La traducción de la Arcadia de Sannazaro por Jerónimo Jiménez de Urrea (S. XVI). Estudio y edición crítica
[eng] XVI th.c JERÓNIMO JIMÉNEZ DE URREA’S TRANSLATION OF SANNAZARO’S ARCADIA. AN ESSAY AND A CRITICAL EDITION. Sannazaro’s Arcadia was successful due to the important role played by translations. The first being Garcilaso’s verses of a fragment from prose VIII. The Italian poet’s acknowledgment of...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | tesis doctoral |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2013 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad de Barcelona |
| Repositorio: | Dipòsit Digital de la UB |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:diposit.ub.edu:2445/43385 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/2445/43385 http://hdl.handle.net/10803/111043 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Sannazaro, Jacopo, 1458-1530. Arcadia Jiménez de Urrea, Jerónimo |
| Sumario: | [eng] XVI th.c JERÓNIMO JIMÉNEZ DE URREA’S TRANSLATION OF SANNAZARO’S ARCADIA. AN ESSAY AND A CRITICAL EDITION. Sannazaro’s Arcadia was successful due to the important role played by translations. The first being Garcilaso’s verses of a fragment from prose VIII. The Italian poet’s acknowledgment of his work takes place at a decisive stage in the evolution of the Castilian Spanish language and literature, a period when translation became a means to access the Renaissance literary masterpieces. In 1547 the first full version of the Arcadia saw the light. It had been in charge of Diego Blasco de Garay; although Diego López de Ayala had translated the prose and Diego the Salazar the Eclogues; these written in traditional Castilian metres. This dual authorship evidences the misunderstanding, at that time, of the complementary and balanced character of the “prosímetro” – a harmonious compilation of prose and poetry. The “prosímetro” meant the starting point to be taken into account from the point of view of the expectations created prior to its editing. In fact, the Spanish imitations of the Arcadia would branch off into two separate ways: a narrative mode (in which the poems clearly play a subordinate and secondary role) and a lyric one fully influenced by the poet Garcilaso de la Vega. In addition to Blasco de Garay’s edited translation there were three more unpublished ones in the XVIth c.; the ones by Jerónimo de Urrea, Juan Sedaño and Licenciado Viana – a graduate from Seville. These three unpublished translations offer the novelty of the Italian metre in the Eclogues. This novelty shows the boom reached by the new tendencies in poetry. These new poetic tendencies are confined to the re-writing of the prose translations previously written by López de Ayala. Despite the novelty in metre shown in the unpublished versions of Sannazaro’s Eclogues, critics have paid so little attention that they have still remained unpublished nowadays. Among these translations, we have chosen as the object of our essay Jerónimo de Urrea’s edition. He is best-known for his version of Ariosto’s Orlando Furioso, and for the excellent reviews his work earned to Cervantes, as well, a fact that obviously did affect his later works. However, the contextualization of Urrea’s translation and its comparison to the other unpublished versions has made it possible to break this inertia and provide a dynamic view of his translation work; this being a crucial link in the evolution process of the Castilian language regarding poetry and translation. We are taking into account the recent contributions of criticism on Urrea’s work, adding new evidence for a fair assessment. The comparison among the four XVIth century Spanish translations (the one published in 1547 and the other unpublished three) reveals some complicated and tricky processes ranging from the morphological and syntactic to semantics and poetic metre. Given this difficulty, we have chosen an intensive and selective approach for the analysis of the Eclogues. We focus our interest in Eclogue XII as we consider it paradigmatic. We analyse the prose, though, to its fully extent, including an analysis of the prose fragment VIII composed in verse by Garcilaso de la Vega. All this work has proved that among the three unpublished translations, Urrea’s one shows a clearer and more coherent or consistent translation strategy. It attempts to be faithful and accurate to the meaning and metre, even if it means to make some minor concessions such as allowing lexical alterations or changes in sentences. Yet, showing distinctive features of Sannazaro’s language brought together with the character and nature of the Castillian language, never lowering down its literary register. The variations offered in the numerous corrections (from our point of view, being autograph) present in the manuscript, together with Urrea’s changes when reworking Ayala’s prose translation confirm these tendencies and the autograph character of the manuscript – we believe being the result of mature work - at the same time. It is absolutely necessary to pinpoint that “Mss.” 1469 kept in the Spanish National Library contains not only the Arcadia’’s translation, but also another piece of work by Urrea’s: The epic poem El Victorioso Carlos Quinto. The administrative licenses besides the Inquisition censorships that head the codex (one by Francisco de Mansilla dated in Zaragoza in 1579; another by Alonso de Ercilla, restricted to the Victorioso Carlos Quinto and dated in 1584) together with Mansilla’s own signature in both texts, and, some passages of the Arcadia which had been crossed out in an obvious attempt of censorship show that both, the translation and the poem, had undergone a pre-printing process. Loblivion of his work seem to have influenced the fate of this manuscript still unpublished nowadays. |
|---|