story might have changed dramatically had each character but realized what the narrator and narratee already knew. The narrator makes it quite clear that such se clauses are not designed, however, to interrupt the narratee’s reading of the story. The implied reader, on the other hand may take all kinds of liberties; he may create pluriprobable events. But eventually he must return to the text since, as a closed narrative structure, Zpromessisposi does not allow the reader his own point of view. I2 The se clauses are interesting because they give us information about the writing of the text, i.e. those choices which the implied author had to make in order to create “the whole package”, as Chatman calls it.

One must not forget that I promessi sposi stands as a response/an alternative to the anonimo’s manuscript. It represents the nineteenth-century narrator’s attempt to rewrite the seventeenth-century text. Manzoni’s narrator is one possible narratee of the manoscritto secentesco - a narratee whose reading of the text results in an alternative text. l3 Unfortunately, the


relationship between the two narrators goes beyond the scope of this paper. However, since our interest is with narrator and narratee, I would point out that the nineteenth-century narrator definitely mediates the narratee’s attitude towards the anonimolmanoscritto. As Iser says, “in order to ensure that the reader participates in the way desired, the narrator is set up as a kind of authority between him and the events, conveying the impression that understanding can only be achieved through this medium”.14 One can substitute I’anonimo for events and the analogy stands. The same mediation may also be observed in the cases of “molte relazioni contemporanee” (424); “favole” (450); “memorie”(393,436);“pitid’unostorico”(385);as well as specific authors, e.g. Ripamonti (267-269,444) and Tadino (449).

The narratee explicitly cited

We have been looking at ways in which the narratee has been invoked by implication. Thus far in our examination, he has generally functioned at the level of a universal audience. As in the following examples, it is not just “I, narrator” and “you, narratee” who are invoked, but every “reasonable” person as well:

Chi non ne avesse idea, ecco viene una gran voglia di credere the . ma non si poteva creder neppure una notte quale ognuno pub immaginarsela e chi non lo sa? si vede un intent0 . . Forse a taluno parra . . . deve ora parere ad ognuno troppo naturale non t difficile a capire come con ragioni troppo facili a indovinarsi come s’k potuto vedere anche

9 10 90

119 299 301 302 301 443 461 523

It now behooves us to examine the narratee as explicitly cited by the narrator - sometimes as the third-person fettore or lettori; more frequently as the second-person tu or voi (the pronoun is generally omitted). In the novel’s introduzione, the narratee (or reader, as he is referred to within the text) is presented in three different situations, which will be echoed throughout the novel. In the first, the narratee is presented as allied with the narrator against the style of the anonimo secentesco: “lettori d’oggigiorno: son troppo ammaliziati, troppo disgustati di quest0 genere di stravaganze” (3).i5 Secondly, he is depicted in opposition with the narrator: “pub essere the al lettore ne paia altrimenti, ma a me era parsa bella” (3); and thirdly, in agreement with the narrator: “due ragioni the il lettore trovera certamente buone” (4-5).

The narrator’s ironic treatment of his audience manifests itself later. When he states, for example, “deve sapere anche chi non avesse letta altra storia the la presente; the sarebbe fresco” (259) the assumption is, of


course, that any clod knows that the Church is exempt from secular law and that his readers will have read other history books. However, the fact that the narrator raises the matter at all does suggest his fear that readers will have been so influenced by the type of “History” against which he rails,16 that they will in fact be ignorant of details necessary to a reading of his text.

The reference to “i miei venticinque lettori” may be as much an ironic comment by the narrator to himself as to his readers. The number is later reduced to “dieci de’ miei lettori” (12 1) who possibly can still “rammentarsi d’aver veduto . . .“. The narrator would appear to be quite disdainful of the narratee’s ability to remember existents or events previously mentioned:

se ve ne rammentate 220 Se il lettore si ricorda di quell0 274 chi sa se ve ne rammentate pih! 407 se il lettore se ne ricorda 427

However, given the number of times that Manzoni rewrote his novel and given the temporal problems inherent in the text, one could postulate the above-mentioned clauses as “unreliable”, i.e. the narrator’s remarks are at odds with the implied reader’s surmises about their real intentions: l7

‘ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *

implied author + narrator + narratee + implied reader

The solid line indicates direct communication; broken lines indicate indirect or inferential communication. Thus, while the narrator explicitly berates the narratee, the implied author infers sympathy for the plight of his reader, who cannot be expected to retain every detail of the story. We must be fair however, and acknowledge the narrator’s concern for the narratee when he offers to describe the lazzaretto : “se, per case, questa storia capitasse nelle mani di qualcheduno the non lo conoscesse, ne di vista nit per descrizione” (391).

Of a slightly different nature are those expressions using various forms of the verb sapere :

the il lettore sa 98 463 come il lettore sa 159 333 (il lettore se n’t JIB aweduto) 14

come sapete the sapete ora sapete come I: e sapete the ma sapete quante perch& . il perch& lo sapete

and

233 369 465 536 369 538 536 538 107

Here supere principally functions either as an idea of self-evidence (“ma sapete quante belle case si posson fare senza offender le regole della buona


creanza 15381) as confirmation of the narrator’s ability to read the text (“Don Abbondio, (il lettore se n’e gia aweduto) non era nato con un cuor di leone” [ 14]), or quite simply as a pretext for the narrator not to repeat that which he has already explained (“il perchi: lo sapete” [ 1071).

Potere also functions along the same lines: “potete credere the . . .” (540) reinforces the narratee’s forecast. Other phrases such as “potete pensare con the pianti” (359); “con la smania the potete pensare” (492); “potete immaginarvi” (517) and “come vi potete immaginare” (534) put the burden of creating the text in the lap of the narratee. We shall return to this problem shortly.

A reading of Ipromessi sposi reveals the very obvious use of such key verbs as vedere, pensare, non credere the, and immaginarsi, by the narrator in order to elicit a desired response from the narratee. “Vedete un poco!” (91,114,159); “vedete un poco come” (462,538); and “oh! vedete the bei nom? (273) are all designed to “shake” the narratee, to signal him, in short to remind him that the text is being addressed to him and that he must participate. And the narrator does, in fact, make every attempt to guide and control that participation. Expressions such as “non crediate the” (527, 537,539), “the non credeste the” (368) and “non domandate the” (301) reaffirm the right of the marrator to “tell” the story, to express that which is “true” in his fictional world.

On the other hand, as the story progresses, the narrator shows himself more and more willing to allow the narratee to participate, especially in the problematic area of describing characters’ emotions. l8 It would seem that as the implied author struggles with textual organization (temporal as well as spatial),19 he insists that his narrator and the narratee work more closely together:

pensate come dovevano stare 149 pensate poi the babilonia 194 pensate se aveva . 220 pensate poi due alla volta 233 pensate cosa fu 250 pensate the generoso 302 pensate se si struggeva 369 pensate con the singhiom 502 pensate con the gratitudine 509 pensi il lettore . . . 512 vi lascio pensare the case 536

The narratee is asked to take inferential walks and to write his own ghost chapters: *O

Don Gonzalo . fete cib the il Iettore s’immagina certamente

il lettore conosce le circostanze; se lo figuri

figuratevi come rimanessero se gl’immagini il lettore

171

238 251 420


non so the dire: fabbricatevelo non potreste immaginarvi s’immagini il lettore il recinto son certo . the [al lettorel piaccia piti

d’indovinarla da st: se le immagini il lettore si remettono anche quelli all’immagintione

de1 lettore

460 477 489

520-521 527

527

One may tentatively conclude that the narratee changes during the course of the narrative and develops to the point that, at the very end of the work, the rlarrator can only wish that all his narrative devices have been fruitful. It is at the end of the book that the implied author and the narrator stand most closely allied by their wish for their respective readers’ approval.

This paper has not dealt with the problem of the dt?doubZement of the nineteenth-century narrator, mentioned on page 3 of this text. A serious study of the relationship between narrator and narratee in Zpromessi sposi would necessarily have to treat the implications of the narrator manifesting himself as both io and noi. One would need to examine whether io presupposes the existence of one narratee and noi another (different?) one. Unquestionably, Manzoni’s novel provides very interesting material in the area of narrative communication structures.

University of New England Australia

JOANNA RICHARDSON

Notes

1. Seymour Chatman, Story and Discourse (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978), p. 19.

2. Ibid, p. 151. 3. Alessandro Manzoni, Zpromessi sposi, ed. Vittorio Spinazzola (Milano: Garzanti, 1966),

p. 3. 4. “Si suol” may refer to the universal “one”, which does not always necessarily include the

narratee. The latter may, because of his privileged position as audience for the narrator, possess information not known by the rest of the universal audience. On the other hand, “si suol” may also include the narratee, as one who is prone to repeat generalizations.

5. Arcangelo Leone de Cask, “Dal Fermo ai Promessi Sposi”, Manzom: guuia storica e cririca, ed. Lanfranco Caretti (Roma: Laterza, 1976), p. 149.

6. Ezio Raimondi, I1 romanzo senza idillio (Torino: Giulio Einaudi, 1974), p. 120. “I1 manoscritto the fa da supporto all’adattamento modem0 si presenta proprio come uno spazio teatrale, come uno spettacolo da seguire e da discutere, mentre il narratore the tinge dl trascriverlo finisce co1 comportarsi da spettatore the guarda e giudica, e pub sempre inter- rompere il racconto per correggeme il punto di vista o per sostituire all’ottica de1 protagonista lo “sguardo” ritlessivo della conoscenza storica the scende alle radici di un fenomeno sociale scandagliando il fondo comune della natura umana.”

7. Chatman, op. cit., p. 228. 8. Chaim Pereiman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The Mew Rhetoric, trans. John Wilkinson and

Purcell Weaver (Notre Dame, Ill.: Notre Dame University Press, 1969), p. 3. 9. Ferruccio Ulivi, Manzoni: Storiu eprovvidenza (Roma: Bonacci, 1974), p. 15. “Quel the

emerge 6 il narratore; uno scrittore the vu01 raggiungere il suo pubblico, renderlo partecipe delle sue perplessit& come dei punti d’arrivo, chiamare cioi: i l lettore ad assisterlo con la sua solidarieta d’idee, intelligenza, cultura.” S. B. Chandler, Allessandro Manzoni: the story of a


spiritual quest (Edinburgh: Univ. Press, 1974) p. 77. “Manzoni expects in his readers the same outlook and reactions as his own”.

10. Chatman, op. cit., pp. 256-257. 11. Umberto Eco, The Role of the Reader (Bloomington, In.: Indiana University Press,

1979), p. 34. 12. As Eco says, “the sender offers his addressee continual occasions for forecasting, but at

each further step he reasserts, so to speak, the rights of his own text, saying without ambiguity what has to be taken as “true” in his fictional world” (p. 34). The frequent use of “come abbiam detto” and similar expressions, by the Manzonian narrator reinforces a desired reading of the text.

13. From an extratextual point of view, the editor’s, i.e. Spinazzola, relationship to the text (and to the narratee) is that of another narrator. In the manner of the Manzonian narrator, the editor ‘mterprets” characters’ reactions and sentiments, e.g. footnote 18, p. 1.59. Even more interestingly, he treats the work’s narratee in the same way as does the narrator; whenever the narrator refers toil nosno autore, the editor feels obliged to “explain” to the audience that the narrator is talking about I’unonimo secentesco! As if the reader could not eventually surmise as much, the editor reminds him on pages 88, 118,218,249 and 270.

14. Wolfgang Iser, The Implied Reader (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974), p. 104.

15. On page 539 oflpromessisposi. we fmd: “(dice il nostro anonimo: e gia sapete per prova the aveva &r-gusto un bo’strano *in fatto di simihtudini . . .)“.

- _

16. Mar-v Ambrose, “Error and the Abuse of Language in the Promessi S~osl,” Modern Language keview, 72 : 64 (1977). “The Anonimo, though honest enough in-his intentions, inevitablv subscribes to current notions about historv and the function of the historian.”

17. Chatman, op. cit., p. 233. 18. Luigi Tonelli. Manzoni (3d ed.: Milano: Corbaccio, 1935), p. 304. “E mentre ~1 scusera

di non vol& raccontare analiticamente i vari stadi, per cui l’amorebe’ suoi promessi e passato, affirmer8 i sentimenti ch’egli crede necessario risveeliare nell’animo di lettori.”

19. Gabriel Lanyi, “Plot-time and rhythm in M&oni’s I Promessi Sposi,” Modem Lan- ,euaee Notes. 93 (1) : 51 (Jan. 1978). “We mav thus conclude that the unusual rhvthm of the no& and the gradual effacing of its plot-time, both originate in Manzoni’s attempt-to maintain the unity of the novel against the asunder historical events around which he chose to weave it.”

20. Eco says of inferential w&s: “they are not mere whimsical initiatives on the part of the reader, but are elicited by discursive structures and foreseen by the whole textual strategy as indispensable components of the construction of thefubulu. (p. 32) He defines aghost chupter as “tentatively written by the reader. In other words, the author is sure that the reader has already written by himself a chapter, which is not manifested at the level of discursive structures.” (215)

narrative strategy ini promessi sposi

Documents