Literary History and Criticism edited by Marion Geiger ANACLETO, MARTA TEXEIRA. Infiltrations d’images: de la réécriture de la fiction pastorale ibérique en France (XVIe –XVIIIe siècles). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2009. ISBN 978-90420 -2630-8. Pp. 393. 80 a. As the popularity of the Amadis waned in France, another Spanish import, Los siete libros de la Diana (c. 1559), a pastoral novel mingling prose and verse by the Portuguese writer Jorge de Montemayor, launched a new fictional vogue. While La Diana is well known to L’Astrée scholars, Marta Texeira Anacleto shifts our attention from the novel to its translations. Drawing extensively on translation theory, she treats French translations of La Diana, its continuations, and imitations by Figueroa, Lope de Vega, and Cervantes, as part of a broader continuum of rewritings—increasingly distorted “images” that include autonomous French pastorals. The book focuses on three sets of translations: a large late Renaissance group (1578–1614), a cluster from the 1620s, and a trio published between 1699 and 1784. Anacleto first examines how the works’ peritexts track changing conceptions of translation, from the sixteenth century, when translation helped define literary French, through seventeenth-century ‘belles infidèles,’ to Enlightenment efforts at cultural preservation. She very interestingly demonstrates how translators shaped their works’ reception through titles, dedications, and tables of contents as well as their explicit statements. In her treatment of the translations proper, Anacleto describes the initial appearance of multiple translations of La Diana, each claiming to correct earlier errors, as exemplifying the Renaissance search for the ideal reproduction of the text’s meaning as well as its best expression in French. Despite their “fidélité,” translators subtly transpose Spanish love discourse into the language of budding honnêteté. The second group at once reflects the intervening success of L’Astrée and legitimates the “écriture narrative française” d’Urfé’s novel inspired (158). Suppressing anything foreign, translators of the 1620s effect major formal transformations, especially in their treatment of verse (164ff.). The third group includes the only translation by a woman—Gillot de Saintonge’s fusion (1699) of La Diana and its continuations into an idiosyncratic nouvelle galante. Unlike seventeenth-century translations, Enlightenment versions of La Diana (1733) and Cervantes’s Galatea (1784) exhibit the works’ alien qualities (252), which they elucidate in explanatory notes. Yet even as translators acknowledge historical distance, they manage to accommodate their public’s Rousseauist sensibilities. The book’s third section examines indigenous works with intertextual relationships to La Diana. Anacleto depicts works whose titles acknowledge this relationship as at once subverting and prolonging the mirroring procedures of translation. The concluding chapter, devoted to L’Astrée and its epigones, locates translation within the broader intertextual process of aesthetic autonomization. L’Astrée is at once a reading of earlier translations and a profoundly original work, resulting from the injection of an “élément d’étrangeté” into the French system (318). Like La Diana, it inspired its own imitations, but these offer only a sterile “écriture de la citation” (289). This is an enlightening book whose exploration of seldom considered material has much to teach us, both about the evolution of the French novel and about 1156 FRENCH REVIEW 85.6 translation’s contributions to the literary system. It is not, though, easy to read. Prone to abstract theoretical formulations, Anacleto does not always supply the needed illustrative example. More important, her book would have profited from an initial overview of the Spanish source texts and their translators. Familiarity with La Diana is a minimum requirement for navigating Anacleto’s allusive treatment of characters, plots, and conventions. Contextual information about the translations is scant and is offered piecemeal: we learn in a note, for example, that Chappuys also translated Ariosto and Castiglione (108). Given Anacleto’s emphasis on cultural transfer, moreover, one wishes for more information about the mentality the originals evoke. Her insightful reminder that the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries installed translations within “la grande métaphore qu’était La Bibliothèque Française fixée par Sorel” (62) makes us long for a fuller account of what was transformed in the process. Dartmouth College (NH) Kathleen Wine BARROVECCHIO, ANNE...
Read full abstract