{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03328290468986384, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0030257186081694403, 'mean_word_length': 4.853982300884955, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Petrarch as the Metaphysical Poet Who Is Not Dante:: Metaphysical Markers at the Beginning of the Rerum vulgarium fragmenta (Rvf 1–21)

The fundamental Petrarchan problematic, apparent in all his work, is the metaphysical issue of the one and the many. Singular versus plural, whole versus fragment, the one versus the many: this is Petrarch’s abiding theme, and it is a metaphysical one. My argument is that Petrarch is a metaphysical poet, and that metaphysical concerns, defined as first principles and ultimate grounds, such as being and time, are Petrarch’s abiding concerns. The Rerum vulgarium fragmenta is a metaphysical text, in that it engages a metaphysical problematic in both its form and its content. With respect to form, the metaphysical template is built into the shape of the lyric sequence: a form that is based on a dance of part vis-à-vis whole reflects the metaphysician’s universal dance of the many vis-à-vis the One.1 With respect to content, the Rerum vulgarium fragmenta, which thematizes fragmentation or multiplicity in its very title (a title that not coincidentally poses the dilemma: do we refer to this text in the plural, as suggested by the plural “fragments,” or do we use the singular, as indicated by its being one work, one canzoniere?), is a text obsessed with time, the medium that