• James A. Parr, sin par (1936–2022)Editor, Bulletin of the Comediantes 1973–98 PART I
• Sharon D. Voros

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...

• 
  詹姆斯·A·帕尔 (James A. Parr)，罪孽 (1936–2022)编辑，喜剧公报 1973–98 第一部分
•  莎朗·D·沃罗斯

当我翻阅图书馆里吉姆·帕尔（Jim Parr，1936-2022）的书时，我偶然发现了他送给我的一本《堂吉诃德》、《堂璜》和相关主题。西班牙文学的形式和传统，1330-1630。他手写了这份献词：“献给莎伦，一位最有洞察力的读者和一位真正的朋友。吉姆。”自从 2006 年他于 2006 年 4 月 7 日在天主教大学第十一届亚历山德罗·S·克里萨富利年度讲座上发表题为“堂吉诃德：讲述故事”以来，我就没有读过这些话。这是我最后一次见到吉姆，他是国际知名的学者、绅士、导师和朋友。虽然他对叙事理论的掌握给我们这个领域的学者带来了灵感，但他对许多不同传统的知识的广度和广度将继续让我们眼花缭乱。正如他演讲中的几个例子：他采用罗曼·雅各布森（Roman Jakobson）的传播模型和克洛德·列维·施特劳斯（Claude Lévi-Strauss）的“拼凑”概念来审视“历史的、有血有肉的作家米格尔·德·塞万提斯（Miguel de Cervantes）”的叙事声音的多样性。他自己”，对未透露姓名的摩里斯科翻译家，或者是“伪作者”西德·哈米特·贝内格利 (Cide Hamete Benengeli)。他还提到了推断作者，定义为“文本中作者的存在，其方式和属性由有能力的读者在第一部分和第二部分完成后推断出来”，例如“El curioso impertinente”中叙述者的道德声音”。然后，他引用了杰拉尔·热内特和杰拉尔德·普林斯的概念，涉及模仿、叙述、金属描述、被叙述者和被叙述者，定义为叙述者决定省略的堂吉诃德历史的那些方面，因为他告诉我们这些“菜单”将保留“沉默。当有人问他对伊迪丝·格罗斯曼 (Edith Grossman) 的翻译有何看法时，他对她将 galgo corredor 翻译为“赛跑灰狗”表示异议，因为其含义是“猎犬”（第 1 部分，第 1 章，第 19 章）。我对吉姆叙事学分析的复杂性深感钦佩，因为他不仅试图探索西班牙文学的新方法，而且还成功地传达了他对理论模型探索的深度，这些模型阐明并加深了我们对早期现代西班牙话语的理解虽然我忘记了吉姆在天主教大学的演讲中的笔记，但我当然鼓励大家阅读或重读吉姆关于《堂吉诃德》的学术著作以及他的叙事技巧方法，我将包括他早期的《堂吉诃德：解剖学》研究。颠覆性话语，对诺斯拉普·弗莱的《批评的剖析》的认可 吉姆毫不犹豫地记住了我们之前的理论贡献[完第 19 页] 很明显，吉姆并没有将他的研究局限于塞万提斯，甚至是塞万提斯。喜剧，因为他还写了一些关于《Libro de buen amor》、《La Celestina》和《Lazarillo de Tormes》等经典作品的引人入胜的文章，这些作品奠定了西班牙文学话语的基础。

我们的许多同事都记得吉姆·帕尔（Jim Parr）在 1973 年至 1998 年间担任喜剧公报的编辑。我第一次见到吉姆是在 1977 年，当时他是南加州大学西班牙语和葡萄牙语系的助理教授。 。作为《公报》的编辑，他鼓励我写喜剧，尽管我刚刚出版了一本关于加尔西拉索·德拉·维加和彼特拉克的书。因此，吉姆·帕尔真正成为了我的喜剧导师，而我则是他的学生。我感谢他在西班牙戏剧方面的鼓励和专业知识。由于我学过符号学，他要求我对一篇使用该术语的文章提交进行评估。尽管这篇文章的作者做出了勇敢的努力，当然也取得了有趣的结果，但他并没有真正深入了解符号学家通常询问符号系统的一些原则假设，这些符号系统必须比仅仅作为能指目录进行更深入的研究。在收到我的评估后，作者——与盲目同行评审期刊的标准做法不同——问道……