^{Note 1 in page 1079} Bances Cándamo, 1662-1704; Vázquez de Zamora, ca. 1660-1728; Cañizares, 1676-1750. The most extensive work on Bances Cándamo is that by Francisco Cuervo-Arango y González-Carvajal, Don Francisco Antonio de Bances y López-Cándamo, Madrid, 1916, Imprenta de los Hijos de M. G. Hernández, pp. 223, and as an appendix, the musical setting of the Estrofas a duo de la comedia El Austria en Jerusalem. Pp. 35-51 deal with the Theatro de los theatros. The article on Bances-Cándamo by Mesonero Romanos published in El Semanario pintoresco español, XVIII (1853), 82-4, is, save for an introductory paragraph and a list of 22 comedies by Bances Cándamo, the same as that used by Mesonero Romanos on Bances Cándamo as introduction to the Biblioteca de Autores Españoles, Vol. XIX. Practically the same may be said of articles by the same author on Zamora and Cañizares in publ. cit., pp. 114-6. See also ibid., p. 109; Barrera, Catálogo; and Gayangos edition of Ticknor.

^{Note 2 in page 1079} That is to say, dramatists like Luis de Oviedo, Fernández de León, and others, all now long forgotten.

^{Note 3 in page 1079} The first traces of the afrancesado movement were probably Pizarro and Piccolomini's translation of Corneille's Cinna, 1713; and Cañizares' translation of Racine's Iphigénie as El Sacrificio de Ifigenia, dating probably from a year or two later. In this work, Cañizares seems to break away from the Calderonian tradition to some extent.

It is, however, difficult to be precise as to the date of the supposed overthrow of the Calderonian cult in the eighteenth century. This is, after all, a very broad question, and one presenting many angles. Moreover, there is contradictory evidence, and in any case the Calderonian and afrancesado movements certainly overlapped. In his Vida de Nicolás Fernández de Moratin, the younger Moratín, speaking of the date of publication of La Petimetra (1762), says: “Gozaba Calderón en aquella época de tal concepto, que parecía atrevimiento sacrílego notar defectos en sus comedias o en sus celebrados autos sacramentales, que repetidos anualmente en la escena con la pompa y aparato posibles, entretenían al vulgo de todas clases, y perpetuaban los aplausos de su famoso autor,” and he states of Luzán that “Su Poéticœ, impresa en el año de 1737, no se leía en el de 1760.” The influence of the Poética had certainly been greater and longer than Leandro Fernández de Moratín here seems to indicate. To mention only one sign: Montiano's work of the years 1750-3 shows a full tide of the afrancesado movement, and the influence of Luzán. Nor could the vogue of the Poética have been so completely ephemeral since it went into the second, revised, edition of 1789. Perhaps, all told, the younger Moratín's attitude as cited above was colored, if not actuated, by a desire on his part to exalt the importance of his father's work and especially of the Desengaños al teatro español which are, primarily, an attack on Calderón and the auto sacramental. It is interesting to note that the autos were enjoying such high popular favor within three years of their prohibition by real cédula (1765).

In this whole matter, one distinction, which I hope to study more in detail in a later article, must be kept in mind. The afrancesado movement was wholly restricted to a comparatively small but relatively powerful and important group of theorists. It had practically no effect on the actual drama of the time. Very few of the afrancesado plays, those composed “with all the rigor of art,” were ever staged. On the other hand, the theatre of the time was going forward apparently much to the satisfaction of the “vulgo,” so deeply detested by the neo-classicists. In the passage cited, Moratin indicates that Calderón and the auto sacramental formed a part of this popular movement. In addition, this popular drama was supplied by inferior dramatists like Añorbe y Corregel, who was bitterly attacked by the principal afrancesados, and later by the great sainetistas Ramón de la Cruz (1731-1794) and González de Castillo (1763-1800); not to mention immensely popular writers for the theatre like Zavala y Zamora and Dionisio Solís at the close of the century.

^{Note 4 in page 1080} Discurso teológico sobre los teatros de este siglo en que . . . . se resuelve con claridad la cuestión de si es o no pecado grave el ver Comedias como se representan hoy en los Teatros de España. Salamanca, 1689.

^{Note 5 in page 1081} Published in part by Serrano y Sanz in the Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas y Museos, 1901-2, Series 3, Vols. V, VI. A short extract has also been published by Cotarelo y Mori in his Bibliografía de las controversias sobre la licitud del teatro en España, Madrid, 1904, pp. 73-82. Autograph MS in the Biblioteca Nacional.

^{Note 6 in page 1081} Revista de Archivos . . . . , Ser. 3, V, 927-8.

^{Note 7 in page 1081} Italics mine.

^{Note 8 in page 1081} Revista de Archivos . . . . , Ser. 3, VI, 73-5. See also ibid., p. 76.

^{Note 9 in page 1082} From what Bances Cándamo says here, and from his attitude as actually expressed regarding Lope de Vega, it is hard to agree with Hartzenbusch when he asserts, speaking of the Calderonian decadents, “Todos estos autores creían a pié juntillas el arte de hacer comedias de Lope de Vega; con arreglo a aquellos estatutos literarios escribían; con arreglo al gusto introducido por Lope de Vega y cimentado por Calderón los juzgaba el público, y a nadie se le ocurría que hubiese más que aprender en la materia. En esta fé murió en 1704 don Francisco Bances; en esta vivían Cañizares, Zamora . . . . .”

The Arte nuevo de hazer comedias is probably of about the year 1609, a period that Bances Cándamo speaks of as “aquella ruda infancia del tablado.” Hartzenbusch seems to confound in the minds of the neo-Calderonians the drama of Lope and of Calderón, but certainly to Bances Cándamo and his fellows they were not the same. And if the writers in question felt that there was no more to be learned, it was of the theatre of Calderón, and not of that of Lope de Vega, that they thought.

^{Note 10 in page 1083} For the early opposition to Lope de Vega, see Menéndez y Pelayo, Ideas estéticas, Tomo II, Vol. II, esp. pp. 419 et seqq. where the author emphasizes the motive of jealousy: “Pero toda la prodigalidad de elogios de Lope no bastaban a contentar ni a desarmar a ciertos ingenios morosos y displicentes, que, muy preciados de latinos e italianos, hacían rancho aparte, o más bien militaban por su cuento, y como aventureros sueltos y sin bandera conocida,” p. 431.

As a whole, the opposition was either on the grounds of classicism, or because of jealousy.

This dislike for Lope runs strong throughout the whole eighteenth century. An example may be cited from Velázquez' Orígenes de la Poesía Castellana, pp. 68-9, where it reaches the point of intolerance: “La primera (secta) fué la de los que ignorando o despreciando las reglas de la Poesía drammatica, que nos dexaron los antiguos, corrompieron el Theatro . . . . siendo los principales Gefes de esta Escuela, Christoval de Viruès, Lope de Vega, Juan Pérez de Montalván, a quienes después siguieron, refinando más el mal gusto, D. Pedro Calderón, D. Augustin de Salazar, D. Francisco Cándamo, D. Antonio de Zamora, y otros, que adelantaron este desorden hasta introducir en el dramma una cierta altura de estilo, que aun no sería tolerable en la Epopeya, ni en la Poesía Ditirámbica.” Which is a good statement of the ultra-intransigeant point of view, with Calderón even worse than Lope. The cierta altura de estilo refers, of course, in all probability to the Gongoristic tendencies of these dramatists.

^{Note 11 in page 1084} This is the crux of the whole matter. As has been noted, it is not to be supposed that Bances Cándamo entirely despised Lope, nor altogether disregarded his importance to the Spanish stage. He says, for example, “Vino en este tiempo de Italia Lope de Vega, aquel perenne manatial de Apolo, y hauiendo visto las maquinas de el theatro, las trasladó a España, enrriqueciendole de adorno; buscó el mismo representantes, dispuso compañías, y avasalló todos los farsantes, con quien tubo vn absoluto dominio, porque los enseñó y los enrriqueció dándoles mil y nouecientas comedias. . . . . Pero Lope de Vega . . . . hauiendo militado en el Piemont y en el Milanés en las guerras de Italia, y hauiendo visto las representaciones de aquel país, vino a España, donde ya hauía comediantes que representauan prosa, y puso en estilo las comedias. Las primeras suias fueron a imitación de la antigua tragedia. . . . . Los argumentos de Lope, ni son todos decentes ni honestos, ni la locución de sus primeras comedias es la más castigada en la pureza.”

To Bances Cándamo, therefore, Lope, belonging to the rude infancy of the theatre, was rather a borrower from Italy than a creator. Such an attitude serves to show how thoroughly impossible he felt it that anyone should accept the work of Lope as really great from an artistic point of view. The words of Bances Cándamo seem, indeed, to imply that Lope was not really a great national writer. Even in his concession to the great dramatist, one is inclined to question whether what he says is not to some extent mere lip-service.

All in all, Bances Cándamo's misunderstandings with regard to Lope, as illustrated by the above citation, and his utter failure to realize the sources of Lope's technique, make it clear that he completely lacked any comprehension of all that made Spain's mightiest dramatic writer great.

^{Note 12 in page 1085} Revista de Archivos . . . . , Ser. 3, V, 247.

^{Note 13 in page 1086} Revista de Archivos . . . . , loc. cit.

^{Note 14 in page 1087} This selectivity and refinement of La Naturaleza as a basis for art recurs again and again in the eighteenth-century successors of Bances Cándamo in literary criticism. Cf. Luzán, Poética II, 87. Moratín the younger, in his notes on Hamlet, says: “Tales figuras (como Polonio) son buenas para un entremés, no para una tragedia. Los afectos terribles que deben animarla, las grandes ideas de que ha de estar llena, la noble y robusta espresión que corresponde a tales pasiones, la unidad de interés que nunca debe debilitarse, todo esto se aviene mal con las tonterías de un viejo chocarrero y parlanchín. No basta que la naturaleza nos presente esta unión confusa de objetos. Un buen poeta no debe imitarla como es en si: deschecha lo inútil e inoportuno, elige lo que es conveniente a sus fines, y en esta elección consiste el gran secreto del arte.” B. de A. E., II, 556. This attitude, moreover, is a central point in the literary criticism of the whole eighteenth century.

^{Note 15 in page 1088} Menéndez y Pelayo, Ideas estéticas, loc. cit.

^{Note 16 in page 1088} Cf. Arte nuevo de hazer comedias:

El sugeto elegido escriba en prosa

y en tres actos de tiempo le reparta,

procurando, si puede, en cada uno

no interrumpir el término de un dia.

^{Note 17 in page 1088} That they neglect Lope, does not mean to say that they do not find in him a source, and often a fertile one, of material for their own dramas. It is his dramatic procedure that they decry.

^{Note 18 in page 1089} See D. Alberto Lista y Aragón, Ensayos literarios y críticos, Sevilla, 1844, II, 212. He has an interesting, if short, study of Cañizares and Zamora consisting of three brief articles on each, pp. 211-226, to which little or no attention has been paid.