Likely reasons for Celestina being considered an anonymous work in the 16th and 17th centuries, and Rojas' work since the 19th century

Authors

  • Remedios Prieto de la Iglesia
  • Antonio Sánchez Sánchez-Serrano

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7203/Celestinesca.40.20195

Keywords:

Celestina, «Auctor», Author, Bestower, Editor, Reworking, Composition

Abstract

The interpretation of the paratexts of the Celestina in the light of the definitions of the Diccionario de Autoridades allows to differentiate between an anonymous «auctor» for the Carta and the «autor» identified in the acrostics, as well as to establish an equivalence between the old term «auctor» and the modern term «bestower», and «autor» with the modern «composer», «adapter», «editor». And because the editorial practices of 500 years ago allowed the reproduction of anonymous texts without any acknowledgement of authorship, it was only natural that originally Fernando de Rojas was not considered as the author (that is the creator) of the Celestina, and that this work was considered anonymous. Only the changes in words meaning and other circumstances related to the reception of the Celestina during the 19th century gave rise to an opinion favorable to attribute to Rojas the authorship.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Published

2021-01-16

How to Cite

Prieto de la Iglesia, R., & Sánchez Sánchez-Serrano, A. (2021). Likely reasons for <i>Celestina</i> being considered an anonymous work in the 16th and 17th centuries, and Rojas’ work since the 19th century. Celestinesca, 40, 135–158. https://doi.org/10.7203/Celestinesca.40.20195
Metrics
Views/Downloads
  • Abstract
    561
  • PDF (Español)
    256

Issue

Section

Articles and notes

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.