No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Notes on the Sources and the Autograph Manuscript of Lope De Vega's El Prīncipe Despeñado
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
Extract
The autograph MS. of El principe despenado was signed in Madrid November 27, 1602.1 Noteworthy features of the MS. are the great amount of marginal annotation to be found thereon, and the numerous passages which have been boxed off or otherwise marked for omission. Such indications almost certainly do not proceed from the pen of Lope, but are rather the rehearsal notations of some autor who wished to abbreviate the play, omit certain characters from the cast, or otherwise adapt it for presentation on the stage. In no case does the cancellation of a passage give evidence of being prompted by aesthetic motives. In all, some thirty-one passages have been bracketed, comprising 332 verses. It is not usual to find such extensive tampering in Lope's autograph comedias; there is an equal abundance, however, in the autograph of El cuerdo loco, which Lope wrote in the same year as the Principe despenado and which, as we shall see, very probably figured with it in the repertory of the Pedro de Valdés-Antonio de Granados troupe.2
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1950
References
1 It is composed of 55 folios, inclusive of two facing the partial repartos of Acts n and in, which are blank save for a crude design executed on the verso of each. Tjhis is not the cibo-rium found on later MSS; for these, see W. L. Fichter, “New Aids for Dating the Undated Autographs of Lope de Vega's Plays”, ER, ix (1941), 79–84; and Fichter, ed. Lope's El sembrar en buena tierra (New York, 1944), pp. 1–2. Insofar as I have been able to determine, no other Lope MS bears this design: it consists of a circle above two horizontal flourishes joined by a lightly drawn curved diagonal from the upper left to the lower right.
2 See Francisco de B. San Roman, Lope de Vega, los cômicos toledanos y el poeta sastre (Madrid, 1935), pp. lxix-lxx and 71–76 (doc. 129), as quoted below.
3 Floriano, in El domine Lucas, is teaching Lucrecia to write; she attempts to write her own name, and accidentally forms an F:
[Floriano] Deja esa letra y después
comienza, por vida mia,
porque es uso, en corte usado
cuando la carta se firma
poner antes de la firma
la letra del nombre amado. —El domine Lucas, BAE xxiv, 53a
Julio Monreal, Cuadros viejos (Madrid, 1878), p. 196, stated that the custom still obtained among the grandees of Spain. In El principe despeñado Lope writes the initials ML with his rubric after each reparlo, at the end of Act I, and on the blank folio facing the repartos of Acts ii and iii; and M is the first letter of his full signature at the end of Act in: seven times in all.
4 A detailed study of this matter will be found in Américo Castro's article, “Alusiones a Micaela de Lujân en las obras de Lope de Vega”, RFE, v (1918), 256–292, and in José F. Montesinos' edition of El cuerdo loco (Madrid, 1922), p. 136; these studies are supplemented by that of Courtney Bruerton, “Lope's Belardo-Lucinda Plays”, BR, v (1937), 309–315.
5 Catilogo de las piezas de teatro … delà Biblioteca National (Madrid), i, 416b-417a.
6 2nd ed. (Madrid, 1935), i, 124.
7 The Life of Lope de Vega (Glasgow, 1904); Stechert reprint (New York, 1937), pp. 527, 469.
8 La vida de Lope de Vega (Madrid, 1919), p. 177, n. 4; and p. 537 (“Enmiendas”).
9 Obras de Lope de Vega [publicadas por la Real Academia Espafiola] (Madrid, 18701913), vIII, xxviii. This prompted Antonio Restori, reviewing the work just cited, to enquire: “Quanti autografi ce ne sono?” (Zeilschriftfilr romanische Philologie, xxvi [1902], 507).
10 Boletin de la Real Academia EspaHola, XXII (1935), 688: “Anecdotario de Lope de Vega”, no. 2 (no author indicated).
11 Catâlogo de la exposition bibliogrdfica de Lope de Vega [organizada por la Biblioteca National] (Madrid, 1935), p. 12.
12 “El autógrafo de La corona meretida de Lope de Vega”, RFE, vi (1919), 307–308, n.
13 H. A. Rennert, The Spanish Stage (Madrid, 1909), pp. 175 ff. We see in the practice described above a possible explanation of the very faulty texts found in the various Partes.
14 It now seems likely that Lope corrected Parte VI (2nd ed., 1616), Parte VII (1617), and Parle VIII (1617). He was also concerned with Parte IV to the extent of composing a dedicatoria therefor : see Agustin G. de Amezûa y Mayo, Lope de Vega en sus cartas (Madrid, 1935–1943), ii, 356–357.
15 Amezúa, op. cit., II, 353–360. The privilegio del rey of the Madrid Stptima parte gives “Francisco de Ávila, mercader” permission to print the twenty-four comedias of Partes VII and VIII, but relates that he acquired the originals from Baltasar de Pinedo and “Maria de la O, viuda, muger que fué de Luys de Vergara.” It has been made clear that El principe despeñado was not one of the comedias involved in this transaction: Angel Gonzalez Palencia has published documents among which we find depositions by Baltasar del Pinedo and Juan Fernindez, listing the plays sold to Francisco de Ávila; for the full details, see Gonzfilez Palencia, “Un pleito de Lope de Vega con un editor de sus comedias”, Boletin de la Biblioteca Menendez y Pelayo, iii (1921), 17–26 (reprinted in Historias y leyendas [Madrid, 1942], pp. 407–422).
16 Concerning Pedro de Valdés, see Amezûa, op. cit., pp. 277–278. Pedro de Valdés' wife, Gerónima de Burgos (“La Gerarda”), later to be Lope's mistress, was involved with her husband in this transaction; an interesting reference to her is found among Lope's letters: cf. Amezûa, Epislolario de Lope de Vega, cod. in, no. S (entry no. 209).
17 For a description of this theatre, see Julio Milego, El teatro en Toledo durante los siglos XVI y XVII (Valencia, 1909), ch. v.
18 From El peregrino, as quoted by San Roman, p. lxix. San Roman also states that in Parte XIV (Madrid, 1621, fol. 268), the text of El cuerdo loco is followed by this remark: “representôla Granados.”
19 The licencias and aprobaciones following El cuerdo loco are in several cases signed by the same provisor as are those for El principe despenado, and on the same date, showing that these two plays figured together in the repertory of the troupe until at least 1610. Valdés and Jerônima left the Granados troupe in 1609, and joined the troupe of Baltasar del Pinedo in 1610; this new partnership was not definitely terminated until 1614: see Amezúa, Lope de Vega en sus carias, ii, 317 n. The assumption that Granados, Pinedo, and Valdés possessed the autograph MS. is supported, but not conclusively proved, by the numerous marginal annotations on the MS. We recall that Valdés in 1603 indicated that he had the “originals”; and Francisco de Âvila in 1616 stated that he had purchased the “originals” for publication; in the latter case, in view of the fact that the term original may signify nothing more than a printer's copy of the autograph, and in consideration of the numerous and significant Parte variants from the autograph, I should judge that Francisco de Âvila possessed an inaccurate copy rather than the autograph MS. itself.
20 For a detailed study of Lope's orthography in one autograph, see Montesinos' edition of El cuerdo loco, pp. 139–145. No appreciable variation from the norms established by Sr. Montesinos was observed in El principe despenado.
21 These are for the most part abbreviated forms commonly met with in Golden Age MSS; but one unusual abbreviation used by Lope is -ge for -gue (if it is in fact an abbreviation). The form is frequently, but not invariably, found in the subjunctive endings of -ar verbs: . gr., in v. 74 (nieges for niegues), and v. 2716 (castigen for castiguen); but compare vv. 1641,2278,2441 (Gebara for Guebara), and v. 2678 (Yiiigez for Yniguez). Amezûa comments on this orthography in his Lope de Vega en sus cartas (m [Epistolario], lxxvii), and reports that Lope uses this spelling “casi siempre.” For further details on this point, see Fichter's edition of Elsembrar en buena tierra (New York, 1944), pp. 176–177.
22 No contemporary MS copies are reported in the bibliographies available to me; but a recent important discovery by Agustfn de Amezûa—described in Una colecciôn manuscrita y desconocida de comedias de Lope de Vega Carpio (Madrid, 1945)—reveals that a MS copy was taken of the autograph in 1762 by a certain Ignacio de Gálvez.
23 El Fenix / De Espaiia / Lope de Vega / Carpio, Familiar del Santo / Oficio. / Septima Parte de svs / Comedias. Con Loas, Eniremeses, / y bayles. / Dirigidas a don Luys Fernandez/ … I Ano 1617 … I En Madrid … /
24 Montesinos, ed. Pedro Carbonero (Madrid, 1929), pp. 139–161, reviews the MSS-Parte variants for El cuerdo loco, Pedro Carbonero and La corona merecida. I do not understand why this eminent critic states (p. 159) that no autographs are available for the comedias of Parte VII.
25 Rennert-Castro, Vida de Lope de Vega, p. 509.
26 El Fenix / De Espana / Lope de Vega / Carpio, Familiar / Del Santo Oficio. / Septima Parte de svs / Comedias. Con Loas, Eniremeses, / y bayles. / Dirigidas a don Luys Fernandez I… I Aûo 1617.1 … I En Barcelona … I
27 Cf. Antonio Restori, Zeitschriftfür romanische Philologie, xxvi (1902), 508.
28 Restori gives the variants from the suella of the Academy version of the MS. I have not been able to acquire a photostat of this suelta for personal examination.
29 Real Academia EspaHola. Obras de Lofe de Vega (Madrid, 1898). El principe despenado occupies pp. 121–159, and Menéndez y Pelayo's introductory study thereto pp. xxvii-xxxii (to be cited below as Acad.)
30 Page 507. Restori refers specifically to v. 2744, where the MS. actually reads Ya sabes … and the Academy has Y a Isabel (Acad, vm, 155b); there is no Isabel playing a part or even mentioned in this play! Restori justifiably comments (p. 508): “… stranis-simo, in un autografo, quello. …” In all, 52 faulty transcriptions are found in the Academy edition, and they range from arbitrary substitution of new rime words (even when the Suelta and Parle follow the MS.) to the omission of verses necessary to the verse scheme.
31 Reported by the Baron von Münch-Bellinghausen in Über die cilleren Sammlungen spanischer Dramen (Vienna, 1852), p. 75, as quoted by Rennert, Life of Lopede Vega, p. 449.
32 Cf. Adolfo Bonilla y San Martîn, “Sobre un tomo perdido de Lope de Vega”, in Mis-celânea de esludos em honra de D. Carolina Michaëlis de Vasconcellos (Coimbra, 1933), pp. 101–110. Bonilla gives the table of contents for tomo 131, and El principe despeûado is listed fifth among eight plays. Until additional information comes to light concerning this lost volume we cannot classify it as a new edition of our play. Such tomos colecticios were usually formed from plays torn from other editions.
33 For references see Menéndez y Pelayo, Obras de Lope de Vega, viii, xxviii.
34 Crônica de los reyes de Navarra … [editada] por D. José Tanguas y Miranda (Pamplona, 1843), p. 66 (as cited by Menéndez y Pelayo, Obras de Lope de Vega, viii, xxviii). Written in the 15th century, this work doubtless circulated in MS form. That Lope knew of the prince is clear, for he composed a play concerning his misfortunes : El piadoso ara-gonés.
35 Compendio historial de las chronicas … (Barcelona, 1628), iii, 94b. A 1571 edition of this work is known.
36 See Obras del padre Juan de Mariana, BAE, xxx, 261b-262a. Emile Gigas states that Mariana followed Gerônimo Blanca's Aragonensium rerum commenlarii (1588); see “Etudes sur quelques comedias de Lope de Vega”, in Revue Bisp., LIII (1921), 573. It seems quite clear that Lope did not use Mariana's version of the regicide for his play; we therefore do not reproduce the account of the Historia general.
37 “La version tradicional aceptada por Lope, es la que consignó en su Crônica el principe de Viana” (Obras de Lope de Vega, viII, xxviii); and “[El relato del principe] es sin duda, el más dramático, y por eso Lope le prefiriô, con buen acuerdo, a la version, que también conocia, de Garibay y Mariana” (p. xxix). José Maria Roca Franquesa, in his article “Un dramaturgo de la edad de oro: Guillén de Castro”, agrees with Menéndez y Pelayo concerning the primary source for El principe despefiado; but the Garibay version is not mentioned. See RFE, xxvni (1944), 413–414.
38 He mentions Garibay only by title (pp. xxvii-xxviii).
39 The name Blanca appears in a passage not quoted above; see Estaban de Garibay, p. 97b.
40 A transcription of a fragment of this MS. Crônica, made in 1662 by Joseph Moret, was published by Fidel Fita in the Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia, xxiv (1894), 129–148 (the passage concerning Sancho appears on pp. 135–136). Emile Gigas, p. 572 (see n. 36 above), mentions this work.
41 From the Rosa española of Juan de Timoneda (Valencia, 1573); in Agustin Durán, Romancero general, BAE, xvi, 201a-201b. This similarity was noted by Jerome Aaron Moore in bis The “Romancero” in the Chronicle-Legend Plays of Lope de Vega (Philadelphia' 1940), p. 138.
42 This is the well-known legend of Sancho Abarca; see Durán, p. 201b, n.
43 Durán, op. cit., p. 201a; in the Principe, cf. v. 1596 (Acad., vIII, 140a).
44 Durán, p. 201b; in the Principe, cf. vv. 2150 ff. (Acad., p. 148a).
45 Michael Enk, Studien über Lope de Vega (Vienna, 1839), p. 224, as cited by J. A. Moore, op. cit., p. 138. Moore suggests that the first 24 lines from this passage from the Principe recall those of the romance “Caballeros granadinos” from the Guerras civiles de Granada of Ginés Pérez de Hita. The similarity is very slight indeed; for this romance, see Paula-Blanchard-Demouge ed. (Madrid, 1913–15) Primera parte (Reproduccion de la edition principe del ano 1595), pp. 181–182.
46 See Cancionero general de Hernando del Castillo (Madrid, 1882), no. 300; in the play, cf. vv. 706–730 (Acad., p. 128b).
47 Excluding the critics already cited, Grillparzer in his Studien zum spanischen Theater (Samtliche Werke, Stuttgart, 1892), xvII, 130–131, gives little more than the plot, as does Julius Klein in his Geschichte des spanischen Dramas (Leipzig, 1865–76), x, 481–484. Ri-cardo del Arco y Garay, in La sociedad espanola en las obras dramdticas de Lope de Vega (Madrid, 1942), p. 110 et passim, quotes from our play in connection with Lope's treatment of the nobility; and in M. de Montoliu, La Espana de la Edad de Oro (Barcelona, n.d.), p. 213, the central episode is merely identified.
48 See Rennert, p. 489.
49 Roca Franquesa—RFE, xxvni (1944), 378–427—considering the regicide involved in Guillen de Castro's El amor constante, states that the Castro treatment of this theme is unique in that the regicide is not only condoned, but rewarded (Leônido, after killing the king, is himself declared monarch). Roca Franquesa then compares El principe despenado with El amor constante, and points out that while in the former play the regicide is an-nounced as an accident, it is openly confessed in Castro's comedia. In this respect it might be well to point out that Castro's play takes place in Hungary, and that the playwright was therefore at liberty to take full advantage of the freedom of action conferred by the exotic locale, a freedom which Lope lacked in El principe despenado.
50 Joaquin de Entrambasaguas, Viuir y crear de Lope de Vega (Madrid, 1946), pp. 183— 249.
51 See Amezúa, Lope de Vega en sus cartas, I, 273, and iii (Epistolario), 40–41; and also Américo Castro, “Alusiones a Micaela de Luján en las obras de Lope de Vega”, RFE, v (1918), 256–292; Rodriguez Marin, “Lope de Vega y Camila Lucinda”, in Boletin de la Real Academia Espanola, I (1914), 249–290; and Courtney Bruerton, “Lope's Belardo-Lucinda Plays”, HR, v (1937), 309–315.
52 Joaquiln de Entrambasaguas, Vida de Lope de Vega (Barcelona, 1942), pp. 163–164.
53 Ibid., p. 166.
54 From 1602–10; the dates of the documents signed by Granados or members of his troupe show that he was in the several cities mentioned in the licencias, and on the exact dates involved.
55 Some 50 plays, for example, deal with the punto de honor; see W. L. Fichter's edition of El castigo del discreto (New York, 1925), introd.
56 Any critical study of Lope concerning stylistic matters must take as its departure point the consideration of the sum total of these autograph comedias. The distorted texts presented in the Partes have received the attention of many editors of critical editions, and very few have failed to conclude that the autograph provides a distinctly superior version; it remains only to make the comparative examination of all the MS-Parte pairs and produce an analytical verification of such conclusions. A recent step in this direction is seen in the study of Walter Poesse, The Internal Line Structure of Thirty Autograph Plays of Lope de Vega (Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 1949); see his remarks, pp. 11–12.