Abstract

Abstract

The verses 208-224 of the comedy Amar después de la muerte have raised some textual controversies among Calderon’s scholars concerning the emendations of alcañomias and alcamonios and buxetas de perro, a collocation whose meaning is being disputed. This paper argues that buxetas de perro is not an error, but a linguistic variant inherited from the archetype: on one side, corpus evidence supports that its meaning was really ‘a strip of dog leather’ (an agujeta); on the other side, it is claimed that encodes /∫/, the well-known xexeo morisco. Conversely, an examination of alcamonios and alcañomias leads to their rejection, since they are probably misprints for alcamonías. Calderon’s scholars should be acquainted with linguistic variation in order not to slip unnecessary emendations, such as those discussed in this paper 

Abstract

The most recent textual studies of Calderon’s plays indicate that Juan de Vera Tassis, the early editor of the partes, had access to authorised witnesses, now missing, that explain the substantial changes present in his editions. The case of Amado y aborrecido reveals that his modus operandi has to undoubtedly have been as follows: he made use of, at least, two basic texts: the Quinta parte and a superior unknown witness with Calderon’s genuine readings. Vera’s edition of 1691 contains a scene of more than fifty lines not included in any other witness. Nevertheless, these lines had already appeared in the text of the 1667 revival of the play that had taken place in Vienna. In this way, Vera’s edition becomes truly valuable as it has readings by Calderon that would not otherwise have survived. 

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract