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

Reviews391 Vega, Lope de. La quinta de Florencia. A Critical, Annotated Edition by Debra Collins Ames. Kassel: Edition Reichenberger, 1995. Hardcover . 225 pp. Debra Collins Ames has prepared an eclectic edition, with variants, of Lope's La quinta de Florencia, based on the text as conserved uniquely in Lope's Segunda Parte, in this recent volume in the Edition Reichenberger series. AU eight extant texts studied by Professor Ames are printed versions of the Segunda Parte of Lope, dating from 1609 to 1618, with the exception of a manuscript located in the Biblioteca Palatina, which derives from one of the Segunda Parte texts, A (Madrid: Alonso Martin, 1610). Ames calls this a 'critical' edition because of "the level of scrutiny given the relationships between the surviving versions ofthe play" (ix), but, unfortunately , all extant versions have not been consulted. First, the fact that Ames studied only one version of each of the seven Parte texts (p. 4) is problematic , since different printings ofcomedias have been shown to vary significantly . Second, Ames did not consult the 1621 and 1630 printings of the Parte [see M. G. Profeti, La collezione "Diferentes Autores" (Kassel: Reichenberger, 1988), 175-77 on these texts; Ames cites only the 1969-70 version of this important work] because they are "chronologically well-removed from M [the base text]" (p. 7 n. 6); this is a potentially serious flaw, since later manuscripts and imprints can preserve superior versions of a text. Ames states that her goal "has been to produce a text as close as possible to what Lope wrote, without over-correcting to the point that it is as unlike his work as the flawed texts are" (p. 9). Following procedures used in preparing eclectic texts, Ames has chosen as base text M (Madrid: Alonso Martín, 1609), the most accurate ofthe eight studied, and has emended it by drawing predominantly from readings from the other seventeenth-century texts. These emendations are based on scientific criteria; namely, rhyme, line scansion, and meaning. A second type of emendation derives from Menéndez Pelayo's Academy edition ofthe play in Obras de Lope de Vega, vol. 15 (e.g., w. 44+, 927, 1699, 1946, 2294+), which Ames believes drew from texts A (Madrid: Alonso Martín, 1610) and Z (Madrid: Juan de la Cuesta, 1618). This kind of emendation is problematic, since editors like Hartzenbusch and Menéndez Pelayo often made questionable modifications to comedia texts. Finally, a third category of emendation is that made by Ames as editor (e.g., vv. 508, 1421, 1807+), on a very limited basis; such editorial invervention should be indicated by supplying the text in brackets, 392BCom, Vol. 49, No. 2 (Winter 1997) which she does not do. Occasionally, what Ames calls an emendation in fact constitutes only a variant (see n. v. 1555). If Ames had carried out some statistical analysis (which is not reported in the introduction) to establish the textual relationships among the extant texts and then had represented these relationships in a stemma (provided there are three independent witnesses to the tradition, a fact which I cannot determine from her presentation on pp. 3-8), then the percentage values represented in the stemma would have provided another aid in establishing readings in her text, and in addition would have provided more authority for her editorial interventions. Such analysis would also have provided data about the entire textual tradition and the accuracy of its various representative texts. While I disagree with some of Professor Ames's approach to emendation , it is important to state that she does indicate her intervention in and emendation ofthe base text in her notes. She has employed two systems to indicate emendations based on the seventeenth-century versions. In some instances, she uses only a note to annotate and/or record the change in the base text and to justify its adoption; no variant is then recorded. On other occasions, she uses the variant apparatus at the bottom ofthe page to record readings of texts other than M, with an asterisk signaling the adopted reading ; at times, but not always, there is an explanation in the notes. Presentation of the eclectic text would have been simpler...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 391-394
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.