CORONEL RAMOS, Marco Antonio (marco.coronel@uv.es),
LAusiàs March llatí de lhumanista Vicent Mariner, «Arxius i
documents», 21, Edicions Alfons el Magnanim, Institució Valenciana dEstudis i
Investigació, València, 1997, 909 pp., ISBN: 84-7822-227-8.
Humanist, translator and poet, Vicent Mariner (1571 - c.1640),
rubbed shoulders with the greatest literary minds of his generation. A close friend of
Quevedo, he was acquainted with Lope de Vega and his entourage in the vibrant cultural
centre that was Madrid in the early 1600s. An impassioned translator, his Spanish
translations include the works of Aristotle, and he rendered Homer, Hesiod, Sophocles,
Theocritus and Moschus into Latin. In the appreciative words of Quevedo:
tu, mi Marineri, totos Graecae linguae thesauros antiquitate
uenerabiles, mole et magnitudine inaccessibiles, difficultatum tenebris inuolutos, tam
caeca noctis caligine submersos et iam pene obliuionis inertia et malignitate sepultos
diserto calamo eruis
In spite of such appreciation, the Valencian humanist found patronage
hard to come by. Though he was finally appointed Royal Librarian in 1633 after years of
petition (he had been seeking the position since 1619) by 1640, for reasons which are not
clear, it seems he still had not succeeded in making the position his. Other letters
testify his equally ill-fated attempts to be nominated Royal Chronicler. Towards
the end of his life the Duke of Lerma provided some recompense in the form of a modest
benefice in a parish church in Palencia.
His translation of the Catalan poet Ausias March (1397?-1459) is
striking in itself, and might seem to be out of place in his humanist project. Unlike the
staple diet of ancients Mariner sought to make accessible to a wider public, the poetry of
Ausias March was not so remote from a Golden Age audience. By this time it was known in at
least three Spanish translations, and must have reached a fairly wide readership. The
attention paid to him by the likes of Joan Boscà, Garcilaso de la Vega and Jorge de
Montemayor added to the interest which had generated the sixteenth century editions and
translations of the poet. Perhaps for this reason, Mariners translation has been
overlooked for so long. One might be excused for dismissing it as the most elaborate form
of poetic tribute more ambitious perhaps than Montemayors translations into
Spanish but, all in all, the product of an eccentric humanist and best left in the
rare books collection of the nearest university library.
Marco Coronel questions this, posteritys judgement on Mariner.
His motives, writes his editor, strike at the core of his humanist vocation: to reveal
«un tresor ocult rere la llengua "llemosina"». Implicit in Mariners
project lies the belief that he can shed some light on March. His translation seems
tantamount to placing Marchs difficulty on a par with that described by
Quevedo of the treasures of the Greek tongue.
On the whole, Coronel judges the translation to be a fairly accurate
one, though sometimes it seems that even the Valencian Mariner had difficulty in
understanding some of Marchs verses. In this regard Coronels introductory
study, which focuses on the mechanics of Mariners translation, reveals a curiously
exegetical side to the task, which seems concerned precisely with resolving some of the
obscurities. Mariners dedication to March and his interpretative mission
becomes apparent, for example, in his translating poem LVI twice, taking as his cue the
two different versions of the incipit available to him in the 1545 and the 1555 editions
respectively. Here are the opening strophes:
Ma voluntat amant vós se contenta, |
|
Noster amor uestro gaudet, laetatur
et ingens, |
havent desig de posseyr la vostra; |
|
dum sperat uestro semper amore frui, |
yo só content de tal com se demostra; |
|
hoc oblector enim ueluti monstratur
inesse, |
lo furiós desig prech Déu no senta, |
|
sed precor ardenter ne mea uota
ruant; |
si bé damor terme no puch atényer |
|
non ueneris finem iam tandem
attingere possum, |
en aquell loch hon amadors coneixen: |
|
hic ubi amator habet uel loca nota
sibi, |
lur gros desig complit, damor se leixen, |
|
ardens nam uotum uel nullo munere
complent, |
e yo lladoncs me sent damor estrényer. |
|
astringi at uideor semper amore
truci. |
(LVI edition d 1555) |
|
(Coronel IV, 5, 1) |
Ma voluntat amant vós se contenta, |
|
Semper amore tuo
gaudet mea tota uoluntas et tecum pleno stat mea uita sinu, |
y en lo finit infinitat li ·s mostra, |
|
infinita quidem
finito est munere merces et pleno noster iure stat ipse fauor, |
e donchs de mi vullau haver-ne mostra, |
|
ergo iam nostrum
studeas ostendere uotum; |
si pas les lleys qu· amor als seus
presenta. |
|
transeo si leges quas dat amorque
suis, |
Car en amor no puch terme atényer |
|
nullus amore mihi subsistit terminus
isto |
lay hon los més aquest terme atroben: |
|
aut ubi uel plures hunc reperere
gradum, |
propietat de ver· amor derroben, |
|
hi proprium ueri detorquent munus
amoris |
el camí llonch en poch volent-lo
strényer |
|
et longam astringunt paruo in amore
uiam |
(LVI edition c 1545) |
|
(Coronel IV, 4, 1) |
Mariner seems to find the 1545 version more problematic.Where March
presents a delphically lyrical and in the finite, the infinite is revealed...,
Mariner resorts to lengthy paraphrase in order to link the emotion more explicitly to
grace and the fusion of the poets will with his beloveds. To some extent this
seems to miss out on the strength of Marchs insistence on his transgression of
Loves laws, which are not enough to constrain the quest of his desires for the
infinite. The progression of the Catalan verse may serve to ironise the opening line, a
possibility which is resolved by Mariners addition of the lovers own
law, which binds lover to beloved while still allowing the possibility of the lover
to break Loves laws, and thus assert his transcendent amorous identity.
Mariners neat solution is somewhat artificial, and seems to respond to an
unwillingness to consider the implications of Marchs amorous condition, which seems
to hang suspended beneath, in between or beyond idelogical divisions, never yielding to
categorisation in the way imposed by Mariner.
Another interesting case occurs, as Coronel Ramos points out, where,
for example, Mariner has semper amare placet for its opposite ne.m plau amar
(IV,16, 76) which results, argues the editor, from the translator´s failure to appreciate
the import of a preceding Marchian image. The poet paints himself leaving the house of
Venus through one door, only to reenter it immediately by another, his legs broken, les
cames trencades, pedibus laceris.
Per un portal ixch per lostal de Venus, |
|
aedibus ex Veneris certa tandem exeo porta |
per altre ·y torn ab les cames trencades, |
|
atque alia redeo iam pedibus laceris |
e yo no pens que ·n ser amat abaste |
|
nec puto iam satis esse mihi vel forsan amari, |
ne ·m plau amar, ne menys me ·n desespere. |
|
semper amare placet nec cado spe penitus; |
Yo so aquell qu<e>·n leig officis cria |
|
ille ego sum turpi qui iam nutritur in arte, |
sab e no sab qu· és mal e no ·n pren altre, |
|
scit nescitque simul protinus esse malam |
car no pot ser àbit sens delit reste |
|
et sine delitiis habitus non linquitur ipse |
e açò par en covarts hòmens darmes. |
|
hoc atque armatos comprimit inde uiros. |
It would perhaps be a little unfair, however, to view Mariners
translation merely as an exercise in exegesis which, in this case, fails in its reduction
to grasp the import of Marchs paradox. This particular case seems to be a
clarifyingly ideological assertion of what it is to love, where March seems to be using it
with a curious indeterminacy. Which love does March abhor, the carnal or the spiritual?
Where the two become blurred, it may be Mariner goes to lengths to separate such
ambiguity.
Under literalitat textual the problematic of Mariners
relation to March becomes apparent. Coronel observes: «Mariner, dient Vita breuis
longisque subest ars cursibus ipsa/ fallitur in cunctis rebus et usus adhuc, sha
limitat a reproduir March sense al·ludir a la referencia hipocràtica». In terms of
intention it is poignant that precisely where March is classicising, Mariner reinforces
the Valencian poets sense of originality and his own by leaving the
source analogously modified.
If Mariner can show such hypersensitivity to his source text, it seems
sensible to allow for the possibility that, where he diverges, he intends fully to do so.
Sometimes he promises to provide the reader with something they might not have noticed.
Compare, for example, the following the opening of Marchs famous Cant XXIII:
Leixant apart lestil dels
trobadós |
|
Alta poetarum cernens sacra
carmina tandem |
qui, per escalf, trespassen
veritat, |
|
qui semper quodam vera furore
tacent |
e sostrahent mon voler afectat |
|
qui vel, cantanti ut fundunt
modulamina Phoebo, |
perquè no ·m trob, diré ·l
que trobe ·n vós |
|
transiliunt verum, dum furor
ore calet |
(XXIII, 1-4) |
|
(I, XI,1-4) |
Ausiass relation to early Italian humanism has not received much
attention; but his awareness of it is exemplified here. Mariner standing right at the
other end of the tradition picks this up and draws it out with his transiliunt verum.
Unable to find the truth, Marchs poetic goes beyond the rhetorical conceit
often attributed to these lines, in order to settle for a truth. Although Mariner
foresakes the pun on trobar, he reads these lines carefully and finds in them an
allusion to the humanist poetic of divine revelation. By rejecting this poetic, March
links this poem to his wider concerns: the use of poetry as a means of exploring the
ethical problems of desire and subjectivity in this world. By purposefully
foresaking the troubadour framework he casts light on a humanist context which is not
simply his own addition but lies latent in the original.
Within the humanist tradition, the homage paid to March by the Turnoni
edition of 1633, is significant. Mariners translation bears testimony to the
recognition of the Valencians originality. This is no post-romantic notion. He
values the power of the Marchian logos and is fundamentally intent on proferring an
interpretation of Marchian Amor which, if at times seems to direct the poeta
philosof less ambiguously in the direction of metaphysics, is nonetheless highly
suggestive.
Mariner, with characteristic humanist modesty, never aimed to be a
poet. In an unedited letter dated 1620, and cited by Coronel: «
hos [his
authors] emmitto, hos offero horumque in omnes defflecto utilitatem.» Though he
pursued his craft through translation, and in spite of this rhetorical humility, it may
turn out that Mariners is a poetic document of some significance. His relation to
poetic tradition is very different to Marchs, and this promises to make him all the
more valuable for students not only of March, and his Golden Age reception, but also of
the humanist poetic in a more general sense. Why on earth is it that March, alone of his
generation, managed to forecast poetic taste two centuries after his death? How, why and
what does March become, gain, or lose by conversion into the language of Catullus and
Horace, via a humanist marriage with the Christian-Neoplatonism of Vicent Mariner?.
Scholars are in Marco Coronels debt for being alerted to the possibility that
Mariner is not merely of antiquarian interest. |