Item talk:Q42341

Descr. detallada de Griffin 1980, con este resumen (pág. 570):

This present edition of La Celestina printed in 1561, unlike the other three editions of the work described in these pages, is not completely unlisted, but there seems to have been a good deal of confusion among bibliographers about its existence. La Barrera lists it correctly, as does Givanel Mas, while Penney mentions it tentatively saying that it was unknown to Caballero and considered doubtful by Krapf. Salvá cites Moratín’s listing of it, but says doubtingly that he did not previously have any evidence of Cánova’s having worked in Cuenca. Barrantes, however, claims that Cánova printed an edition of La Celestina in Cuenca in 1571, but says in his essay that he is drawing largely upon Caballero for his information. Brunet also mentions the 157I edition, but does not claim to have seen a copy of it, while Penney also lists the same edition, but again mentions Caballero as her source saying that he cites Moratín and Amarita as his authorities. Palau, on other hand, suggests that, as the edition said to have been printed in 1561 in Cuenca is not known to him in any extant copy, it might be a mistake for the edition printed by Claudi Bornat in Barcelona in the same year. What would now seem more likely, in view of the copy of the 156I edition which exists in the Jagiellon Library, is that the ‘Cuenca 1571’ edition is, in fact, a mistake for our 1561 edition printed by Cánova in that city. It is, however, possible that Cánova printed another edition in Cuenca ten years later and that no copies of this have come to light.

Despite the fact that, from 1558 onwards, printers were theoretically obliged to include in the preliminary matter the text of the licence obtained for the printing of any book, this edition of La Celestina is the only one of the four described in these pages which complies with this decree. All three held in the Jagiellon Library nevertheless claim to have obtained licences. This 1561 edition is probably one of the earliest to advertise Rojas’s name on the title-page. Previously the name of the author of the continuation of Act I does not seem to have appeared, although Sebastián Trugillo’s Seville edition of 1562 similarly claimed that the work was ‘Compuesta por el bachiller Fernando de Rojas’.

Cánova’s 1561 edition is not illustrated and shows constant signs of poor presswork. The type is often too compressed for easy legibility; the lines of type are frequently uneven or bent; the impression is often blurred, and the use of type ornaments is most erratic.