ABSTRACT The exegetical trope of ‘commentaries as mirrors of a text’ lends itself to vast diversification. In approaching classical texts Petrarch deployed contrasting modes of cross-reference exemplified by Servius, and of interpretation in bono and in malo exemplified by St Augustine, both in late antiquity. In the early age of print, commentators on Petrarch’s Rerum vulgarium fragmenta contributed other modes developed by Italian humanists. Milanese commentators explored a sense of regional rivalry and partisanship in the poet’s work. Venetian commentators probed his life-experiences as a guide to individual poems and focused upon merits of their style. Neapolitan commentators examined virtuosic effects of their rhetorical turns. In Modena and Ferrara commentators identified proto-Reformationist elements of their religious doctrine. For Renaissance readers these collective approaches mirror and illuminate Petrarch’s texts in myriad ways.

中文翻译：

---

评论的镜子：Petrarch的Rerum vulgariumfragmenta的文艺复兴时期的诠释

摘要“注释是文字的镜像”的训性说法使自己具有广泛的多样性。在研究古典文本时，彼得拉克采用了对比的对比参照模式，如施维乌斯（Servius）举例说明，以及在古代和晚期，以布尔诺和圣奥古斯丁为例的马洛语的解释模式。在印刷的早期，Petrarch的Rerum vulgariumfragmenta的评论员贡献了意大利人文主义者开发的其他模式。米兰评论员在诗人的作品中探索了区域竞争和党派归属感。威尼斯评论员探究了他的生活经验，以此作为个人诗歌的指导，并着眼于其风格的优点。那不勒斯评论员考察了他们修辞学转折的艺术效果。在摩德纳和费拉拉，评论员指出了他们宗教教义中的原始改良主义元素。