Τhe Cretan version of Guarini’s Pastor Fido (henceforth PF) as O Bistikos Voskos (henceforth BV), is a text rarely studied by modern scholarship, although it is modelled on a Renaissance work that appealed to a vast international public and was held up – with Torquato Tasso’s Aminta – as the main model of the genre of tragicomedy.Footnote ¹ This paper seeks to assess the rhetorical and lyrical qualities of BV in comparison to the original, and to explore the way the unknown author worked on his text.Footnote ² In fact, one of the points at issue with BV is what to call it: most scholars term it a translation,Footnote ³ but it is worth investigating the extent and nature of its closeness to PF. To this end, I will analyse passages that deviate significantly from the original and may thus be seen as the invention of the unknown Cretan poet.

Since rhetoric had many different senses in the Renaissance, it must be clarified that this paper is concerned, first, with ‘the art of the word’ (La retorica come semplice arte della parola – a view inherited from the Middle Ages which regarded figures and tropes as the sole subject of study, with no consideration of style and tone), and second, with ‘the art of persuasion’ (La retorica come arte della persuasione – a position which emerged following the ‘rediscovery’ of Aristotle’s Rhetoric and his conception of the discipline as inextricably linked to persuasion).Footnote ⁴ Mention should also be made of an important feature of Renaissance rhetoric: its intertwined relationship with poetics. Both disciplines shared ‘a concern with style, including word choice, tropes, figures, sentence structure, and rhythm’.Footnote ⁵ Poetry and rhetoric were thought to possess the capacity to instil virtue and remove vice from the minds and souls of listeners/readers.Footnote ⁶ Consequently, poets longed for their work to be persuasive, that is, for it to be successfully constructed in terms of rhetoric.

As for the term ‘lyrical’, often marked by vagueness, it is employed in this paper as defined by Childs and Fowler: a ‘lyrical passage […] tends to be relatively mellifluous in sound and rhythm and to have a flowingly repetitious syntax that lends itself to expansive, often exclamatory, expressions of intense personal joy, sorrow or contemplative insight’.Footnote ⁷

Prior to undertaking an analysis of the text of Bistikos Voskos,Footnote ⁸ it is necessary to provide a brief overview of the scholarship that has sought to connect BV with Chortatsis and to assess any arguments presented in this regard. Niki Papatriantafyllou-Theodoridi, the first scholar to trace similar stylistic and expressive motifs between BV and the Cretan dramatist’s (known) plays, has suggested that BV was composed prior to Erofili and Katzourbos, positing that it is more reasonable for a poet first to translate an eminent poem of his time and then to experiment with original compositions.Footnote ⁹ Rosemary Bancroft-Marcus too has attributed the Cretan translation to Chortatsis.Footnote ¹⁰

Marina Rodosthenous-Balafa, in turn, has observed that the author of Panoria and the unknown poet of BV employ a common technique in their respective works, which she has named ‘μεικτό θρησκευτικό υπόστρωμα’ or ‘mixed religious substratum’. This is a combination of Christian and pagan elements, something not found in Aminta nor in PF – the two major tragicomedies of the Cinquecento.Footnote ¹¹ Nonetheless, Rodosthenous-Balafa does not attribute BV to Chortatsis.

An eminent scholar in the field, Vincenzo Pecoraro, presents a comparison between Chortatsis’ works and BV, noting certain linguistic similarities. However, he believes that these similarities are the result of Chortatsis’ borrowing from BV. Furthermore, he argues that Chortatsis cannot have been the poet of BV, as the language of his works is more natural than that of BV. In his view, ‘an insurmountable difficulty is for us […] the different stylistic and poetic tone of Chortatsis’ certain works compared to the anonymous text of the translation’, and this is the clearest clue that BV was composed by a different poet.Footnote ¹² For this reason, Pecoraro offers comparisons between Panoria, BV, and PF, in order to highlight the linguistic differences between Chortatsis’ tragicomedy and BV. Stefanos Kaklamanis concurs with Pecoraro’s views and has rejected the arguments that attribute BV to Chortatsis.Footnote ¹³ Panagiotis Michalopoulos also believes that similarities between Chortatsis’ works and BV do not suffice to prove that the Cretan poet was the work’s author.Footnote ¹⁴

Yet, even if there is no consensus on BV’s authorship, it is profitable to adopt a comparative approach to the text by ascertaining, first, whether the passages that diverge from the original or appear to be the unknown poet’s invention have, in fact, been translated or borrowed from a specific manuscript or edition, given that Guarini’s play went into twenty editions between 1589 and 1602.Footnote ¹⁵ It is difficult to delineate with precision the editorial process of BV,Footnote ¹⁶ since the textual witnesses of Guarini’s notebooks are patchy. However, scholarship has noted that the poet’s revisions of his own play involved linguistic, stylistic, and dramaturgical choices:Footnote ¹⁷ Guarini reinforced the tragic aspect of the fourth and fifth Acts, consolidated the witticism of the comic scenes, and augmented the dialogues in the whole play.Footnote ¹⁸ He also altered the ἀναγνώρισις according to the Sophoclean model, making it double (Mirtillo is first identified as Montano’s son and then the prophecy is resolved with Tirenio’s help) and more sophisticated, since it is reached via syllogisms.Footnote ¹⁹

As a result of the complicated textual tradition and revision process of BV, a reasonable question that arises concerns the Cretan author’s ‘model text’. Despite the fact that the demanding process of the structural reworking of the play took place from 1580 until 1586, while the play circulated in manuscript form,Footnote ²⁰ it seems that Guarini had not yet reached a decision regarding the character who should utter the final verses of the fourth scene in Act One.Footnote ²¹ Eirini Papadaki has noted the discrepancy between the Italian editions published between 1590 and 1633 and has proposed that this scene may provide insight into the edition used by the unknown Cretan poet. This has led her to conclude that there are seven editions in which the speakers and the verses they deliver are in accordance with those of BV. Given that the Cretan translation must have been composed towards the end of the sixteenth century or in the first quarter of the seventeenth century,Footnote ²² Papadaki posits that the author will have used one of the following editions of PF: 1592, 1594, 1595, 1596, 1611, 1612, or 1619.Footnote ²³ Finally, Papatriantafyllou-Theodoridi has compared the editions of 1590, 1595, and 1602 of PF and has claimed that the differences between them are insignificant.Footnote ²⁴

The study that follows examines the rhetorical and lyrical qualities of BV in comparison to PF, with a particular focus on the speeches of the main personages. I shall initiate my comparative approach with the passage in which ‘the Cretan poet extracts every ounce of pathos from the situation […]’.Footnote ²⁵ It comes from the fifth scene of Act Four when Eroprikousa (Amarilli in PF) engages in discourse with Nikandros, the chief minister of the priest Montanos. She has been accused of adultery due to Koriska’s (Corisca in PF) cunning plan, and now she claims that she is innocent, though this assertion is not convincing. Towards the end of their conversation, the maiden laments her cruel fate, since she is about to face the sentence of death. In vv. 261–86 she addresses her absent father with continuous apostrophes (six in total, while in the Italian text they are four) and begs for aid. I shall quote here the verses that deviate from and expand considerably on PF.

The adjectives ‘ξένη και μοναχή’ expand on the verb ‘abbandoni’ in the Italian text and thus communicate Eroprikousa’s sentiments in a more powerful way. The young maiden is going to be slaughtered (σφάξου), burned (κάψου), scattered to the winds (σκορπήσου); all three verbs convey a sense of horror for her imminent death and cremation. The reference to the fate of her body after she is killed (vv. 269–71) makes Eroprikousa a more tragic personage than Amarilli. The word ‘άθος’ (meaning ‘ashes’) depicts the heroine’s inexorable tragic state and communicates her agony, further emphasized with the repetition of the adjective ‘καημένο(ν)/η’ in vv. 267 (‘την καημένη’ – referring to herself), 270 (‘καημένον άθο’), and 272–3 (‘καημένο πρόσωπον’). Apart from ‘poor, pitiable’, the word also means ‘burning’, and this sense could be applied to v. 270, and at a metaphorical level, to vv. 267 and 272–3. Both maidens long for a farewell kiss by their father, but Eroprikousa enriches her words with an oxymoron: her wish that her father’s kiss will sweeten her death (v. 275).

The greater lyrical exuberance of the Cretan text by comparison with PF is further evident in the passage from Act One, Scene Two, in which Myrtinos (Mirtillo in PF) appears on stage for the first time and laments over Eroprikousa’s cruelty in her refusal to respond to his love.

The rhetorical power and lyrical intensity of the Cretan text is immediately evident: vv. 272–3 of PF correspond to vv. 1–5 of BV. Myrtinos refers to the literal sense of his beloved’s name: Ερωπρικούσα stands for ‘έρως’ and ‘πρίκα’ (that is, love and bitterness), just as Amarilli’s name represents ‘amare’ and ‘amaro’. These two characteristics are attributed to Eroprikousa’s heart with the addition of the reinforcing explanation of vv. 4–5, which is absent from PF. Myrtinos employs two synonymous words that characterize Eroprikousa’s heart (‘άπονη’, ‘αλύπητη’) and highlight his pain – further emphasized with the alliteration of π (p) in vv. 1–5 – because of his beloved’s refusal to reciprocate his feelings. Next, vv. 278–9 of PF have been expanded to vv. 10–14 in BV. Myrtinos declares that he will die silent, since he offends Eroprikousa by speaking of his love, and states that what in fact bothers the latter is listening to his ‘πάθη’. It is Myrtinos’ poor tongue (‘καημένη γλώσσα’, v. 12) that reveals his perturbation – a metonymy that stands for ‘words’ and intensifies the hero’s expressed emotions.

The passage that follows is another example of the Cretan poet’s tendency to expand a particular concept and enrich it with rhetorical tropes and figures absent from the source text; vv. 116–21 of the same act and scene of BV (A2) correspond to I2: 349–50 of PF.

In addition to the words that have been added in the translation (‘αγαπά-με’, ‘πάθη-μου’), the Cretan poet has expanded the adjectives ‘care’ and ‘fortunati’ into phrases that express more vividly the intensity of the hero’s emotions (vv. 119–21). Concurrently, these phrases indicate that Myrtinos would gladly have sustained his passions, pain, and torments if Eroprikousa loved him, therefore revealing the depth of his love for her. The metaphor in v. 121 (‘πληγωμένη καρδιά’), which foregrounds the hero’s pain, is not found in PF.

In the first scene of Act Two, Myrtinos confesses to his friend Ergastos how he managed to steal a kiss from Eroprikousa during a girlish kissing contest. Some of the verses that refer to the moment of the kiss and to Myrtinos’ subsequent emotions are absent from PF. The Cretan poet’s version is distinctly more sensuous and lascivious than the relevant passage in the Italian play.

In this playful kissing contest, Eroprikousa stands passive while being kissed by the other girls. Myrtinos is dressed as a girl and has been hesitating to place his mouth on Eroprikousa’s, since he is all too aware that he is stealing an illicit kiss, which would certainly offend her modesty. In vv. 267–9, Myrtinos acknowledges that Eroprikousa instilled confidence in his mind and heart with a gentle little smile (‘ένα μικρό-τζη γέλιο/περίσσα τακτικό’); the heroine is possibly taking Myrtinos’ hesitation for maidenly shyness. Vv. 270–3 depict Myrtinos’ passionate kiss in vivid detail: encouraged by the heroine’s smile, he dares to kiss her (‘αποκοτά το στόμα-μου να σώνει/στο στόμα τ’ όμορφό-τζη’) and he greedily sucks ‘του Πόθου τη δροσά’ – a powerful metaphor that effectively conveys the sense of an exquisite kiss. The repetition of ‘του Πόθου’ in v. 274 in the figure of anaphora emphatically conveys the hero’s emotional high. Furthermore, the word ‘δροσά’ is notable, since garden language in love poetry is strongly erotic.Footnote ³² The same applies to the nouns ‘ρόδα’ (v. 276, corresponding to ‘fresche rose’ of PF, v. 211), ‘δροσούλα’ (v. 281), ‘φύτρα διψασμένα’ (v. 282) and to the verb ‘δροσίζει’ (v. 284).

Eroprikousa is initially passive (vv. 278–9) but begins to respond, as if sensing the hero’s masculinity, by moving her lips against his, evidently experiencing pleasure in the kiss (vv. 285–91). The metaphor ‘νόστιμά-τση χείλη’ (v. 277) is an addition of the Cretan poet,Footnote ³³ as well as vv. 280–4: Guarini likens Amarilli’s lips to honey (v. 217 of PF), while the Cretan poet compares Eroprikousa’s sweet desire, which is another metaphor (v. 281), to freshness (or cool drops) poured into Myrtinos’ mouth. The sensuality of the scene – also increased with the prolongation of the Cretan passageFootnote ³⁴ – is further evidenced by the simile in vv. 281–2, with which the hero admits that the kiss freshened his innards.Footnote ³⁵

The verses of BV quoted above are in contrast with vv. B1: 322–29. In the first case, Myrtinos feels refreshed by his beloved’s kiss; now, however, he feels scorched. The oscillation between the sensations of cold and hot can be attributed to the influence of Italian Petrarchism.Footnote ³⁶

It is evident that the Greek text conveys more emphatically the stato contrario in which Myrtinos finds himself when Eroprikousa places a wreath on his head after his selection as the winner of the contest. Her cool hand burns Myrtinos’ heart and transforms it into red-hot glowing embers, an idea that constitutes an oxymoron (vv. 327–8) and a metaphor (v. 330). Myrtinos also admits that, due to her sweetness, his erotic desire turned into a blazing torch (‘οφανός’) – another metaphor which depicts with energeia the hero’s burning heart. Conversely, Mirtillo emphasizes that his heart burned with both sweetness and (erotic) desire. Finally, the oxymoron in v. 255 of PF (‘ne la vittoria vinto’) is expanded by the Cretan poet (vv. 333–4), who also adds v. 335, which is a metaphor, as Myrtinos remains enslaved with chains – the chains of love.Footnote ³⁸ Notwithstanding the creativity of these verses, the poet may be adapting the Italian original to an inherited idiom of love poetry. There is no solid evidence that the Cretans of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were familiar with the collection of love poems in Cypriot dialect – although the islands had many cultural similarities and connectionsFootnote ³⁹ – but in my view, such a hypothesis is very likely.Footnote ⁴⁰ David Holton has suggested that comparisons between the texts of the Golden Age of the Cretan Renaissance and the collection of love poems in Cypriot dialect would reveal many affinities in the deployment of certain motifs and images.Footnote ⁴¹

Another scene in which Myrtinos effectively reveals his sentiments and which needs further analysis is Act Three, Scene Three: Koriska has arranged a game of blind-man’s-buff, which ends with the blindfolded Eroprikousa finding herself in Myrtinos’ arms. They engage in a conversation in which Myrtinos pleads for ‘mercy’, that is, Eroprikousa’s love, while she continuously rebuffs him. The following verses contribute to the higher emotional intensification of the Cretan text:

In this passage, and particularly in vv. 98–103 – absent from PF – Myrtinos justifies his act of sneaking into the girlish game by comparing Eroprikousa to food that feeds his entrails (‘τα σωθικά’), and himself to a beast (vv. 91–4) that is ravenous for her sweet love (‘πόθος’, v. 101). These verses serve to highlight, firstly, that Eroprikousa is the only person capable of nourishing Myrtinos’ heart and, secondly, that Myrtinos is irrevocably in love with her. These ideas allude to the Petrarchan model, according to which ‘only the person who causes the wound can offer healing’,Footnote ⁴² and this is the reason why Myrtinos cannot live if he is deprived of Eroprikousa.

In addition to the passage quoted above, there are more verses in this scene that are absent from the Italian text and reveal Myrtinos’ unconditional love for Eroprikousa:

Vv. 167–8 are repeated at the beginning of the sentence (vv. 155–6, corresponding to PF III3: 296),Footnote ⁴⁴ but I do not think that the Cretan poet translated them twice by mistake. Myrtinos declares that he loves Eroprikousa more than life itself, and that this love can be confirmed by nature, which has witnessed his laments on numerous occasions. Moreover, the syntax (‘να σου πούσι πως…’) indicates that the phrase was reiterated deliberately. Myrtinos’ unconditional love and pain – since his feelings are not reciprocated – is emphasized by the alliteration of π (p). The same applies to the next passage from Act Three, which renders in a more emotionally loaded manner a couplet of BV.

What Guarini conveys with one verb, ‘penare’ (‘suffer’), the Cretan poet expresses with four synonymous nouns that emphasize Myrtinos’ willingness to suffer for love (v. 157). Furthermore, the deployment of synonymous words in one verse – a practice that contributes to the higher emotional intensification of a given passage – is in tune with the established Greek poetical style of the period and earlier, and may also suggest that there was a formulated idiom of love poetry in Crete. Two indicative examples from Erofili are found at the beginning of the heroine’s nightmares and at the end of her dirge respectively:Footnote ⁴⁶ ‘Φοβούμαι ασκιές, τρέμω όνειρα, δειλιώ σημάδια πλήσα’ (Α: 111), ‘Μα δε φυράς τα πάθη μου, δε μου λιγαίνεις πρίκα,/κ’ οι κρίσεις μου κ’ οι πόνοι μου παντοτινοί εγενήκα’ (Ε: 507–8).Footnote ⁴⁷ Such repetitions are also to be found much earlier in Marinos Falieros:Footnote ⁴⁸ ‘με φόβον κ’ εντροπήν πολλή και αποκοτιάν και αγάπην’ (Ιστορία και όνειρο, 401).Footnote ⁴⁹

A particularly important character in BV and PF is the cunning Koriska. One of the monologues she delivers contain verses that significantly deviate from the original, in ways that emphasize her crafty nature, and are found in Act One, scene three:

The most lyrical part of the Cretan text is the set of verses that refer to the break of dawn. Guarini employs the single word ‘aurora’, while the Cretan poet uses three sentences that depict with enargeia the moment of daybreak and enhance the sensuality of the passage, which seems more like an aubade: ‘να σκίσει η μέρα’, ‘τη μυρισμένη ανατολή ν’ αρχίσει [η μέρα]’, and ‘στον ορανό τα ρόδα να σκορπίσει’, three personifications and metaphors; the third phrase vividly illustrates the colour of the sky at this time of the day. It is also noteworthy that ‘[gli] amanti poco tranquilli’ is rendered as ‘[όσοι] εκ τον πόθο στέκου τυραννισμένοι’. The Greek text emphasizes the fact that a person in love is tormented by desire (πόθος), an idea that is generally more emphatic in BV than in PF.Footnote ⁵¹

Apart from Eroprikousa and Myrtinos, there is another pair of lovers in the plot: Dorinda (Dorinda in PF) and Sylvios (Silvio in PF). Although, conventionally, pastoral drama would present a lovestruck young man and a ‘chaste’ woman who rejects his love, according to the Petrarchan model,Footnote ⁵² it is Silvio in PF (and in BV) who rejects the love of a woman. Act Two, scene two is a comic scene between Dorinda and Sylvios. The former has hidden Sylvios’ dog with the intention of making him fall in love with her in return for his dog. The following verses are worthy of quotation:

In this scene, Dorinda expresses her anguish over Sylvios’ cruelty, but her moaning becomes comic due to her speech and the presence of the latter’s dog. The Cretan poet alludes to a very common motif in Italian Petrarchan poetry – found also in the Cypriot collection of love poemsFootnote ⁵⁴ and in Chortatsis’ Erofili Footnote ⁵⁵– namely that of fire, in vv. 9–10 and 18–19. The motif of fire comes into sharp contrast with the state of cold/snow, as Sylvios’ white hand may stand for his excessive cold heart, since he is not yet capable of love, while Dorinda is aflame with it. This motif is undermined in numerous occasions in Chortatsis’ Panoria, and it is my contention that it is also undermined in the anonymous BV. An indicative example from Panoria is the following:Footnote ⁵⁶

By contrast, Guarini’s Dorinda says only that Silvio ‘squeezes’ her heart with his white hand (v. 341). The repetition of the word ‘χίλια’ in BV, which is also a hyperbole, enhances the comic aspect of the scene. This is a deliberate choice on the part of the Cretan poet, as evidenced by the fact that he translates the verbs ‘sospiro’ and ‘prego’ with the noun phrases ‘χίλιους στεναγμούς’ and ‘χίλια πάθη’. The same numeral is repeated in umpteen occasions in Panoria and serves to undermine the seriousness of the heroes’ speech and to enhance their comicality.Footnote ⁵⁸ Finally, the adjectives ‘καημένα και πρικαμένα’ that accompany the word ‘χείλη’ (a metaphor and a personification respectively, vv. 23–4) also enhance the comic aspect of Dorinda’s speech, since she pities her lips because they have not received a single kiss from Sylvios.

The heroine’s speeches are characterized by hyperbole, employed to persuade Sylvios to reciprocate her affections. This is more obvious in the Cretan text, as noted above, and here is another example, which once more alludes to the Petrarchan motif of fire that burns the soul of one in love. Guarini’s verse in II2: 393 ‘e me, che t’amo sì, fuggi e disprezzi’Footnote ⁵⁹ is rendered as follows:

Although the scene is comic in nature, Dorinda utters words that reveal the authenticity of her love and suffering. Dorinda’s plain and rather banal response to Silvio’s question ‘che vorresti? [in return for his dog]’Footnote ⁶⁰ (PF II2: 421),

is transformed into a passionate, and slightly ironic, expression of Dorinda’s sentiments in BV:

The same holds true for vv. 167–73:

The words ‘foco’ and ‘amore’ are rendered with two synonymous words each time, ‘φωτιά και λάβρα’ and ‘πόθο κι ερωτιά’ respectively – a practice in tune with the established Greek poetical style of the period, as argued above. The phrase ‘γλυκότατη καρδιά-μου’, absent from PF, is also notable, for it emphasizes Dorinda’s immense love. The repetition of the same word in a single couplet contributes, too, to the ironic nuance of the passages: ‘γλυκύ-σου/γλυκειά-σου’ (vv. 138–9), ‘πόθο’ (vv. 172–3). Generally, Dorinda in BV, like Myrtinos, discloses her sentiments more powerfully, something that is aided by the skilful deployment of tropes and figures and by motifs that allude to Italian Petrarchism. However, it is my contention that these motifs are more clearly undermined in the Cretan version, in which the comicality of the relevant passages is also enhanced, as explained above.Footnote ⁶⁴

The last emotionally charged passage which merits analysis is found in Act Four, Scene Eight, which corresponds to the ninth scene of the same act in PF. Dorinda, who is deeply in love with Sylvios but consistently rebuffed, has disguised herself as a wolf in order secretly to follow him when he goes hunting. However, Sylvios mistakes her for a real wolf and shoots her with his arrow. This is the pivotal moment when Sylvios, the staunch opponent of Love, undergoes a radical transformation. There are quite a few phrases indicative of Sylvios’ concession to love, which are absent from PF; they have been placed in climactic order, suggesting that Dorinda is now the mistress of the hero’s heart: ‘Ντορίντα μου, ψυχή-μου’ (v. 187), ‘κόρη-μου’ (v. 204), ‘κυρά-μου’ (v. 206), ‘αμίρισσά-μου’ (v. 213). The beginning of his first speech addressed to Dorinda is also emotionally loaded and successfully communicates the hero’s sentiments after his transformation:

Sylvios employs the figures of apostrophe and anaphora by repeating three times ‘Ντορίντα μου’ at the beginning of a series of clauses and twice within clauses. Vv. 173–4 are reminiscent of the opening verse of Erofili’s dirge (E: 435): ‘Ω κύρη μου, μα κύρη πλιο γιάντα να σ’ ονομάζω’. Moreover, what Guarini expresses with one verb in IV9: 1274 (‘Ti disprezzai superbo’) is in BV (vv. 199–200) expressed with two verbs and one adjective that highlight Sylvios’ previously arrogant and cruel behaviour towards Dorinda. Finally, the hero uses different adjectives, absent from PF, that refer to himself and, once again, to his unjustified previous heartlessness: ‘πιάσε / σκιάς τούτες τσι σαγίτες τς άπονές-μου’ (vv. 206–7), ‘τ’ άπονον ετούτο / το στήθος δόξεψέ-μου’ (vv. 211–12) – two personifications, ‘σαγίτεψέ-μου / τη λίθινην καρδιά’ (vv. 216–7) – a metaphorical personification and a paradox, since an arrow could not pierce a stony heart. It is therefore evident that the Cretan text is marked by a certain exuberance, a tendency to expand on the Italian original and emphatically convey the heroes’ feelings and thoughts.

In this article I have endeavoured to evaluate the rhetorical and lyrical qualities of the Cretan version BV in relation to the original, Guarini’s PF. This has been done by studying select passages that are either absent from the Italian model-text or show striking differences with it. The examples to which I have drawn attention show that the term ‘translation’ does not entirely capture what the Cretan author was doing: he has a freer hand.Footnote ⁶⁵ The translator’s addition or expansion of lyrical passages has the effect of giving more extended and emphatic poetical expression to the speakers’ emotions, aided by the deployed tropes and figures and word choice, which were – as mentioned at the beginning of this study – a common concern of rhetoric and poetics. Given the scarce information regarding the Cretan version, we hardly know anything in relation to the poet’s aims; that is, whether he regarded PF as a reading or a performance text, and his presumed target public. What is certain, though, is that the unknown poet showed poetic dexterity and imagination when translating the Italian original,Footnote ⁶⁶ prized a certain kind of amplitude in his poetry – as if his target audience would take pleasure from an extended version – and succeeded in communicating the heroes’ sentiments in a different and more emphatic way. The influence of motifs that derive from Italian Petrarchism, the deployment of synonymous words in one verse, the enhancement of the comicality of the play, especially in relation to Dorinda’s character, the more extensive utilization of tropes and figures, and, finally, the addition of some lyrical lines of his own, constitute techniques that the Cretan poet deployed in order to intensify the poetical expression of the heroes’ emotions.