Prologo duplicado entre Quevedo y Diego López. 1975.pdf

8/13/2019 Prologo duplicado entre Quevedo y Diego Lpez. 1975.pdf

1/7

Quevedo and Diego Lopez: A Curious Case of Prologue DuplicationAuthor(s): Doris L. MeyerSource: Hispanic Review, Vol. 43, No. 2 (Spring, 1975), pp. 199-204Published by: University of Pennsylvania PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/472555.

Accessed: 26/12/2013 21:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Pennsylvania Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Hispanic Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 148.206.53.9 on Thu, 26 Dec 2013 21:08:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upennhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/472555?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/472555?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn


2/7

QUEVEDO AND DIEGO LOPEZ: A CURIOUS CASE OFPROLOGUE DUPLICATION

THE following prologues are strikingly similar in style and con-tent, yet one precedos several short satirico-burlesque works byFrancisco de Quevedo and the other introduces a Castilian transla-

tion of Virgil by Diego L6pez:Quevedo, Capitulaciones de la vidade la Corte (Version 1) :1 Pr6logo

Algunos autores buscan otrosmejores ingenios que los suyos a losquales compran prologos para enellos dar muestras de su abilidad yque los que compran sus obras atri-buyan lo que en ellas no ay y leydosconsideren su suficiencia y buen es-tilo con que engafian a los ignoran-tes que los leen para comprar la obra.No pretendo ganar nombre de au-tor. Quien quisiere experimentarlo que contiene mi tratado leale yjuzgue lo que le pareciere que yoconfio no lo a de reprobar por fabu-losso. Solo ruego al benevolo lector

Virgilio, Las obras:2 Prologoal lector (tr. Diego L6pez)Algunos Auctores suelen en

sus prologos dar muestras de suingenio, y habilidad buscandomuchas vezes otros mejores in-genios los que suyos, para quecompran semejantes obras juz-guen por los prologos lo que enellas no ay. Contra estos queleydos los prologos (no consi-derando lo arriba dicho) juzganla habilidad, suficiencia, buenestylo, y ingenio del Auctor, qui-siera yo en lugar de prologo com-poner una Satyra. Sola unacosa dire contra ellos que com-

1Quevedo, Capitulacionesde la vida de la Cortey oficiosentretenidos n ella.Prl6ogo (Version2):Algunos Autores buscan otros mejores ingeniosque los suyos a los qualescompran prologospara con ellos dar muestras de su abilidad, y que los que com-pran sus obras,les atribuyanlo que en ellas no ay; y con esta suficienzia,y buenestilo, engafan a los ignorantes,y a vezes a los que no lo son, llevados del zebo deaquelprimerproemio,conqueunosy otros sueltan su dinero,quees el finprincipalde muchos que oy escribena bulto, y manchanel papel a tiento. Yo pues no pre-

199

This content downloaded from 148.206.53.9 on Thu, 26 Dec 2013 21:08:11 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/7

200considere que es lo que oy passa ysucede en la corte y que solo vendoel trabajo que confio a de tener al-gun merecimientoacercade los hom-bres curiossos.

HR, 43 (1975)pranprologosen lugarde obras.De los Auctores, que de seme-jantes embustes usan que dire?No los llamare yo Auctores deobras, sino de prologos, con losquales engafian a los ignorantes,que leen el prologo para comprarla obra. Yo no quiero, ni procuromostrar en el prologo mi in-genio, ni habilidad, porque yo novendo, lo que nunca compre,porque juzgo no ser el prologo dealgun provecho para el que com-pra la obra. Allende desto noprocuro ganar nombre de Auctorde prologos, y quien quisiere es-perimentar lo que en otros pro-logos, lea esta obra, y por ellajuzgue lo que le paresciere.Solamente ruego al benevoloLector, considere el trabajo dejuntar tantas fabulas, y his-torias, y conoscera que yo novendo prologos, sino mis traba-jos: los quales espero aver detenera algun valor, y meresci-mientos, cerca de los hombrescuriosos.

tendo ganar nombre de autor, ni menos enriquezermecon mis borrones;quienquisiereesperimentaro que contienemi tratadoleale y juzguelo que le pareziere,que yo confio no le ha de reprovarpor fabuloso;solo ruegoal venebolo lector querepare en esto lo que pasa y sucede en la Corte y que solo bendo el trabajoqueconfioa de tener algun merezimiento,azercade los hombres curiosos.Although there are two versions of this prologueby Quevedo,I shall quoteonly fromthe firstversion,whichis moreprevalent (found n twelve Mss)than thesecond (in two MSSonly) and also is somewhat closer in wordingto the DiegoL6pez prologue. The fact that there are two Quevedoversionsmay be explainedby the author'sapparent ntent to use the same prologuein two variations to in-troduce several differentshort satirico-burlesqueworks. None of the extant MSSare in Quevedo'shand; nonetheless,the work has been unconditionallyacceptedashis andthe date of originalcomposition(1599-1600)suggested by Luis Astrana-Marin has been accepted and cited by later editions of Quevedo'sprose. Aure-liano Fernandez-Guerraeferred o it as a juguetedesenfadadode la primera u-ventud de Quevedo n Obrasde QuevedoBAE, Vol. 23 [Madrid, 1852], p. 467),

Doris L. Meyer



4/7

Prologue Duplication 201The very topic of the prologues arouses suspicion. Was this acase of a borrowed or bought prologue? Was there a relationship

between the two authors which might otherwise explain the duplica-tion? Can it be determined who in fact was the author of the pro-logue(s) if the duplication is accepted as the work of one man?Were one of the authors not of the stature of Quevedo, these queriesmight not be so intriguing. Since he is involved and no explanationis offered in either work, the duplication, possibly even a case ofplagiarism, requires investigation.

There is a marked contrast in the literary stature of the twoauthors. Francisco de Quevedo is widely known and recognized asthe master of satire in the Golden Age, whereas Diego L6pez is anobscure figure, a translator and teacher of Latin about whom almostnothing is known.3 The latter was far more limited in his objectivesand he thereincited the two versions, preferring he second to the first. The pro-logue was first publishedin 1845 in Madridby Vicente Castell6 (Obrasde D. F.QuevedoVillegas).The text of Version1 hereinreproducedwith the permissionof the BibliotecaNacional de Madridfrom MS.18721-47 (OlimCc. 82), Folios 346-47, is dated inthe upper eft marginSeptember3, 1611. This same version s alsofound in Biblio-teca Nacional Mss. 1952, 4066, 4312, 10387, 13441, 18660and 18760; also in MS.29 of the Real Academiade la Lengua, in MS.121 of the Biblioteca Men6ndezyPelayo, MS.472 of the Biblioteca Pdblica de Toledo and in the BibliothbquePublique de Dijon ms. 477. An alternatetitle foundin some of the MSSs Capitu-lacionesmatrimoniale': vidade la corte.The text of Version2, reproducedby permission romthe BibliotecaNacionalfrom MS. 7370, Folios 82-83, is from the last part of the seventeenth century orbeginningof the eighteenth; it is also found in MS.Col. Folch de Cardona,Vol. iI,in the Real Academia de la Historia of Madrid.

2 This prologueprecedesthe princepsedition (Valladolid,1600) of this L6peztranslationand is foundin all twelve reprints:Madrid,1614; Madrid,1616;Valla-dolid, 1620; Lisboa, 1620; Lisboa, 1627; Madrid, 1641; Alcala, 1650; Madrid,1657;Madrid,1668;Madrid, 1675;Barcelona,1679;andValencia,1698. I wouldlike to thank Dr. Theodore S. Beardsley, Jr., for supplying me with the aboveinformationand for sharingwith me his knowledgeof Hispano-Classical ransla-tions (see Beardsley, Hispano-Classical Translations Printed Between1482 and1699 [Pittsburgh, Pa., 1970]).3 The Espasa Enciclopedia Universal ([Barcelona, 1907-30], xxxi, 110),offers the most complete, although still sketchy, biographicaldata concerningDiego L6pez. The following authors consulted could contribute no specific ad-ditional information:Men6ndezy Pelayo, Bibliografiahispano-latinacldsicaandBibliotecadetraductoresSantander,1952); Nicolas Antonio, BibliothecaHispanaNova, I (Madrid, 1783); Perez Pastor, Bibliografiamadrilena (Madrid, 1906);Miguel Antonio Caro, Virgilio in Obrascompletas, I (Bogota, 1920); Garcia



5/7

Doris L. Meyeras a writer: aside from his translations, he published several moral-religious works in Latin, and, in the vernacular, two treatises on theSpanish language. L6pez's role as an educator in small towns suchas Toro and Olmedo contrasts starkly with Quevedo's political in-volvement in the courts of the Duke of Osuna and of Philip IV.Available information about their background and careers doesnot indicate that the two authors had any relationship whatsoever.No mention of either author can be found in the works of the other.One must therefore look to the prologues themselves and to theworks they introduce for clues to the reason for the duplication andits literary significance.The primary message of the prologue in its three forms is partic-ularly interesting in view of the duplication: prologues are oftenborrowed or bought by authors who find them difficult to write andwho know that prospective readers may be influenced by the qualityof the prologue. In its condemnation of this practice, unflattering tothe integrity of both author and reader, this prologue constituteswhat is called an anti-prologue. 4 The irony which follows uponits critical spirit has heretofore gone unnoticed:5 the anti-prologueitself is apparently fraudulent. One of the authors involved, or per-haps both or even a third party, has written a prologue and lent it,sold it to, or shared it with another.

Authorship of the prologue may be more successfully determinedby comparing it or its three versions with other prologues known tohave been written by Quevedo and Diego Lopez respectively. If itwere unlike either of these authors' work, it might then be specu-lated that both obtained it from a third source. This, however, doesCarraffa, Enciclopedia herdldica y geneal6gica hispano-americana (Madrid, 1934)and Rodriguez-Monino, Un traductor extremefo de Virgilio in Curiosidadesbibliogrdficas (Madrid, 1946).The prologue as a genre had by this time reached a point of development atwhich sincerity began to give way to hypocrisy and traditional style to parody.Perhaps the best known anti-prologue in the true sense of criticizing the prologuetradition is Cervantes' prologue to the first part of Don Quijote (1605). It shouldbe noted that the prologue here in question predates this.5 Alberto Porqueras Mayo refers only to the pr6logo ajeno as prologuessigned by another author. He does not mention any case of prologue duplication,although he does reproduce the L6pez prologue from the second printing of 1614as proof that prologues were bought and sold. See El pr6logo como genero literario(Madrid, 1957), pp. 112-13 and 122n. Porqueras Mayo's other two books on theprologue genre offer no further information in this regard.

202 HR, 43 (1975)



6/7

Prologue Duplicationnot appear to be the case. The author was most probably Franciscode Quevedo as the following evidence indicates.

Stylistically, the prologue under consideration displays themajor qualities found consistently in Quevedo's satirico-burlesqueprologues: brevity, a tone of self-reliance verging on disdain forreader reaction, and a satiric intent to both amuse and confuse thereader through witticisms or double-entendres.6 In contrast, DiegoL6pez's other prologues are not uniformly brief,7 nor do they treatthe reader lightly let alone try to test his patience and wit. The toneof Lopez's prologues is invariably serious and self-effacing.The content of Quevedo's prologues vis A vis the works theyintroduce is generally similar; that is, the spirit and motive of thework itself are reflected in the prologue in miniature. Such also isthe case in all of Diego L6pez's publications with the exception ofthis particular translation. Actually, this prologue does not ade-

quately serve the traditional function of introducing either author'swork. It stands alone, an apparently unprovoked discussion offraudulent prologues and the gullibility of the public duped by them.Nonetheless, it is a prologue which is closer in spirit to the criticalmotive of Quevedo's Capitulaciones than to a translation of Virgil.In themselves, the above facts would not constitute strong proofof authorship by Quevedo were it not for a striking coincidence intheme between this prologue and others by Quevedo, for which thereis no equivalent in the works of Diego L6pez. Between 1600 and1636, Quevedo wrote several prologues which are essentially anti-prologues; one could cite, for example, the prologues to the Suenoswhich, in a limited but clearly intentional manner, distort the there-tofore accepted prologue standards and call attention to the hy-pocrisy behind its cliche formalities.The final question for which there can only be a tentative answeris how indeed, if Quevedo wrote the original version of this prologue,did Diego L6pez also come to use it, and why is there no mention byeither author of this duplication? The silence on both sides argues

6See George E. McSpadden, The Spanish Prologue before 1700 Diss.StanfordUniversity 1947,pp. 132-43. A study of mineentitled Quevedo'sSatiricPrologues published n the RevistadeEstudiosHispdnicos(6 [1973], 233-53, 322),discussesthese characteristics n depth.7Note, for example,his prologueto the 1642 translation of Juvenal which isvery long, as well as his fairly lengthy prologuesto the translationsof Alciatus(1615) and Persius (1609).

203



7/7

Doris L. Meyerfor some form of complicity, especially in view of Quevedo's trucu-lent nature. Had the prologue been in any way misappropriated,Quevedo would not have hesitated to defend his interests. Otherplausible explanations remain.It is possible that while he was in Valladolid, Quevedo came incontact with Francisco Fernandez de C6rdoba y Oviedo, the printer,8who may have commissioned him to write a prologue which could beadded to a work which lacked one, i.e., the L6pez translation, printedby Oviedo in 1600.9 Quevedo may then also have used the prologuefor his own purposes.

Or it may have been otherwise: as a student in AlcalA (1596-1600) or in Valladolid (arrived 1600), Quevedo may have met theLatin scholar Diego L6pez, who may have been studying or teachingin Toro (near Valladolid), while readying his first publication in thevernacular. Quevedo may have agreed to work on a prologue forhim which perhaps L6pez then touched up and Quevedo himselfrewrote and used simultaneously.Why L6pez did not write his own prologue and why, if he consci-ously accepted another's work, he settled for a prologue critical ofprecisely his own malfeasance brings up the further possibilitythat both authors collaborated on a joint assault on borrowed orbought prologues. This might explain why the L6pez version saysquisiera yo en lugar de prologo componer una Satyra. That is,under Quevedo's initiative, since L6pez appears not to have beeninclined toward writing satires, they intentionally created a bor-rowed prologue situation within which the custom itself wassatirized.Whatever the actual explanation, the duplication, albeit so far aunique case, sheds an interesting light on the editorial mores of thetime.

DORISL. MEYERBrooklyn College (CUNY)8 See M. Alcocer y Martinez, Catdlogo razonado de obras impresas en Vallado-lid, 1481-1800 (Valladolid, 1926).9It is known that there are Hispano-Classical ranslationswith anonymousprologuesas well as translationswith dedicationsandprologuessignedby printers.

See Beardsley, Annotations, in Hispano-Classical Translations, pp. 43, 55 etpassim.

204 HR, 43 (1975)

This content downloaded from 148.206.53.9 on Thu, 26 Dec 2013 21:08:11 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Prologo duplicado entre Quevedo y Diego López. 1975.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Prologo duplicado entre Quevedo y Diego López. 1975.pdf