Spanish texts of this period. Part 3 is, however, a different case altogether. Graci an was not living in Madrid in 1657 and could not therefore correct the proof of the princeps. Inevitably, the resultant text is littered with errors. As the editors wryly note: ‘Graci an sin duda debi o de llevarse las manos a la cabeza cuando ley o los disparates impresos en Madrid’ (xxvi). Not content just to lament this misfortune, Graci an elaborated a long list of errors with their corresponding corrections and asked that it be incorporated into the final published edition. As it was a single loose sheet, it has disappeared from all copies of the princeps except for one held in Vienna. The discovery of this sheet of corrections by Graci an was, needless to say, of inestimable help to the current editors in their preparation of the text. Where their text differs most notably from that of Romera-Navarro (hitherto the most reliable) is in the choice of edition for Part 1. As noted above, S anchez La ılla, Laplana, and Cuartero decided to use the princeps of Zaragoza 1651. Romera-Navarro, on the other hand, went for the second edition of Madrid, Pablo de Val, 1658, arguing that, as it came out while Graci an was still alive, it must have (or might have) represented his last wishes on the subject. However, as our new editors convincingly demonstrate, there is no evidence whatsoever that Graci an had a hand in this new edition and no way the he could have corrected the proof (similar to what had happened with Part 3 published by the same printer in Madrid a year earlier). With the Zaragoza 1651 edition we are on much safer ground with a text corrected by the author and free of the sort of error that litters the 1658 edition. In the Introduction S anchez La ılla, Laplana, and Cuartero have done what all editors should do as a matter of course: fully explain their editorial decisions. One may or not agree with them, but at least the reader knows where they are coming from and why they have taken the decisions they have. This is a model edition, which has quite rightly won plaudits all around. The editors also (and rightly so) recognise their debt to the 3-volume box set facsimile edition of El critic on prepared in 2009 by Aurora Egido (and also published by the Instituci on Fernando el Cat olico) with substantial preliminary material in each volume; indeed, there is enough material here (over 500 pages in total) for a splendid book in its own right. Together, the critical edition of El critic on prepared by S anchez La ılla, Laplana, and Cuartero, and the facsimile edition prepared by Egido (which reproduces the same texts used by the modern editors) provide the reader of Graci an with a veritable feast. This is scholarship of the highest order.

中文翻译：

---

Teatro hispánico y su puesta en escena: estudios en homenaje a Josep Lluís Sirera Turó

这一时期的西班牙文本。然而，第 3 部分完全不同。Graci an 在 1657 年并不住在马德里，因此无法更正元首的证明。不可避免地，由此产生的文本充满了错误。正如编辑们苦涩地指出：“Graci an sin duda debi o de llevarse las manos a la cabeza cuando ley o los disparates impresos en Madrid”（xxvi）。Graci 不满足于哀叹这一不幸，他详细列出了一长串错误及其相应的更正，并要求将其纳入最终出版版本。由于它是单张活页纸，它已从所有的元首副本中消失，只有在维也纳举行的副本除外。毋庸置疑，Graci an 发现这幅更正的内容对当前的编辑人员在准备文本时提供了不可估量的帮助。他们的文本与 Romera-Navarro（迄今为止最可靠）的文本最显着不同的地方在于第 1 部分的版本选择。如上所述，S anchez La ılla、Laplana 和 Cuartero 决定使用萨拉戈萨 1651 年的元首。另一方面，Romera-Navarro 为第二版马德里，Pablo de Val，1658 年，争辩说，当它在 Graci an 还活着的时候出版，它一定（或可能）代表了他最后的愿望主题。然而，正如我们的新编辑令人信服地证明的那样，没有任何证据表明 Graci an 参与了这个新版本，他也无法更正证明（类似于马德里同一印刷商出版的第 3 部分所发生的情况）一年前）。有了萨拉戈萨 1651 年版，作者更正了文本，并且没有出现 1658 年版中的那种错误，我们就安全得多了。在引言中，S anchez La ılla、Laplana 和 Cuartero 做了所有编辑都应该做的事情：充分解释他们的编辑决定。人们可能同意也可能不同意，但至少读者知道他们来自哪里以及他们为什么做出他们的决定。这是一个模型版，它理所当然地赢得了各方的喝彩。编辑们也（并且理所当然地）承认他们对 2009 年由 Aurora Egido 准备的 3 卷盒装传真版 El 评论家（也由 Instituci on Fernando el Cat olico 出版）的功劳，每卷都有大量的初步材料; 确实，这里有足够的材料（总共 500 多页），本身就是一本精彩的书。由 S anchez La ?lla、Laplana 和 Cuartero 编写的批判版《评论家》和 Egido 编写的传真版（复制了现代编辑使用的相同文本）一起为 Graci an 的读者提供了一场名副其实的盛宴. 这是最高级别的奖学金。