Boethius, Villena and Juan de Mena
1978; Liverpool University Press; Volume: 55; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/1475382782000355189
ISSN1469-3550
Autores Tópico(s)Libraries, Manuscripts, and Books
ResumoClick to increase image sizeClick to decrease image sizeBSS Subject Index: BOETHIUS/BOECIO [ANICIUS MANLIUS SEVERINUS BOETHIUS](c.475–c.526)DOZE TRABAJOS DE HÉRCULES, LOS [E. DE VILLENA]MENA, JUAN DE (1411–1456)VILLENA, ENRIQUE DE (1384–1434) Notes 1. Juan de Mena, El laberinto de Fortuna, edited by José Manuel Blecua (Madrid 1943), coplas 126–28; Prof. Blecua comments on Mena's possible acquaintance with Villena in his introduction, p. xii. See also M. R. Lida de Malkiel, Juan de Mena, poeta del prerrenacimiento español (Mexico 1950), 63, and Florence Street, ‘La vida de Juan de Mena’, BHi, LV (1953), 149–73 (pp. 171–72). 2. Derek C. Carr, ‘Los doze trabajos de Hércules, fuente posible del Laberinto de Juan de Mena’, HR, XLI (1973), 417–20 (p. 418). 3. José A. Pascual [Rodríguez], ‘Los doze trabajos de Hércules, fuente de algunas glosas a la Coronación de Juan de Mena’, FiM, XII (1973), 89–103 (p. 90); I assume this to be identical with the study by ‘A. Pascual Rodríguez’ announced as forthcoming in a postscript to Carr's article (p. 420). 4. Enrique de Villena, Los doze trabajos de Hércules, edited by Margherita Morreale (Madrid 1958) ; all references are to this edition, but punctuation and orthography have been modified in quotations. In the text of the work it is twice stated to have been written in 1417 (pp. 3 and 141); the Laberinto was presented to Juan II in February, 1444. 5. Pascual also comments on these lines (pp. 101–03), but makes rather heavy weather of them. Surely the simple reason for including precisely these two Labours from a well-known list, whether it was Villena's or Boethius's, is that none of the others really involve hunting as practised in fifteenth-century Castile. 6. Hernán Núñez, [Glosa sobre las Trescientas] in the edition of the Laberinto printed by Johannes Pegnizer with Magno and Thomas, ‘compañeros alemanes’ (Seville, August 1499), fols. 49v–50. The same gloss is found in the revised edition printed by Juan Varela (Granada 1505), fol. 35c. The comments of Francisco Sánchez el Brocense in his gloss on the Laberinto (Salamanca 1582), are reproduced by Carr, pp. 418–19, and in the footnotes to Blecua's edition, pp. 39–40. 7. See, for example, M. R. Lida de Malkiel, op. cit., 23–29, and Florence Street, ‘The allegory of Fortune and the imitation of Dante in the Laberinto and Coronaçion of Juan de Mena’, HR, XXIII (1965), 1–11 (pp. 3–4). 8. A good example of such confusion, independent of the De Consolatione, is Vatican Mythographer I, who gives this account of the Harpies: ‘Alcinous, Phaeacum rex, laborabat ab Harpyiis. Ad quem Hercules veniens, quum hoc agnovisset, praestolatus est earum adventum, ad mensam solita more venientium; quas vulneratas reppulit a regno. Has Ovidius Stymphalidas vocat’, Scriptores rerum mythicarum latini thres Romae nuper reperti, edited by G. Bode (Celle 1834, reprinted Hildesheim 1968), I, 20. 9. See Howard R. Patch, The Tradition of Boethius (New York 1935), and, for the commentaries especially, Pierre Courcelle, La Consolation de Philosophie dans la tradition littéraire (Paris 1967); regrettably, neither study gives much information on Boethius's fortunes in Spain. 10. On Trevet's commentary, see Courcelle, op cit., 318–19 and 412–13. References in the text are to Bayerische Stadtsbibliothek, Munich, cod. lat. 348, as transcribed by F. W. Schönstein in 1929; I am indebted to Prof. H. Meier for a photocopy of relevant passages of the transcription, which I have collated with the text of El Escorial MS f-j-3, finding no significant variants. 11. [Enrique de Villena], ‘Tres tratados. I. Tratado de la consolación [transcribed by J. Soler], RHi, XLI (1917), 110–82 (p. 124); I owe the reference to Mr G. R. Ashton. Having been unable to consult the manuscript (Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid, MS 6599), I cannot say whether ‘Tranet’ is a scribal error in the original or a faulty transcription of ‘Trauet’. The Juan Fernández de Valera to whom the Tratado de la consolaçion is dedicated was also the instigator of the Castilian version of the Doze trabajos 12. Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid, MS 17975, fol. 135; See R. Santiago Lacuesta, ‘Sobre los manuscritos y la traducción de la Eneida de Virgilio hecha por Enrique de Villena’, FiM, XI ( 1971), 297–311, on the reliability of the text in this copy. 13. See M. Schiff, La Bibliothèque du Marquis de Santillane (Paris 1905), 176–86. The findings of a recent investigation by Mr G. R. Ashton have not yet been published. 14. See Schiff, op. cit., 181–83, for details. 15. Pedro de Valladolid's version, now Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid, MS 10193 (formerly Ii—30), is described by Schiff, op. cit., 179–80, who fails to connect the work with the Saplana-Ginebreda text. 16. Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid, MS 9160 (formerly Bb-61), fol. Il ; the preceding incipit and index of chapter–rubrics are in another hand. Other texts belonging to this group are to be found in El Escorial MS h-111–16, and the Biblioteca Menéndez Pelayo, Santander; see Schiff, op. cit., 183–84, where an incorrect call-number is given for the El Escorial manuscript. 17. Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid, MSS 174, 10220 (formerly Ii-32) and 13274. MS 10220 is described by Schiff, op. cit., 176–79, with a transcription of both Ruy López Dávalos and Pero López de Ayala's letters. Schiffdoes not mention the other MSS; MS 13274 was identified as a member of this group for me by Mr G. R. Ashton in a private letter (8 February 1972). 18. J. Amador de los Ríos, Obras de D. Iñigo López de Mendoza, Marqués de Santillana (Madrid 1852), 597. Fernán Pérez de Guzmán certainly appears to attribute a translation to his uncle: ‘Por causa del, son conoçidos algunos libros en Castilla que antes non lo eran, ansí como … el Boeçio’, Generaciones y semblanzas, edited by R. B. Tate (London 1965), 15. 19. I first put forward this argument in a review of Dr Morreale's edition, VR, XVIII (1960), 403–04. 20. The switch from Busiris to Diomedes in the Castilian printed version of Saplana-Ginebreda is puzzling; Pedro de Valladolid preserves the identification with Busiris, MS 10193, fol. 70a . 21. Boecio de consolacion, traduzido y comentado por el Padre Fray Agustin López (Valladolid 1604): ‘En la sylva Nemea avia un fiero leon que asolava la tierra. Matolo Hercules, y quitole la piel. Guarnecio de oro los dientes y las uñas: y traya despues la piel adereçada por armas y ornato’ (p. 297). However, in his prologue López mentions ‘una traduccion antigua de los libros de Boecio en nuestro castellano’ (fol.¶¶5 ) which had come his way; a brief passage he quotes is sufficient to identify this as the text found in MS 10220, or one closely related to it, but not that of MS 174, which is clearly corrupt at the relevant point. 22. The matter is discussed in the introduction to the edition of Los doze trabajos de Hercules which I am currently preparing. 23. Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid, MS 17975, fol. 135. 24. Juan de Mena, La coronaçion (¿Toulouse 1489?, in facsimile), Incunables Poéticos Castellanos X (Valencia 1964); all quotations are taken from this edition, after correction of some of the more blatant of the many printing errors. For the date of the poem, see Inez Macdonald, ‘The Coronaçión of Juan de Mena: poem and commentary’, HR, VII (1939), 125–44 (p. 129). The textual similarities discussed here were pointed out in my Hercules in Spanish Literature before 1700, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (Cambridge 1962), 398. 25. Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid, MS 17975, fols 134v–135. The passage concerning Phineus reads: ‘estas yslas … fueron señoreadas del rey Fyneu, el qual ovo una muger llamada Çeleno, e ovo della dos fijas; ha la una dizian Aelo, e ha la otra Açipite, e tenia fijos de otra muger’ (fol. 134 v ). 26. See Pascual, op. cit., 91–95, for the texts of passages from Villena's istoria nuda and declaraçion and Mena's narrative and moralidad et aplicaçion; the references to sources are omitted from the texts he reproduces. 27. As it appears in MS 10220, the gloss on Ixion is no more than: ‘Yxion fue uno delos gigantes, el qual quiso yazer con Juno, y ella entrepuso una de sus donzellas; otros dizen que una nuve de su figura. Donde resçebida la simiente se engendraron los Çentauros. E por este pecado le dieron los dioses tal pena que, puesta su cabeça en una rueda, todo tiempo fuesse movido muy apriessa en derredor’ (fol. 72v). 28. Pascual, op. cit., 96. 29. Mena's use of Benvenuto de Imola is discussed by Florence Street, ‘The allegory of Fortune …’,6, and in more detail by C.R.Post, ‘The sources of Juan de Mena’, RR, III (1912), 223–79 (pp. 261, 268–69). 30. The four excerpts are: (a) Vatican Mythographer III, in Scriptores rerum mythicarum (see n. 8 above), I, 187; (b) Giovanni di Virgilio's gloss on the Metamorphoses, El Escorial MS g-III-7, fol. 196v; (c) Servius's gloss on Aeneid VI, 395; (d Fulgentius, Mitologiarum libri tres, I, vi. 31. ‘Pero hay un testimonio más en La coronación en clara polémica con Los doze trabajos. Villena había escrito … que Hércules sacó al Can ceruero “fuera de la escura morada …”. Mena se enfrenta con esta opinión y con Virgilio cuando se refiere a Cerbero’, Pascual, op. cit., 100; ‘¿No se tratará de que en el texto que ha servido de base a las ediciones de La coronación (o a algunas de ellas) haya intervenido un corrector? El habría suprimido las alusiones a Hércules y suyos serían los dos añadidos siguientes: el fragmento … en el que se niega la paternidad de Hércules en la victoria contra las Arpías, y ese sencillo final “esto es fábula” con que se cierra el pasaje… del Cancerbero… Sería entonces el corrector y no Mena quien detentaría unas opiniones mitológicas menos ingenuas que las de don Enrique de Aragón y el Marqués de Santillana’, idem, 103. 32. The text of MS 174 has been preferred to that of MS 10220 (fol. 71v) in this instance, as being more detailed and roughly twice as long, although the glosses immediately following (on Calliope, Cerberus, the Furies, Ixion, Tantalus, Tityos and Minos) are virtually identical in the two texts. 33. The portion omitted from the quotation corresponds to a passage clearly derived from Metamorphoses X, 1–85, although with several details from some other source or Mena's own imagination; whatever the other source may be, it is not Alfonso X's General Estoria, II, ccx-ccxv, which follows Ovid's text.
Referência(s)