Selecciona una palabra y presiona la tecla d para obtener su definición.
 

1

A paper delivered before the Cervantes Society of America, December 29, 1982, and previously at the Mountain Interstate Foreign Language Conference, October 8, 1982. Without implying that they agree with the views expressed here, I would like to thank E. C. Riley, John J. Allen, Keith Whinnom, and Tom Lathrop for reading a draft of this paper and making helpful suggestions; I would especially like to thank Allen and Lathrop, without whose encouragement this paper would not have been written.1.1

(N. from the A.)

 

1.1

For two corrections to this article see «Daniel Eisenberg Corrects» Cervantes 3.2 (1983): 160.-FJ. (N. from the E.)

 

2

See the harsh words of Fredson Bowers, «Scholarship and Editing», PBSA, 70 (1976), 161-88, at pp. 162-63. (N. from the A.)

 

3

The field is so chaotic that there is not even a full overview of its current state. Fredson Bowers, in «The New Textual Criticism of Shakespeare», in his Textual and Literary Criticism (Cambridge: University Press, 1966; first ed. 1959), pp. 66-116, presents the type of problems involved. There are two bibliographies of Shakespearean textual criticism: Trevor Howard-Hill, Shakespearean Bibliography and Textual Criticism: A Bibliography (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), and James C. McManaway, A Selective Bibliography of Shakespeare: Editions, Textual Studies, Commentary (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia for the Folger Shakespeare Library, 1975). Charlton Hinman, in «Shakespearian Textual Studies: Seven More Years», Shakespeare 1971. Proceedings of the World Shakespeare Congress, Vancouver, August 1971, ed. Clifford Leech and J. M. R. Margeson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971), pp. 37-49, surveys some recent contributions. For a non-technical introduction to the field, see Eleanor Prosser, Shakespeare's Anonymous Editors (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1981). (N. from the A.)

 

4

D. W. Cruickshank, «The Textual Criticism of Calderón's Comedias: A Survey», in The Textual Criticism of Calderón's Comedias, ed. Don W. Cruickshank, Vol. I of Calderón's Comedias, ed. D. W. Cruickshank and J. E. Varey (Farnborough: Gregg, in association with Tamesis Books, 1973), pp. 1-35; on the difference between a fake and a forgery see p. 1. (N. from the A.)

 

5

General estoria, ed. Antonio C. Solalinde, I (Madrid: Centro de Estudios Históricos, Junta para Ampliación de Estudios e Investigaciones Científicas, 1930), lii-lxxx. (N. from the A.)

 

6

See Alberto Blecua, ed., Lazarillo de Tormes, Clásicos Castalia, 58 (Madrid: Castalia, 1972), p. 70. (N. from the A.)

 

7

By José Caso González, Anejos del Boletín de la Real Academia Española, 17 (Madrid, 1967), pp. 27-54, to whom should go the credit for first applying the method to this text and for doing much of the «dirty work». However, his evidence was reanalyzed by Francisco Rico («En torno al texto crítico del Lazarillo de Tormes», HR. 38 [1970], 405-19), and by Blecua, the latter of whom deliberately redid some of Caso's collation, and arrived at new conclusions. (N. from the A.)

 

8

«Poeta en Nueva York»: Historia y problemas de un texto de Lorca (Barcelona: Ariel, 1976). (N. from the A.)

 

9

Even this makeshift edition does not exist; the new «edición crítica» of Eutimio Martín (Barcelona: Ariel, 1981) is very deficient. See my forthcoming review, in Anales de la literatura española contemporánea. (N. from the A.)

 

10

See Keith Whinnom's comment on the proper name, «'La Celestina,' 'The Celestina,' and L2 Interference in L1, Celestinesca, 4, No. 2 (November, 1980), 19-21. (N. from the A.)