In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviews317 Gregg basically follows traditional practice: 1) number of play, 2) title, epithet(s), and stated author(s), 3) Signatures and pagination, 4) place, printer, publisher, bookseller, 5) date, 6) reference to modern s, 7) first two and last two printed lines, 8) editorial comment, and 9) volume call number for the item in the Biblioteca de Palacio. Gregg states his methodology and adheres to it sytematically. The bibliography has been meticulously prepared. I would only call attention to a minor typographical error in attributing play number 208 to Tirso de Molina (Appendix I, page 136) when the correct play number should be 202. There is no question of the importance of cataloguing Spanish drama collections. Clearly the growing number of publications now in print should serve as a testimony to the need to continue in this scholarly endeavor . However, a quick glance at several existing catalogues will reveal that we have not yet agreed on a standard bibliographical format. It is perhaps in this area where more discussion should be generated among those of us who have undertaken the important task of cataloguing such collections. Gregg is no newcomer to this area of scholarship and his recent work will certainly constitute an invaluable resource for the comedia scholar. Victor Arizpe Texas A&M University Calderón de la Barca, Pedro. The Painter ofHis Dishonour. Edition and translation by A. K. G. Paterson. Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1991. Cloth, £30 ($49.95); paper, £9.95 ($22). Reviewing a modern translation of a famous work, one irresistibly succumbs to the "I-wouldn't-have" syndrome. In this new translation of Calderón's Elpintor de su deshonra, for example, I wouldn't have translated "Serafina" as "Seraphine," or rhymed "again" with "friend" (3, 5), or used "estrangement" for "celos" (1718-19). These examples, which always constitute my first reaction to a translation, are at least in part a function of the enormous differences not only in language, but also in theatrical experience and cultural context, between the Baroque Spanish original and the modern English translation. There is even a marked difference between British translations and American translations that stands between the text and my appreciation of it. While all translations contain word choices and syntactical structures that may jar the reader or 318BCom, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Winter 1993) listener, to focus on them is gravely misleading and ultimately trivializes the work in question. The principal question of translation is the faithfulness with which the original meaning, humor, irony and rhythms are rendered into another language . In this regard, Paterson has produced the finest edition of a translation that I have ever seen. Starting with a valid Spanish text with updated spelling and punctuation, Paterson's text comes extraordinarily close to its original in its use of imagery, its incorporation of humor (some of it quite off color), even in its use of poetic meters, although he does not attempt to reproduce the Spanish meters or rhyme schemes. From time to time his English text shows remarkable beauty, a tribute to Paterson as a poet, and his use of dialect and humor is unsurpassed. All of the knots and loose strings of the translation, as Cervantes called them, are explained in the endnotes, which are themselves a treasure trove ofinteresting material. The introduction provides in succinct fashion a wealth of information of interest to both newcomers to the comedia (including definitions of comedia, corral, etc.) and to literary critics (with references not only to familiar New Critics such as Wilson and Parker, but also to Derrida and Cixous). Paterson, who is a familiar and authoritative voice in the criticism of this play, discusses the actions and characters in terms of genre theory, the differences between El pintor de su deshonra and the other Calderonian honor plays, feminism, the temporal humors, art theory, myth, and mathematics. Despite the fact that all these various perspectives are dealt with in a scant 13 pages, the critical essay is not the least dilettantish, but is rather a lucid, ingenious, coherent, and convincing treatise that would stand on its own apart from the edition. In addition, there are sections on date and performance, plot summary, and text, in...

pdf

Share