Table of Contents
|
Words
:
Alphabetical
-
Frequency
-
Inverse
-
Length
-
Statistics
|
Help
|
IntraText Library
St. Teresa of Avila
The Way of Perfection
IntraText CT - Text
TRANSLATOR'S NOTE
Previous
-
Next
Click here to hide the links to concordance
TRANSLATOR
'S
NOTE
In the
text
of each of the
CHAPTERs
, of the
Valladolid
autograph
there are
omissions
-- some
merely
verbal
, often
illustrating
the
author
's
aim
in
making
the
new
redaction
, others more
fundamental
. If the
Valladolid
manuscript
represents
the
Way
of
perfection
as
St
.
Teresa
wrote
it in the
period
of her
fullest
powers
, the
greater
freshness
and
individuality
of the
Escorial
manuscript
are
engaging
qualities
, and there are many
passages
in it,
omitted
from the later
version
, which one would be
sorry
to
sacrifice
.
In what
form
, then, should the
book
be
presented
to
English
readers
? It is not
surprising
if this
question
is
difficult
to
answer
, since
varying
procedures
have been
adopted
for the
presentation
of it in
Spain
. Most of them
amount
briefly
to a
re-editing
of the
Valladolid
manuscript
. The first
edition
of the
book
,
published
at
ƒvora
in the
year
1583
,
follows
this
manuscript
,
apparently
using a
copy
(the
so-called
"
Toledo
"
copy
) made by
Ana
de
San
Pedro
and
corrected
by
St
.
Teresa
; it
contains
a
considerable
number
of
errors
, however, and
omits
one
entire
CHAPTER
-- the
thirty-first
, which
deals
with the
Prayer
of
Quiet
, a
subject
that was
arousing
some
controversy
at the
time
when the
edition
was
being
prepared
. In
1585
, a
second
edition
,
edited
by
Fray
Jer-nimo
Graci
‡
n
, was
published
at
Salamanca
: the
text
of this
follows
that of the
ƒvora
edition
very
closely
, as
apparently
does the
text
of a
rare
edition
published
at
Valencia
in
1586
. When
Fray
Luis
de
Leon
used the
Valladolid
manuscript
as the
foundation
of his
text
(
1588
) he
inserted
for the first
time
paragraphs
and
phrases
from that of
El
Escorial
, as well as
admitting
variants
from the
copies
corrected
by the
author
: he is not
careful
however, to
indicate
how and where his
edition
differs
from the
manuscript
.
Since
1588
, most of the
Spanish
editions
have
followed
Fray
Luis
de
Le-n
with
greater
or less
exactness
. The
principal
exception
is the
well-known
"
Biblioteca
de
Autores
Espa-oles
"
edition
, in which
La
Fuente
followed
a
copy
of the then almost
forgotten
Escorial
manuscript
,
indicating
in
footnotes
some of the
variant
readings
in the
codex
of
Valladolid
. In the
edition
of
1883
, the
work
of a
Canon
of
Valladolid
Cathedral
,
Francisco
Herrero
Bayona
, the
texts
of the
two
manuscripts
are
reproduced
in
parallel
columns
.
P
.
Silverio
de
Santa
Teresa
gives
the
place
of
honour
to the
Valladolid
codex
, on which he
bases
his
text
,
showing
only the
principal
variants
of the
Escorial
manuscript
but
printing
the
Escorial
text
in
full
in an
appendix
as well as the
text
of the
Toledo
copy
referred
to above.
The first
translations
of this
book
into
English
, by
Woodhead
(
1675
:
reprinted
1901
) and
Dalton
(
1852
), were
based
, very
naturally
, on the
text
of
Luis
de
Le-n
, which in less
critical
ages
than our own
enjoyed
great
prestige
and was
considered
quite
authoritative
. The
edition
published
in
1911
by the
Benedictines
of
Stanbrook
,
described
on its
title-page
as "
including
all the
variants
" from both the
Escorial
and the
Valladolid
manuscript
,
uses
Herrero
Bayona
and
gives
an
eclectic
text
based
on the
two
originals
but with no
indications
as to which is which. The
editors
'
original
idea
of using one
text
only, and
showing
variants
in
footnotes
, was
rejected
in the
belief
that "such an
arrangement
would
prove
bewildering
for the
generality
of
readers
" and that anyone who could
claim
the
title
of "
student
" would be
able
to
read
the
original
Spanish
and would have
access
to the
Herrero
Bayona
edition
.
Father
Zimmerman
, in his
introduction
,
claimed
that while the
divergences
between the
manuscripts
are sometimes "so
great
that the [
Stanbrook
]
translation
resembles
a
mosaic
composed
of a
large
number
of
small
bits
,
skilfully
combined
", "the
work
has been done most
conscientiously
, and while nothing has been
added
to the
text
of the
Saint
, nothing has been
omitted
, except, of
course
, what would have been
mere
repetition
".
This first
edition
of the
Benedictines
'
translation
furnished
the
general
reader
with an
attractive
version
of what many
consider
St
.
Teresa
's most
attractive
book
, but
soon
after it was
published
a much more
intelligent
and
scholarly
interest
began
to be
taken
in the
Spanish
mystics
and that not only by
students
with
ready
access
to the
Spanish
original
and
ability
to
read
it. So, when a
new
edition
of the
Stanbrook
translation
was
called
for, the
editors
decided
to
indicate
the
passages
from the
Escorial
edition
which had been
embodied
in the
text
by
enclosing
these in
square
brackets
. In
1911
,
Father
Zimmerman
,
suspecting
that the
procedure
then
adopted
by the
translators
would not "
meet
with the
approval
of
scholars
", had
justified
it by their
desire
"to
benefit
the
souls
of the
faithful
rather than the
intellect
of the
student
"; but now,
apparently
, he
thought
it
practicable
to
achieve
both these
aims
at once. This
resolution
would
certainly
have had the
support
of
St
.
Teresa
, who in this very
book
describes
intelligence
as a
useful
staff
to
carry
on the
way
of
perfection
. The
careful
comparison
of
two
separate
versions
of such a
work
of
genius
may
benefit
the
soul
of an
intelligent
reader
even more than the
careful
reading
of a
version
compounded
of both by someone else.
When I
began
to
consider
the
preparation
of the
present
translation
it seemed to me that an
attempt
might be made to do a
little
more for the
reader
who
combined
intelligence
with
devoutness
than had been done already. I had no
hesitation
about
basing
my
version
on the
Valladolid
MS
., which is
far
the
better
of the
two
, whether we
consider
the
aptness
of its
illustrations
, the
clarity
of its
expression
, the
logical
development
of its
argument
or its
greater
suitability
for
general
reading
. At the same
time
, no
Teresan
who has
studied
the
Escorial
text
can
fail
to have an
affection
for it: its
greater
intimacy
and
spontaneity
and its
appeal
to
personal
experience
make it one of the most
characteristic
of all the
Saint
's
writings
-- indeed,
excepting
the
Letters
and a few
CHAPTERs
of the
Foundations
, it
reveals
her
better
than any.
Passages
from the
Escorial
MS
. must therefore be
given
: thus
far
I
followed
the
reasoning
of the
Stanbrook
nuns
.
Where this
translation
diverges
from
theirs
is in the
method
of
presentation
. On the one
hand
I
desired
, as
St
.
Teresa
must have
desired
, that it should be
essentially
her
mature
revision
of the
book
that should be
read
. For this
reason
I have been
extremely
conservative
as to the
interpolations
admitted
into the
text
itself: I have
rejected
, for
example
, the
innumerable
phrases
which
St
.
Teresa
seems to have
cut
out in
making
her
new
redaction
because they were
trivial
or
repetitive
, because they
weaken
rather than
reinforce
her
argument
, because they
say
what is
better
said
elsewhere, because they
summarize
needlessly
3
or because they are
mere
personal
observations
which
interrupt
the
author
's
flow
of
thought
, and sometimes, indeed, are
irrelevant
to it. I
hope
it is not
impertinent
to
add
that, in the
close
study
which the
adoption
of this
procedure
has
involved
, I have
acquired
a
respect
and
admiration
for
St
.
Teresa
as a
reviser
, to whom, as
far
as I
know
, no one who has
written
upon her has done
full
justice
. Her
shrewdness
,
realism
and
complete
lack
of
vanity
make her an
admirable
editor
of her own
work
, and, in
debating
whether or no to
incorporate
some
phrase
or
passage
in my
text
I have often
asked
myself: Would
St
.
Teresa
have
included
or
omitted
this if she had been
making
a
fresh
revision
for a
world-wide
public
over a
period
of
centuries
?"
At the same
time
, though
admitting
only a
minimum
of
interpolations
into my
text
, I have
given
the
reader
all the other
important
variants
in
footnotes
. I cannot
think
, as
Father
Zimmerman
apparently
thought
, that anyone can
find
the
presence
of a few
notes
at the
foot
of each
page
"
bewildering
". Those for whom they have no
interest
may
ignore
them; others, in
studying
them,
may
rest
assured
that the only
variants
not
included
(and this
applies
to the
variants
from the
Toledo
copy
as well as from the
Escorial
MS
.) are such as have no
significance
in a
translation
. I have been rather less
meticulous
here than in my
edition
of
St
.
John
of the
Cross
, where
textual
problems
assumed
greater
importance
. Thus, except where there has been some
special
reason
for
doing
so, I have not
recorded
alterations
in the
order
of
clauses
or
words
; the almost
regular
use
by
E
. of the
second
person
of the
plural
where
V
. has the first; the
frequent
and often
apparently
purposeless
changes
of
tense
; such
substitutions
, in the
Valladolid
redaction
, as those of "
Dios
" or "
Se-ior
m
'
o
" for "
Se-ior
"; or
merely
verbal
paraphrases
as (to
take
an
example
at
random
) "
Todo
esto
que
he
dicho
es
para
. . ." for "
En
todo
esto
que
he
dicho
no
trato
. . ." Where I have
given
variants
which
may
seem
trivial
(such as "
hermanas
" for "
hijas
", or the
insertion
of an
explanatory
word
, like "
digo
") the
reason
is
generally
that there seems to me a
possibility
that some
difference
in
tone
is
intended
, or that the
alternative
phrase
gives
some
slight
turn
to the
thought
which the
phrase
in the
text
does not.
The
passages
from the
Escorial
version
which I have
allowed
into my
text
are
printed
in
italics
. Thus, without their
being
given
undue
prominence
(and
readers
of the
Authorized
Version
of the
Bible
will
know
how
seldom
they can
recall
what
words
are
italicized
even in the
passages
they
know
best
) it is
clear
at a
glance
how much of the
book
was
intended
by its
author
to be
read
by a
wider
public
than the
nuns
of
St
.
Joseph
's. The
interpolations
may
be as
brief
as a
single
expressive
word
, or as
long
as a
paragraph
, or even a
CHAPTER
: the
original
CHAPTER
17
of the
Valladolid
MS
., for
example
, which
contains
the
famous
similitude
of the
Game
of
Chess
, was
torn
out of the
codex
by its
author
(
presumably
with the
idea
that so
secular
an
illustration
was out of
place
) and has been
restored
from the
Escorial
MS
. as
part
of
CHAPTER
16
of this
translation
. No
doubt
the
striking
bullfight
metaphor
at the end of
CHAPTER
39
was
suppressed
in the
Valladolid
codex
for the same
reason
. With these
omissions
may
be
classed
a
number
of
minor
ones
-- of
words
or
phrases
which to the
author
may
have seemed too
intimate
or
colloquial
but do not seem so to us. Other
words
and
phrases
have
apparently
been
suppressed
because
St
.
Teresa
thought
them
redundant
, whereas a later
reader
finds
that they make a
definite
contribution
to the
sense
or
give
explicitness
and
detail
to what would otherwise be
vague
, or even
obscure
.
4
A few
suppressions
seem to have been
due
to
pure
oversight
. For the
omission
of other
passages
it is
difficult
to
find
any
reason
, so
good
are they: the
conclusion
of
CHAPTER
38
and the
opening
of
CHAPTER
41
are
cases
in
point
.
The
numbering
of the
CHAPTERs
, it should be
noted
,
follows
neither of the
two
texts
, but is that
traditionally
employed
in the
printed
editions
. The
CHAPTER
headings
are also
drawn
up on an
eclectic
basis
, though here the
Valladolid
text
is
generally
followed
.
The
system
I have
adopted
not only
assures
the
reader
that he will be
reading
everything that
St
.
Teresa
wrote
and nothing that she did not
write
, but that he can
discern
almost at a
glance
, what she
meant
to be
read
by her
little
group
of
nuns
at
St
.
Joseph
's and also how she
intended
her
work
to
appear
in its more
definitive
form
. Thus we can
see
her both as the
companion
and
Mother
and as the
writer
and
Foundress
. In both
roles
she is
equally
the
Saint
.
But it should be made
clear
that, while
incorporating
in my
text
all
important
passages
from the
Escorial
draft
omitted
in that of
Valladolid
, I have
thought
it no
part
of my
task
to
provide
a
complete
translation
of the
Escorial
draft
alone, and that, therefore, in
order
to
avoid
the
multiplication
of
footnotes
, I have
indicated
only the
principal
places
where some
expression
in the later
draft
is not to be found in the
earlier
. In other
words
, although, by
omitting
the
italicized
portions
of my
text
, one will be
able
to have as
exact
a
translation
of the
Valladolid
version
as it is
possible
to
get
, the
translation
of the
Escorial
draft
will be only
approximate
. This is the
sole
concession
I have made to the
ordinary
reader
as
opposed
to the
student
, and it is
hardly
conceivable
, I
think
, that any
student
to whom this could
matter
would be
unable
to
read
the
original
Spanish
.
One
final
note
is
necessary
on the
important
Toledo
copy
, the
text
of which
P
.
Silverio
also
prints
in
full
. This
text
I have
collated
with that of the
Valladolid
autograph
, from which it
derives
. In it both
St
.
Teresa
herself and others have made
corrections
and
additions
-- more, in
fact
, than in any of the other
copies
extant
. No
attempt
has been made here either to
show
what the
Toledo
copy
omits
or to
include
those of its
corrections
and
additions
-- by
far
the
largest
number
of them -- which are
merely
verbal
and
unimportant
, and many of which, indeed, could not be
embodied
in a
translation
at all. But the few
additions
which are
really
worth
noting
have been
incorporated
in the
text
(in
square
brackets
so as to
distinguish
them from the
Escorial
additions
) and all
corrections
which have seemed to me of any
significance
will be found in
footnotes
.
3
E.g.
, at
places
where a
CHAPTER
ends
in
E
. but not in
V
.
4
One
special
case
of this
class
is the
suppression
in
V
. of one out of
two
or
three
almost but not
quite
synonymous
adjectives
referring
to the same
noun
.
Previous
-
Next
Table of Contents
|
Words
:
Alphabetical
-
Frequency
-
Inverse
-
Length
-
Statistics
|
Help
|
IntraText Library
Best viewed with any browser at 800x600 or 768x1024 on Tablet PC
IntraText®
(V89) - Some rights reserved by
EuloTech SRL
- 1996-2007. Content in this page is licensed under a
Creative Commons License