![Sample our Language & Literature journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5941/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Language-Literature.jpg"})
Notes
1. See Haskell M. Block, ‘Imitation in modern criticism’, in Proceedings of the IVth Congress of the International Comparative Literature Association (Fribourg 1964), ed. François Jost (The Hague and Paris 1966), II, 706: ‘the principle of mimesis itself became almost hopelessly confused with the imitation of literary models.’ See also Bernard Weinberg, ‘L'Imitation au XVIe et XVIIe siècles,’ ibid., II, 703: ‘La nature humaine—la Nature—se trouvait donc quintessenciée dans les oeuvres de ces grands poètes ... A travers l'imitation de ces modèles, on imitait la pure nature.’ For the history of the concept see H. Gmelin, Das Prinzip der Imitatio in den romanischen Literaturen der Renaissance (Erlangen 1932) and F. Ulivi, L’imitazione nella poetica del Rinascimento (Milan 1959), and for the history of Italian poetics, see Marvin T. Herrick, ‘The fusion of Horatian and Aristotelian criticism, 1531–1555’, in Illinois Studies in Language and Literature, XXXII ( 1946), 1–117; A. Buck, Italienische Dichtungslehren vom Mittelalter bis zum Ausgang der Renaissance (Tübingen 1952) ; and B. Weinberg, A History of Literary Criticism in the Italian Renaissance (Chicago 1961). Although no comparable history of Spanish poetics yet exists, see A. García Berrio, Formación de la teoría literaria moderna: la tópica horaciana en Europa (Madrid 1977).
2. ‘The poetics of literary allusion’, Poetics and the Theory of Literature (PTL), I (1976), 108.
3. A good example is the Italian polemic, echoed all over Europe, concerning Ariosto's imitation of both nature and classical poets in the Furioso, later exacerbated by proponents of Tasso and rearguard defenders of Ariosto; see M. Chevalier, L’Arioste en Espagne, 1530–1650 (Bordeaux 1966), 7–60, 283–334.
4. Text ed. Dámaso Alonso, Romance de Angélica y Medoro (Madrid 1962). For its success, see M. Herrero-García, Estimaciones literarias del siglo XVII (Madrid 1930), 162–65; J. B. Avalle-Arce, ‘Tirso y el romance de Angélica y Medoro’, NRFH, II (1948), 275–81; M. Chevalier, Los temas ariostescos en el romancero y en la poesía española del Siglo de Oro (Madrid 1968), 306–09.
5. Ed. cit., prologue, 38. Other studies include D. Alonso, La lengua poética de Góngora, I, 3rd ed. (Madrid 1961), 20–37; Góngora y el ‘Polifemo,’ 5th ed. (Madrid 1967), II, 40–45; E. M. Wilson, ‘On Góngora's “Angélica y Medoro” ’, BHS, XXX (1953), 85–94; Gwynne Edwards, ‘On Góngora's “Angélica y Medoro” ’, in Studies of the Spanish and Portuguese Ballad, ed. N. D. Shergold (London 1972), 73–94.
6. Letter to Boccaccio, Epist. fam. 23:19. See Thomas M. Greene, ‘Petrarch and the humanist hermeneutic’, in Italian Literature: Roots and Branches (Essays in Honor of Thomas Goddard Bergin), ed. G. Rimanelli (New Haven and London 1976), 201–21, for the background and implications of this comparison.
7. See U. Schulz-Buschhaus, ‘Der frühe Góngora und die italienische Lyrik’, RJ, XX (1969), 219–38, and my ‘Imitación y parodia en la poesía de Góngora’, forthcoming in the Actas del VI o Congreso de la Asociación Internacional de Hispanistas (Toronto 1977).
8. La Hermosura de Angélica, con otras diversas Rimas (Madrid, Pedro Madrigal, 1602) ; repr. Barcelona 1604 (twice) ; Madrid 1605; Madrid 1776 (Obras sueltas, II). The modern ed. of F. C. Sainz de Robles in Lope de Vega, Obras escogidas (Madrid 1953), II, 493–612, omits the prefatory pieces and is often inaccurate. I cite from Obras sueltas, II, by Canto and Octave. If Chacón's date of 1602 for Góngora's ballad is correct, the late tasa (November 30) of Lope's volume does not preclude earlier knowledge, since Lope had been trying to get it published since 1598; see H. Rennert and A. Castro, Vida de Lope de Vega, ed. F. Lázaro (Salamanca 1969), 143–49. Since Lope was in Andalusia in 1602 and was not one to conceal work in progress, it is likely that Góngora had access to accounts and copies of at least parts of the poem before it was published.
9. Orlando Furioso (O.F. hereafter), XXX, 16, 11. 3–8:
Quanto, Signore, ad Angelica accada
dopo ch'usci di man del pazzo a tempo;
e come a ritornare in sua contrada
trovasse e buon navilio e miglior tempo,
e de l'India a Medor desse lo scettro,
forse altri cantera con miglior plettro.
Texted. S. Debenedetti and C. Segre (Bologna 1960). SeeG. Fumagalli, La fortuna dell’ ‘Orlando furioso’ in Italia nel secolo XVI (Ferrara 1910); A. Cioranescu, L’Arioste en France: des origines à la fin du XVIII e siècle (Paris 1939); A. Sammut, La fortuna dell’ Ariosto nell’ Inghilterra elisabettiana (Milan 1971); and for Spain, M. Chevalier, L’ Arioste …, cited in note 3, above. For the specific story of Angelica and Medoro, see U. Leo, Angelica ed i ‘migliori plettri’ ((Krefeld 1953); A. d'Amico, L’imitazione ariostesca ne ‘La hermosura de Angélica’ di Lope de Vega (Pistoia 1921), was unavailable to me.
10. See A. Buck, ‘Der Begriff des ‘poeta eruditus’ in der Dichtungstheorie der italienischen Renaissance’, in Die humanistische Tradition in der Romania, ed. Buck (Bad Homburg 1968), 227–42. While the theatres were closed from 1597 to 1599, Lope channelled his efforts into publishing non-dramatic works; La Arcadia appeared in 1598, followed by La Dragontea (1598), El Isidro (1599), and the 1602 volume including the Angélica, the 200 sonnets of the Rimas, and a reprint of La Dragontea. Moreover, since the 1604 edition of the Rimas announces the imminent completion of the Jerusalén conquistada in 16 cantos (printed in 1609 with 20 cantos), he was also probably working on his imitation of Tasso during the same period.
11. Prologue to the 1602 edition, in Lope de Vega, Rimas, ed. G. Diego (Madrid 1963), 48. Lope's pride in his imitation appears in the jocular boast of La Philomena, IIa Parte: ‘En el fin imité quantos Poetas/claros celebra Italia’ (Obras sueltas, II, 462).
12. E. Orozco Díaz, Lope y Góngora frente a frente (Madrid 1973), 98, contrasts Góngora's low profile in this period with Lope's ‘labor de poeta culto, con la que piensa situarse en el primer plano de la vida literaria española.’ The sonnets attributed plausibly to Góngora are ‘Por tu vida, Lopillo, que me borres’, ‘Señor, aquel Dragón de inglés veneno’, ‘Embutiste, Lopillo, a Sabaot’, and ‘Vimo, señora Lopa, su Epopeya’ (Millé, Nos. L, LI, LII, LX), attacking La Arcadia, La Dragontea, the Rimas, and the Jerusalén conquistada. The expected sonnet blasting the Angélica is missing, but later burlesque lists of Lope's works do single it out for ridicule: ‘Hermano Lope, bórrame el soné- … y por ser mora, quemarás a Angé-’ (No. LVI,ll. 1 and 8) and ‘—Aquí del Conde Claros—dijo, y luego/se agregaron a Lope sus secuaces . . . tres monjas con “La Angélica” locuaces’ (No. LXXVII, ll. 1f. and 7).
13. M. Chevalier, L' Arioste …, 355. René Girard, Critique dans un souterrain (Lausanne 1976), 30, stresses the importance of contemporary rivalries as more significant than attempts to overthrow the literary father: ‘Le vrai poisson à noyer n'est presque jamais le père, le rival au passé, l'idole au fond de l'inconscient, mais le rival au présent et au futur …’
14. E. Saccone, Il ‘soggetto’ del ‘furioso’ (Naples 1974), 185. For ballads on Angelica and Medoro, see M. Chevalier, Los temas …, 235–304; of the 26 poems composed on these linked themes before or around 1602, 18 are ballads.
15. ‘Cierta dama cortesana’, 11. 81–84, in Luis de Medina, Flor de varios romances. Novena parte (Madrid 1597; repr. Madrid 1957), 12r°.
16. The Flores de romances contain about 20 ballads based on episodes in Ariosto, most of which are reprinted in the Romancero general (Madrid 1600, 1604), but Miguel de Madrigal's Segunda parte del Romancero general (Valladolid 1605), contains but one; see M. Chevalier, L' Arioste …, 403; Los temas …, 26. Direct imitation of Ariosto seems reserved mainly to burlesque, as in Quevedo's ballad ‘Quitándose está Medoro/del jubón y la camisa’ (ed. Blecua, No. 704) and the long extended heroic burlesque, the ‘Poema heroico de las necedades y locuras de Orlando el Enamorado’ (No. 875), which mocks both Ariosto and his predecessor Boiardo.
17. See M. Chevalier, Los temas …, 306: ‘las escenas de este romance son escenas mudas, como la que reúne en el “Polifemo” Acis y Galatea.’ The apparent exception, ll. 49 f., ‘Enfrénanle de la bella/las tristes piadosas voces’, describe but do not report Angelica's words, and note only their effect.
18. Lope extols the superiority of painting over poetry as more immediate and more intense in effect, for ‘ninguna acción humana imita/tamo a Naturaleza poderosa’ (XIII, 31). Elsewhere, he elaborates:
Bien es verdad que llaman la poesía
pintura que habla, y llaman la pintura
muda poesía que exceder porfía
lo que la viva voz mostrar procura;
pero para mover la fantasía
con más velocidad y más blandura,
venciera a Homero Apeles porque, en suma,
retrata el alma la divina pluma. (V, 7)
The poem's pictorial language, however, and the equation between pen and brush make this encomium of painting part and parcel of Lope's general rhetorical strategy of presenting his poem ut pictura poiesis, e.g., when Zerdano unveils Angelica:
y viendo su pintura tan perfeta,
haciendo reverencias la respeta …
en tratando del retablo de la cara,
no hay hombre que a la imagen reverencie. (XVI, 23; 25)
19. Prologue to the 1602 ed., in G. Diego, ed. cit., 45. Of many examples in the prefatory poems, let the followingsonnet by one Mateo Pérez de Cárdenas suffice:
Angélica la bella resucita,
y Amor con su hermosura a todos ciega:
Marte la espada esgrime, el hasta juega,
porque ella a Venus la corona quita.
Apolo pone en duda en si está escrita,
o pintada su historia, aunque no niega,
que escribe con pincel Lope de Vega,
y con la pluma a la pintura imita.
Si habla, cuando pinta, cuando escribe
con letras al retrato da colores
de Angélica, que es gloria de su canto.
Y tan hermosa en su memoria vive,
que el mundo vuelve a henchir de armas y amores,
que con tanta hermosura pudo tanto. (Obras sueltas, II, xxii)
20. See J. Millé y Giménez, Sobre la génesis del ‘Quijote’ (Barcelona 1930), 41–45, 149–57; E. Orozco Díaz, Lope y Góngora …, 30–39; and my Góngora’s Parodies of Literary Convention, Diss. Yale University 1976, I, 267–317.
21. R. Jakobson, ‘Linguistics and poetics’, in Style in Language, ed. T. A. Sebeok (Cambridge, Mass. 1960), 370 f.
22. Della imitatione poetica (Venice 1560; repr. Munich 1969), I, 17 f.
23. See R. Jammes, ‘Notes sur “La fábula de Píramo y Tisbe” de Góngora’, Les Langues Néo-Latines, No. 156 ( 1961 ), 39: ‘on retrouve dans le romance le récit d’ Ovide … puisqu'il faut à tout moment le lire en filigrane pour comprendre le récit de Góngora … Le romance d'Angélique et de Médor … relève de la même technique.’ An example is O.F., XIX, 24—‘Del palafreno Angelica giú scese,/e scendere il pastor seco fece anche’—which Góngora separates and translates twice, for Angelica at 1. 17 as ‘Del palafrén se derriba’, and for the shepherd at 1. 57 as ‘Humilde se apea el villano’. Góngora's keen attention to social difference appears in the contrast of derribarse, the ‘toppling’ of a princess with the peasant's lowly apearse.
24. See R. W. Lee, Names on Trees: Ariosto into Art (Princeton 1977).
25. For Góngora's usage, see Millé ed., Nos. 14, 72, 85, 218, 312, 401, and especially 258 (‘en pastoral albergue mal cubierto/piedad halló …’) and 268 (‘blancas palmas si el Tajo tiene alguna,/cubren su pastoral albergue ahora’); the shipwrecked pilgrim's hymn to the ‘bienaventurado albergue’ which shelters him is in Sol. I a , 11. 94–135. Polifemo's cave is called both ‘bárbara choza’ and ‘albergue umbrío’ in Pol., 44.
26. Le fonti dell' ‘ Orlando furioso’ (Florence 1900), 392.
27. For Góngora's attitude toward pastoral, see R. Jammes, Études sur l’oeuvre poétique de Don Luis de Góngora y Argole (Bordeaux 1967), 398–459, and my dissertation, I, 171 –255. See T. R. Hart, ‘The pilgrim's rôle in the first “Solitude” ’, MLN, XCII (1977), 214–26, for a striking reinterpretation of the meaning of pastoral in the Soledad primera.
28. Recent studies of the ideology of pastoral include Werner Krauss, ‘Localización y desplazamiento en la novela pastoril española’, Actas del I° Congreso de la Asociación Internacional de Hispanistas (Nijmegen 1967), 363–69; Paul Alpers, ‘The eclogue tradition and the nature of pastoral’, CE, XXXIV (1972), 352–71; and E. Saccone, ‘L’ Arcadia: storia e delineamento d'una struttura’, in Il ‘soggetto’ …, 9–64.
29. See D. Alonso, Góngora y el ‘Polifemo’, II, 42 f., who explains this reduction as an aspect of the poem's ‘fragmentismo’, drawing on the Spanish ballad-tradition in agreement with E. M. Wilson, 93. While not disagreeing with his statement that ‘el episodio . . . arrancado del larguísimo poema, cobra así toda la belleza que en potencia tenía’, I wish to account for how Góngora produces the effect of beauty in his imitation.
30. Les Mots et les choses (Paris 1966), 56.
31. See M. Chevalier, Los temas …, Nos. 96ab, 74–78, 80–81, and 93; Wilson, 85 f, points out the difference in time-sequence, but draws no conclusions for the poem as a whole.
32. Attilio Momigliano, Saggio su l' ‘Orlando furioso’ (Bari 1959), 51.
33. Met. x. 519–59; 705–39. Just as Venus must suffer the pangs of love as punishment for her haughty treatment of Myrrha, Angelica, impervious to others’ desire for her, is ambushed by Love to punish her ‘arrogance’ (O.F., XIX, 19). Pio Rajna, 393, note 2, remarks that in her love for the humble but beautiful youth, Angelica resembles ‘Venere, che non sa mai staccarsi dal suo Adone’.
34. ‘Curándole las heridas’, ll. 21–24, in M. Chevalier, Los temas …, No. 77.
35. Lee, 98, note 67, corrects an ‘Angelica and Medoro’ by Giulio Romano as a ‘Venus and Adonis’, and on p. 58, he wavers between both pairs in deciding whether Boucher painted Ariosto's subject or not; pp. 93 f, note 48, includes the confusion between Ariosto's and Tasso's couples in specific cases.
36. A Hellenism in Latin, thalamus is usually transferred from its original sense as ‘bed-chamber’ to ‘marriage-bed’; see Aen. iv. 18, 550; vii. 253, 388; viii. 372; ix. 594; Met. iii. 267; x. 571. Góngora also tends to save the word for dignified occasions, which however do not exclude frank sensuality, e.g.:
Cuantas produce Pafo, engendra Gnido,
negras violas, blancos alhelíes,
llueven sobre el que Amor quiere que sea
tálamo de Acis y de Galatea. (Pol., 11. 333–36)
37. In Ovid's version, the boar is but a boar; a variant, well known in the mythographic tradition, has it that the jealous Mars transforms himself into the boar in order to avenge himself on Adonis; see Servius on Virgil Ecl. x. 18; Herrera on Garcilaso, Egl. III a , 173–92. Wilson, 89, notes the ominous resonance of the allusion: ‘The reference to the Mars-Adonis-Venus myth keeps two things before our minds: the background of war and the threat of the raging Orlando who will wish to do to Medoro what Mars did to Adonis.’ Góngora's reading of the dying Medoro as Adonis is, of course, reinforced by the antonomasia Mars = war; since Medoro has been mortally wounded in warfare, he isalready the victim of ‘Mars’.
38. Theocritus xv, ‘The women at the Adonia’ and Bion I, ‘The lament for Adonis’; the genre is of ritual origin and reproduces or imitates the marriage-hymn ana tuneral lament sung at the yearly Adonia. Until Estienne's edition (1566), Bion's lament was generally attributed to Theocritus. Góngora probably knew these texts in Latin translation; see C. Gallavotti, Theocritus quique feruntur bucolici graeci (Rome 1946), ‘de veteribus editionibus’, 306–19.
39. For a recent study of Shakespeare's puzzling version of an aggressive Venus and passive Adonis, see S. Clark Hulse, ‘Shakespeare's myth of Venus and Adonis’, PMLA, XCIII (1978), 95–105.
40. Theocritus xv. 128: ‘podópa??s’, probably a ritual epithet; Bion I. 64–66, both in The Greek Bucolic Poets, ed. and trans. J. M. Edmonds (Cambridge, Mass. and London 1950), 193 and 391. Ovid's account mentions only the anemone, ‘flos de sanguine concolor’ (x. 735). The locus classicus in Spanish literature, which every educated Spaniard would have known, is Garcilaso's Egloga tercera, 11. 183 f.:
las rosas blancas por allí sembradas
tornaba con su sangre coloradas.
See Herrera ad loc.
41. Hulse, 95; cf. Herrera, ad loc. cit., in Garcilaso dela Vega y sus comentaristas, ed. A. Gallego Morell (Granada 1966), 565: ‘La muerte de éste en la flor de su juventud significa el deleite y gozos de la tierra y todo lo que nos agrada en esta vida, ser momentáneo y que nos huye.’
42. Les Mots et les choses, 49.
43. See R. Jammes, Études …, 546, note 31 : ‘la tradition gréco-latine et l'influence de l'Arioste se conjuguent dans la même exultation de l'amour.’ The image of ‘Cupidillos’, for instance, who swarm around the hut (11. 81–84) recalls both the joyful swarm of bees that celebrates Venus’ union with Anchises on Mount Ida (cf. Theocritus 1. 105 ff., which also mentions Adonis) and the sorrowing attendance of her Erotes, who flit aimlessly about her bower in Bion's lament (i. 59), as well as the groups of putti adorning many of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century paintings of the subject (see Lee, 20, 37, 46, 50, 57, 64). In an emblematic conceit (11. 85–92), ‘Love’ drives away ‘Envy’ in terms that echo Ovid's hyperbole for Adonis’ beauty (‘laudaret faciem Livor quoque’, x. 515) and Orlando's jealous conjectures (l. 91, ‘porque el caso no se infame’, adapts O.F., XXIII, 114, ‘ … pensa come … voglia alcun così infamare il nome/de la sua donna’). The ‘knots’ that Love ties in Envy's asp (11. 85 f.) also repeat Orlando's jealousy, for he finds ‘Angelica e Medor con cento nodi/legati insieme …’ (O.F., XXIII, 103; cf. XIX, 36). D. Alonso, ed. cit., 33 f., points out other reminiscences of Ariosto and classical tradition in 11. 87 f. and 97–100.
44. Ed. cit., 26.
45. Góngora y el ‘Polifemo’, II, 44; Don Quijote, who should know, calls her ‘una doncella destraída, andariega y algo antojadiza’ (Part II, Ch. 1).
46. For example:
… como describir de todo punto
de una mujer las bellas perfecciones
ha sido de mis versos el asunto,
es fuerza aprovechar las ocasiones,
para que del angélico trasunto
se esfuercen los colores necesarios;
que todo se conoce por contrarios. (III, 39; note again Lope's recourse to pictorial language.)
47. Lee, 30.
48. Orlando's progress from fides ex auditu to material certainty is clearly indicated in O.F., XXIII, 120–21:
All'ultimo l'istoria si ridusse,
che ‘1 pastor fe’ portar la gemma inante,
ch'alla sua dipartenza, per mercede
del buono albergo, Angelica gli diede.
Questa conclusion fu la secure
che ‘1 capo a un colpo gli levò dal collo.
49. Names on Trees, 99, note 73.
50. Wilson, 91.
51. The first printed version, in the Vicuña ed. (Madrid 1627), lacks 11. 130–33 of the enumeration, from Chacón; see D. Alonso, ed. cit., 28: ‘si Chacón representa la última mano, hay que reconocer que en este caso Góngora tendió a complicar lo que antes había hecho más sencillo.’ Whether early or late, the longer list certainly makes the conclusion's critical point more effectively.
52. The sequence of ll. 129 f. is especially interesting: ‘choza’ is the tenor to which the vehicle ‘pastoral albergue’ can be reduced; ‘tálamo y lecho’ conjoins vehicle and tenor as if equivalent; and ‘cortesanos labradores’ fuses both in a single syntagm as coordinate but opposing analogues. The metaphorical list is in order of ascending poetic effort, so to speak; the métonymic list is chaotic by itself, since the source of cohesion, the poetic subject, is missing.
53. Some examples of enumeration among many:
Ò.F.: Liete piante, verdi erbe, limpide acque … etc. (XXIII, 108: Medoro's poem).
che rami e ceppi e tronchi e sassi e zolle
non cessó di gittar ne le bell'onde (XXIII, 131, Orlando's madness).
ch'a pugni, ad urti, a morsi, a graffi, a calci,
cavalli e buoi rompe, fraccassa e strugge (XXIV, 7, Orlando's madness).
Ballads: Tiernas plantas, aguas dulces,
bella cueva, alegre prado (Chevalier, Los temas …, No. 73).
que a coces y puntapiés,
bocados, puños y palos,
abre, rompe y despedaça
bueyes, yeguas y cavallos (No. 83).
Lope: a cuál destripa, a cuál quebranta a coces,
a cuál deshace con los dientes fieros … etc. (XVII, 29).
rompe, quiebra, quebranta, corta y hiende
pinos, naranjos, olmos y laureles … etc. (XVII, 49).
54. In the Angélica, for example: ‘y el Tajo de esta vega [os ofrezca] humilde un lirio,/muestra de su pobreza y mi deseo’ (I, 7). The laudatory poems of Lope's friends cannot resist praising ‘vuestra Vega’, ‘dichosa Vega’, ‘fértil Vega’, ‘famosa Vega’, etc. (Obras sueltas, II, xvi–xvii). Attacking La Dragontea, Góngora calls it ‘aquel Dragón . . . criado entre las flores de la Vega’ (Millé, No. LI), and a later broadside at Lope's school begins:
Patos de la aguachirle castellana,
que de su rudo origen fácil riega,
y tal vez inunda nuestra Vega,
con razón Vega por lo siempre llana. (No. LXXVI)
Since the term vegas occurs only in the longer version, Góngora may have wished to make his malice toward Lope more explicit by putting his name on the list.
55. For example:
Entre los dulces testigos
de la gloria de Medoro (Chevalier, Los temas …, No. 95).
destos árboles, testigos
de tus glorias y las mías (No. 78).
As an example of countless others, a pastoral ballad of Lope, ‘Enamorado y celoso’ (Romancero general [Madrid 1604], 13a Parte, 449):
Sed testigos de mis males,
árboles, plantas y peces,
para que digáis a voces
mis desdichas inclementes (ll. 33–36).
56. The conventional testigos would also be metrically acceptable.
57. Derived from Low Latin contestis, ‘una cum aliis eiusdem rei testis’ (Du Cange, s.v.), it was introduced early into Spanish and Italian vernacular codifications. See Nueva Enciclopedia Jurídica, ed. C.-E. Mascareñas (Barcelona 1952), s. v.: ¡judicial proof required ‘dos testigos, contestes, y mayores de toda excepción; que fueran presenciales, concordantes en la persona, hecho o caso, tiempo y lugar, y sin tacha legal alguna’ (paraphrase of Partida III, ley 32, título XVI). Cf. P. Boyd-Bowman, Léxico hispanoamericano del siglo XVI (London 1971), s.v.: ‘testigos … solos y singulares, no contestes, y que no dan razón en sus dichos’; ‘los dichos testigos … no eran contestes, ni decían la verdad’.
58. Opere (ed. Trieste 1859), II, 691, quoted and trans. by J. E. Spingarn, A History of Literary Criticism in the Renaissance (1899; repr. New York 1963), 205.
59. See Giuseppe Mazzotta, ‘The Decameron: the marginality of literature’, UTQ, XLII (1973), 64–81.
60. See my ‘Imitación y parodia …’ , cited in note 7, above, and my dissertation, II, 526–649.