Res. Nancy Marino, Nancy. Jorge Manrique’s Coplas por la muerte de su padre. A history of the poem and its reception. Colección Támesis．SerieA：Monografías298, Woodbridge：Támesis， 20114pp. In: La Corónica 42.2 (2014), 263-267.

REVIEWS

BlrOmanCedeljuegode〆edre2andElrOmanCedelaconquistadeAntequera’’ （273−291），eXamineshowtheuseofgamesintherOmanCerOinspireandeven motivatetheculturalexchangebetweenChristiansandMuslimsofthe的eenth Century・

ThisspecialvolumewouldnotbecompleteasaworthytributetoAlanDeyermond， Colleagueandmentortoeachofthetwelvecontributors，Withouttheinclusion

byDavidHookofrescuedpageproofbwhichweretheworkingnotestothree lecturesglVenbyDeyermondbetween2003and2004・Hookentitlesit‘‘’EstA tantristepartida’（CondeDirlos，Ⅴ・28a）：maridosypadresausentes”（293−302）・

Additionalclarificationofthenoteshasbeenemended．Theinclusionofthis

articleisespeciallyslgnincanttothisvolumesinceitdemonstratestheevolution oftheresearchprocessthatDeyermondpracticed）mOdeledanddemanded ofhisstudentsandcolleagues・Eachofthesecontributionsiswellconceived・

meticulouslydocumentedwithcoplOuSbibliography・andofgreatinteresttoits readers．Itisoftendi綿culttocritiqueanhomagevolumesincethequalityofits contributionsisfrequentlyinconsistent・Thisisnotthecase・Thus・thissplendid

tomeinandofitselfisaworthytributetothegreatscholarwhoseinnuence fbmenteditscreation．

MicheleS．deCruz−Sまenz，Ph．D． 1砺Ilingft，rd，Pennリ′lVania

Marino，NancyFJorgeManrique’scoplasporlamuertede supadre・Ahistoryofthepoemanditsreception・Coleccibn

Ttimesis．SerieA：Monogrケtas298・Woodbridge：‰mesis，

2011．xi＋214pp・

∧．

Itis not a small task to confront the mass of eruditioIi

historicalcriticism軽重垂塾 over

th叶竺arya亨

five centuries ofinterest（in Manrlque’S

Coplasinaslimvolumeofhardlymorethantwohundredspages・Itisevenmore remarkabletosucceedinthistourdejbrceintwomainaspects：byconveying

263

′芦ヽ     ●

」￣Tr

LA CORONICA 42．2，2014

hugequantitiesofmaterialinatightandstructuredmanner・andbyframlng themassofinfbrmationintoaninterpretativecontext・TheresultallowsMarino

notonlytomakeabalancedpresentationontheextantbibliography・butalso torevealnewdimensionsandoverlookedaspectsoftheCqplas・Inanalyzing Manrlque，smasterpoem，theauthornotonlyhasrenderedaninvaluableservice tostudentsandscholarsalikebypresentingandcontrastingtheirideas，butshe hasaddedtothemalsovaluablenewmaterial． Theauthor，sselectiveprocedureandhersimultaneousreluctancetodecidein favorofalineofinterpretationareclearlystatedattheintroduction：く‘Inthe

impossibilityofabsoluteknowledgeofthemeaningoftheCqplas・thisbook willexploreinsteadthewaysinwhichsuccessivegenerationsofreaders−and

individualreaderwithinthem−engageWiththetext”（IX）・Thepointofview， whichfbllowslooselythehistoryofthereceptionapproach・Showstobeanaptly

wayoftacklingthethornylSSueOfhowandwhythepoemdedicatedtoRodrigo Manriquebecamecanonical・OraSMarinoputsit‘くthemostrecognizablepoem

intheSpanishlanguage”（X）・Asathoroughanalysisofeverypublisheditem onthesubjectmayhaveturnedintoatediousandendlessreview・Marino preferstofbcuson・くsomelon8−1ivingcriticaldiscussions”andselectedliterary L recreations，includingthefamousglosas・Thustheperilsofexhaustivenessare

kktea：。missi。nS，。nthe。neSide，。．eSincethebeginningbeggedfbr，and，On

焦

other，thereadingdoesnot親日ntoasortofannotatedbibliographyora

mererepertoire，Pilingupchunkoverchunkofothertworks・aSeaSilyhappens inthissortofcompilation・

Althoughdividedintofburchapters，threedistinctpartscanbediscernedin thisstudy・ChapterlprovidesthebasicsaboutManrlqueandhispoem・With especialattentiontothehistoricalsettingandtheearlydisseminationofthetext・

Nextchapters，2and theCqplas・ThespacedevotedtotheRenaissanceand andcriticalreactions 富surveylnChronologlCalorderliterary，muSical，Visual

BaroqueerasarenoticeablelongerthanthepagesthatdealwiththeEighteenth Centuryonwards，eVenthoughthelatteroutlinethecriticalreactionsamong

literarycriticsandhistorianswhohaveshapedouractualunderstandingofthe poem．Thereasonseemsmoretolieinthefactthatthelatteraretheobjectof thefinalpartratherthanthatthefbrmer，soplnionsbeinglessknown・Indeed・ Chapter4‘‘shiftingliteraryperceptionsDwrapsupthestudyasitcontraststhe

criticalviewsofcontemporaryscholarsregardingthemostcontroversialissues

264

囲掃圏囲

REVIEWS

suchasitsgenre，meter，StruCture，SOurCeS・theubisunttopIC・andtherewritings thatitorlglnated・

ThestudyopenswithastraightfbrwardpresentationofManrlque’slifと）the circumstances and date ofthe composition ofhis Cpplasandthe doub血l

attributionofthetwostanzaspbstumas，Withreftrencetothemajorprimary and secondarysources・In thesepages the main questions concernmgthe Cqplasaresetout・SuChasthecultureofthepoetandhiseducationinletters，

andtheideologyofthepoeminrelationtotheageandhislineagepolitics・ towhichMarinodoesnotofferanysatisfactoryanswer・Thispartendswitha summaryofVBeltran，sl993conclusionsonthemanuscriptsandearlyprinted editions．Tbthemareaddedsomeveryinterestingsuggestionsontheprobable disseminationoftheCqplasorallyandinpliegossueltos・However・aSMarino herselfmakesclear，thealmostsimultaneitybetweenitscompositionandthe

introductionofprintingwasamajoragentintheCqplassuccess，bothfbrthe numberofeditionsandfbritsgeographicaldissemination・Atthispoint・SOme

dataonpliegossueltoseditionsareconsideredtogetherwithotherreferences

誓書詩誌詩誌書誌器黒革丁㌻ CopylnayamiadoortheallusioninBernalDiazdelCastillo’sHistoriaVerdadera

delaconquistadeNueVaESpana・Solidfbundationsfbrtheauthor’sthesisonthe extraordinaryhistoryoftheCoplas・beyondtheusualremarksontheglosses・ arethuslaidout． Sheerquantity，however，does notexplain therapidresonanceattainedby

Manrlque，spoem・AsChapters2and3show・literary・ideologicalandcritical receptionwenthandinhand・Commentariesinglosses・bothinverseandin prose，Partialrecreationsandmoreorlessclearechoesinliteraryworksin

Spanish，PortugueseorEnglish・COntributedgreatlytoitsfame・Butitwasnotonly

that・TheambiguityoftheCqplasthemselves・theirduality・PrOmPtedinevitably diversereadings，andmadeitpossibleuptothisdaytoputtheemphasisonone aspectoranother・Fromtheverybeglnnlngtherewasadilemma：tOStreSSits universalvaluesorlocatetheminafirmhistoricalcontext・Inthefirstcase，the

poemreadsasamoralrenectionondeathandlife；inthelatter・itistheelegyfbr anoutstandingfigurefromthenobility，eitheraneulogythatjustifiesitsfeudal

議講露謹藷繕 265

LA CORONICA 42．2，2014

enough，thefirstglossesandre−elaborations（orratherimitations）ofManrique’s

poeminhisEathertmemorytookitas“anacceptedvehiclefbrthelamentations ofthedeathofcontemporaryfigures’’（35）・Still，itwasnotanykindoffigure・aS wearespeakingaboutLeonor・SisterofCharlesVorMariaofPortugal，firstwife ofPhillipII；besides，OtherglosseswererelatedtothepatronageoftheZ竜iga

lineage（Cervantes再arahonds）・Alongwithit・thefrequencywithwhichthe CqplaswereprintedwithruandeMena，sLaberintodeFortunaandthePr0Verbios

bytheMarquisdeSantillanamayhintatitsreadingasasortofreglmientode nobles．Infact，thenrststrictlymoralizinginterpretationdidnotappeartillEI

Car函0㍍loss，in1535−1540，anditwasnotuntilGonzalodeFigueroa’sl550 Versionthatthereappearedanexplicitlyreligiousone・Itisnowonderthenthat

Camees，WhoalludedextensivelybutfreelytoManrlqueSPOem・uSeditasacall towakeupPortuguesenobilityfacingthetemptationofdecadency−rePreSented byRodrigo！（90−94；OnOtherPortugueseworkswithasatiricaltwist，See85− 90）．Perhapsduetotheeffbrtofpresentingastrictlyimpartialoutlook・Marino doesnotpointoutthisconnection・nOrfbllowitupintothediscussionaboutits structureorgenreinthefinalchapter・

Chapter3includesalsoasummarylistofmusicaladaptations（78−80），andsome veryinterestingobservationsontheimagesthataccompaniedtheCoplas（80− 85），anaSPeCtOVerlookedsofar・Thedualcharacteroftheworkisrecognizedat firstsightasthecoatsofarmsofthededicatees）Whichfigureprominentlywith engravlngSthatpersonifYdeath・althoughnoexplicitlinkisestablishedbetween bothaspects・ ThehistoryofthecriticalreceptionoftheC‘函asistheobjectofthetwonext chapters・ItstartswiththeEnlightenment，Whenaestheticreasonsprevailed

overitspoliticalslgnincanceor㊨moralrenectionsasliteraryhistorians turnedtothepoemfbrthe“simplicityofitslanguage・OPPOSedtothemuch detestedexcessesoftheprecedingBaroqueera・HereMarinoprovidesalotof infbrmationonitsinclusioninthepioneerhistoriesofTuanAndresVelAzquez， Sarmiento，BoutwerkorTicknoranditsclaimasexcellentpoetrylnarteSdela elocuencia，arteSpOiticasandthelike・Marinorightlypointsoutthatitwasunder thisassumptionthatCerd論importantfirstmoderneditionwasundertaken・ ThenaturalconsequencewasitsintroductionintoanthologleS・anditwasin

thiswaythattheCoplasbecameinstitutionalizedbothasacanonicaltextfbr students（andfuturewriters）andasanobjectofstudyforfbllowinggenerations ofscholars．Awidertheoreticalframeon canonicity，theroleplayedbythe

266

REVIEWS

ilustradosintherevivalofmedievalliterature，andacomparisoncontrasting

thereceptionofManrique，sworkwiththatofMenat・COuldhaveenrichedthese instructivepages・Ontheotherside・the chronologlCalreviewoftwentieth− centurycriticismwillbeusefulonlyfbrstudents，aSmuChofitistakenupon agalninthefinalChapter・ In e純ct，thelast chapter abandons strictly chronologlCalorder・and after

someremarks，takesasitsstartingpointthefirstmodernedition）thatofA・ Cortina（1929），preValentamongstudentsandscholarstilltheseveraleditions

byV Beltran，（1981，1993，1988，1991）culminatedin1993and replaced dennitivelyCortina畠ext・Theissuestreatedallbelongtofbrmalaspects：genre・ meter，StruCture，SOurCeSandtheuseofthe ubisunttheme．Thischaptercan bereadinitselftogetherwiththenrstoneasanintroductiontotheCqplas・

However，itshowsthedifficultyoforganizlngthiskindofstudy）aSitoverlaps

somewhatwiththeprecedingchapter・Maybeitwouldhavehelpedtomakea

morecleardistinctionbetweenliteraryrecreationsandcriticalreceptionfrom theeighteenthcenturyonwards・Forinstance・itisalittlebitoutoforderto

dedicatethefina126pagestoLongfdlow’sl826translation，Whenitsexpected

PlacewouldhavebeeninChapter3・ Allinall，NancyMarinobstudygoesmuchbeyondwhatistobeexpectedfrom anetatdelaquestion・Althoughperhapstooindecisiveoncontroversialissues・ itiscertainlyacriticalreview・WhichfacesthenotsmallchallengeoforganlZlng

therelevantbibliographyonwellknownissuessurroundingtheCqplas・Perhaps someauthorshavebeenglVentOOmuChattentionandsomeofus−nOtWith

atotallydetachedview−WOuldhavelikedMarinotohavetakenmoreinto accountthestudiesprecedingmoderneditions・Astheeditorresponsiblefbrone oftheeditionsmentioned（Madrid，2003）Ifeelasmallfrustrationinnotfinding aclearerstandpointonthepoeticsandpoliticsoftheCqplas，aboutwhichthere areveryrichhintsinMarinospages・Onemustadmire・nOtWithstanding・her generousandnuanceduseofthematerials，anditisonlyEairtovalueherbook

asshehasdonewithothers：insidethelimitsofherpurposeandtheboundaries ofthegenre・Thisbookopensnewpathsfbrfutureresearch，Withnewviewsand

innovativeapproachesonasubjectaboutwhichalmosteverythingseemedtobe alreadysaid・

MariaMorrAs UniγerSitatPompeuFdbra，BarCelona

267

（娃ノ