1. Wade, Gerald E., ‘Further Notes on El burlador de Sevilla’, BCom, XVIII, 2 (1966), 30–2Google Scholar, in an interesting note, suggests that the origins of the figure may lie deep in primitive society. This idea is further elaborated by the same author in ‘The Character of Don Juan of El burlador de Sevilla’, in Hispanic Studies in Honor of Nicholson B. Adams, ed. Keller, John Esten and Selig, Karl-Ludwig, University of North Carolina Studies in the Romance Languages and Literatures, LIX (Chapel Hill, 1966), 167–8Google Scholar; and in ‘Hacia una comprensión del tema de Don Juan El burlador’, RABM, LXXVII (1974), 689–91, 694–6.Google Scholar

2. Wade, Gerald E., ‘The Authorship and the Date of Composition of El burlador de Sevilla’, Hispl, XI, 32 (1968), 1–22Google Scholar, argues that Tirso wrote Tan largo me lo fiáis, and that El burlador is a revision made by Andrés de Claramonte. Cf. also Wade, , RABM, LXXVII (1974), 696–704.Google Scholar

3. Wade, Gerald E. and Mayberry, Robert J., ‘Tan largo me lo fiáis and El burlador de Sevilla y el convidado de piedra’, BCom, XIV, 1 (1962), 1–16.Google Scholar

4. de Malkiel, María Rosa Lida, ‘Sobre la prioridad de ¿ Tan largo me lo fiáis? Notas al Isidro y a El burlador de Sevilla’, HR, XXX (1962), 275–95 (p. 295).Google Scholar

5. Sloman, Albert E., ‘The Two Versions of El burlador de Sevilla’, BHS, XLII (1965), 18–33 (p. 33).Google Scholar In this article, Sloman also reviews previous critical conjectures concerning the relation ship between the two texts.

6. Rogers, Daniel, ‘Fearful Symmetry: The Ending of El burlador de Sevilla’, BHS, XLI (1964), 141–59 (p. 142).Google Scholar

7. Calderón, Don Pedro, Tan largo me lo fiáis.Google Scholar Introductión, texto y anotaciones por Xavier A. Fernández (Madrid, 1967). References to Tan largo in the present article are to this edition.

8. Wade, Gerald E., ‘The Fernández Edition of Tan largo me lo fiáis’, BCom, XX, 2 (1968), 31–42.Google Scholar

9. Fernández, Xavier A., ‘En torno al texto de El burlador de Sevilla y convidado de piedra’, Segismundo, nos. 9–14 (1969–1971), 7–417.Google Scholar

10. de Molina, Tirso, El vergonzoso en Palacio, El burlador de Sevilla, ed. Castro, Américo, Castellanos, Clásicos, third edition (Madrid-Barcelona, 1932).Google Scholar The translations, which are my own, are literal, and may thus give a stilted impression; this is regrettable, but a freer translation would not serve the purpose of the present article.

11. Horst, Robert Ter, ‘The loa of Lisbon and the Mythical Sub-structure of El burlador de Sevilla’, BHS, L (1973), 147–65.Google Scholar On the relevance of the Lisbon speech, Lida de Malkielcomments that in the Burlador the dramatic momentum of the scene is paralysed by the introduction of the description of Lisbon, and the unity of the versification is disrupted by a change of metre; HR, XXX (1962), 291. Whilst the comment on the change of metre is correct, I cannot agree that the speech slows down the dramatic tempo of the play any more than the corresponding speech in praise of Seville in Tan largo (II, 119–379), put into the mouth of don Juan. Indeed, the praise of Seville is singularly inappropriate, as well as out of character, in view of the picture of Seville presented by Mota and don Juan in the lines which follow (Tan largo, II, 416–55; El burlador, II, 166–205), where the women are clearly not seen as ‘bizarras, / briosas, altivas, Circes / en hablar, y en el obrar / constantes, honestas, firmes…’ (‘vivacious, dashing, haughty Circes in their speech, and in their actions constant, virtuous and resolute’; Tan largo, II, 352–355).

12. Horst, Ter, BHS, L (1973), 163–4.Google Scholar The contrast between Lisbon and Seville was earlier touched on by Soons, C. A., ‘A Note on the Design of El burlador de Sevilla’, ASNS, CXCVII (1960–1961), 303.Google Scholar

13. Aminta has had, on the whole, a very bad press. Aubrun, Charles, ‘Le Don Juan de Tirso de Molina: essai d'interprétation’, BH, LIX (1957), 37Google Scholar, calls her ‘une fille vaniteuse et stupide’, and in ‘L'Imposteur floué et le repas en enfer: comédie méconnue de Tirso’, HR, XLI (1973), 66Google Scholar, he refers to her as ‘…l'ambitieuse Amanda [= Aminta]. Elle n'a rien d'une bergère innocente. L'auteur du Burlador n'a pas de patience pour les imbéciles’. Jones, C. A., ‘Tirso de Molina and Country Life’, PQ, LI (1972), 202Google Scholar, avers: ‘However much one may sympathize with the victims of Don Juan's deceit, the present couple [Aminta and Batricio] hardly show themselves to be very admirable in this episode.’ Lundelius, Ruth, ‘Tirso's View of Women in El burlador de Sevilla’, BCom, XXXVII (1975), 11Google Scholar, speaks of ‘the foolishness and moral pliability’ of Aminta. ‘Aminta shows herself to be credulous, gullible, and, worse yet, unduly ambitious to rise above her station in life … She is a giddy, silly girl, easily turned by the prospects of luxury and social status.’ I shall return later in this article to my reasons for considering her actions more charitably.

14. Historias tragicas exemplares de Pedro Bouistan y Francisco de Belleforest, trans. de Ayala, Lorenzo (Valladolid, 1603), fol. 293 v.Google Scholar, quoted in Carpio, Lope de Vega, El castigo sin venganza, ed. Van Dam, C. F. Adolfo (Groninga-Madrid-Paris, 1928), 63.Google Scholar

15. Bertaut, François, Relation d'un voyage d'Espagne ou est exactement dérit l'Estat de la Cour de ce Royaume, & de son gouuernement (Paris, 1664)Google Scholar,.‘…Que haberos dado en Palacio / entrada de aguesta suerte / es crimen digno de muerte’ (‘That you should have entered the Palace in that manner is a crime worthy of death’), says the duquesa in Tan largo (1, 5–7).

16. For a considered view of Tirso's attitude to privanza, see Wardropper, Bruce W., ‘El tema central de El burlador de Sevilla’, Segismundo, nos. 17–18 (1973), 9–16.Google Scholar

17. Agheana, Ion and Sullivan, Henry, ‘The Unholy Martyr: Don Juan's Misuse of Intelligence’, RF, LXXXI (1969), 311–25Google Scholar, consider rather that don Juan ‘excites nostalgia in his captor for the vigor of youth and bygone vitality’.

18. Mourel, Serge, L'Univers dramatique de Tirso de Molina (Poitiers, 1971)Google Scholar, comments, in his excellent study of the play: ‘Il ne faudrait pas trop insister sur le caractère émouvant de ce vieux père, navré, sans doute, de l'inconduite de son fils, homme d'honneur et loyal serviteur de son Roi, mais qui s'accommode fort bien des solutions de facilité que lui ménage la faveur dont il jouit auprès du souverain. Sa faiblesse est d'un père et elle est humaine, mais elle est faiblesse coupable’ (p. 564).

19. Don Juan's actions had resulted in the breakdown of trust between the pairs of characters. Octavio laments that ‘la mujer más constants / es, en efeto, mujer’ (‘the most constant woman is, after all, a woman’) (I, 357–8), a sentiment echoed in Batricio's ‘Al fin, al fin es mujer’ (‘After all, she is a woman’) (III, 68). Both Tisbea and Isabela, on the other hand, exclaim ‘¿Mal haya la mujer que en hombres fía!’ (‘Unfortunate the woman who puts her trust in men!’) (III, 402 and 408).

20. On don Juan's lack of bravery, see Vitse, Marc, ‘Don Juan o temor y temeridad. Algunas observaciones más sobre El burlador de Sevilla’, Cahiers du Monde Hispanique et Luso-Brazilien, 13 (1969), 63–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarSloman, A. E. has argued in The Sources of Calderón's ‘El Príncipe constante’ (Oxford, 1950), pp. 72–88Google Scholar, that Calderón's characters in El príncipe constante reflect aspects of the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas on the nature of constancy. In these terms, don Gonzalo, Catalinón, and don Juan can be seen as mirroring aspects of the active side of charity and its opposites. If don Gonzalo stands for Magnificentia (‘the act of doing great deeds’), Catalinón embodies Pusillanimitas (opposed to Magnificentia by deficiency), and don Juan both Ambitio (‘the inordinate love of honour’) and Inanis Gloria (vainglory, ‘the inordinate desire for glory’), opposed to the same quality by excess. As we have seen, don Juan displays an inverted sense of values in his desire for what he considers to be honour and glory.

21. MacKay, Dorothy Epplen, The Double Invitation in the Legend of Don Juan (Stanford and London, 1943)Google Scholar, deals with the folktale background of the double invitation, but does not grasp the significance of the multiple invitations in El burlador. Isabela has evidently issued an invitation to the duque Octavio, which miscarries; Tisbea invites don Juan to her rustic cabin; Mota invites don Juan to take his place; Ana invites Mota to her chamber; Gaseno invites don Juan to the wedding feast (significantly, neither Batricio nor Aminta issues invitations); don Juan invites the statue to dine, and the statue replies in kind.

22. Cabrera, Vicente, ‘Doña Ana's Seduction in El burlador de Sevilla’, BCom, XXVI (1974), 49–51Google Scholar, summarises the views of other critics on the question as to whether doña Ana was or was not seduced and, consequently, whether or not don Juan was lying to don Gonzalo in III, 963–964. He concludes that don Juan was indeed endeavouring to outwit don Gonzalo: ‘Why is it important to prove that doña Ana was indeed seduced? First, because the seduction contributes to the formal unity of the work in the sense that the consistency of don Juan's personality and behaviour is thus maintained. Also by maintaining this consistency, the effect of his one and only failure – that is when he confronts don Gonzalo – is maximized, and the existence and significance of poetic justice is reinforced. The more successful and therefore over-confident Don Juan is portrayed in life, the more prominent, fitting, and inevitable his only failure becomes’. This view appears to confine the workings of poetic justice to don Juan alone; as I have argued, the situations of the duquesa Isabela and doña Ana – although superficially the same – do differ significantly; a different degree of guilt demands a different degree of punishment, and in this way the effects of poetic justice are seen to be capable of fine gradations of emphasis. Cf. Mourel, 569–70.

23. I can not agree with Navarro, Mariano Pallarés, ‘Algunos aspectos sexuales en tres obras de Tirso de Molina’, Kentucky Romance Quarterly, XIX (1972), 9Google Scholar, that Tisbea is an example of ‘el personaje sexualmente neutro con características que a veces se aproximan al homosexualismo’ (‘the sexually neutral individual with characteristics which at times verge on homosexuality’). Tisbea's native sod is Arcadia, not Lesbos.

24. On the fire imagery in this episode, and for interesting comments on other images in the play, see Morris, G. B., ‘Metaphor in El burlador de Sevilla’, RR, LV (1964), 248–55.Google Scholar

25. Radoff, M. L. and Salley, W. C., ‘Notes on the Burlador’, MLN, XLV (1930), 241–2Google Scholar, argue that the oaths taken on the eyes of Tisbea and on the hand of Aminta are not ambiguous, and add that don Juan also makes an explicit promise to both girls. Wade, Gerald E., BCom, XVIII, 2 (1966), 29–30Google Scholar, also sees no need to assume casuistry on the part of don Juan. Nevertheless, the causal chain which links the oath sworn to God with the final judgment on don Juan is clearly of great significance, and suggests that oaths to hands and eyes are not considered by the dramatist to be as significant as an oath sworn before God. Cf. Wardropper, Bruce W., ‘El burlador de Sevilla: A Tragedy of Errors’, PQ, XXXVI (1957), 62–63Google Scholar; and see also Casalduero, Joaquin, Contributión al estudio del tema de Don Juan en el teatro español, Smith College Studies in Modern Languages, XIX, nos. 3/4 (Northampton, Mass., 1938), 1–16Google Scholar; and Rogers, , BHS, XLI (1964), 148–50.Google Scholar

26. Abrams, Fred, ‘“Catalinón” in the Burlador de Sevilla: Is he Tirso de Molina?’, HBalt, L (1967), 472–77Google Scholar, summarises the discussion concerning the possible meaning of the name Catalinón; see also Mori, Emilio Cotarelo y, ‘Catalinón’, BRAE, I (1914), 193–4.Google Scholar Suggestions have ranged from Américo Castro's hypothesis that the name derives from the use of catalina in Andalusian vulgar speech to denote ‘el escremento que se halla en la calle’, and hence Catalinón = cagón, cobarde (Clás. Cast, ed., p. 205; note to I, 883), to Guenoun's belief that the name may be etymologically associated with catalnica, a small parrot (Guenoun, P., Tirso de Molina: L'Abuseur de Sévile [Paris, 1962], 254).Google ScholarWade, Gerald E., ‘El Burlador de Sevilla: Some Annotations’, HBalt, XLVII (1964), 751–2Google Scholar, reports that he has found the name in an anonymous entremés, Famoso entremés de Mazalquiví, with the clear meaning in the context of ‘coward, cry baby, sissy’. This discovery has already been put forward by Cotarelo in his article published in 1914; moreover, it is possible that the entremés is later than the first appearance of Catalinón on the stage in the primitive version of the play.

27. Rank, Otto, Don Juan. Une Etude sur le double (Paris, 1932), 179–87Google Scholar, considers Catalinón to be a personification of don Juan's conscience (quoted by Abrams, , HBalt, L [1967], 472).Google Scholar Abrams himself suggests that the servant should be considered ‘as a distinct personality in his own right, possibly Tirso himself…, who acts as a kind of spokesman for the Church and constantly preaches or ‘parrots’ to don Juan in order to bring him to his senses by reminding him that he is in danger of losing his salvation’ (p. 473). This thesis is unlikely, and is backed up by arguments of improbable validity, such as the association between Santa Catalina and the wheel of martyrdom and, hence, a connection with ‘the mill image and the name MOLINA’ (p. 474). A truer picture of the function of Catalinón is given by Wardropper, , PQ, XXXVI (1957), 67–9.Google Scholar Catalinón, apart from existing in his own right, must clearly also be seen as a desdoblamiento of one aspect of his master.

28. For a brief comparison of don Juan with Lucifer, and a consideration of imagery linking the Burlador with Satan, see Brown, Sandra L., ‘Lucifer and El Burlador de Sevilla’, BCom, XXVI (1974), 63–4.Google ScholarSoons, C. A., ASMS, CXCVII (1960–1961), 304Google Scholar, however, argues that don Juan is, unwittingly, the Devil's agent, ‘a desalmado who goes tempting, profaning, seducing sensual and ambitious humanity from virtuous paths. The Devil effaces himself from Tirso's drama, but the characters feel his presence’. See also Vitse, pp. 71–2.

29. Somewhat surprisingly, Gasalduero, in ‘El desenlace de El burlador de Sevilla’, Studio philologica et litteraria in honorem L. Spitzer, ed. Hatcher, A. G. and Selig, K.-L. (Bern, 1958), 111Google Scholar, writes: ‘Don Juan ha engañado a las mujeres pidiéndoles la mono: en el desposorio final, la Estatua le dice al Burlador, “dame esa mano”, y esta vez no hay engano’ (‘Don Juan has deceived women by asking for their hand in marriage: in the final betrothal the Statue says to the Burlador, “Give me your hand”, and this time there is no deception’). There is nevertheless an element of deception in the statue's words and actions. In an effort to explain why the instrument of God's justice should himself deceive, Marni, Archimède, ‘Did Tirso Employ Gounterpassion in His Burlador de Sevilla?’, HR, XX (1952), 124Google Scholar, has suggested that the deceit may embody the principle of counterpassion: ‘Counterpassion may be defined as the principle whereby justice demands that a sin receive retribution first and foremost in kind, “that the penalty should be of the same sort as the injury inflicted”.’ The critic continues: ‘In asking for don Juan's hand, even if with a deceitful intention, the Comendador was acting fully in accordance with the principle of counterpassion, since he was dealing with a man who had made deception the norm of his moral life’ (p. 129). It is also pertinent to add that the statue has previously made use of don Juan's pride in his own bravery to ensure that he came to the tryst: ‘¿Me tienes / en opinión de cobarde?’ (‘Do you consider me to be a coward?’) asks don Juan. ‘Si – replies don Gonzalo –, que aquella noche huiste / de mi cuando me mataste’ (‘Yes, for that night you fled from me when you killed me’) (III, 891–4). Don Juan's pride in his foolhardiness is thus used to bring him to judgment, and, finally, by means of the offering of the hand, the impossible condition of don Juan's oath to God is fulfilled: ‘que a traición y alevosía / me dé muerte un hambre [Ap.] muerto’ (‘that I die, by deception and trickery, at the hands of a man…[Aside: who is dead…]) (III, 280–1) [my emphasis].

30. In an interesting and important article, Allain, Mathéu, ‘“El burlador burlado”: Tirso de Molina's Don Juan’, MLQ, XXVII (1966), 176Google Scholar, points out that ‘the play is an elaborate network of deceptions in which each deceiver is in turn deceived’, Allain concludes: ‘The play is then an extended metaphor: “La vida es burla”, a joke in which the best joke is that life is not a joke because there is death and there is hell. The very structure of the play, deception fitting within deception, illusion covering illusion, is a revelation of its meaning: those who disguise reality are tricked by the burlador, but the prankster who treats life as a joke tricks himself into damnation’ (p. 184).

31. See Sicroff, Albert A., Les Contravenes des statuts de ‘pureté de sang’ en Espagne du XVe au XVIIe siècle (Paris, 1960), especially p. 299.Google Scholar