Los "Lucidarios" españoles by Richard P. Kinkade Review by: Harry F. Williams Hispanic Review, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Jan., 1971), pp. 86-88 Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/471676 . Accessed: 05/01/2015 16:49 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 Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hispanic Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 150.135.137.86 on Mon, 5 Jan 2015 16:49:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
86
Reviews
HR, 39 (1971)
Contribuye esta investigaci6n a la Onomastica haciendo posible, por primera vez, una obra en que se averigua con exactitud la etimologfa, semantica, origen y lugar geografico de unos 8.640 apellidos toponimicos hispanos modernos, sefialando ademas la relaci6n de 5.000 mas con lugares especfficos (p. 572). He cimentado en esta encuesta la base para los siguientes estudios: el paganismo en los apellidos toponimicos modernos; los gentilicios en los apellidos hispanos modernos; top6nimos latino-americanos en los apellidos hispanos modernos; top6nimos extranjeros en apellidos hispanos; los hidr6nimos en apellidos toponfmicos hispanos; el aspecto hagiografico en apellidos toponfmicos hispanos; la dialectologia en los apellidos toponfmicos modernos; los apellidos toponfmicos modernos en antiguos documentos y la flora y fauna en los apellidos toponfmicos hispanos (ibid.). A thoroughly disgraceful dissertation such as Toponimos . . . , as unscientific as it is pretentious, cannot help but tarnish the names of all who were connected with its publication. PETER BOYD-BOWMAN
State University of New York at Buffalo
Los "Lucidarios" espaioles. Estudio y edici6n de Richard P. Kinkade. Editorial Gredos, S. A., Madrid, 1968: 346 pages. To preserve the commentaries of his teacher, Anselm of Canterbury, on the theological writings of Saint Augustine, Gregory the Great, and the other Church Fathers, Honorius Augustodunensis wrote, about 1095, the Latin Elucidarium, a synthesis of the theological thought of its time. Ostensibly to combat heresy, Sancho IV ordered compiled, about 1293, the Spanish Lucidario, one of the numerous European derivatives of the theological treatise, to which are added materials concerning contemporary scientific thought, the union forming a compendium now, in dialog form, of philosophy, science, and popular customs. Few critics or historians have heretofore paid fitting attention to this Hispanic work. Professor Kinkade is its first editor. Forming a bridge between Alfonsine1 compilations and the Spanish prose of the 14th and 15th centuries, this instrument of basic instruction, for the medieval student who wished to know the rudiments of the new scientific knowledge, plus the fundamental questions of theology of greater circulation, provides guide lines for the catechumen unaccustomed to the dangers ever present in the more developed forms of philosophic knowledge. 1 There is no indication of Alfonsine influence on the Lucidario.
This content downloaded from 150.135.137.86 on Mon, 5 Jan 2015 16:49:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Reviews
87
The editor has accomplished with distinction a difficult task. He summarizes briefly the theologic sources traced by Lefevre2 (apostles, prophets, commentaries on sacred works, church fathers-filtered through Adson de Montier-en-Der, Ambrosius, Cassiodorus, Ciprian, Julian of Toledo, Orosius, Tertulian) and then studies himself the scientific sources, insofar as one can determine the codices used by the author of the Lucidario. Kinkade sketches, succinctly but clearly, the new wave of Graeco-Latin erudition which stems mostly from Aristotle, but also in part from Galen, Hippocrates, Pliny, Ptolemy, which is refined by Arabic contributions to astrology, chemistry, magic, medicine, and is integrated into the Christian intellectual world of the Venerable Bede, Isidore of Seville, Vincent of Beauvais, with concomitant modifications by successive scribes. The title adopted by the editor is less desirable than the usual singular form Lucidario. Why did he not discuss the word's etymology? Nachbin proposed: Sanscrit laucitas ("manifiesto, claro") > Lat. lucidus, lucidare ("explicar cuestiones oscuras"). One might wish, in the edition, for information about MS abbreviations, MS filiations, matters chirographic, editorial principles followed, and linguistic analysis, but there is, apparently, a current trend among philologists to omit such items. Still, the edition inspires confidence by its freedom from misprints or other obvious errors3 and by its orderly presentation. With significant variants (well placed after each chapter) from the other four \SS4 known, of the 15th and 16th centuries, the text is based on the 15th century MS BN Madrid 3369. Its readings are minutely5 followed except in cases of error which are rectified, in round or square brackets, on the evident basis of linguistic necessity, good sense, or the weight of MS tradition.6 Wisely, no attempt is made to revise the numerous textual examples of aphaeresis, assimilation, dialectal traits, epenthesis, metathesis, occasional letter or syllable 2
Bibliothequedes ecolesfranfaises d'Atheneset de Rome,CLXXX, 1954. 3Errata or uncorrectedreadings: pp. 13, n. 1 (and p. 326), the BEFAR title is incorrect; 42:27 r. docefor trece;93: 3 semejafor semeeja;125: 9 grandfor grad; 130: 19 sentidosfor sentido;136: 3 tuviesenfor tuiesen;187: 2 omit de (?); 190: last two 11.of variants are defective; 194: 3 los omnesfor lo o.; 194: 14 al fin for en al fin; 219: 18 sus cabegasfor su c.; 285: 18 e el for el el. 4 Fuller descriptions are provided by Nachbin, RFE, XXIII (1936), 26-44; 143-170. 5Comparison of Nachbin's selection (RFE, XXIII, 182) with Kinkade's Chap. I reveals differencesonly of N's frequent use of long i (for K's short i), et (for K's e) and saber (sauer), senor (sennor),omen (omne),thologia (tologia),com (como),compuesto(conpuesto),de esto (desto),que el (quel),fecha (fecho). 6 Strangely, MS E figures in the variants only on pp. 168, 243. Appendices contain two chapters of D not found in A.
This content downloaded from 150.135.137.86 on Mon, 5 Jan 2015 16:49:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Reviews
88
HB, 39 (1971)
loss, despite the disadvantage to the general reader, for the edition is correctly aimed at the specialist.7 HARRY F. WILLIAMS
Florida State University
Art and Meaning in Berceo's "Vida de Santa Oria." By T. Anthony Perry. Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1968: 232 pages. This is an excellent study of Berceo's mystical piece, La Vida de Santa Oria. The book is praiseworthy on all counts: scholarship, lay-out, printing and binding. Mr. Perry studies Berceo's art from a practical stylistic point of view, and amply supports and illustrates all his judgments with an impressive and masterly array of references to texts and traditions that were very much a part of Berceo's world and period. What follows should be considered merely as a series of marginalia offered to the author by this reviewer in the spirit of scholarly cooperation. The author states on page 3, note 6, that since Ms. A (fourteenthcentury, part of the folio Ms. F) is the earliest extant manuscript, it is "perfectly adequate as a basis for a stylistic study." This is a dangerous view, since SOria only survives in the F tradition and a comparison of the two versions of the Milagros, extant in both Q (thirteenth-century) and F shows clearly that enormous linguistic changes, including some misreadings, are present in F. However, the author's approach is eminently free from wild flights of fancy and is so well grounded in his impressive knowledge of medieval rhetorical and doctrinal practice that errors are rare indeed. The major ones are as follows: Page 20-21. Here the author wishes to make a semantic distinction between the learned (h)istoria and the popular estoria. This is unfortunately invalid, since the Q tradition uses istoria constantly, while F mixes this form with estoria. Hence though the distinction may be valid in the language of the F scribe(s), it was not so in Berceo's time, when the word appears to have been culto. Page 25, note 25. The proposed reading razones for raciones (SOria. 55d) changes don G6mez's charity, as was meant, (Cf. SMill. 261d) into mere eloquence. Page 142. The example (e)stdvan marabilladas for a line with rhetorical stress on the first syllable is not sound, since this is a clear case of estar forms in F replacing ser forms in Q (compare estava(n) and sedie(n) in Q / F Milagros 151d, 184a, 247b, 415a, 735d etc.) and the reading 7
Cidente; mentenerse,mermejo, vientos; fizi; almal, augua, contrar,ieugua, mastalto, subryr; fruira,leungas, ninguan, pideras, prayso; dosegunda,mant[ie]nan, monst[r]ar, verd[ad]ero.
View publication stats
This content downloaded from 150.135.137.86 on Mon, 5 Jan 2015 16:49:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
