Abstract

ABSTRACT:

In studying the Tragicomedia de Calisto y Melibea, This article reconsiders the controversial debate around Celestina’s intention by linking intention with irony and apophasis and by studying the interrelationship of intention, meaning, and interpretation. The split between words and intentions is seen through financial symbolism and in the way the author avoids the responsibility intrinsic to his intentions. By exploring intentio, one of the most ancient hermeneutical concepts, and by studying the tension between the paratexts of the Tragicomedia de Calisto y Melibea and the work itself, we can discover an internal resistance to the element of intention, which crystalizes as the “footprint fallacy.”

pdf

Additional Information

ISSN
1553-0639
Print ISSN
0018-2176
Pages
pp. 371-392
Launched on MUSE
2017-11-02
Open Access
No
Archive Status
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.