Las Consideraciones sobre el Testamento Nuevo atribuidas a Quevedo: identificación de la obra y autoría
Loading...
Identifiers
ISSN: 0185-0121
E-ISSN: 2448-6558
Publication date
Authors
Advisors
Tutors
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Colegio de México
Abstract
Este artículo propone reconsiderar la identificación y autoría de las Consideraciones sobre el Testamento Nuevo atribuidas a Quevedo. Desde la edición de Astrana se asume que la obra perdida así titulada es la que configuró con textos de un manuscrito, supuesto testimonio único. Un estudio del códice revela que la edición se aparta de su texto base con dos manipulaciones: añade el título de la obra perdida y configura una obra única, fundiendo textos independientes. El análisis abarca el contenido y las relaciones con géneros de la oratoria sagrada, así como el estilo. Se concluyen la inexistencia de argumentos textuales fehacientes para asignar a los textos el título de la obra perdida y la atribución insegura
This paper focuses on the identity and authorship of the Consideraciones sobre el Testamento Nuevo attributed to Quevedo. Ever since Astrana’s edition, scholars have accepted that the lost work is the same as that which Astrana put together, using texts taken from a manuscript thought to be the only testimony. A detailed study of the codex reveals that Astrana manipulated the manuscript in two ways: he gave it the title of the lost work and he created a single work by joining separate texts together. The analysis addresses the content of the work, its relationship to the genres of sacred oratory, and the style. The paper concludes that there is no convincing textual evidence to link the text of the manuscript with the lost work, and also puts in doubt its attribution to Quevedo
This paper focuses on the identity and authorship of the Consideraciones sobre el Testamento Nuevo attributed to Quevedo. Ever since Astrana’s edition, scholars have accepted that the lost work is the same as that which Astrana put together, using texts taken from a manuscript thought to be the only testimony. A detailed study of the codex reveals that Astrana manipulated the manuscript in two ways: he gave it the title of the lost work and he created a single work by joining separate texts together. The analysis addresses the content of the work, its relationship to the genres of sacred oratory, and the style. The paper concludes that there is no convincing textual evidence to link the text of the manuscript with the lost work, and also puts in doubt its attribution to Quevedo
Description
Bibliographic citation
Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica (NRFH ), LXVII, 2019, núm. 2, 503-543; DOI: 10.24201/nrfh.v67i2.3528
Relation
Has part
Has version
Is based on
Is part of
Is referenced by
Is version of
Requires
Publisher version
http://dx.doi.org/10.24201/nrfh.v67i2.3528Sponsors
Este artículo es resultado del proyecto de investigación “Edición crítica y anotada de la obra en prosa de Quevedo, IX” (MINECO, Excelencia 2015, FFI2015-64389-P; AEI/FEDER, UE)
Rights
Copyright (c) 2019 Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica (NRFH). Esta obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional








