SABUCO AUTHORSHIP

OLIVA SABUCO

The case of Oliva Sabuco's authorship of Nueva Filosofia"(1587) originates in poor investigative procedures. For different reasons, cataloguers, scholars and libraries have merely followed Marco Hidalgo's 1903 article Oliva was no writer... without considering or examining his contradictory conclusions.
As a rule, when changing authorship the burden of proof lies on the side of the challengers. In Oliva's case this criterion has not been respected. The authorship of Nueva Filosofia was -in my view and that of my co-translator- spuriously switched to her father, Miguel Sabuco, based on insufficient evidence, and in want of due process
Oliva's authorship remained for almost 400 hundred years, uncontested and seemingly well supported by hard evidence.
King Philip-II and the Council of Castile granted her the Privilege to publish Nueva Filosofi. The corresponding Levy was also at her name meaning that she passed the official scrutiny, cleared the formalities, and paid the dues. It also conferred to her the right to royalties. Expurgations by the Inquisition -although minor- would come after the second edition of 1588.
Two letters preface the book. In the first one, a Dedication to Philip II, she defends the quality of her work and intimates to the King her concerns that as a female she might be subject to prejudice. The other letter is addressed to the President of Castile. Therein she asks for protection and safeguard, and petitions for a forum of scholars to debate her theses. Oliva's concerns are double: being a woman, and expounding theories at once new and challenging. She feels in danger, and in want of shelter for she expects to be attacked on account of both.
Throughout the enturies many specialists have examined the authenticity of these letters. Recently, Dr. Damaris Torres (Rutgers University- U.S.A.), has studied its relevance in the context of women in the 16C. She has published numerous papers where she scholarly analyzes Oliva's writing style and texts. Her contemporary, Dr.Buxo of the Universidad Autonoma de Mexico, has also rendered extensive text studies of the letters and of Nueva Filosofia. Both conclude in favor of maintaining Oliva's authorship on account of insufficient grounds otherwise.
In addition, there are two poems in the prolog of Nueva Filosofia that constitute hard-to-refute evidence. It does not require a specialist to figure that such tribute, giving Oliva much praise, and extolling her qualifications, cannot be made light of. They are authored by a renown poet from Alcaraz, a prominent local figure, Juan de Sotomayor. Alcaraz was not a large town: people knew each other well. Sotomayor is smart enough to realize that such a figment would have made of him the laughingstock, local and national
In compliance with a modicum of rigor in seeking evidence, the translators of Nueva Filosofia, Mary Ellen Waithe and Maria Colomer Vintro, traveled to Alcaraz in 1997 in an attempt to study first-hand the documentation available. The research was carried out at the municipal and diocesan archives; hundreds of documents were canvassed. The translators were then surprised that -after a century of debate- new evidence on the case could still be found in a relative short time.
Authorship circumstantial evidence may be as abundant for the pro-Oliva as for the pro-Miguel arguments, its quantification subject to people's perspectives. Au contraire, the reasons for the change are still quantificationally insufficient.
The results of the investigation were published in trade publications Posthumously Plagiarizing...(CCQ by Hartworth Information Press Volume 35 , numbers 3/4 2003 page 525-540) and Fue Oliva o fue Miguel? (BOLETIN of the Instituto Investigaciones Bibliograficas of the UNA of Mexico (2000, NE-vol V 1-2 )

MIGUEL SABUCO

The evidence presented in favor of Miguel's authorship hinges on a Will that he dictated in 1588 (one year after the first edition of Nueva Filosofia) where he claims to be the author of the book, and adds that he gave the authorship to his daughter Oliva just to bestow an honor upon her. In 1903, Marco Hidalgo -the Registrar of Alcaraz- found this will in the archives, and wrote an article (Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas y Museos, JUN1903) asserting that with it, Miguel had demonstrated to be the author.
Where was the evidence to support this claim? Miguel boldly states in this will, notarized by the novice scribe Romero, that he has registered the pertinent information justifying this powerful claim, with the senior scribe Villareal.
Hidalgo recognizes the need for corroborating evidence in this Miguel's claim, but is not able to find any. He decides instead, to bring out two unrelated documents that he candidly admits are not the ones to clarify the case, i.e., a Poder (Power of Attorney) where Miguel again appoints himself as the author, and a Promesa de Pago (an IOU) where his son, Alonso asks for a loan in order to go to Portugal to publish Nueva Filosofia. It is interesting to note that in it Alonso admits his father Miguel owns the Privilege to publish the book. He either is outright prevaricating or has not read the book for there, in bold striking letters, it says that the King's Privilege is granted to Oliva Sabuco.
Neither of the two last-minute documents carries any evidence that supports Miguel's claim of being the author of Nueva Filosofia, but Marco Hidalgo had, apparently, already made out his mind.
Yes: Hidalgo - as many after him- decided that Miguel's word was mightier than the evidence.
The Biblioteca Nacional of Spain opted for a pushover of authorship, based on the opinions of historians or cataloguers, Solana and Palau-Dulcet, who had determined rather unscholarly to joint the ranks of Marco Hidalgo. It is remarkable that the Real Academia Espanola in 1975 questioned the validity of the evidence that supported a change of authorship. Seemingly, these concerns were -anyway- dismissed, the circumstantial evidence in favor of Miguel took over, and the arguments questioning the ability of women in the 16C to rise to the challenge of writing seriously, prevailed. Indications have been later found that could prove that Miguel was versed in Latin and consequently capable of writing about medical subjects. The argument concludes by extension that Oliva -a woman- could not have ever learned Latin let alone written Nueva Filosofia.
This is an uphill case, where people had bought into the idea of changing the authorship in favor of Miguel without properly verifying the documents. The error at the very beginning of the story, flows down the years, undisturbed
Oliva, when challenging the faulty interpretation of philosophical principles by the medical community, says in her book (4^th treaty, La Vera Medicina):"...No erraron mas que en los principios, pero como el pequeno yerro en el principio se hace grande en el fin, erraron en toda la Medicina...." (They did just err at the beginning, and a small error, but at the end it became big and the whole Medicine was flawed ...) Oliva had a premonition!