BRITISH ACADEMY FUNDING
The research on which this presentation is part of a research project
entitled ‘The Evolution of a Saint: A New Biography of Santa Rosa de
Lima’ which has been funded by the British Academy, running from 1
August 2013 until 1 August 2015 (Ref: SG121483)
NORMAL MEANING OF ‘LOST IN TRANSLATION’
When we think of ‘lost in translation’ we normally think of expressions or a
use of language which is unique to a particular language and cannot be
translated into another language easily
the Gaelic word “Sgriob”,
which is translated as
“the itchiness that overcomes the upper lip just before taking a sip of
whisky”
SOUTHERN CHILE WORD
“mamihlapinatapai”
the Southern Chilean Yeghan word which means
“a look between two people suggesting an unspoken desire”
GERMAN WORD…
the German word “Waldeinsamkeit”
which is translated as
“the feeling of being alone in the woods”
FRENCH WORD
and the French word “l’esprit de l’escalier”,
which is translated literally as
“staircase wit”
but which actually suggests
“the act of thinking of a clever comeback when it is too late to deliver it”
TRANSLATIONAL ACT AND ‘CORPUS’
The translational act I focus on in this presentation today is the process of
beatification (i.e. whereby the Vatican declares an individual to be
‘blessed’) and canonisation (whereby the Vatican declares an individual
to be a saint)
The saint concerned is Santa Rosa de Lima (1586-1617), a ‘criolla’ who was
born and died in Lima in the Spanish colony of Peru. She was beatified
in 1667 and canonised in 1671. She is significant in that she was the
first saint of the Americas, including of course Peru -- of which she is
nowadays the patron saint --- as well as the Philippines (it was still then
part of the Spanish Empire). There are a number of churches devoted to
her not only in Peru but also in Chile and Argentina, and she is revered
in parts of the Netherlands and India
THREE TYPES OF TRANSLATION
I am interested in the translation as expressed in a number of related ways:
(i) the translation of her material body into a holy relic, (ii) the material
translation of the Spanish depositions of the beatification Processus
into Latin, and (iii) the processes underpinning the narrativisation and
Latinisation of Rosa’s life as evident in the first canonic biography, the
Vita mirabilis et mors pretiosa venerabilis sororis Rosae de S. Maria
Limensis, published in 1664, and reputedly authored by one Leonardus
Hansen
In particular I focus on three missing objects, three things lost in
translation:
(i)
A toe
(ii) Three depositions, and
(iii) A corpse
SANTA ROSA BEING ATTACKED BY THE DEVIL
Santa Rosa was famous for a number of things, and one of these was her
frequent struggles with the devil; she gave him the nickname of ‘el
paton tinoso’; ringwormy big-foot’. Here are two depictions of Rosa
being attacked by the devil
SANTA ROSA’S LIFE
She was also famous for her visions of Christ who ‘visited’ her in her cell
while she prayed
As a result she was interviewed by the Inquisition; in the depiction below
she appears to be accompanied by two female friends, one of whom
might be Luisa Melgarejo
Fortunately for her, her views were found to be orthodox
She had 11 different confessors towards the end of her life
ROSA’S ‘MORS PRETIOSA’ (PRECIOUS DEATH)
After experiencing pains seen as praeternatural by her doctor, Rosa died on
24 August 1617
On the night of her death, her friend Dona Luisa Melgarejo experienced a
3.5 hours ‘arrobo’ (religious ecstasy) in which she ‘saw’ Rosa being
welcomed into paradise
Angelino Medoro painted Rosa ‘au naturel’ soon after her death (see below)
Because of the hordes of people who came to see her body and obtain a
relic, the funeral was interrupted twice. As her body was being carried
through the streets of Lima the crowds tore off parts of her clothes;
they placed rosaries on her body; they touched her hands which were
seen as ‘tratables”
A number of miracles occurred when her body was in a tumulum in the
Church of Santo Domingo
THE TRANSLATION INTO RELIC
The first part of Rosa’s body to be translated into a relic was her toe
Because of the pressure of the hordes of people who wanted a ‘piece’ of
Rosa as a relic – which were believed to have miraculous healing
powers – the Archbishop of Lima decided that her body should be
buried in the Santo Domingo Church grounds in a non-public ceremony
Her body was kept in a chapel inside the Santo Domingo Church, watched
over by the priests, the night before her burial (25 August 1617)
While kissing her feet one of the novitiates there took his devotion a little
further and decided to bite off one of her toes
We know this happened because another priest testified about this in his
deposition to the Beatification Processus – he did not complain that his
colleague had done this but rather that he would not give him a piece of
the toe!
BEATIFICATION PROCESSUS
Proceedings of the Beatification Processus were begun almost
immediately, on 1 September 1617
The Beatification papers consisting of the testimony of 75 witnesses were
completed in 1618. There were 78 depositions since three witnesses
gave two statements.
The original manuscript of the Beatification papers are held to this day in
the Monasterio de Santa Rosa de Santa Maria in Lima
A new copy was written out by hand to be forwarded to Spain; it was
called a ‘Traslado’, a word which means ‘transferal’ or ‘translation’
There are 17th-century texts for example in which the word ‘traslado’ or
‘treslado’ is used to mean translation
THE ‘TRASLADO’ (1618)
The full title of the document is
‘Traslado Autentico delas Informaciones de la Vida Sanctidad Muerte y
Milagros de la Bendita Rosa de Santa María Natural de la Ciudad de
Lima’
It consists of 338 folios – and it was signed and authenticated by the
Archbishop Baltasar de Padilla and put on a ship to Spain, leaving in
the late spring or early summer of 1618, thereby in effect launching the
Beatification Process of Santa Rosa: “traslado’ means ‘transferral’ or
‘fair copy’ in this instance.
The manuscript in the Vatican is ASV, Arch. Congr. SS. Rituum, Processus,
1570.
THE TRANSLATION INTO LATIN
All cases relating to Beatification had to be translated into Latin, and this
manuscript was no exception. This translation was designed
specifically for presentation at the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the
Holy Office – a non-public, confidential meeting – which would decide
on the issue of Rosa’s beatification
This translation therefore may be understood in three complementary
ways:
(a) unlike the ‘centrifugal’ translation of a work which is designed to
popularise the work and make it available to other-language-speaking
publics, this translation was designed for an ‘inner chamber’
(b) It is comparable to a technical translation of a document beneath
different branches of an organisation which speak different languages
(like the EU)
(c) The ‘translatio’ into Latin is an intrinsic component of the process of
‘spiritual elevation’ given the association between Latin and the
(Catholic) Church
THE LATIN ‘TRANSLATORS’
Master Prior of the Province Agustín de Vega and General Predicator and
Apostolic Notary Francisco de Figueroa were charged with producing a
Latin version of the text. They completed the task on 16 April 1619,
producing a new 463-folio text entirely in Latin entitled ‘Informatio
Judica Ante Archespiscopum Civitatis Regum in Indiis occidentalibus
de Vita et miraculis Venerabilis Sororis, Rosa De S. Maria Ordinis
Predicatoris’ , ASV, Arch. Congr. SS. Rituum, Processus, 1573
They were not professional translators as such but Dominicans who were
charged with a scribal-professional-theological assignment in which
translation was a component of the overall task
THE TRANSLATORS’ STATEMENT
Agustin de Vega and Francisco de Figueroa stated that the
text was a true translation.
As we read on the last folio of the manuscript:
‘Ego frater franciscus de figueroa Predicator generalis et
notarius apostolicus ad negotia ordinis praedicatorum
fidem facio ac verum testimonium qualiter hoc est unum
transmutum bene ac fideliter extractum ex suo originali
cum quo concordat’, fol 463.
TRADUTTORE TRADITTORE
But this was not exactly true. It was an exact translation of the parts they
had translated, but the testimonies of three individuals did not make it
through to the Latin translation: Luisa Melgarejo, Jusepa de Guzmán
and Gaspar Flores, Rosa’s father. Their testimonies are all in the copy
which was sent to Spain, the ‘Traslado Autentico de las informaciones
de la Vida Sanctidad Muerte y Milagros de la Bendita Rosa de Santa
Maria…’. All of the other witnesses’ accounts are left intact, which
makes it all the more surprising that these three individuals should
have been chosen, since one was her father and the other two were part
of Rosa’s inner circles of close friends.
Technically translation always leaves open to the translator(s) the option of
making editorial changes which – if not signalled – are unlikely to be
noticed by its readership, especially if, as in this case, the readership
does not have access to the original.
WHY GASPAR FLORES?
But why did it happen in this case?
Because of politics first and religion second:
It is known that, on 20 April 1618, Gaspar Flores had written personally to
the King, Philip III, complaining about his economic circumstances
despite the fact that he had dedicated his life to Spain and furthermore
that he had produced a daughter who had produced many miracles; in
his letter he described his daughter as ‘la primera flor con cuyas
virtudes y santidad ha querido Nuestro Señor engrandezer el Piru’.
It is possible that Gaspar Flores’s gesture was interpreted negatively as a
brash attempt to use his daughter’s sanctity to feather his own nest,
and that this led to his exclusion from the document submitted to the
Vatican tribunal. Kings sometimes get their revenge quietly.
WHY LUISA MELGAREJO AND JUSEPA DE GUZMAN?
Because of religion first and politics second:
The excision of Luisa Melgarejo and Jusepa de Guzmán from the Latin text
points to the workings of the Spanish Inquisition behind the scenes.
Though the Inquisition had not – at that time in 1618-1619 – formally
expressed its reservations about Luisa Melgarejo, this was an early
indication of what lay ahead. Luisa Melgarejo – despite being the wife of
one of the most respected individuals in Lima at that time, Domingo de
Soto, the Rector of San Marcos University – would be tried for heresy
by the Inquisition in 1622; she was accused of being an active member
of the ‘alumbradas’ group which had been outlawed by the Inquisition.
SOME PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS
It is important when looking at translation between countries – the Spanish
colonies and the mother country, Spain, and the relationship of both to
Italy – between languages – i.e. between Spanish and Latin – and
between cultures – including the culture of the Dominicans compared
with the culture of the Inquisition – to see it as at the mercy – like any
other manifestation of written culture – of political tensions
We also need to look carefully at the terms used; the word ‘traslado’ in the
title of the Spanish text and the word ‘transmutum’ in the statement in
the Latin text perhaps already indicate how slippery the relationship
between these different entities was in the seventeenth century. Indeed,
when the word ‘traslacion’ is used at that time, it refers to the transfer of
Rosa’s body to a new grave in 1619
AN INTERLUDE ON ‘GAINED IN TRANSLATION’
Just as there are times when the editor/translator/writer can suppress information
there are also times when the opposite occurs
The editor/translator/writer can also add information as per his/her role of privileged
negotiator between cultures; this idea draws on some recent research which sees
the translator as no longer mute or invisible but an individual who possesses a
recognisable voice and role in cultural transactions; see The Translator as
Mediator of Cultures, eds Humphrey Tonkin & Maria Esposito Frank (Amsterdam:
John Benjamins, 2010)
This cultural negotiation occurred in the Apostolic Processus of Santa Rosa de Lima
The Apostolic Trial took place 1630-1632 and in the documents was what has for
many years been seen as the first biography of Santa Rosa de Lima, written
purportedly by Pedro de Loaysa in 1619, entitled La Vida, Muerte y Milagros de sor
Rosa de Santa Maria
Teodoro Hampe Martinez, Santidad e identidad criolla, pp. 23-34, and Ramon Mujica
Pinilla, Rosa limensis, p. 97, n. 5, do not question Pedro de Loaysa’s authorship of
this document.
DOUBTFUL AUTHORSHIP
There are a number of reasons why Pedro de Loyasa is unlikely to have
been the author of the text ‘La Vida, Muerte y Milagros de sor Rosa de
Santa Maria’
(a) There is no independent evidence that a publication with this title
appeared in 1619
(b) The evidence relating to this text is found in the Apostolic Processus
(1630-32), and there is no evidence of its existence in the Beatification
Processus (1617-18)
(c) If we compare the original manuscript of the ‘Proceso apostolico de
testificaciones rendidas a favor de Santa Rosa’ in the Archivo
Arzobispal in Lima with the copy that was received in the Vatican, the
‘Processus Remissorialis aucte aplica fabricatus in causa limana seu
indiari Canonizationis Servae Dei Rosae de Sancta Maria, Die XX Julii
1634’, ASV, Arch. Congr. SS. Rituum Processus, 1573, we find thirteen
folios of new explanatory material in the later manuscript not in the
original copy (specifically at fols 671v-84v)
PEDRO DE LOAYSA?
(d) The explanatory material consists of a letter about the text as well as
corroborative documents provided by three separate individuals stating
that the 29-chapter biography is authentic
(e) Pedro de Loaysa’s role is described as someone who commissioned the
text rather than writing it
(f) But quite apart from this, the evidence is contradictory. It suggests that
the 29-chapter biography was written by one Fray Niculas de Aguero, a
Dominican, who wrote the account, dispatched it to a number of
churches throughout Peru but died before he was able to sign it, at
which point it was signed by two of his colleagues as an authentic
account, fray Cosme de Aranburo and Francisco Valcazar on 1
September 1617, then signed on 2 June 1624 by Bernardo de Gamarra
on 2 June 1624, before arriving on the desk of the Apostolic Judges in
late 1631
(g) Here is an example of the statement by the notary, Bernardo de
Gamarra….
THE NOTARY’S STATEMENT
Certifico yo fray Bernardo de Gamarra notario de las causas acerca de
aberiguar causas vidas y muertes de varones ilustres de la provincia de
San Juan Bautista del Peru que este es un asunto fiel y legalmente
sacado de una carta original que el muy reverendo padre Pressentado
fray nicolas de aguero Vicario de esta provincia despacho a todos los
conventos della estando recurrente de la enfermedad de que murio en
el convento del Rossario de Lima donde les da abisso de la Vida y
muerte de la Sancta Soror Rossa de Sancta Maria religiosa de la Tercera
Orden de nuestro padre Sancto Domingo y por ser Verdad que esta
Verdad berbum (sic for ‘Verbum’?] esta sacada de su original esta
firmada en nombre de este convento de nuestra senora del Rossario de
Lima en veynte y dos de junio de mill y seis ciento y veynte y quatro
annos en testimonio de la Verdad fray Bernardo de Gamarra’; ASV,
Arch. Congr. SS. Rituum Processus 1573, fols 685-85v
IS THIS POSSIBLE?
How likely is it that a priest who is dying would ‘despatch’ copies of his
recently written biography of Santa Rosa to all the convents of the
Province of Peru?
Why would he also need to advise the convents of Rosa’s demise?
Especially given that she had died some years before?
Why did the Notary give a different version of the name (nicolas) to the
Procurator (nicolus)?
Why is there no independent evidence of the existence of such an
individual, nor any mention of his actions in the Apostolic Processus?
And why is there no document signed by him, but only documents signed
on his behalf by ‘companions’?
SO IF NOT HIM, WHO?
One hypothesis – based on internal evidence of the first biography, and
some circumstantial factors – is that the author of the first biography,
Vida muerte y milagros de soror Rossa de sancta maria… was an
individual whose name could not be publicly attached to the text
because the association of that individual with the text would lead to a
reduced viability of Rosa’s case when it came before the Vatican
tribunal. One hypothesis that I am currently exploring is that the author
submitted the text anonymously and that the individual or individuals
concerned came from the inner circle of individuals with whom Rosa
developed a very close friendship and camaraderie in the years before
her death. It might even have been Luisa Melgarejo…
WHERE IS LEONARDUS HANSEN’S CORPSE?
It has been taken for granted for the last 350 years that the author of the
third biography of Santa Rosa de Lima, the official biography written in
Latin, Vita mirabilis et mors pretiosa venerabilis sororis Rosae de Sa.
Maria Limensis (1664) is by Leonardus Hansen. A beautifully crafted
piece of work it provides a canonic and skilfully cadenced narrative of
the main events of Santa Rosa’s life, and was translated into Spanish,
French, Portuguese, German, Dutch, Italian and English. Leonardus
Hansen is described in the secondary material as a German Dominican.
We find the ‘proof’ that he is a German Dominican in the following book:
Scriptores ordinis praedicatorum recensisti, notisque historicis et criticis
illustrati opus quo singulorum vita, praeclareque gesta referuntur… ,
inchoavit R.P.F Jacobus Quétif S.T.P. absolvit R.P.F. Jacobus Echard, 2
vols (Paris: J.B. Christophorum Ballard, 1719-1721), vol. II, p. 692.
DESCRIPTION OF LEONARDUS HANSEN
F. Leonardus Hansen Teuto Juliaci natus, Coloniae vero adolescens ad ordinem
ascitus per gradus omnes magisterium ascendit, theologiam Viennae
Austriae publice docebat anno MDCXXXIII, exinde pluries in comitiis ordinis
Romae sua Teutoniae provincialis (check) diffinitor generalis missus annis
MDCXLIV & MDCLVI, quem tum ab egregias dotes, studium praesertim
regularis disciplinae, ac eximiam pietam socium pro provinciis Germanis
allegit sibi magister ordinis F. Jo. Bapt. de Marinis, ac paucis post annis
provincialis Angliae titulo decoravit. Ea ratione in electione duorum ordinis
magistrorum sequentium. F. Jo Thomae de Rocaberti, & F. Antonii de Monroy
annis MDCLXX & LXXVII Romae votum tulit, apus quos eodem focii munere
functus, eademque in existimatione habitus est. Vis (for ‘vir’?) non eruditione
tantum sed mira humillitate conspicuus, omnium sibi conciliabat affectum;
solitudinis amans semper aut legebat aut scribebat aut orebat: donec annis
gravis, integro ad ultimam usque horam sensu cum virtutum odore piam Deo
rediddit animam XXVIII martii MDCLXXXV, aetatis LXXXII in S. Mariae super
Minervam sepultus. In lucem quaedam dedit opera quae sequuntur:
1. Vita mirabilis mora pretiosa venerabilis sororis Rosa de S. Maria Limensis ex
tertio ordine S.P. Dominici, Romae, Nic. Angeli Tinassi 1664 in 12 pagg. 452:
THREE PROBLEMS
The first problem is that there is no independent evidence in archives in
Germany --- or indeed in Austria (for he is linked to Vienna) -- to back
up the claims about Leonardus Hansen’s life. He is not found, for
example, in the list of 178 Austrian Dominicans who lived during the
period 1309-1863, in Sebastian Brunner, Der Prediger-Orden in Wien
und Oesterreich. Regesten, Collectaneen, Nekrologien, Epitahien,
Universitäts-Angelegenheiten, Profess- und Bruderschaftbücher,
Biographische und Historische Skissen. Aus Archivalischen Bischer
Unedirten Handschriften Mitgetheilt (Wien: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1867),
pp. 42-47.
The second problem is that Leonardus Hansen is said to be buried in the
Santa Maria Super Minervam Church in Rome (‘Deo rediddit animam
XXVIII martii MDCLXXXV, aetatis LXXXII in S. Mariae super Minervam
sepultus’). I went to the Church and his body is not there. There is a
chapel dedicated to Santa Rosa (the Colonna Chapel) and there is a
body in there but it is not his. The tomb belongs to Isabella Alvarez de
Toledo.
THE THIRD PROBLEM
The third problem is that Leonardus Hansen is described as
an English Provincial on the frontispiece of the 1664
edition, the 1668 and the 1725 editions of his biography,
as well as in all the translations of that work published
soon afterwards. The frontispiece says as follows: ‘‘P.F.
Leonardum Hansen S. Th. Magist. Provincialem Angliae,
& Socium Reverendissimi P. Magist. Gener. Ord. Praed’
Here’s an image of the relevant section of the 1664
frontispiece
FRONTISPIECE OF 1664 EDITION
THE MAN BEHIND THE PSEUDONYM
My own reading of this statement is that it is drafted according to a code
which is understood by those who knew what was being intimated (i.e.
Catholics) and misunderstood by those who knew not what the state of
play was (i.e. Protestants). If one interprets Leonardus Hansen as a
pseudonym designed to protect the real author of the book, then the
only person who could be described exactly as ‘S. Th. Magist.
Provincialem Angliae & Socium Reverendissimi P. Magister Gener. Ord.
Praed’ Is the English Dominican Vicente Torres, O.P. (1631-1687).
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS SUPPOSITION
1. As Raymond Palmer points out, at that time, Vincent Torre was ‘commonly
called provincial of the Dominicans in England’; Raymond Palmer, O.P., The
Life of Philip Thomas Howard, O.P., Cardinal of Norfolk, p. 184.
2. The very reverend F. Vincent Torre, Provincial, was of Spanish origin – he was
said to have been a member of the ancient family of the same name which
had originally moved from Spain to Warwickshire and then, in the fifteenth
century, had moved to Lincolnshire,was fluent in Spanish and would have
been able to read the beatification and canonisation documents with ease.
3, Vincent Torre was in Rome in the few years just before the biography was
published in 1664. On 10 October 1658 and took up a teaching position there;
he was a lector in philosophy and theology at Viterbo.
4. Vincent Torre had good reason to hide his ‘Catholic’ identity; he was accused
in 1678 by Titus Oakes of being one of the conspirators of the Popish Plot.
Oakes accused him of being offered the bishopric of Ely by the Pope. It was
true. Vincent Torre fled England and retreated to Belgium.
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS
5. The companion he took with him to Rome was a master of disguise and
this may well have enhanced Vincent Torre’s awareness of the
importance of using dissemblement for the purpose of self-protection.
As Palmer suggests: ‘He had along with him Brother Francis Hayes an
Englishman who shortly before had received the laybrother’s habit in
the convent. This Hayes was clever in several languages, and was for
some years with the English Franciscans at Douay as their steward or
procurator; in times of war he dressed like a hermit and cultivated his
beard for more conveniently discharging his office in disguise’;
Raymond Palmer, O.P., The Life of Philip Thomas Howard, O.P., Cardinal
of Norfolk, p. 108.
THE POPISH ADVANCE
6. In a document entitled Compendium Vitae, Virtutum et Miraculorum necnon
actorum in causa beatificationis, & Canonizationis B. Rosae de S. Maria
Tertiis Ordinis S. Dominici Ex Secretaria Congretionism Sac. Rituum (Rome:
Ex Typographie Reverendae Camerae Apostollicae, 1671), 18 pp, which is
likely to be the first (unpublished) draft of the Breve Compendium Vitae,
Virtutum et Miraculorum… which was circulated (they were both in the same
file in the Dominican archive at the Santa Sabina Church in Rome), the
author, Cardinal Azzolinum, refers to the Pope’s desire to use Rosa’s
canonisation as a means of creating a bridge with Great Britain, via the
Queen: ‘Idem Pontifex concessionem anniversarii de dicta Beata Rosa officii,
& indulgentias praedictas extendit ad Regium Sacellum Serenissime
(crossed out) Reginae Magnae Britanniae’ (p. 16). The Pope was Clement IX
and the Queen of Great Britain was Catherine of Braganza, which suggests
that the Holy See had the thought of Rosa’s canonisation as a vehicle of
rapprochement with Great Britain – hence the biography written by an
English Dominican. But it was snuffed out by the ‘discovery’ of the Popish
Plot…
CONCLUSIONS
The activity of translation – the conversion of the content of one language
into another – is always part of a broader cultural activity of
transposition, re-adjustment and re-creation. The ‘transmutum’ thereby
created is subject to a variety of editorial shaping activities which blend
into decision-making activities which are predicated on political,
cultural and, in this case, religious ideological criteria. As we have seen,
these may involve the excision of material which is seen as irrelevant to
the needs of the document’s audience – as when testimonies by Gaspar
Flores, Luisa Melgarejo and Jusepa de Guzmán were removed from the
Beatification Processus. Or involve the addition of explanatory text
designed to justify the inclusion of extra materials, as occurred when
the Procurator ‘explained’ where Rosa’s first biography came from. Or,
indeed, translation may become part of the weaponry of the hide-andseek warfare which Catholics and Protestants were engaged in during
the seventeenth century, when Vincent Torres O.P. cocked a snoop at
the English crown by adopting a very German sounding pseudonym.