期刊名称：ANALES DE LA LITERATURA ESPANOLA CONTEMPORANEA
 期刊简介(About the journal)
投稿须知(Instructions to Authors)
About the journal
Bases de Datos : Se presentan las bases de datos internacionales en las que la revista este recogida. Se ha considerado la presencia en bases de datos cuando no es ocasional. Pinchando en cada una de las bases de datos que recogen la revista, se puede acceder a la información disponible sobre esas bases de datos: productor, distribuidor, cobertura temporal, temática y de tipos de documentos, URL y criterios de selección de las revistas para ser incluidas.
Índice Valoración A+B: Valoración de la revista en función de su contenido científico, a juicio del profesorado universitario y personal investigador del área: Puntuación máxima alcanzable: 100 (ver en Metodología).
Índice Impacto Medio (1999-2003): No se ha obtenido el índice de impacto medio (IIM) de las revistas que por su vida editorial no han podido aparecer al menos en cuatro de los cinco índices anuales, en estos casos se muestran los valores de los índices de impacto anuales que se hayan podido obtener. Tampoco tienen IIM las revistas citadas para las que no se pudo calcular el índice de impacto anual por no disponer de los datos de publicación; en estos casos aparece no se pudo calculare Para obtener esta información solo hay que pinchar en  .
Criterios Latindex: Los criterios de calidad editorial definidos por el sistema LATINDEX son 33. Para estar en el Catálogo es necesario cumplir al menos 25.
Evaluadores Externos: Se entiende que una revista cumple este parámetro cuando sistemáticamente los originales son informados por expertos externos a la entidad editora de la revista, antes de sen aceptados por el Consejo de Redacción.
Cumple Periodicidad: Se acepta que una revista cumple la periodicidad declarada cuando sus ejemplares se editan con un plazo que no supere el doble del anunciado: una revista trimestral cumpliria si el fascículo del primer trimestre se publicara a lo largo del segundo trimestre, etc.
Apertura exterior del Consejo Editorial o de Redacción: se ha considerado que las revistas cumplen con este criterio cuando al menos un tercio (33 %) de los miembros de su Consejo Editorial pertenece a instituciones diferentes a la entidad que edita la revista.
Apertura exterior de los autores: Este criterio se estima cumplido si, contabilizadas todas las contribuciones publicadas a lo largo de un año, al menos el 50% de ellas son de autores cuyas instituciones de trabajo son ajenas a la entidad editora de la revista.
Fecha de actualización: se hace constar la fecha en que han sido revisados los datos a partir del último fascículo editado por la revista.
Instructions to Authors
Published in Anales de la Literatura
Española Contemporánea, 8 (1983), 228?0.
Federico García Lorca. Poeta en Nueva York, Tierra y luna.
Edición critica de Eutimio Martín. Barcelona: Ariel, 1981. 333 pp.
A critical, "official" edition of Lorca’s works has been in the
air for many years now. This volume, according to Marie Laffranque's
"Presentation" is its first product. The editor is one of the
escogidos who has been allowed access to a portion of the Lorca
archives. What is the result, and what does it tell us about this
highly desirable project?
The first thing we can expect from any editor is accuracy. I
could not check the poems Martin has edited from the manuscripts,
since I only have access to none-too-legible copies of
copies of those manuscripts. But I did examine how he has
handled texts edited from printed sources. I collated the Caballo
verde para la poesía text of "Nocturno del hueco" which he
follows (p. 256), and found eight unannotated variants of punctuation,
eight of accentuation, and one of verse spacing. (Martin
routinely annotates punctuation and verse spacing variants.) And
to check his "aparato crítico" which claims to give all variant
readings (p. 110, but see p. 128), I collated the Norton text of
"Fábula y rueda de los tres amigos" with Martin's footnotes, and
found twenty-one unannotated variants of punctuation, six of
capitalization, ten of verse spacing, and two which may fairly be
described as gordos (he does not note that the word "abandonados" is found in Norton after verse 13, and that the words "en las
maletas nuevas" are missing from line 21).
At that point I stopped collating. I did note, however, while
studying the volume further, some other deficiencies. When
Martin's base manuscript is confusing, he simply omits the verses
in question (p. 123). He does not include the fact that in Séneca
the subtitle of "Ciudad sin sueño" is "Nocturno del Brookling
Bridge" The dedication of Lorca's book is buried in the introduction
(p. 66). The section titles, dedications, and verses of Cernuda
and Aleixandre which are found in both Norton and Séneca are
reproduced nowhere in Martin's book. Even if he believes that all
of these items were the invention of Bergamín and/or Prados,
which seems to me most unlikely (see Miguel García-Posada,
Lorca: interpretación de "Poeta en Nueva York" [Madrid: Akal,
1981], p. 27), the failure to include them in a critical apparatus is
unacceptable.
Another thing we may fairly ask of an editor is that he choose
his copy-texts with care, and explain his rationale. Martin does tell
us that the latest datable text within the author's lifetime is to be
preferred (p. 110); empirically we can see that the editor also
chooses the manuscripts from the Lorca family archives over
either the Séneca or the Norton text when these latter are the only
printed texts he has of a particular poem. He never addresses the
crucial issue of why the Norton and Séneca texts differ so
dramatically from the manuscripts he edits. The following
questions should have been, but are not, answered. Are these
changes the work of Lorca? Are these different texts later than the
draft manuscripts? If so, then would not Lorca want us to follow
them rather than his drafts? (This is García Posada's position, as
well as my own, and see Martin, p. 49, n. 17.) If they are not the
work of Lorca, then who rewrote Lorca's poetry so extensively,
adding and deleting words and lines?
Another legitimate expectation of an editor, especially in the
case of a work whose editing is difficult and controversial, is a full
discussion of the controversy, and an explanation of the editor's
position. We lack this too. Martin does know my book, published
by his own publisher ("Poeta en Nueva York" Historia y problemas
de un texto de Lorca [Barcelona: Ariel, 1976]), and he tacitly
takes much from it, but he dismisses it in a footnote (p. 24, n. 9),
in which only one of the many conclusions in it is attacked. Of the
important material published subsequently, he uses only that
written in Spanish. He ignores the arguments found in the review
article of Nigel Dennis, who called Martin's work "alarming"(Ottawa Hispánica, 1 [1979], 47); he shows no knowledge of the
review of my book by Derek Harris (see Bulletin of Hispanic
Studies, 55 [1978], 169?0, and Martin's p. 117), nor of the
important article of Andrew Anderson, "Lorca's 'New York
Poems' A Contribution to the Debate,"Forum for Modern Language
Studies, 17 (1981), 256-0. Although, in contrast with his
1974 dissertation, Martin now believes that Lorca left something
in Bergamín's office, he makes no attempt to establish what that
something was, or to assess its relevance to the editing of Poeta.
This was, of course, the topic of my book, whose most important
conclusion—that the Norton text is the most faithful to the
manuscript Lorca had prepared or was preparing in 1936—I have
reason to believe even more strongly today.
Since Martin now thinks that there was a manuscript of some
sort given to Bergamín, he should explain why he proceeds to edit
Poeta in the absence of that manuscript and of any confirmation
that it does not exist. Neither Martin nor Laffranque explains why
the present book is the first, rather than the last, volume of the
projected critical edition of Lorca's works.
Discarding the Norton and Séneca texts both for the structure
of the book and for the texts of the poems, Martin separates Poeta
en Nueva York into two books, the one so named and Tierra y
luna, the former based on Lorca's public reading, and the second
on an early list of titles. In my book I commented on the chronological
contradictions of this approach; Anderson has offered new
evidence unsupportive of this procedure in "García Lorca en Montevideo:
Un testimonio desconocido y más evidencia sobre la
evolución de Poeta en Nueva York" Bulletin Hispanique, 83
(1981); 145-1, and in his Forum for Modern Language Studies
article previously cited. The public reading of Poeta, which Martin
uses to establish the canon and structure of the collection, is itself
problematical; García Posada (pp. 39-1) interprets it differently
from Martin (pp. 102-03), and the "Oda a Walt Whitman" is
included by Martin on the basis of an illustration subsequent by
several years to the reading. Martin has not, then, even given us a
reliable reconstruction of a previous state of Poeta, much less a
critical edition of the version Lorca was preparing for publication
in 1935 and left with Bergamín shortly before his death.
In sum: this edition is inaccurate on every level. It will mislead
many, and will lead to lesser, rather than improved, understanding
of Lorca's work. A facsimile of the manuscripts, like Nadal's
facsimiles of his, would have been much more valuable. Publication
of a critical edition of Poeta is premature. Regretfully, I must
label this edition apócrifo.
DANIEL EISENBERG
Florida State University
|
字顺( Alphabetical List of Journals):