Since the editor's point of view is rather different from that of the “readers”, I thought I too might have a say in the matter of the evaluation of the papers which are sent to the Rivista. In the Rivista, work is organised in such a way that the first task of the editor, when evaluating an article for publication, is to consider the opinions and comments of the two “readers” of the Board of Readers. These opinions are then reported and compared during the editorial meetings where the editor contributes his own impressions and appraisals.(**)

In this way, the editor works on an “extended” text, composed of the original work under examination, as well as the opinions of those who have read it. The anonymous “readers” (together with the cohort of phantasies as to their identity) assume the role of narrators in this extended text. The editor knows, however, that his general evaluation is just another element contributing to the decision-making procedure; his point of view will be discussed with