Bulletin of the Comediantes

WHILE LOOKING OVER THE BOOKS I had in my library from Jim Parr (1936–2022), I came across one that he had given me, Don Quixote, Don Juan, and Related Subjects. Form and Tradition in Spanish Literature, 1330–1630. He handwrote this dedication: "For Sharon, a most discerning reader and a true friend. Jim." I had not read these words since 2006 when he gave a lecture at Catholic University for the eleventh annual Alessandro S. Crisafulli Lecture on April 7, 2006, on "Don Quixote: Telling the Tale." This was the last time I saw Jim, internationally known scholar, gentleman, mentor, and friend. While his mastery of theories on narration was an inspiration to scholars in our field, the range and extent of his knowledge of many different traditions will continue to dazzle us. Just as a few examples from his lecture: he employed Roman Jakobson's communications model and Claude Lévi-Strauss's notion of "bricolage" as a way of examining the multiplicity of narrative voices from the "historical, flesh-and-blood author, Miguel de Cervantes himself," to the unnamed morisco translator, or Cide Hamete Benengeli, a "pseudo-author." He also mentioned the inferred author, defined as "the authorial presence within the text, whose manner and attributes are inferred by the competent reader once Parts 1 and 2 have been completed," such as the moral voice of the narrator of "El curioso impertinente." Then he referenced concepts from Gérard Genette and Gerald Prince involving mimesis, diegesis, metalepsis, the narratee, and the disnarrated, defined as those aspects of Don Quijote's history that the narrator decides to omit, since he tells us that these "menudencias" will remain "en silencio." When someone asked him about what he thought of Edith Grossman's translation, he took issue with her rendering of galgo corredor as "grayhound for racing," since the meaning is "hunting dog" (part 1, ch. 1, 19). I am in profound admiration of the complexity of Jim's narratological analysis, since he not only sought to explore new approaches to Spanish literature, but also managed to convey the depth of his exploration of theoretical models that have illuminated and deepened our understanding of early modern Spanish discourse. While I had forgotten I even had those notes from Jim's lecture at Catholic University, I certainly encourage everyone to read or reread Jim's scholarly work on Don Quijote and his approach to narrative technique. I would include his earlier study on Don Quixote: An Anatomy of Subversive Discourse, a nod to Northrup Frye's Anatomy of Criticism. Jim did not hesitate to remember the theoretical [End Page 19] contributions that had gone on before us. It is very clear that Jim did not limit his studies to Cervantes, or even the comedia, since he also wrote engaging essays on such canonical works as the Libro de buen amor, La Celestina, and Lazarillo de Tormes that have shaped the foundation of Spanish literary discourse.

Many of our colleagues remember Jim Parr as the Editor of the Bulletin of the Comediantes, a position he held from 1973 to 1998. I first met Jim at the University of Southern California in 1977 as a beginning assistant professor in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese. As editor of the Bulletin, he encouraged me to write on the comedia, although I had just published a book on Garcilaso de la Vega and Petrarch. Thus, Jim Parr really became my mentor for the comedia, and I was his student. I am indebted to him for his encouragement and expertise in Spanish theater. Since I had studied semiotics, he asked me to write an evaluation of an article submission that used the terminology. While the author of the piece made a valiant effort, certainly with interesting results, he nevertheless did not really get into some of the principle hypotheses that semioticians usually ask about sign systems, which must be examined in more depth than just as catalogues of signifiers. Upon receiving my evaluation, the author—departing from the standard practice for journals with blind peer review—asked...