Love for Life

Catalan: Everything You Didn’t Know About Don Quixote
Summary of articles on Don Quixote published in the section “Did you know that …?” of the web of the Fundació d’Estudis Històrics de Catalunya (www.Histocat.cat).

Download This PDF File - Everything You Didn’t Know About Don Quixote - 30 x A4 Pages A copy of this PDF is also attached at the bottom of this document, see: http://loveforlife.com.au/files/quixot_eng.pdf

INDEX (translated from Catalan - Not a very good translation)

* Cervantes’ name was not Cervantes
* The lost (missing) barcelonese edition of Don Quixote
* 'Don Quixote', a novel revised, retouched , modified, trimmed and full of premeditated interpolations
* Don Quixote is a translation
* The conclusive proof that Don Quixote was written in Catalan
* Expressions peculiar to the Catalan language, Catalanisms and translation blunders in "El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quixote De La Mancha"
* New evidence of translation in Don Quixote

Num.1 : Cervantes name was not Cervantes

In the prologue to the first edition of the Novelas Ejemplares by Miguel de Cervantes (1613), he writes of himself :

"this, I say, is the face of the author of La Galatea and of Don Quixote de la Mancha and of one who made the Journey to Parnassus (Viaje al Parnaso), in imitation of that of César Caporal Perusino, and other works left to wander in the world and maybe without the name of their author.He is commonly called Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra".

That is to say, that Cervantes is telling us that his name is not Cervantes, rather that he is commonly so called. But what is the meaning of this word? According to the Real Academia Española’s Diccionario de la Lengua Española, "Comunamente" o "comunmente" means "de uso, acuerdo o consentimiento común" (by agreement, according to use) and also "frecuentemente" (usually, frequently).

That is to say that Cervantes was called Cervantes every now and then and by agreement. By agreement with whom? With official censorship, obviously.

Moreover, as we can read in the prologue, he assures us that many of his works have been published without his name. And, since there are no known Cervantine anonyms, we are necessarily led to conclude that the name appearing on his published works wasn’t acknowledged by Cervantes as his own name, either.

Jordi Bilbeny

Num.2 : The lost (missing) barcelonese edition of Don Quixote

In the second part of Don Quixote (1615), Servent-Cervantes writes: "Today there are more than 12.000 books printed of this story: just ask Portugal, Barcelona and València, where they have been printed" (El Quijote, Crítica,edición de F. Rico, 2a parte, cap. III, p. 647).

He is obviously speaking of the first volume of his work, published in Lisbon (1605), València (1605) and Barcelona (unknown date).

Up to now, we know the printings made in Lisbon, València and the pre-fabricated one of Madrid, of 1605, but the one made in Barcelona is the only edition published within the Spanish pensinsular kingdoms that is lost or has simply disappeared.

The experts believe that Servent-Cervantes made a mistake when he mentioned Barcelona. All the same, how could a meticulous author such as Servent-Cervantes, wrongly remember his then three first editions, when his writings show that he has a great quantity of documentation always handy as well as a prodigious memory? I believe that the Barcelona edition did indeed exist. And that it was printed before 1604 or in 1603 at the latest.

In this sense, González Porto-Bompiani in his Diccionario Literario tells us that "the oldest known edition was printed in Madrid and by the same Juan de la Cuesta in 1605. Nevertheless, it is presumed that there must have been a previous edition, in 1604".

Indeed, there was a previous edition, because there are three mentions of the Quixote during this year of 1604. The first occurs in the novel La pícara Justina, whose printing permit is dated August 23, 1604. The second mention is to be found in a letter of Lope de Vega, signed in Toledo, August 4, 1604, where he says: "De poetas, no digo:buen siglo es este. Muchos en cierne para el año que viene; pero ninguno hay tan malo como Cervantes, ni tan necio que alabe el Quijote". (“I will not talk about poets: such a good century this is. There are many ready for next year; but none as bad as Cervantes, nor so so foolish to praise the Quixote”). And, finally, the third mention is in the book of a certain Juan Pérez, with the title “Contradicción de los catorze artículos de la fe cristiana”, of 1627, where he explains that in 1604, he was in a bookshop when he heard a student answering to another customer about books of knight-errantry : "Ya nos remanesce otro don Quijote.”

For this reason, Porto-Bompiani concludes: "All this lets us suppose that in 1604 the first part of the Quixote was already known, which means it must have been published for the first time that year in an edition that has left no trace."

Nevertheless, since the only known edition that has left no trace is the one published in Barcelona, while the ones of València and Lisbon and the pseudo-edition of Madrid have been preserved, we must conclude that all these quotations must of necessity refer to the Barcelona edition. Thus, if this printing said the same things as did the other three, why did it disappear? Since no answer to this question makes sense, I believe we must ask a different question: could it not be that maybe it said exactly the same but in another language?

I think this must be the fact. That the Barcelona edition of 1604 or earlier was a victim of official censorship and withdrawn as so many other works of the XVIth century, because it was written in Catalan.

Jordi Bilbeny

Num.4 : 'Don Quixote', a novel revised, retouched , modified, trimmed and full of premeditated interpolations

Even though the registration tax which precedes the 1605 edition of Don Quixote clearly states that the book has been revised by the Royal Council, and the Bachelor Francisco Murcia de la Llana plainly says that he has corrected it himself, it is generally believed that the book was published exactly as Servent-Cervantes wrote it.

All the same, the King’s words included as proof that the printing fulfils all the mandatory legal requirements, are unquestionable, for they declare that "in the said book were carried out the formalities ordained in the Royal decree lately issued by Us concerning the printing of books" and that "the proof-reader named by Us saw and corrected the aforesaid print".

The Royal decree mentioned by the King is the one promulgated in Valladolid, on the 7th of September of 1558. Among other things, it established that the censor-overseer of any book had to rewrite it and present to the printing press the new text with any necessary revisions, suppressions and additions already integrated.

Therefore, it makes sense that Francisco Rico, curator of the edition of the Quixote for the Instituto Cervantes-Crítica, should tell us that "the original presented by Cervantes to the Royal Council certainly was not, of course, an autograph manuscript, but a fair copy written by a professional amanuensis (copyist)" and that for this same reason, " there is evidence to make us suspect that the novel didn’t escape the censors wholly unscathed”.

According to Rico, the corrections made "have left a trace that is as manifest as it is deplorable". Among them there is even Servent-Cervantes’s dedication, which was replaced with a new one, "apocryphal, skilfully supplemented with cuttings [from another earlier dedication] by Fernando de Herrera".

And Rico further adds that "the most thought-provoking flaw of the [edition] princeps is the impressive quantity of errors. From the title-page [...] to the last word of the text [...] there is no kind of nonsensical blunder that doesn’t find a place in the book of the “'Ingenioso Hidalgo"; they amount to “several hundreds".

For this same reason, he wonders and finds it quite "beyond belief" and ludicrous, too, that Servent-Cervantes, with the new book in his hands and "knowing he had to take it to the printers, [he] didn’t profit of the opportunity of correcting at least some of the errors" and textual variants. For him, "it is prudent to assume that these variant readings are not the author’s", because "at times the text appears to have undergone some revisions by a proof-reader who put right some of the inconsistencies".

As for the València edition, by Mey and also of 1605, Rico points out that "Mey’s edition proves quite incompetent in explaining the original text and is quite reckless in completing some pages that appeared to be too short by adding words or even whole sentences when apparently needed."

And the eminent curator felt so baffled with this textual gibberish that he couldn’t refrain from indicating: "We’ll never exactly know how much the Cervantine text was affected by the mode of production".

With all these ponderings by Professor Rico, it really seems rather unquestionable that the Quixote suffered a brutal revision that, in some points, could even look like a modification, with whole passages gone missing and others added, with changed dedications and, as recently alleged by César Brandáriz in his book “Cervantes Decodificado” (Martínez Roca, 2005), with geographical translocations since, according to him, Quixote’s feats did not all take place in la Mancha, because the landscape described in some of the book’s passages corresponds to other places of the Peninsula, damper and more luxuriant.

But, was Servent-Cervantes aware that his novel was being published after being subjected to manipulations, trimmings and full of interpolations? I think he was. And that if he was not able to supervise it, it was not because he was careless, but simply because the law didn’t allow it.

Thus, in some passages from the first part of Don Quixote, the author states it clearly: "I could not resign myself to believe that such a gallant story could turn out to be so imperfect and lame" (1, cap. IX). Or: "As to that, if some objection should arise about its truthfulness, it could not be but that its author was an arab, it being proper of that nation to be liars" (1, cap. IX).

And in the second part he further said that "those who had deservedly won great fame through their writings, in giving them for print lost it altogether" (2, cap. III); because the books "they are the more scrutinized when the fame of the writer is greater” (íd.). Servent-Cervantes directly accuses the censors of the absurdities in literary works and ends up by stating that, for this same reason, "the risk incurred by whoever publishes a book is huge, it being wholly impossible to compose it in a way that pleases all who read it" (íd.).

And he further asserts that "stultorum infinitus est mumerus", because "those who liked the story of [Don Quixote] are innumerable", and because many have believed that the errors were the author’s (íd.)

Jordi Bilbeny

Num.5 : Don Quixote is a translation

In my first article for this section “Did you know that...”, I suggested that the first edition of Don Quixote – the one previous to 1604 – had been written in Catalan, because, of the six editions of the book printed in the Peninsula (two from Lisbon, two from València, one from Barcelona and, even, the invented one from Madrid) known to us until the year 1605, the only one which has not been preserved is the one from Barcelona.

I then reasoned that, if all of them were identical and told the same things, then maybe the Barcelona edition said them in a different way. That is to say, it could tell the same things in another language, this being the reason why the whole edition disappeared. And if it were not because Servent-Cervantes himself, in the second part of the book tells us that it indeed existed, nowadays we would know absolutely nothing about it.

The idea of a translated Don Quixote, moreover, appears clearly because there are multiple mentions of its author in favour of his native tongue. One instance is to be found in chapter IV of the 1st Part of the novel, where he writes that if somebody “speaks in a tongue not his own, I shall not respect him; but if he speaks his language, I’ll put him above me”; such a statement can only have sense in a country where people change their tongue easily, and where this change, besides being damaging to one’s own tongue, has clear undertones of political desertion. Even more, in chapter XXIII, he tells us that “even though they silenced the tongues, they could not do the same with the pens, which usually more freely than the tongues are able to let know those who want to that which is in the soul”. Which is tantamount to saying that, even if his tongue is forbidden, the ideas he wants to spread can be printed in another language.

Consequently, if “Cervantes” fumes about those who change tongues and denounces those who forbid a language, but believes that anyone can transmit his ideals even in a language not his own; if he writes defending the use of one’s own tongue and praises the Catalan language, being as he was an inhabitant of the Catalan Nation, and also being as he was a Servent, with his house in Barcelona and descended from a lineage stemming from Xixona; and if he was against the translations from Romanesque languages, as he tells us in chapter LXII of the 2nd Part, he would never have written in Castilian. Thus, if Don Quixote was published in Castilian it must have been a translation. All the same, though, are there any traces of this in the book itself?

Obviously, in chapter IX of the 1st part, Servent-Cervantes tells us that, wandering through Toledo, he found some papers written in Arabic “which contained Don Quixote’s story”. Having seen them, he bought the folder and took it home. He then asked a Morisco (Moor) “to translate those folders, all those dealing with Don Quixote, into Castilian without adding or leaving out anything”. And, having paid what he owed for the translation “in little more than a month and a half he translated it all”.

Up to now, the experts thought that this passage was simply a fictional ploy, one of those literary figures of speech used by writers to confer some mystery to their works. But in view of what I have exposed I think it more likely that, as usual, and in subliminal way, Servent-Cervantes is telling us quite clearly that his novel is a translation. The joke he adds, in telling us that the translator “was content to receive two measures of raisins and two bushels of wheat as a payment” makes now sense when we know that the censors translated for nothing.

Moreover, the frequent mentions all through the novel that it is a translation and that there was a translator uphold my conjecture that it is not a stylistic ruse but an actual fact. We have more proof at the beginning of the 2nd Part, chapter III. When Servent-Cervantes insists on the greatness of Don Quixote, he points out “good for the curious man who took care to have it translated from Arabic into our vernacular Castilian”.

Apparently the translation displeased Servent-Cervantes so, that in the “Prologue” he could not refrain from writing that “I, even though I seem the father, I’m only Don Quixote’s stepfather”, clearly stating the fact that he is not the father in the original language, but in another one. Which is like saying that the Castilian Quixote is his bastard or illegitimate son. And even more, his displeasure must have been such that he assures us that he didn’t even want to write a prologue for the book, “nor publish the feats of such a noble knight”. The reasons: “the reading is dry like esparto” (maybe alluding to the sternness of the Castilian language); “devoid of invention” (maybe invented by somebody else); “with little style” (having lost it in translation); “poor in ideas” (probably because changing the language and the political viewpoint has impoverished them); and “wholly lacking in erudition and doctrine” (as fitted a translation of this range).

Also, in chapter XXV, he writes that “there is always among us a throng of sorcerers who change and alter everything, adjusting matters to their taste and according to their wish of favouring or destroying us”. The passage refers to everyday life, but this doesn’t rule out a double reading wholly affecting the text of the books he wrote, and among them Don Quixote.

For this reason, Servent-Cervantes also writes that “I determine that the squire Don Quixote shall remain buried in the archives of la Mancha, until Heaven puts forward the one to adorn him with the many things he lacks”. This sentence, which reminds us of Father Cases’ will, who keeps the originals of his books on American subjects “until God deems it expedient”, looks preposterous in a prologue accompanying a public edition of the book, for it is absurd wanting that Don Quixote should remain buried in an archive since books are printed so that anyone can read them. This is not the case if we are dealing with the authentic Don Quixote: the Catalan original, impounded by Royal censorship, and kept in the archives of Castile.

Jordi Bilbeny

Num.11 : The conclusive proof that Don Quixote was written in Catalan

Among the numberless expressions peculiar to the Catalan language and the translation blunders in the Don Quixote which take us back to a lost Catalan original, there is an especially significant and revealing sentence that only makes sense if Servent-Cervantes wrote his novel in Catalan.

We find it in the 2nd part, chapter LXXI, when the great Castilian Fool, after recovering his reason in Barcelona, returns to his village chatting all the way with Sancho. Towards the end of the chapter, they start talking about paintings, and remark:

"–Yo apostaré –dijo Sancho– que antes de mucho tiempo no ha de haber bodegón, venta ni mesón o tienda de barbero donde no ande pintada la historia de nuestras hazañas; pero querría yo que la pintasen manos de otro mejor pintor que el que ha pintado a estas.

–Tienes razón, Sancho –dijo don Quijote–, porque este pintor es como Orbaneja, un pintor que estava en Úbeda, que cuando le preguntaban qué pintaba, respondía: «Lo que saliere»; y si por ventura pintaba un gallo, escribía debajo: «Este es gallo», porque no pensasen que era zorra. De esta manera, me parece a mi, Sancho, que debe de ser el pintor o escritor, que todo es uno, que sacó a luz la historia de este nuevo don Quijote [referring to the Catalan edition published under a pseudonym] que ha salido: que pintó o escribió lo que saliere; o habrá sido como un poeta que andaba los años pasados en la corte, llamado Mauleón, el cual respondía de repente a cuanto le preguntaban, y preguntándole uno que qué quería decir «Deum de Deo», respondió: «De donde diere»”.

We can easily notice that the explanation has absolutely nothing to do with the Latin sentence. Rico, this edition’s curator, elucidates in the corresponding note to the text that “the translation of the “sound” of the Credo’s words was a traditional joke”. That is to say, we are talking about a phonetic translation. But in Castilian, too, this rendition is out of the question. How can possibly “De donde diere” come from “Deum de deo”? Leaving aside DE as derived from DEUM and DE DONDE, as well as an antiquated dialectalism such as ONDE wholly in disuse, there is no other possible affinity. This being the case, how is it that the poet Mauleón gives this kind of answer?

The elucidation of this phonic enigma is only possible if Don Quixote was written in Catalan. A Catalan ear would thus construe the “sound” of DEUM DE DEO as DE UMDE/UNDE DEU. And this is how it must have been written in the novel.

Even if the standard Catalan word for the Castilian DONDE is ON, there is a common variant ONT, so written until Pompeu Fabra’s normalizatiion of the Catalan language. This variant, in its spoken mode can assume the forms ONTE and ONDE.

Alcover-Moll’s dictionary even records the form UNT in a document dated 1385, which reads: “Là unt los serà vist fahedor”.

According to Coromines “the pronunciation ONT before words starting with a vocal is quite widespread (ont és,? Ont era?, ont havies anat?, d’ont ha vingut?)”. and he adds that “in certain places of the País Valencià we find varieties such as ANDE or ÒNDE, with a very open o, which are rustic or vulgar deformations of AON”. And he ends asserting that, owing to the generalization of this recognizable fact, “these forms can also be heard in certain other places of the western zone”.

This is, therefore, a rather widespread variation all over the Nation. In the Maresme area it is quite usual to hear UNTE VAS?, UNTE VIUS?, UNTE ho fan?, instead of ON VAS?, ON VIUS?, ON HO FAN? The forcefulness of the word is such, its sonority so personal and the phonic variant so special that even I have used it in some literary or poetic texts.

And if, as I have alread stated, it is true that the Castilian tongue also has the dialectalisms OND and ONDE, as a wholly medievalized relic, the final DEO does not in any case correspond with the verb DAR, and even less with the DIERE mentioned in the Servent-Cervantes text.

Now, if we keep the above mentioned in mind, we can confront the DEUM DE DEO and subdivide it thus: DE UMDE DEO. And so, it is not very difficult to translate it “by ear”: DE UNDE DEU. Or, in standard Catalan, D’ON DEU or D’ON DONEU. A literal Catalan translation would also hold the possibility of rendering the final DEU with a form of the verb DEURE, but then it would not fit the Castilian rendering of DIERE. Therefore,the only option left to us is the one regarding DEU = DONEU. And with this antecedent, just the one, and written in Catalan, Mauleón’s explanation could have any sense, the one rendered in Castilian in the Don Quixote: DE DONDE DIERE.

DE DONDE DIERE, then, is the unavoidable translation of DE UNDE DEU. In my opinion, then, this more than proves that the original version of the Don Quixote was written in Catalan, and that this was the mothertongue of a Cervantes who, logically, was actually a Servent-Cervantes.

Jordi Bilbeny

Num.12 : Expressions peculiar to the Catalan language, Catalanisms and translation blunders in "El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quixote De La Mancha"

(First Part, apocryphal edition supposedly printed in Madrid,1605)
Instituto Cervantes - Editorial Crítica,
Barcelona, 2nd edition, 1998
Edited by Francisco Rico

This list of expression peculiar to the Catalan language, Catalanisms and translation blunders which refer us to a lost Catalan original does not presume to be a definitive nor a dogmatic one. It is simply an indicative list. Just a call to attention: we should start working systematically and methodically, and also rigorously. It is totally certain that some of these forms already existed in the Castilian of the XVIth century, but it would be necessary to ascertain in which books they appear and who was the censor and translator who checked them, since owing to the fact that a great part of the Castilian literature of the XVIth century are translation from the Catalan, it is easy to believe that a catalanism is no such thing simply because it appears in other texts by supposed Castilian authors.

Be as it were, I have listed them here so that our readers can draw on them and so that they can be eventually used in future research and interpretations. There are many more of them. Even more if we take into account both the ortographical tradition of Rico’s edition. I give here just a first batch.

* lantejas (llenties/llanties), p. 37
* dar una mano de coces al traidor (una mà de), p. 40
* jamás supieron ni pudieron desencajar-le la gola, p. 52
* se me da que me den ocho reales (se me'n dóna), p. 53
* mal remojado y peor cocido bacallao, p. 53
* lo que restaba de hacer, p. 60
* le dejó ir a la buen hora, p. 62 (Rico acknowledges that it is not a Castilian expression)
* mi ánima que miente, p. 64
* Y en diciendo esto, p. 66
* estaba ya el mozo picado, (estava picat/enfadat), p. 70
* otro día (traducció incorrecta per l'endemà), p. 76
* como el ama los vió (com=quan), p. 77
* tornó luego con una escudilla de agua bendita (escudella), p. 77
* mas el curo no vino en ello (no s'avingué), p. 77
* ¿Quién es ese tonel? (Quin és eixe tomell? –referring to a book-), p. 78
* son bonísimas, p. 82
* tenía más gana de quemallos que de echar una tela, por grande i delgada que fuera (ganes de llançar una teia al foc), p. 83
* por fuerza le volvieron al lecho (per força), p. 88
* pasó graciosísimos cuentos (passà comptes), p. 91
* aun Dios y ayuda, p. 94
* medio despaldado estaba (mig espatllat), p. 96
* y machacó tantos moros, que le quedó por sobrenombre Machuca (Machuca cannot derive from machacar, because it would give Machaca. It makes sense instead when we know that in Catalan machacar is matxucar), p. 97
* A la mano de Diós! (Mà de Déu o a la mà de Déu!), p. 97
* fendirían de arriba abajo, p. 105
* ser los historiadores puntuales, verdaderos y nonada apasionados, p. 110
* Y como lo vió caer (com=quan), p. 111
* yo soy muy contento, p. 111
* ha de ser, p. 111
* ni hay pensar morir (ni cal pensar), p. 115
* en buena paz y compaña, p. 118
* si va a decir verdad, mucho mejor me sabe... (si val a dir veritat/la veritat), p.120
* no estornudar ni toser si me viene gana (si me'n vénen ganes), p. 120
* con prompta y buena voluntad, p. 124
* Con todo esto (amb tot i això), p. 129
* por ser tan muchacha (per ser tan mossa), p. 132
* En cuidado me lo tengo (ho tinc en compte), p. 134
* sin plegar los llorosos ojos (sense tancar els ulls), p. 134
* le halló el sol a la mañana, p. 134
* pastores vestidos con pellicos negros, p. 135
* donde se tratan las famosas hazañas del rey Arturo, que contínuamente en nuestro romance castellano llamamos "el rey Artús", p. 136-137
* en el discurso de su vida (en el decurs), p. 139
* no es bien que vos cumpláis, p. 145
* Mata un desdén, atierra la paciencia, p. 148
* mil monstros, p. 151
* volvió las espaldas, p. 155
* rogaron se viniese con ellos (anar x venir), p. 157
* vinieron a parar, p. 159
* yo valgo por ciento, p. 160
* comenzaron a menudear sobre ellos con grande ahínco (translation blunder; the original should have said manotear or manotejar), p. 161
* yo me tengo la culpa de todo (jo ne tinc), p. 161
* castígalos muy a tu sabor (molt al teu gust/grat), p. 162
* en aquella gran cuita, p. 164
* mis feridas, p. 165
* a sol y a la sombra y a las inclemencias del cielo (a sol i a serena), p. 166
* sesenta sospiros, p. 166
* pésetes y reniegos (pestes i renecs), p. 166
* arco turquesco, p. 166
* aparejó su asno (aparellà/enllestí), p. 167
* llegó a la puerta, cuando don Quijote la sintió (la sentí), p. 173
* traían en las muñecas (confusió de traer per llevar), p. 173
* descargó tan terrible puñada, p. 174
* el gato al rato, el rato a la cuerda (el rat), p. 175
* entró ascuras (a scures), p. 176
* hablara yo más bien criado -respondió don Quijote-, si fuera que vos (si fóra de vós), p. 179
* encantamentos, p. 179
* tantas ansias y bascas, p. 181
* no hay sino decilla (no cal sinó dir-la), p. 182
* se alongó un buen trecho, p. 183
* los persas, arcos y flechas famosos (arquers i fletxers), p. 192
* de horadados labios, p. 192
* machucándole malamente, p. 194
* la color, p. 195
* vamos ahora de aquí (anem d'aquí), p. 197
* quitar aquel almete (elmet), p. 199
* venía una litera cubierta de luto, p. 201
* algun malferido, p. 201
* sois todos en batalla, p. 202
* admirado del ardimiento de su señor, p. 203
* aunque denantes dije, p. 203
* vestidos con aquellas sobrepellices, p. 204
* la hambre, p. 206
* queda descomulgado (descombregat), p. 206
* almorzaron (esmorzaren), p. 207
* las cuales cosas todas juntas, p. 209
* me ha puesto en corazón de acometer, p. 210
* esta tan desemejable aventura (dissemblant), p. 211
* tenia unos pocos de bigotes, p. 213
* [el riu anava] crecido y casi fuera de madre, p. 214
* un pradecillo que al pie de unas altas montañas se hacía (s'hi feia), p. 218
* un grandíssimo golpe de agua (cop d'aigua)
* A lo menos (almenys), p. 220
* más vale algo que no nada (que no-res), p. 226
* las fenestras de su real palacio, p. 229
* siendo medianera y sabidora (mitjancera), p. 231
* Ya se es ido (ja se n'és anat), p. 231
* no pidas de grado lo que puedes tomar por fuerza, p. 233
* traía una cadena al pie, p. 241
* ese bacín que trae en la cabeza, p. 245
* y diciendo y haciendo (i dit i fet), p. 245
* habéis de ir vos solo, rabo entre piernas, p. 247
* hizo del ojo a los compañeros, p. 247
* el peligro sobrepuja a la esperanza, p. 249
* embaulando en su panza (de baula), p. 251
* su lencería, p. 252
* "Si digo que sois vos, Fili no acierto", recites Don Quixote, and Sancho replies:
-"Por esta troba no se puede saber nada, si ya no es que por ese hilo que está ahí se saque el ovillo de todo.
-¿Qué hilo está aquí? -dijo don Quijote.
-Paréceme -dijo Sancho- que vuestra merced nombró ahí hilo.
-No dije sinó Fili -respondió don Quijote", p. 252-253
* és conmigo el miedo, p. 255
* y haz de los ojos lanternas, p. 256
* y en llegando, p. 256
* clavó los ojos en el suelo por un buen espacio (una bona estona), p. 258
* le volvió las saludes, p. 260
* la cual venía tan encarecida (encarida), p. 264
* los dos nos viniésemos en casa de mi padre, p. 265
* el cual término, p. 266
* movía la plática, aunque la trujese por los cabellos, p. 267
* Beltenebros (Bell Tenebrós), p. 270
* Sancho iba muerto por razonar con su amo y deseaba que él comenzase la plática (enraonar), p. 271
* en tiempo de Guisopete (Guisopet/Isopet), p. 271
* sin osar decir lo que el hombre tiene en su corazón (el que hom té), p. 271
* porque te alce el entredicho (perquè t'alci l'interdicte), p. 271
* qué de necedades (que de), p. 273
* pasados los tres días que me ha dado de término (termini), p. 281
* hizo demasiasdo de bien, p. 283
* rollizo y de buen tomo (i de bon volum), p. 284
* trillando en las eras, p. 284
* hasta salir a lo raso (al ras), p. 289
* dos tumbas la cabeza abajo (dues tombarelles de cap per avall), p. 290
* halló en la fontana, p. 290
* vos le habéis muerto, p. 294
* el llego (el llec), p. 296
* ni la demandase cosa de su hacienda (demanés), p. 298
* le diese lición (lliçó), p. 300
* sin acompañarla son de ningún otro instrumento (so), p. 302
* cuento imperfeto, p. 305
* cada día descubro en vos valores que me obligan y fuerzan a que en más os estime, p. 306
* el cura de la perroquia, p. 312
* poniéndome el manjar por los caminos (el menjar), p. 315
* detrás de unos pedazos de peña (rere un tros de penya), p. 318
* un monesterio, p. 322
* una mantellina, p. 355
* que de tan lueñes tierras viene (llunyes terres), p. 338
* y con la diligencia que don Quijote se alistaba (s'enllestia), p. 339
* muy a pique de ser emperador, p. 339
* el famoso moro Muzaraque (Mussa, perquè no hi ha cap moro famós a Castella que es digui Muzaraque), p. 341
* se debía de estender (estendre), p. 342
* y calándose el morrión, p. 345
* hasta adobarla del mal tratamiento que le hicieron, p. 345
* Pandafilando de la Fosca Vista, p. 347
* todos se anegaron, p. 351
* belitre, p. 352
* porque después que la dí (després de la dir), p. 357
* y a la noche, p. 361
* hincar de finojos antes su presencia (de genolls), p. 363
* con esta manera de amor, p. 364
* el amo replicó no sé que arengas, p. 365
* dos higas para el Gran Capitán, p. 372
* no piense vuestra merced darme papilla, porque por Dios que no soy nada blanco (blan), p. 373
* tengo de solicitar a una retirada (overcorrection of CD + A), p. 382
* una yunque (una enclusa), p. 384
* hay pluvias de oro, p. 386
* acabaron de comer, levantaron los manteles (llevaren les tovalles), p. 390
* esto de traerse bien (portar-se bé), p. 391
* buscar nuevas vetas de nuevo y nunca visto tesoro, p. 393
* piélago de nuevos inconvenientes, p. 398
* la x, no le cuadra porque es letra áspera; la y ya está dicha; la z, zelador de tu honra, p. 402
* no cesaba de hacerse cruces, p. 412
* no me atreveré a forjar ni sustentar una mentira, p. 413
* soy quito de la palabra que os di (quiti), p. 417
* fue con el costo de una noche, p. 418
* verse cualificada, p. 419
* y tanto, que es mi esposo, p. 419
* poco a poco se le iba volviendo el juicio (se li anava girant el juí), p. 421
* vivía a San Juan, p. 421
* A Dios vais (ab Déu aneu), p. 422
* con malencònico semblante, p. 434
* verá el buen recado que ha hecho (el bon recapte), p. 435
* no supo ni sabe de la misa la media (no sap de la missa la meitat), p. 436
* el captivo, p. 440
* ¿no es baptizada?, p. 441
* una larga mesa como de tinelo (tinell), p. 442
* los tres fanales, p. 455
* el estanterol, p. 456
* qué se hizo ese don Pedro de Aguilar (què se'n féu d'aquest Pere d'Aguilar?), p. 459
* siendo grumete de una nave, p. 462
* un soldado español llamado tal de Saavedra, p. 463
* la caña se estava blandeando y moviéndose (s'estava brandant), p. 464
* los turcos ya són idos (ja són anats), p. 477
* si allí los dejaban apellidarían luego la tierra (apellarien), p. 481
* estar la mar algo picada, p. 482
* habiéndose trocado el viento (havent-se estroncat), p. 484
* yendo con la vela tendida de alto baja (de dalt a baix), p. 486
* quedava sotavento, p. 487
* dieron la bienllegada, p. 495
* iba proveído por oídor, p. 495
* Yo os digo (wrong use of vós all through the novel), p. 496
* haciendo la guarda, p. 505
* hechava la paja por defuera, p. 505
* dárosla encontinente, p. 505
* por poder deshogar (desfogar), p. 507
* vamos de priesa, p. 510
* su estirado senyor, p. 511
* abriento de presto las puertas, p. 511
* le rieto y desafío a singular batalla, p. 512
* dormir bien mal, p. 512
* no le asentó a su mesa, p. 529
* con gran rancor, p. 530
* la estada nuestra en este castillo, p. 532
* faga dos vegadas la visita, p. 537
* cuando el furibundo león manchado con la blanca paloma tobosina yoguieren en uno (junyissin), p. 537
* tuvo espada en cinta (al cint), p. 538
* coligió de todo en todo, p. 538
* Par Diós, p. 540
* han hecho mercadería vendible, p. 555
* sesteando (sestejant, fent la sesta), p. 557
* nuestros compatriotos, p. 557
* veía alguna dueña con tocas reverendas (dona), p. 566
* una funda de vaqueta, p. 568
* hirviendo a borbollones, p. 569
* siete fadas, p. 569
* bullente lago, p. 569
* una apacible floresta (forest), p. 571
* La riqueza del padre y la belleza de la hija movieron a muchos, así del pueblo como forasteros, a que por mujer se la pidiesen (per muller), p. 577
* Arrebató de un pan que juntó a sí tenía (arrabassà), p. 584
* aquellos follones y descomedidos malandrines (fellons), p. 584
* le iba a los alcances (a l'encalç), p. 587
* no salen tan a gusto com el hombre querría (hom), p. 590
* su estandarte tremola (p. 594)
* la muerte espantable y fea, p. 596

Jordi Bilbeny

Num.15 : New evidence of translation in Don Quixote

Among the many editions of Don Quixote, those of the years 1730 and 1735 of Madrid are rather startling. The title page of both these editions says:

“Y AORA ULTIMAMENTE CON LA DEDICATORIA AL MISMO D. QUIXOTE, escrita por su chronista, descubierta y traducida con imponderable desvelo, y trabajo.” (And now lately with the dedication to Don Quixote himself, written by his chronicler. Discovered and translated with inexpressible care and hard work).

In the edition of 1741 the comment on the front page is reduced to:

“DEDICADO AL MISMO D. QUIXOTE por su chronista.” (Dedicated to Don Quixote himself, by his chronicler).

In the second Part of the 1735 edition, an eight-line stanza has been included. It refers to the lines mentioned at the end of Part One, which were found in a lead casket, “en la cual caja se habían hallado unos pergaminos escritos con letras góticas, pero en versos castellanos, que contenían muchas de sus hazañas, …” ( in which casket some parchments had been found, written in Gothic lettering, but in Castilian verse, which contained many of his feats...) (Part one, chapter LII).

Now, in presenting this eight-line stanza, it says:

“UN HEREDERO DEL ACADEMICO DE LA ARGAMASILLA, A QUIEN SE ENCARGÓ LA TRADUCION DE LOS versos citados al final del tomo primero” (A heir to the Academician of Argamasilla, who was entrusted with the translation of the lines of verse quoted at the end of the first volume.)

(215 kB)
(215 kB)

(215 kB)
(215 kB)

(Click on the pdf file to see the pictures)

Josep Segarra