Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

El doctor Mira de Amescua : an examination of his plays with an introductory biographical study Smith, Clifford 1975

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A1 S63.pdf [ 25.21MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093911.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093911-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093911-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093911-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093911-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093911-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093911-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093911-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093911.ris

Full Text

2L DOCTOR Mill A DE AMESCUA AN EXAMINATION 0? HIS PLAYS WITH AN INTRODUCTORY BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY by CLIFFORD SMITH B.A., Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y , I960 M.A., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1971 M.A., Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y , 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY i n the Department of Hispanic and I t a l i a n S tudies We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the requ i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 31 October, 1975 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements fo r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r a g r e e tha t permiss ion for e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l ga in s h a l l not be a l lowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of Hispanic and I t a l i a n Studies The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, C a n a d a V6T 1W5 Date 31 October 1975 11 ABSTRACT E l d o c t o r M i r a de Amescua i s one of the l e s s e r known d r a m a t i s t s of Spain's tremendously f e r t i l e Golden Age. H i s dramatic works have r e c e i v e d l i t t l e c r i t i c a l a t t e n t i o n , w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of E l e s c l a v o d e l demonio, which has been regarded as h i s best work s i n c e the n i n e t e e n t h century. M i r a was h i g h l y r e s p e c t e d as a d r a m a t i s t by h i s contemporaries, but none of them s i n g l e out t h i s p l a y as b e i n g of e x c e p t i o n a l q u a l i t y . T h i s study t h e r e f o r e examines the whole range of h i s dramatic p r o d u c t i o n , except f o r h i s one-act, e u c h a r i s t i c drama (the a u t o s ) , and three p l a y s he wrote i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n with other d r a m a t i s t s . The f i r s t c hapter of the t h e s i s i s an i n t r o d u c t o r y b i o -g r a p h i c a l study, which determines t h a t M i r a d i e d i n 1644 and was p r o b a b l y born no e a r l i e r than 1575« He appears to have been a c t i v e as a d r a m a t i s t , however, from before 1602 o n l y u n t i l 1632; t h i s p e r i o d which i s d i v i d e d i n t o two p a r t s by a l e n g t h y s t a y i n I t a l y (1610-1616). The second chapter p r e s e n t s the evidence c o n c e r n i n g the works t h a t have been a t t r i b u t e d to him, and l i s t s the s i x t y - f i v e extant works he probably wrote, d a t i n g t e n t a t i v e l y about a t h i r d of them. Mira's t h e a t e r i s examined a c c o r d i n g to a new c l a s s i f i c a t i o n which i s presented i n Chapter Three. The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n makes a fundamental d i s t i n c t i o n between the r e l i g i o u s t h e a t e r , i n which the a f f a i r s o f men are d i r e c t l y i n f l u e n c e d by s u p e r n a t u r a l beings, and the s e c u l a r t h e a t e r , i n which men are e n t i r e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i r own a c t i o n s . In a world i n which God does not i n t e r v e n e , tragedy, tragicomedy, and comedy are p o s s i b l e . ; A group of the r e l i g i o u s p l a y s , i n c l u d i n g E l e s c l a v o d e l demonio, d e a l with the r e l a t i v e importance of p r e d e s t i n a t i o n and ________ i f r e e - w i l l i n a c h i e v i n g s a l v a t i o n . These p l a y s were probably w r i t t e n . a s . a r e s u l t of the c o n t r o v e r s y between the J e s u i t M o l i n a and the Dominican Banez which took p l a c e d u r i n g the e a r l i e r years of M i r a ' s l i f e . T h i s s u b j e c t i s the o n l y one t h a t i s not common to; M ira's r e l i g i o u s and s e c u l a r p l a y s . The t h e s i s -examines the i n t e r a c t i o n between the i n e x o r a b l e p r o g r e s s of Fortune, a disembodied f o r c e which i s a l l i e d to time and death, and the n e c e s s i t y of a man's f i n d i n g h i s r e a l i d e n t i t y by knowing himself (conocerse) and g a i n i n g n o b i l i t y by over-coming himself (vencerse). In the r e l i g i o u s p l a y s he must over-come the promptings of the d e v i l and f o l l o w the way of God; i n the s e c u l a r p l a y s he mast overcome the promptings of h i s passions and f o l l o w the way of reason. In the l a s t of h i s plays Mira emphasises t h a t a man must fuse the v i r t u e s of the c o u r t i e r and the C h r i s t i a n and be o r d e r l y ( g a l a n ) , brave ( v a l i e n t e ) , c h a r i t a b l e ( l i b e r a l ) , and prudent ( d i s c r e t o ) . The t h e s i s a l s o examines Mira's p r e s e n t a t i o n of tragedy, tragicomedy, and comedy, and traces the development of h i s dramatic techniques. In h i s mature works he fused the i m p l i c i t d u a l i t y . o f the i n t e r a c t i o n between h i s p r i n c i p a l themes w i t h h i s f o n d n e s s f o r d u a l i t y or m u l t i p l i c i t y i n h i s c h a r a c t e r i s a t i o n , language, and n a r r a t i v e technique, to produce f i n a l l y a balanced and symmetrically patterned, but f u l l y i n t e g r a t e d , s t r u c t u r e . •'>yThe development of Mira's technique i s a microcosm of the development of the whole Golden Age t h e a t e r , beginning with the rudimentary form of the end of the s i x t e e n t h century and ending with the s o p h i s t i c a t i o n of Rojas Z o r r i l l a , Moreto and Calder5n. I t i s not p o s s i b l e to state c a t e g o r i c a l l y that M i r a was r e s p o n s i b l f o r the way the Golden Age theater developed, because h i s mature works were produced dur i n g the two decades i n which n e a r l y a l l the well-known dramatists were w r i t i n g (1615-1635). He i s not of i n t e r e s t - p r i n c i p a l l y as an i n f l u e n c e on the development of the Golden Age t h e a t e r , however, f o r h i s best p l a y s rank w i t h the f i n e s t productions of the Spanish stage. i v CONTENTS I n t r o d u c t i o n Chapter One: B i o g r a p h i c a l study Chapter Two: An i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the a u t h o r s h i p and chronology of the dramatic works which have been a t t r i b u t e d to M i r a de Amescua Chapter Three: A new c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the p l a y s of M i r a de Amescua Chapter Four: The r e l i g i o u s p l a y s Chapter F i v e : A c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the theme of Fortune, the c h a r a c t e r i s a t i o n and the language of the p l a y s Chapter S i x : The t r a g e d i e s Chapter Seven: The tr a g i c o m e d i e s Chapter E i g h t : The comedies Chiapter Nine: C o n c l u s i o n s ' B i b l i o g r a p h y of the p l a y s examined B i b l i o g r a p h y Appendix to'the biography of M i r a de Amescua V LIST OF TABLES I Table AJ P l a y s which are almost c e r t a i n l y by Mira.......3 8 I I Table Bi P l a y s w r i t t e n by M i r a i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n with o t h e r authors, i n which Mira's c o n t r i b u t i o n i s almost c e r t a i n . . 4 5 I I I Table C: P l a y s which are probably by Mir a , but about which the evidence i s not c o n c l u s i v e 45 IV Table D: P l a y s which are pro b a b l y NOT by M i r a , but f o r which the evidence i s not c o n c l u s i v e 47 V Table E: P l a y s which are almost c e r t a i n l y NOT by M i r a 48 VI C h r o n o l o g i c a l t a b l e of Mi r a ' s dramatic works 52 VII Valbuena P r a t ' s f i r s t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Mira's ; " d r a m a t i c works 55 V I I I Valbuena P r a t ' s second c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Mira's : ; > ^ : ; H v v ^dramatic works 56 ''"IXW The autos 58 X The r e l i g i o u s , " s a l v a t i o n " , p l a y s 58 XI The r e l i g i o u s , " n o n - s a l v a t i o n " , p l a y s 59 X I I The t r a g e d i e s . . . 59 X I I I The tragicomedies 60 XIV The comedies 60 v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Du r i n g the p r o d u c t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s I r e c e i v e d h e l p and support from many sources. I wish to express my debt of g r a t i t u d e to them, f o r without them t h i s t h e s i s c o u l d never have been w r i t t e n . Mention i s made i n the f o o t n o t e s of s p e c i f i c i n s t a n c e s o f h e l p . I would l i k e to acknowledge what I owe to my s u p e r v i s o r , P r o f . John V. Bryans, to the Head of the Department of H i s p a n i c and I t a l i a n S t u d i e s , P r o f . H a r o l d V. Livermore, and to the members of my committee, P r o f . A r s e n i o Pacheco and P r o f . K a r l I. . Kobbervig. I would a l s o l i k e t o acknowledge the h e l p and encouragement of members of the Department of H i s p a n i c S t u d i e s ' a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, both f a c u l t y and students, and of-mycolleagues i n the Department of Romance Languages, Mount A l l i s o n U n i v e r s i t y , S a c k v i l l e , N.B. I should p a r t i c u l a r l y l i k e to thank P r o f . Derek C. C a r r f o r many i n f o r m a l suggestions, - P r o f . .Roberto M. F l o r e s f o r h i s advice on b i b l i o g r a p h i c a l y d e t a i l s i and P r o f . J u d i t h A. Weiss f o r her encouragement i n the f i n a l stages. My.period of graduate s t u d i e s at the U n i v e r s i t y of B.C., c o i n c i d e d e x a c t l y w i t h the p r e s i d e n c y of Dr Walter H. Gage, the peak of the. ."Age of Gage." I would t h e r e f o r e l i k e to express my g r a t i t u d e to Dr Gage and to the U n i v e r s i t y f o r f i n a n c i a l support d u r i n g the p e r i o d . I would a l s o l i k e t o express my g r a t i t u d e to the Canada C o u n c i l f o r i t s support f o r the f i n a l two years of the p e r i o d . Thanks are a l s o due to Margaret F r i e s s e n and the hard-working s t a f f o f the I n t e r - L i b r a r y Loan Department f o r t h e i r l o n g -s u f f e r i n g and p a i n s t a k i n g searches f o r seventeenth century works which were sometimes l i t t l e more than the product of somebody's w i s h f u l t h i n k i n g . F i n a l l y I must thank my w i f e , who not o n l y helped with the t y p i n g and the onerous t a s k of p r o o f - r e a d i n g the v a r i o u s d r a f t s - o f the t h e s i s , but had to t o l e r a t e M i r a de Amescua at a l l hours. Mention must be made of Zoya who so encouraged her f a t h e r to "get on w i t h your c h a p t e r s . " V l l To a l l of these, I owe a debt of g r a t i t u d e ; i f I have i n a d v e r t e n t l y overlooked anybody, I must express to them my g r a t i t u d e and my a p o l o g i e s . p 1 INTRODUCTION T h i s examination of the p l a y s of M i r a de Amescua i s the f i r s t s e r i o u s attempt t h a t has been made to study h i s t h e a t e r as a whole. M i r a has l o n g been best known to s c h o l a r s as the author of E l e s c l a v o d e l demonio, and the c r i t i c a l approach to h i s t h e a t e r has been c o n d i t i o n e d by t h a t f a c t o r . While i t i s impossible to ignore completely the o p i n i o n s of g e n e r a t i o n s of c r i t i c s , i t w i l l be seen t h a t M i r a was held i n high esteem by h i s contemporaries, none o f whom s i n g l e out E l e s c l a v o d e l .demonio as worthy of s p e c i a l p r a i s e . i There have been s e v e r a l s t u d i e s w r i t t e n about other works j by ||ir.a, but the m a j o r i t y of them have concentrated on • 3 i n d i v i d u a l ' p l a y s r a t h e r than on h i s whole t h e a t e r . The p r i n c i p a l 'exception i s the study of E m i l i o C o t a r e l o y Mori (see below, p.8ff;and p.38ff), which d e a l s w i t h a l l the p l a y s t h a t C o t a r e l o ; believe^dv;Mira to have w r i t t e n . C o t a r e l o ' s study i s i n the form of a catalogue and a l a r g e p a r t of i t c o n s i s t s of b i b l i o g r a p h i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n ; although by no means exhaustive, i t remains the •'most, e x t e n s i v e and d e t a i l e d treatment of the s u b j e c t . I r e f e r r e d to i t f r e q u e n t l y while c o m p i l i n g the m a t e r i a l presented i n the second chapter of my t h e s i s . ' ^ T h e / ^ ' f r i t i c a l p a r t s of C o t a r e l o ' s study are l e s s i n f o r m a t i v e , f o r he<acS|fpts the c r i t i c a l a t t i t u d e taken by Adolph F r i e d r i c h von SchacJk"-' i n the middle of the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y and by Theodor "G. Ahrens i n the b e g i n n i n g of the t w e n t i e t h century. .Schack made a savage a t t a c k on M i r a both as a man and as a dramatist;^" Ahrens was l e s s v i o l e n t but suggested t h a t Mira's p l a y s — i n common with the r e s t of the Spanish Golden Age t h e a t e r „;—were more i n t e r e s t i n g f o r t h e i r s o c i o l o g i c a l value ("Ihre".' , W i c h t i g k e i t fUr d i e K u l t u r " ) than f o r t h e i r l i t e r a r y value ("Ihre l i t e r a r i s c h e Bedeutung"). C o t a r e l o does not go to the extremes o f e i t h e r Schack.or Ahrens, but n e i t h e r does he make any . " s i g n i f i c a n t a l t e r a t i o n s to t h e i r p o i n t of view. The work of r e c e n t s c h o l a r s has been more f a v o r a b l e to Mira, M but any study of him must acknowledge the debts owed to the *e'l;;'editions and accompanying s t u d i e s of Ram6n de Mesonero Romanos i n <the B i b l i o t e c a de Autores Espanoles, Angel Valbuena P r a t i n C l S s i c o s C a s t e l l a n o s , and Claude E. A n l b a l (see below, p. 38ff )• The f i r s t c h a p t e r of the t h e s i s i s an i n t r o d u c t o r y study of the l i f e o f the d r a m a t i s t . Such a study was c o n s i d e r e d e s s e n t i a l f o r v a r i o u s reasons. The f i r s t o f these was to e s t a b l i s h the chronology of M i r a ' s l i f e so t h a t he c o u l d be compared to h i s contemporaries. I t i s of fundamental importance to know t h a t he was one o f the o l d e r Golden Age d r a m a t i s t s , and was w r i t i n g p l a y s i n the e a r l y i n f a n c y of Calder6n, and perhaps even before the younger d r a m a t i s t ' s b i r t h . I t i s a l s o of fundamental importance to know t h a t although he l i v e d u n t i l 16*J4, by^which time many o f Calder6n*s most important p l a y s had been w r i t t e n , M i r a appears to have r e t i r e d from h i s l i t e r a r y p u r s u i t s 'it. twf'lve y ears e a r l i e r , i n 1632. A. second reason f o r the b i o g r a p h i c a l study was to d i s c o v e r .,Jj$"-it frere' were any events i n M i r a ' s l i f e which may have had a ^ M ^ i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e on h i s t h e a t e r . T h i s proved to be the case, ./•^ i^ '^hWre-'' i s ' a p e r c e p t i b l e d i f f e r e n c e between the p l a y s w r i t t e n 'be*lore and a f t e r h i s s t a y i n I t a l y (1610-1616). The r e a l s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h i s change cannot be f u l l y a p p r e c i a t e d , however, u n t i l f u r t h e r evidence c o n c e r n i n g the dates o f h i s p l a y s appears. A l s o / i t i s o n l y p o s s i b l e a t p r e s e n t to s p e c u l a t e on the reasons for''-this'' change, which c o u l d have been brought about by the i n t e l l e c t u a l c l i m a t e o f Naples, the i n f l u e n c e o f the A r g e n s o l a b r o t h e r s i ' -'..a p e r s o n a l change o f o p i n i o n , or by a combination of these reasons. A t h i r d reason f o r the b i o g r a p h i c a l study was to examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between M i r a and the other w r i t e r s of the p e r i o d . I have c o l l e c t e d as many contemporary o p i n i o n s as p o s s i b l e i n order t o show what others thought o f him. I t was i n t e r e s t i n g to •discover t h a t he appears to have been on good terms with many of h i s contemporaries and to have been admired by them. The f i n a l r eason f o r the i n t r o d u c t o r y study was a s c h o l a r l y one. Once I had begun to i n v e s t i g a t e the d e t a i l s about h i s l i f e which had. been accepted as f a c t s , I soon d i s c o v e r e d t h a t many were at b e s t very d o u b t f u l and o t h e r s were completely erroneous. I t h e r e f o r e decided to check the e a r l i e s t sources I c o u l d f i n d . U n f o r t u n a t e l y I have.not been able to add v e r y much to the scanty 3 s t o r e o f knowledge about Mira's l i f e , because of the disappear-ance of the most fundamental document. I hope, however, t h a t t h i s study w i l l p l a c e the l i f e o f M i r a de Amescua i n t o a t r u e r p e r s p e c t i v e . The f i r s t stage of the examination of the works of an author i s to decide which works he wrote. In the second chapter of the t h e s i s I p r e s e n t as s u c c i n c t l y as p o s s i b l e the a v a i l a b l e evidence c o n c e r n i n g Mira's dramatic p r o d u c t i o n ; t h i s evidence i s presented i n f i v e t a b l e s . A s i x t h t a b l e uses the evidence i n the f i r s t f i v e t a b l e s and t h a t of p r e v i o u s s c h o l a r s to g i v e as p r e c i s e l y as p o s s i b l e the chronology of M i r a ' s p l a y s . T h i s t a b l e s Jhas two purposes: f i r s t i t i s u s e f u l as a supplement to the ':: r^'jbio^graphical study; second i t was v e r y u s e f u l i n the p r o d u c t i o n • £J tofsthe c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the p l a y s which i s the s u b j e c t of Chapter ';M^ *.. v; In the t h i r d c h apter I present a new method of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n v ' , of ;"'th;e.;works of M i r a de Amescua. I t i s not y e t p o s s i b l e to sta t e . whether, t h i s method can be a p p l i e d to a l l Golden Age d r a m a t i s t s , but i t i s c e r t a i n l y v a l i d f o r the works of F r a n c i s c o de Rojas Z o r r i l l a as w e l l as f o r those of M i r a . There are a few of Mira's works w h i c h . t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n does not take i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n . F i r s t s . tftose; few p l a y s t h a t I was unable to o b t a i n due to t h e i r i n a c c e s s i b i l i t y . Second, three p l a y s which M i r a wrote i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n : with, o t h e r d r a m a t i s t s . I t was i m p o s s i b l e to i n c l u d e the first,.group, i n ' the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n because I had not read them, although:: E l mart i r de Madrid and E l c l a v o de J a S l are c l e a r l y r e l i g i o u s p l a y s . I t was impossible to i n c l u d e the second group because the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n depends upon the t o t a l n a r r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e and i n each case M i r a wrote the f i r s t s e c t i o n of the p l a y . Chapters Four, S i x , Seven, and E i g h t d e a l with the v a r i o u s •W c a t e g o r i e s l i s t e d i n Chapter Three. The f i r s t group i s the i ; r e l i g i o u s p l a y s which are d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter Four. The chapter .-^;?' does not d i s c u s s the autos f o r two reasons. In the t h e s i s I am concerned w i t h Mira's h a n d l i n g of the comedia form and, although h i s treatment of the auto may be s i m i l a r at times, the auto i s based on d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a . Second, the form has been d i s c u s s e d i n a r e c e n t t h e s i s (see below, p. 62&95 ). In the chapter I c o n c e n t r a t e on two aspects of Mira ' s technique: theme and s t r u c t u r e . I have examined i n d e t a i l the theme of s a l v a t i o n which does not r e c u r i n the s e c u l a r drama. I concentrated on the s t r u c t u r e o f the r e l i g i o u s p l a y s y because these are on the whole a p p r e n t i c e works, and, although they c o n t a i n some f i n e s e c t i o n s , they must be regarded as being experimental works i n which M i r a was t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n s , techniques and combinations. The p r i n c i p a l weakness of the r e l i g i o u s p l a y s i s s t r u c t u r a l but they do pr o v i d e c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n s of the way M i r a was to develop i n h i s t h e a t e r . Chapter F i v e i s d i f f e r e n t from the chapter t h a t precedes i t and from the three t h a t f o l l o w i t . I n the chapter I d e s c r i b e ;|fehree a s p e c t s of the technique o f M i r a de Amescua. The f i r s t .of these i s the theme of Fortune. I have d i s c u s s e d t h i s theme j-intk'. separate chapter because i t p l a y s such a prominent p a r t i n ifthef-.seGular t h e a t e r o f M i r a de Amescua—and to a l e s s e r extent . fi;t/^'ai>^^.so be found i n the r e l i g i o u s t h e a t e r . Mira's p r e s e n t -- a t ^ o n ^ f =the theme i s not g r e a t l y d i f f e r e n t from t h a t o f h i s 'co n t e m p o r a r i e s — i n d e e d the theme i s one of the g r e a t commonplaces o f ..the . l i t e r a t u r e of the p e r i o d . F i n a l l y , Mira's p r e s e n t a t i o n •4 ' " -b:f:::th.e ttheme does not va r y s i g n i f i c a n t l y between the three groups of- stecufjar p l a y s , and the theme p r o v i d e s a necessary background to ihis s e c u l a r t h e a t e r . The chapter a l s o d e s c r i b e s b r i e f l y two other aspects of Mira' s technique, which are common to a l l the p l a y s . The c h a r a c t e r i s a t i o n and the language are fundamental aspects o f a dramatic work and they are both s u b j e c t s which deserve a much f u l l e r treatment, and indeed they both p r o v i d e s u f f i c i e n t m a t e r i a l f o r separate s t u d i e s . In the c h a p t e r I have t h e r e f o r e concentrated on .the most o u t s t a n d i n g f e a t u r e s of both the c h a r a c t e r i s a t i o n and the language, and, e s p e c i a l l y , the f e a t u r e s which have a b e a r i n g on the s t r u c t u r e of the p l a y s . M i r a ' s use of double or twin c h a r a c t e r s , and of the f i g u r e s and tropes of r h e t o r i c r e v e a l the i n t e r e s t t h a t he had i n the ambiguity o f the world. In Chapters S i x , Seven, and E i g h t I examine Mir a ' s t r a g e d i e s , tragicomedies^ and comedies. I pay s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n i n the "ch a p t e r s to the thematic content of the s e c u l a r p l a y s . The theme o f i d e n t i t y and n o b i l i t y forms a c o u n t e r p a r t to t h a t of Fortune, "but i t v a r i e s s l i g h t l y between the v a r i o u s groups of p l a y s . In the t r a g e d i e s men are seen as b e i n g i n c a p a b l e of f i n d i n g s e l f -knowledge and succumb to Fortune, whereas i n the comedies they are capable of overcoming both themselves and Fortune. The heterogeneous t r a g i c o m e d i e s sometimes appear to be t r a g e d i e s i n which Fortune i s benevolent, sometimes appear to be comedies i n which Fortune i s malevolent, and a t l e a s t o n c e — i n L a rueda de  l a Fortuna, an e a r l y s e c u l a r p l a y — t h e themes of Fortune and i d e n t i t y , and the genres o f tragedy and comedy appear to be i n p e r f e c t balance, In Chapter S i x I pay s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n i n my i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the p l a y s to the t r a g i c flaws i n the c h a r a c t e r s of the heroesJ | $ t , i s these flaws which i n t e r a c t w i t h Fortune to cause the •tragic c a t a s t r o p h e s . In Chapter Seven I pay s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n i n my i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of: the p l a y s to the ways i n which the tragicomedies are r e s o l v e d , This'ij'is' achieved e i t h e r through the p l o t or the language. In the - - f i r s t case something happens f o r t u i t o u s l y and a catastrophe i s avoided] i n the second case the c a t a s t r o p h e i s avoided by the ingenious language of one of the c h a r a c t e r s . I a l s o pay s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n i n the chapter to the way i n which an image or :a.;'theme i s used to l i n k t o g e t h e r a p p a r e n t l y d i s p a r a t e and urico^e^cted .-elementsj the t i t l e o f the p l a y f r e q u e n t l y being the key-' to .the -image or the theme. In: Chapter E i g h t I pay s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n i n my i n t e r p r e t -a t i o n of the p l a y s to the way M i r a combines elements of h i s c h a r a c t e r i s a t i o n , elements o f h i s language, and elements o f h i s n a r r a t i v e so as to produce a p a t t e r n e d or symmetrical s t r u c t u r e . I r i ; t h e l a s t o f h i s p l a y s , M i r a employed h i s fondness f o r double c h a r a c t e r s , r h e t o r i c a l f i g u r e s and t r o p e s , p a r a l l e l s i t u a t i o n s , w i t h the themes o f Fortune and i d e n t i t y and n o b i l i t y and forged them i n t o an e l a b o r a t e l y - p a t t e r n e d and c a r e f u l l y i n t e g r a t e d unit*. In Chapter Nine I p r e s e n t my c o n c l u s i o n s about the t h e a t e r of M i r a de Amescua. Throughout the t h e s i s , but, e s p e c i a l l y , i n t h i s c hapter, I r e f e r to the other Golden Age d r a m a t i s t s . A more d e t a i l e d study of M i r a ' s r e l a t i o n s w i t h them and the i n f l u e n c e s they had on each o t h e r would be very i l l u m i n a t i n g , but i t was not p o s s i b l e to undertake such a study f o r three reasons. F i r s t , there was too l i t t l e known about Mira's technique to form a sound b a s i s f o r such a study. Second, because of the s c a r c i t y of p l a y s whose p r e c i s e dates are known, such a study would have to be based to a l a r g e extent on c o n j e c t u r e , s i n c e i t i s f r e q u e n t l y i m p o s s i b l e to know who exerted i n f l u e n c e on whom. F i n a l l y , the amount of m a t e r i a l a l r e a d y i n my t h e s i s would have meant t h a t the i n c l u s i o n of such a study would have swelled i t to monumental p r o p o r t i o n s . F o r the reasons g i v e n above, t h i s t h e s i s i s intended to examine the p l a y s of M i r a de Amescua so as to g a i n a c l e a r e r i n -s i g h t i n t o h i s dramatic technique and the way i t developed, and I hope t h a t my c o n c l u s i o n s w i l l h e lp measure more a c c u r a t e l y h i s dramatic achievement and h i s p l a c e i n Golden Age L i t e r a t u r e . 7 NOTES TO INTRODUCTION Geschichte der dramatischen L i t e r a t u r und Kunst i n  Spanien ( F r a n k f u r t am Main, 1854), I I , 456-7. 2 Zur C h a r a k t e r i s t i k des spanischen Dramas im Anfang des  XVII. Jahrhunderts (Ph. D. t h e s i s , H a l l e - W i t t e n b e r g , 1911), p. 10. 8 CHAPTER ONEi BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY Antonio M i r a de Amescua was born i n the c i t y o f Guadix, i n the p r o v i n c e o f Granada. He was the i l l e g i t i m a t e son o f a member o f one o f the p r i n c i p a l f a m i l i e s of the c i t y . Because he was born i n t o such a f a m i l y much i s known about h i s f o r b e a r s ! because he was i l l e g i t i m a t e many o f the f a c t s s u r r o u n d i n g h i s b i r t h and e a r l y y e a r s are shrouded i n mystery. The f u l l e s t account o f h i s l i f e i s t o be found i n E m i l i o C o t a r e l o y Mori's a r t i c l e 'Mira de Amescua y su t e a t r o , ' 1 2 which i s based on a r t i c l e s by Fructuoso Sanz and Torcuato Tarrago.^ These were i n t u r n based on an Expediente de  pruebas de l i m p i e z a de sangre which both men had d i s c o v e r e d independently i n the a r c h i v e s o f the c a t h e d r a l a t Guadix. A c a r e f u l examination o f t h i s expediente would c e r t a i n l y throw l i g h t upon some of the m y s t e r i e s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y t h i s document has disappeared from the a r c h i v e s i n Guadix. I t i s to be hoped that)one day, i t w i l l reappear. In s p i t e of the l a c k o f t h i s fundamental document, i t i s s t i l l p o s s i b l e to throw i n t o r e l i e f some o f the m y s t e r i e s by a c l o s e examination of C o t a r e l o y M o r i ' s t e x t and sources. Because o f the d r a m a t i s t ' s i r r e g u l a r b i r t h , the names by which he i s known—Mira de Amescua—are not the u s u a l combination o f p a t e r n a l and maternal surnames. He adopted both o f h i s f a t h e r ' s names, r a t h e r than h i s mother's, which were T o r r e s H e r e d i a . ^ The f a c t t h a t he d i d not adopt the u s u a l combination o f names i s not unusual d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d ;in Spain. ^  -•. . The form and s p e l l i n g of the name—Mira de Amescua— have been accepted by a l l c r i t i c s s i n c e the comments on M i r a ' s l i f e and death by Rodriguez Marfn i n h i s l i f e o f Pedro E s p i n o s a . ^ Rodriguez Marin i n h i s Pedro E s p i n o s a (pp. 91-2note) t a l k s of the Amescua f a m i l y t LlSmole Amescua, y no Mescua, como comunmente se l e riombra, porque e"l firmaba de a q u e l l a manera. E l a p e l l i d o parece haberse o r i g i n a d o d e l nombre de un r f o de Navarra, que l o da a dos pueblost Amescoa  A l t a y Amescoa Ba j a . 9 T h i s was quoted by C o t a r e l o y M o r i (p. 468) and Rodriguez Marin's statement i s confirmed by Gonzalo Argote de M o l i n a i n h i s monumental Nobleza de A n d a l u c i a . The f o l l o w i n g q u o t a t i o n from t h i s work may a l s o f u r n i s h f u r t h e r evidence to support Mira* s a u t h o r s h i p of L a p r S s p e r a f o r t u n a de don  A l v a r o de Luna y_ adversa de Ruy Lflpez de Avalos. Argote de M o l i n a w r i t e s i n Chapter CXCIX? E r a e l Alcayde Pero D i a z de Navarrete muy p r i v a d o d e l Condestable D. Ruy L6pez Davalos y fue L u g a r t e n i e n t e de Adelantado de l a F r o n t e r a [ y Alcayde de Xodar] . . . . E n t r e l o s des c e n d i e n t e s deste Alcayde de Xodar, fue uno G a r c i Fernandez de Navarrete. . . j fue c a p i t a n de i n f a n t e r i a en l a c o n q u i s t a d e l r e i n o Napoles. . . , donde fue muy estimado. Cas6 en Baeza con Ine*s de Amescua* h i j a de Diego de Amescua, l i n a g e muy antiguo en a q u e l l a c i u d a d , cuyos pasados f u e r o n seKores de l a Dehesa, que hoy se llaman de Amescua. Y t u v i e r o n su enterramiento en l a c a p i l l a mayor de l a i g l e s i a c a t e d r a l , a l l a d o de l a E p l s t o l a . Cuyo l i n a g e fue t a n noble, que en e l ano de m i l y c u a t r o - c i e n t o s y t r e i n t a y s i e t e , e l concejo de Baeza h i z o g r a c i a a Sancho D i a z de Amescua de ayuda de c o s t a , atento.que e r a h i j o d a l g o y n a t u r a l d e l l a , y de buen l i n a g e v i e j o , pobre. Su s o l a r es en e l reyno de Navarra, l a c a s a de Amescua, que l e d i o a p e l l i d o , de l a c u a l fue G a r c i Xime*nez c a v a l l e r o de l o s m&s p r i n c i p a l e s de l a s montanas de Navarra, senor de l a c a s a de Amescua y Abazurza, que segu"n r e f i e r e n h i s t o r i a s a n t i g u a s , fue e l e c t o ano de s e t e c i e n t o s y d i e z y s e i s por e l r e y de Navarra, como hace memoria Es t e v a n de Garivay en e l c a p i t u l o 7 d e l l i b r o v e i n t e y uno de su h i s t o r i a . . . . E l c a p i t a n F r a n c i s c o de Amescua Navarrete, Regidor de Guadix, fue primero a l f e r e z de •Antonio Moreno e l V i e j o , y de spue's c a p i t a n de i n f a n t e r i a en I t a l i a y en l a Jornada de U n g r l a . 8 T h i s passage r e v e a l s a t l e a s t f o u r t h i n g s worth remembering. F i r s t , M i r a de Amescua*s f a m i l y was connected, however remotely, w i t h Ruy L6pez de Avalost the c o n n e c t i o n may seem tenuous, but i t would not be improbable t h a t f a m i l y t r a d i t i o n sliould be t h a t the Amescuas regarded themselves as b e l o n g i n g , to' the p a r t y of Ruy L6pez (see below, p. 194 ). Second, i t co n f i r m s what Rodriguez Marin has to say c o n c e r n i n g the c o n n e c t i o n o f the name o f Amescua w i t h Navarre (see above, " p. : 8 ), T h i r d , i t makes p l a i n t h a t the Amescuas were an extremely o l d and h i g h l y regarded noble f a m i l y . F i n a l l y , the f a c t t h a t F r a n c i s c o de Amescua Navarrete was r e g i d o r o f the c i t y o f Guadix c o n f i r m s t h a t t h i s was the f a m i l y to which the Amescuas belonged.9 10 The next mention of the f a m i l y appears to "be i n the Expediente de pruebas de l i m p i e z a de sangre, which i s d e s c r i b e d as f u l l y as i s p o s s i b l e i n the A p p e n d i x . 1 0 On M i r a ' s f a t h e r ' s s i d e the r e p o r t goes back three g e n e r a t i o n s and r e v e a l s t h a t M i r a ' s g r e a t - g r a n d f a t h e r was Juan de M i r a " c r i a d o de l o s Reyes Cat6licos y uno de l o s c o n q u i s t a d o r e s de l a s ciudades de Baza y G u a d i x . " 1 1 T h i s l a s t named event took p l a c e on 4-5th December 1^89. Juan de M i r a married Marina Paez de Sotomayor and "ambos t u v i e r o n r e p a r t i m i e n t o de casas y t i e r r a s en e l que l o s r e y e s h i c i e r o n de a q u e l l a c i u d a d . " (Sanz, p. 568). The c h i l d o f t h i s marriage was Antonio M i r a , "hombre pequeno y gotoso" (Sanz, p. 568), who l e f t Baza t o marry L u i s a de Amescua, and the couple l i v e d i n Guadix. Antonio M i r a and L u i s a de Amescua had three c h i l d r e n : a son, Melchor, and two daughters, I s a b e l and Maria. None of the t h r e e ever m a r r i e d , but Melchor became the f a t h e r o f the d r a m a t i s t , Antonio. The witnesses s t a t e t h a t Juan de M i r a (the d r a m a t i s t ' s g r a n d f a t h e r ) d i e d between 1564 and 1570 and t h a t h i s w i f e had pre-deceased him by two y e a r s . Sanz quotes the o p i n i o n s o f some o f the witnesses to show the statu's'of the d r a m a t i s t ' s f a m i l y 1 - Por p a r t e de l o s Amescua, t i e n e en e s t a c i u d a d de Guadix muchos deudos muy p r i n c i p a l e s y c a b a l l e r o s con este d i c h o a p e l l i d o (Sanz, p. 569). Por p a r t e de l o s M i r a e s t a b a e l e l e c t o Arcediano emparentado con l a s p r i n c i p a l e s y ma's n o b l e s f a m i l i a s de Baza (Sanz, p. 569)« Lv.V . He v i s t o comunicarse a l Melchor y a l d o c t o r M i r a de Amescua, y t r a t a r como p a r i e n t e s con don F r a n c i s c o de * P e r a l t a y don Diego de E s p i n o s a y Andre's de Veas (Sanz, * ;/r P- 569). Han s i d o reputados l o s M i r a s y Amesquas y t e n i d o s a s s l V mismo de c a b a l l e r o s de l o mfis p r i n c i p a l d e s t a ciudad y en e l l a e s t a n emparentados con l o s mejores y de l o s mSs p r i n c i p a l e s , como son S a l a z a r e s , Perez de E s p i n o s a , S a n t o l a l l a s , P e r a l t a s , Veas y a s s l muchos ot r o s ( S a n z , p. 569). The maternal genealogy o f M i r a de Amescua i s l e s s c l e a r i f , a p p a r e n t l y , e q u a l l y i l l u s t r i o u s . He was descended from don F r a n c i s c o H e r e d i a and dona F r a n c i s c a Morales. The former 11 was a n a t i v e of B e r j a i n the A l p u j a r r a s o f Granada and was a brave s o l d i e r i M e r e c i ^ que e l r e y l e nombrara a l c a i d e de l a f o r t a l e z a de SalobreKa y gobernador, como es publico y n o t o r i o , en e s t a t i e r r a y en t o d a e s t a c o s t a * y fue c a p i t a n de l a gente de a c a b a l l o de e s t a v i l l a , de Adra y su p a r t i d o , h a s t a que muri6. . . en l a noche de navidad d e l ano 1567 6 68 que fue l a r e b e l i t f n de l o s moriscos (Sanz, p. 570). One o f the w i t n e s s e s d e s c r i b e s the v a l i a n t death o f the c a p t a i n 1 Muri6 a manos de l o s moros en defensa de l a s a n t a fe cat6lica y de l a jente d e s t a v i l l a cuando l o s moriscos se a l z a r o n en este reyno. Y e s t a t e s t i g o se hallo" presente eh l a i g l e s i a d e s t a v i l l a con muchos c r i s -t i a n o s que se ablan r e c o x i d o en l a d i c h a y g l e s i a por l a f u e r z a de l o s moros, l a noche de nabidad d e l primer ano de l a guerra, de adonde l o s d i c h o s moros sacaron a l d i c h o C a p i t a n eon o t r o s muchos c r i s t i a n o s , y l o s h i c i e r o n pe_a$os en l a p l a $ a de e s t a v i l l a que e s t S d e l a n t e de l a p u e r t a de l a i g l e s i a a donde est a b a e s t a t e s t i g o . . . (Sanz, pp. 570-1). The c a p t a i n ' s w i f e , dona F r a n c i s c a Morales, l i v e d i n B e r j a mourning her husband u n t i l her own death between I603 and 1608. The r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h i s couple to the d r a m a t i s t i s f a r from c l e a r . In the q u e s t i o n s d i r e c t e d t o the witnesses they are regarded as the d r a m a t i s t ' s grandparents. (See 1 Appendix below , p p 3 2 8 - 3 1 ). Sanz summarises the f a m i l y h i s t o r y as f o l l o w s j Dona B e a t r i z de T o r r e s y H e r e d i a , su madre [ d e l dramaturge], p r o e e d l a de l a s A l p u j a r r a s de Granadai e r a • n a t u r a l de B e r j a y descendiente de l o s heroes que d i e r o n su v i d a por defender a l a R e l i g i o n y a l a P a t r i a ' e n l a rebel_5n de l o s m o r i s c o s j noble con l a n o b l e z a de l a ' , sangre derramada valientemente por su padre en a q u e l l a ,7 g u e r r a , y noble asimismo por su madre, h i j a l e g f t i m a de don F r a n c i s c o de H e r e d i a y dona F r a n c i s c a Morales l o s c u a l e s i u v i e r o n en su matrimonio o t r o s t r e s h i j o s i dona F r a n c i s c a , don Antonio y don Grist5bal. En l a hermana mayor, dona F r a n c i s c a , puso sus o j o s , y se cas5 con e l l a , e l c a b a l l e r o de A l m e r l a don Crist6bal de Cabrera y Benavides. Don Antonio s i g u i f i l a c a r r e r a de l a s arinas, y en 1631 e r a c a p i t a n de I n f a n t e r i a en l a s i s l a s , de Madera? don C r i s t o b a l , sargento mayor en l a s I s l a s C a n a r i a s , y dona B e a t r i z y a se ha d i c h o como v i n o a Guadix y entabl6 r e l a c i o n e s con don Gaspar (Sanz, pp. 569-70). 12 Two p o i n t s i n t h i s passage are ambiguous. The f i r s t i s the i n t r o d u c t i o n i n the l a s t l i n e o f the mysterious don Gaspar. I t would seem t h a t Sanz has confused Melchor w i t h Gaspar (through the a s s o c i a t i o n o f the names o f two o f the magi). The second and more important p o i n t i s the a p p o s i t i o n o f the words madre and hi.ja i n l i n e 7; t h i s seems to mean t h a t the mother of B e a t r i z was the daughter o f don F r a n e i s c o , which would suggest t h a t he was the d r a m a t i s t ' s g r e a t - g r a n d f a t h e r . There are other d e t a i l s which would support t h i s i d e a . There i s no i n d i c a t i o n o f the o r i g i n o f the name T o r r e s , who was presumably B e a t r i z de T o r r e s Heredia's f a t h e r . Another f a c t o r i s the i n c o n s i s t e n c y o f the dates and ages. B e a t r i z must have been o f c h i l d b e a r i n g age by 1575» or a t the l a t e s t by 1578 (see below, pp.16-8). I f both her b r o t h e r s were much younger than she, they might have been born s h o r t l y before the death o f don F r a n c i s c o H e r e d i a i n 1567 or 1568. T h i s would mean t h a t i n 1631 they were a t l e a s t 6 3 — a v e r y advanced age 12 f o r a c t i v e s o l d i e r s a t t h a t p e r i o d . D e s p i t e the i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s and d e f i c i e n c i e s of the testimony, or the r e p o r t o f i t , there appears to be no reason t o doubt Sanz's summary o f the f i n d i n g s o f the tribunal« L a l i m p i e z a de sangre y noble c a l i d a d de e s t a f a m i l i a l a s reconocen cuantos f u e r o n preguntados por este p a r t i c u l a r . A s i , por padre y madre v i n o de n o b l e z a r a n c i a e l d o c t o r M i r a de Amescua (Sanz, p. 571). These are the antecedents of two people whose r e l a t i o n s h i p ;aftd' c h a r a c t e r s need t o be examined as c l o s e l y as p o s s i b l e . What were Melchor Amescua y M i r a and B e a t r i z de T o r r e s H e r e d i a ..'Tike »\.ind how d i d they come t o g i v e b i r t h to Antonio M i r a de ^Ame'sctia? The f i r s t q u e s t i o n i s more e a s i l y answered than the secondt Melchor Amescua y M i r a . . . durante su v i d a fue una de l a s p r i n c i p a l e s f i g u r a s de Guadix, c a b a l l e r o que en l a s f i e s t a s r e a l e s y a c t o s p t f b l i c o s s a l l a a jugar canas, t o r n e o s y o t r o s juegos. Tuvo l o s honrosos o f i c i o s de Regidor, A l c a l d e de l a Santa Hermandad, A l c a l d e de Aguas y A l c a l d e muchas veces por l a Ciudad. . . . Muri6. . . por l o s anos de 1601 a 1605 (Sanz, pp. 567-8). The expediente seems to go i n t o the most p a i n s t a k i n g l y accurate d e t a i l about e v e r y t h i n g but the most e s s e n t i a l 13 f a c t s f o r a biography of the d r a m a t i s t . T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y t rue where i t concerns the somewhat mysterious and romantic f i g u r e o f B e a t r i z de T o r r e s H e r e d i a . She i s d e s c r i b e d , r a t h e r e n i g m a t i c a l l y , as "joven de buen cuerpo, b l a n c a , f r e s c a " (Sanz, p. 557) . She l e f t her n a t i v e B e r j a t o journey w i t h her aunt and u n c l e , dona Constanza Vfizquez d e l Oso and don Matlas F i g u e r a s , to the c i t y o f Guadix, where the l a t t e r was a d o c t o r . " ^ N e i t h e r the date of t h i s move nor the r e a s o n f o r her adoption by her aunt and uncle are mentioned. B e a t r i z was brought up by her aunt and u n c l e i n t h e i r house i n the p a r i s h of San Miguel i n Guadix and " l a honraban como merecla, por sus c u a l i d a d e s , buenas, como aseguran l o s que l a c o n o c i e r o n " (Sanz, p. 557) . Although i t i s not c e r t a i n , i t appears t h a t i t was dona C o n s t f n z a who i n t r o d u c e d B e a t r i z to Melchor, a l b e i t somewhat i n d i r e c t l y . Don M a t l a s was f r i e n d l y w i t h dona Juana and dona B e a t r i z de M o n t i e l , and h i s w i f e and niece cemented the f r i e n d s h i p . Dona I s a b e l and dona M a r i a M i r a y Amescua and t h e i r b r o t h e r , Melchor, l i v e d i n the house next door to t h a t o f these two s i s t e r s " t a n j u n t a s , que l a s raujeres se pasan de una c a s a a o t r a en cuerpo, como s i l a s dos f u e r a n una misma ca s a " (Sanz, p. 558) . The f r i e n d s h i p was to bear f r u i t t E l d i c h o d o c t o r don Antonio M i r a y Amesqua es h i j o n a t u r a l de Melchor Amesqua y M i r a y de dona B e a t r i z de T o r r e s y H e r e d i a , ambos a dos l i b r e s y s o l t e r o s , l o s q uales t u v i e r o n t r a t o y eomunicacio'n mucho tiempo, r durante l a qual hubieron y p r o c r e a r o n por su h i j o n a t u r a l a l dichoOdon Antonio. . . » y e s t e t e s t i g o oy6 d e e i r muchas veces que e l d i c h o Melchor se h a b i a de cas sir con l a d i c h a dona B e a t r i z , pero que no se casd" c o # e l l a n i con o t r a ninguna (Sanz, p. 557) . Ahother?..witness, who had been a s e r v a n t i n the house o f don M a t l a s f o r nine or t e n y e a r s d u r i n g which time Antonio had been born, adds the f o l l o w i n g d e t a i l s i T r a t 6 Melchor de c a s a r s e eon l a dona B e a t r i z , por d o n c e l l a honrada y p r i n c i p a l , mediante l o c u a l l o s susodichos t r a t a r o n amores entre s i , r e s u l t a n d o de e l l o s t u v i e r o n y p r o c r e a r o n a l don Antonio M i r a de Amescua. Recie*n n a c i d o , se l o t r a j o a su c a s a su padre Melchor (Sanz, p. 558) . T h i s testimony p r e s e n t s three o f the most p u z z l i n g aspects 14 of the whole a f f a i r . F i r s t , why d i d the couple never marry? Second, why was the newborn c h i l d taken to the house of the f a t h e r ? T h i r d , when d i d a l l t h i s o c c u r — - i n what year was M i r a de Amescua bom? C o t a r e l o y Mori attempts to answer the f i r s t two qu e s t i o n s by s u g g e s t i n g t h a t B e a t r i z d i e d i n c h i l d b i r t h . In order to prove t h i s he suppresses some o f the evidence: Melchor de Amescua no se caso" nunc a con e l l a , q u i z f i por haber muerto prematuramente ( 2 ) j y l o s t e s t i g o s anaden, como en d i s c u l p a , que tampoco e l se caso* con o t r a n i n -guna. Pero s i recibi6 como h i j o y en su p r o p i a c a s a , apenas n a c i d o , aquel pobre f r u t o de sus malogrados amores (3) ( C o t a r e l o , p. 471). C o t a r e l o supports h i s i d e a w i t h the evidence he g i v e s i n the f o l l o w i n g notes: (2) En l a s pruebas no se vuelve a c i t a r a l a madre. (3) "ReciSn nacido se l o t r a j o a su c a s a su padre Melchor" d i c e una mujer que e s t a b a s i r v i e n d o en c a s a d e l d o c t o r F i g u e r a s cuando e s t o o c u r r l a . Dona B e a t r i z de M o n t i e l , de Guadix, d i c e "que se halld" presente en c a s a de Melchor de Amescua, su padre, cuando se l e t r a x e r o n reciSn n a c i d o . " Otro t e s t i g o , F r a n c i s c o Hernandez, anade " E l d i c h o Melchor de Amescua l o llev6* a su casa, donde l o cri6* y alimento* como a t a l su h i j o , dandole  amas y l o demfis n e c e s a r i o , y dona I s a b e l y dona M a r i a de Amescua, d o n c e l l a s , hermanas d e l d i c h o Melchor, l o c r i a r o n y r e g a l a r o n como a su s o b r i n o . " En e l e x t r a e t o de Tarrago, dona A n t o n i a de l o s Angeles, monja beata, dominica, d i c e que don Antonio nado* en l a c a s a de su padre y "que c r i a b a un araa con mucho r e g a l o . " Otro t e s t i g o , e l l i c e n c i a d o Andre's Rodriguez de C6zar, d i c e que M i r a "naci6 en l a p a r r o q u i a mayor." Hay, pues, un drama o c u l t o en e s t o s hechosj porque n i aun amamantar a y su h i j o l e d e j a r o n a dona B e a t r i z , c o s a que e l l a , de "° ' . • seguro, habrS implorado, por descastada que l a supongamos s i no es que como decimos a r r i b a , hubiese f a l l e c i d o en edad temprana y acaso a l dar a l mundo a su h i j o ( C o t a r e l o , p. 471note, the s t r e s s i s C o t a r e l o ' s ) . One o f the t e s t i m o n i e s which he g i v e s i s continued and the remainder o f the q u o t a t i o n shows t h a t dona B e a t r i z i s mentioned a f t e r M i r a ' s b i r t h , and r e f u t e s the su g g e s t i o n t h a t she d i e d i n c h i l d b i r t h . The testimony i s t h a t o f F r a n c i s c a (not F r a n c i s c o ) Hernandez, B e a t r i z ' s e r s t w h i l e maid. The sentence i s continued as f o l l o w s : ( l o c r i a r o n y r e g a l a r o n como a su so b r i n o ) y h i j o de su hermano, y e s t a t e s t i g o l o v i d o s e r y pas a r a n s l todo e l tiempo que estuvo en l a ciudad de Guadix, porque yba muchas beces por s i y en nombre de l a d i c h a . dona B e a t r i z _ d e T o r r e s y H e r e d i a a b i s i t a r a e l dicho • don Antonio (Sanz, p. 5&0). 15 This testimony is supported by that of another witness, who also makes clear that "en nombre de" does not refer, as might be suggested, to a request of the mother before she died: La madre, unas veces por su criada y otras en persona, se presentaba en l a casa vecina a l a del Melchor y en l a misma casa de Melchor, lo acariciaba y regalaba como a su hijo, lo llamaba de t a l su hijo, y asi el dicho doctor Mira de Amesqua trataba y respetaba a l a dicha dona Beatriz de Torres como a su madre y en las conversaciones que esta testigo vido, que fueron muchas, l a decfa madre, y e l l a a 51 hijo (Sanz, p. 560) . It was unfortunate that in making the suggestion that Beatriz had died in childbirth, Cotarelo failed to finish reading one sentence, and ignored the sentence which follows i t on the same page. It i s possible that the answer to the question of why the two lovers never married i s to be found in one of Mira* s plays—La fgnix de Salamancat En medio de sus regalos|_de mis padres] y mi mocedad inquieta, vino a Valencia una dama, con sus padres, desde Huesea. Gente" de mediano estado, que entre las 4emaj_,,^ e^$>eya " ya l a patricia',7'' tenia * " ' buen lugar por su llaneza. Vi l a , pareci6me bien, visite" su casa, ame'la tanto, que credo* el amor hasta casarme eon e l l a . Sentidos mis padres de el l o , : retiraronse a una aldea, - •. donde acabaron sus dias v de vejez y de tristeza. 14 v .« 1 There are differences: the names of the towns are not the <$•-samej Beatriz travelled with her aunt and uncle, not with ::her parents? doctors, from the evidence of Mira's plays, would have been regarded as de mediano estado at best} the love a f f a i r of Melchor and Beatriz ended not in marriage but with the birth of a child. Also the phrase visite* su casa i s an unusual one for the hero of a Golden Age comedia. It i s possible that the reaction of Garceran's parents reflects that of Melchor's, and i t may help to explain the reason he never married Beatriz. Since the passage describes 16 a s o c i a l a t t i t u d e r a t h e r than s p e c i f i c f a c t s , t h i s r a t h e r tenuous evidence, may be o f some i m p o r t a n c e , ^ The t h i r d q u e s t i o n i s t h a t of the date o f M i r a ' s b i r t h . Sanz (p. 559)» Tarrago (p. 307), and C o t a r e l o (p. 471) a l l agree t h a t there i s no r e c o r d of the baptism o f the i n f a n t Antonio. T h i s might have taken p l a c e i n B e a t r i z ' s p a r i s h o f San M i g u e l , i n Melchor*s p a r i s h o f E l S a g r a r i o , or p o s s i b l y i n a n e i g h b o u r i n g town so t h a t the f a c t of the b i r t h would not be known i n the c i t y . Without the b a p t i s m a l r e c o r d , the o n l y evidence i s t h a t o f the expediente which Sanz summarises "puede c o n j e t u r a r s e e n t r e l o s de 157^ a 1577, por l o que r e s u l t a de l a s d e c l a r a c i o n e s de l o s t e s t i g o s , l o s c u a l e s . . . l e a t r i b u y e n , en 1631, l a edad de c i n c u e n t a y "cuatro a c i n c u e n t a y s i e t e anos" (Sanz, p. 559). C o t a r e l o uses the same evidence but comes to d i f f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n s ! Uno de l o s t e s t i g o s . . . d i c e conocer a don Antonio "desde que naci6, que habra" c i n c u e n t a y c u a t r o a c i n c u e n t a y s e i s anos." Otros l e suponen de c i n c u e n t a y s i e t e . L a p r i m e r a c i f r a no puede a d m i t i r s e porque en 1600 e r a y a mayor de edad, o sea de v e i n t i c i n c o anos. S6lo quedan como fec h a s p r o b a b l e s de su nacimiento l a s de 1575» 157^ 6 "bien 15731 l a segunda parece p r e f e r i b l e ( C o t a r e l o , p. 472). L e a v i n g a s i d e the q u e s t i o n o f M i r a ' s m a j o r i t y , which I s h a l l r e t u r n t o l a t e r , C o t a r e l o ' s f i g u r e s need to be examined. The year o f the expediente was 1631, the witnesses a t t r i b u t e to him an age of $k to 56 or p o s s i b l y 57. Sanz c o r r e c t l y d e d u c e s . ^ J i to ___J4» C o t a r e l o , on the other hand ; ' ' : ^ 1 3 7 4 1577 produces.the f i g u r e s 1573-1576* nowhere does e i t h e r Sanz or Tarragdewalce any statement which j u s t i f i e s the f i r s t o f these dates. £ C o t a r e l o supports h i s c h o i c e of 1574 w i t h some i n c o n c l u s i v e evidencet E l t e s t i g o Andre's de G6zar manifesto" que h a c i a mas de c u a r e n t a y nueve anos que c o n o c l a a l d o c t o r M i r a . A un n i n e s i n uso de raz6n no puede a p l i c a r s e aquel verbo. S e r i a n de l a misma edad y e l conocimiento empezarla a l o s ocho anos o poco antes ( C o t a r e l o , p. 472). T h i s argument i s o b j e c t i o n a b l e on three counts. F i r s t , no more f a i t h i s to be p l a c e d i n the w i t n e s s ' s memory than i n 17 t h a t o f o t h e r s , and so h i s f o r t y - n i n e y e a r s cannot be regarded as completely a c c u r a t e . Second, Sanz s t a t e s t h a t a l l t h i r t y - o n e w i t n e s s e s — i n c l u d i n g Andre's de C 6 zar—were "todos e l l o s de mas edad que e l p r e t e n d i e n t e " (Sanz, p. 55*0• T h i r d , the d e c i s i o n t h a t a c h i l d begins t o know people a t the age of e i g h t i s a r b i t r a r y to say the l e a s t . T h i s p i e c e o f evidence proves o n l y t h a t M i r a was born d u r i n g the 1570's. C o t a r e l o produces a second p i e c e o f evidence which i s of more substance but i s s t i l l f a r from c o n c l u s i v e i En 1600 fue nombrado M i r a , como veremos, a l c a l d e mayor de Guadix; p a r a e*ste y o t r o s cargos semejantes se n e c e s i t a b a t e n e r v e i n t i c i n c o anos cumplidos ( C o t a r e l o , p. 472). T h i s may be t r u e , and i f C o t a r e l o ' s f a c t s are c o r r e c t — a n d I have no evidence to the c o n t r a r y — t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n must be questioned. F i r s t , nobody seemed to be v e r y sure o f M i r a ' s exact age i n 1631, so i t would be q u i t e p o s s i b l e t h a t they were as unsure i n 1600. Second, the s t a n d i n g of the f a m i l y i n the c i t y would make i t p o s s i b l e t h a t he was g i v e n t h i s appointment without b e i n g t w e n t y - f i v e . 1 ^ T h i r d , C o t a r e l o * s arguments would suggest to me t h a t M i r a ' s a p p o i n t -ment as a l c a l d e i n 1600 was because he had j u s t turned twenty-f i v e . The date o f 1575 i s i n no way r u l e d out by C o t a r e l o ' s arguments, and the date seems p r e f e r a b l e s i n c e t h e r e i s i n f a c t o n l y one w i t n e s s who says he might be as o l d as 57— t h a t i s , b o m i n 1574. An independent r e s e a r c h e r , Rodriguez Marin, i n h i s Pedro i s p i n o s a , saysj E s t u d i a n t e e r a de T e o l o g l a y no pasaba de d i e z y ocho anos cuando, tomada l a c i u d a d de Cfidiz por l o s i n g l e s e s , en j u l i o de 1596, h a l l a b a en su v a l i e n t e l i r a p a t r i 6 " t i c o s . y robUstos acentos (p. 95)• . U n f o r t u n a t e l y he g i v e s no evidence to back t h i s up, and i t would suggest M i r a ' s b i r t h d a t e t o be no e a r l i e r than 1578. Rodriguez Marin's statement i s no p r o o f , but would support a l a t e r r a t h e r than an e a r l i e r date. C o t a r e l o mentions the same poemi "Antes h a b i a e s c r i t o , en 1595* una mediana y muy o s c u r a c a n e i o n sobre e l desembareo en Cfidiz de l a escuadra i n g l e s a . " ( C o t a r e l o , p. 473). He unaccountably dates the poem 18 one year before the event occured. These are the f a c t s c o n c e r n i n g the b i r t h o f the d r a m a t i s t , and the hypotheses which have been made from them. I t i s to be r e g r e t t e d t h a t the pr e s e n t study can add n o t h i n g new and p o s i t i v e , but many of the f a c t s about Mi r a ' s b i r t h which have been accepted as d e f i n i t e , can be seen t o be open to qu e s t i o n , o r p o s i t i v e l y i n a c c u r a t e . Perhaps new i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be f o r t h c o m i n g one day to h e l p c l a r i f y many o f these o b s c u r i t i e s . U n t i l new i n f o r m a t i o n appears, a b i r t h d a t e o f 1575 can be p o s t u l a t e d from the evidence which i s a v a i l a b l e a t p r e s e n t . There i s v e r y l i t t l e i n f o r m a t i o n about the c h i l d h o o d and youth o f M i r a de Amescua "envu e l t a s en sombras, como l a s de l a g e n e r a l i d a d de l o s hombres" (Sanz, p. 560). The testimony a l r e a d y quoted (see above, p . 14 ) says t h a t he was brought up by h i s f a t h e r , and t h i s i s supported by f u r t h e r evidence: Dicho Melchor, su padre, l o cri6" y alimento" en su ca s a por t a l su h i j o desde que nacio" h a s t a que murio" e l di c h o Melchor. Dona I s a b e l y dona Ma r i a , d o n c e l l a s y hermanas d e l d i c h o Melchor de Amesqua, que v i v f a n con e*l ; en su casa, c r i a b a n y reg a l a b a n a l di c h o d o c t o r don Antonio M i r a de Amescua como a su sobrinot sSbelo este . . . t e s t i g o porque trate" y comunico" a todos l o s susodichos (Sanz, pp. 559-60). Tarrago t e l l s a l i t t l e more about t h i s p a r t o f Mira ' s l i f e . One witness, L u i s Perez Cardeder, says t h a t "siendo nino jugaba con M i r a de Amezcua en l a p u e r t a de su casa" (tTarrago, p i 307). Another w i t n e s s s t a t e s : ;-V Melchor de Amezcua. . . l o cri6" y alimentS en su c a s a y l e ^dio e s t u d i o en l a ciudad de Guadix y en l a de Granada, h a s t a p o n e r l o en estado de sacerdote, t r a t a n d o l e siempre Honrada y p r i n c i p a l m e n t e como t a l su h i j o ( T a r r a g o , p. 307). He goes on to provide f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n about Mira's e d u c a t i o n : Doctor M i r a de Amezcua. . . fue c o l e g i a l unos c i n c o 0 s e i s anos en e l C o l e g i o I m p e r i a l de San Miguel de 1 Granada, en donde estudio" l a s f a c u l t a d e s de Leyes ; y Canones (Tarrago, p. 307). Another wi t n e s s c o n f i r m s t h i s "por haber s i d o su c o n d i s c l p u l o en l o s e s t u d i o s de canones y l e y e s " (Sanz, p. 561). 19 M i r a de Amescua was educated a t the C o l e g i o I m p e r i a l de San M i g u e l , which was a c o l l e g e of the U n i v e r s i t y of Granada. I t had been founded e a r l i e r than the u n i v e r s i t y , i n 1526, by C h a r l e s V, the emperor. I t i s almost c e r t a i n 17 t h a t t h i s was a J e s u i t c o l l e g e . / I t can a l s o be seen t h a t c o n t r a r y t o the statement o f Rodriguez Marin (see above, p. 17 ) and the f o l l o w i n g statement of B a r r e r a i "Dedic6se 18 a l a c a r r e r a e c l e s i a s t i c a , doctorandose en t e o l o g l a , " M i r a was not a t h e o l o g i a n but a lawyer, s i n c e he s t u d i e d canon and c i v i l law. The o n l y other f a c t about h i s f i r s t t w e n t y - f i v e y e a r s i s a d e t a i l which Sanz found i n the L i b r o 2_ d_e confirmacionesj f o l i o I69 v e r s o , from the p a r i s h a r c h i v e s o f E l S a g r a r i o . The e i g h t h e n t r y on the l i s t shows t h a t "Antonio M i r a , h i j o de Melchor de Amesqua" was confirmed i n Guadix on January 30, 1593 by don Juan Alonso de Moscoso, the bishop of Guadix (Sanz, p. 5 6 0 ) . 1 ^ There i s more i n f o r m a t i o n about Mi r a ' s l a s t f o r t y - f o u r y e a r s from 1600. The p e r i o d i s o n l y s p a s m o d i c a l l y documented however, and t h e r e are many gaps. The m a j o r i t y o f the 20 documents were p u b l i s h e d by Rodriguez Marin, and a l o n g with the expediente these form the most important source of b i o g r a p h i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n on M i r a de Amescua. In order to a p p r e c i a t e the exact d e t a i l s of M i r a ' s l i f e these documents must be c o n s u l t e d , but the main f a c t s emerging from them w i l l be summarised i n the account of the r e s t of M i r a ' s l i f e . :; ::- In 1600 M i r a was s t i l l l i v i n g i n Guadix an_ was appointed a l c a l d e mayor. Si n c e the nomination c a l l s him d o c t o r i t i s . c l e a r ; t h a t he had graduated by I6OO1 ' H e l c o r r e g i d o r de. . . Guadix. . . nombro* por su t e n i e n t e y a l c a l d e mayor. . . a l senor d o c t o r Antonio de M i r a , abogado, y l e d i o poder y comisi6n. . . p a r a que use y exerga e l d i c h o o f i $ i o de t a l a l c a l d e mayor, hagiendo e proueyendo q u a l e s q u i e r autos y senten§ias y despachando , q u a l e s q u i e r nego§ios a s i c e v i l e s como c r i m i n a l e s (Rodriguez Marin, 'Nuevos da t o s , ' p. 322-3). • The f o l l o w i n g year, 1601, M i r a was i n v o l v e d i n a r a t h e r complex e c c l e s i a s t i c a l d i s p u t e . H i s p a r t i n i t suggests t h a t M i r a was someone to be reckoned w i t h , e i t h e r because of h i s 20 l e g a l t r a i n i n g , or p o s s i b l y because of h i s c h a r a c t e r and physique. I t appears t h a t the k i n g had g i v e n the "preuenda de p r i o r a t o de. . . baga" to d o t o r don F r a n c i s c o de Solorzano. The b i s h o p had sent e l l i o e n c i a d o Juan Ortega de G r i x a l v a to take p o s s e s s i o n o f i t , i n the name o f Solorzano. The abbot and the c a u i l d o a t Baza had r e f u s e d to comply wi t h the r e q u e s t . As a r e s u l t the bishop, Juan de Fonseca, had appointed " e l d o t o r Antonio de M i r a , c l e r i g o , p r e s u i t e r o , v e z i n o d e s t a giudad" t o go w i t h the o r d e r to the bishop's p r o v i s o r i n Baza, e l l i c e n c i a d o Yegros, t e l l i n g him to g i v e up the p r i o r a t o i n t o the hands o f Ortega de G r i x a l v a f o r S o l o r z a n o . I f Yegros would not comply, then M i r a was to take over Ortega de G r i x a l v a ' s p o s i t i o n and e f f e c t the t r a n s f e r (Rodriguez Marin, 'Nuevos da t o s , ' pp. 321-2). Nothing i s known of the r e s u l t s o f the t r a n s a c t i o n , but as i t i s not mentioned again, one presumes M i r a was capable o f c a r r y i n g out the Bishop's wishes. M i r a ' s physique was the s u b j e c t o f the ambiguous comment by Lope de Vega i n h i s E l j a r d i n de Lope de Vega, L a Filomena. Segunda p a r t e (1621)J E l d i v i n o p i n c e l d e l mudo H e r e d i a (que e n t e r a no p u d i e r a ) a l d o c t o r M i r a de su f i g u r a r e t r a t 6 l a media. I t i s . i n t e r e s t i n g t o see t h a t the name of the u n i d e n t i f i e d p a i n t e r i s t h a t of M i r a ' s mother. T h i s i s the o n l y d e s c r i p t i o n o f M i r a t h a t e x i s t s . Lope de Vega makes the f i r s t l i t e r a r y mention of M i r a i n 21 1602. H i s sonnet 165 from the Hermosura de A n g e l i c a c o l l e c t i o n i s ' A l Doctor M i r a de Amescua.* The next r e f e r e n c e i s from 1603 when Rojas V i l l a n a n d r o i n h i s Loa de l a Comedia from the V i a j e e n t r e t e n i d o l i s t s " t a n t o s i n g e n i o s " among those whom he remembers are» E l l i c e n c i a d o M e j l a , e l buen don Diego de Vera, Mescua, don Guille*n de C a s t r o . . . . There are no d e f i n i t e i n d i c a t i o n s o f what the p l a y s were by which M i r a was known i n I603. The f i r s t date t o which one can a s c r i b e a work i s t h a t of L a rueda de l a F o r t u n a i n 1604. I t i s a g a i n Lope de Vega 21 who w r i t e s about M i r a i Representa Morales, s i l b a l a gentej unos c a b a l l e r o s estan presos porque eran l a causa d e s t o i pregonSse en e l p a t i o que no pasase t a l cosa, y as£, apretados l o s toledanos por no s i l b a r , se peen, que p a r a e l a l c a l d e mayor ha s i d o n o t a b l e desacato, porque estaba este d_a sentado en e l p a t i o . Aplaco" esto porque h i z o L a rueda  de l a Fortuna, cornedia en que un r e y aporrea a su mujerf y acuden muchos a l l o r a r e s t e paso como s i f u e r a p o s i b l e (From a l e t t e r o f Lope dated August 14, 1604) There are two t h i n g s which r e q u i r e comment i n t h i s passage. B a r r e r a i n h i s biography o f Lope suggests t h a t i t i s w r i t t e n i n a d i s p a r a g i n g t o n e i Nd"tese con cuan escaso a p r e c i o h a b i a aqui Lope de una obra dramStica d e l d i s t i n g u i d o poeta D. Antonio M i r a de Amescua, a q u i e n luego puso en l a s nubes y ya h a b i a c e l e b r a d o en e l soneto 165 de l a s rimas. 22 I t i s d i f f i c u l t to see B a r r e r a ' s p o i n t of view. Lope very c l e a r l y says t h a t the p r o d u c t i o n o f the p l a y stopped a near r i o t , which would suggest t h a t i t was a good p l a y . The second -is t h a t there i s no mention of Mira's name. In a l i t t l e book by R a f a e l Carrasco on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Lope and M i r a , there i s a q u o t a t i o n from Lope's V i r t u d , pobreza $_ mu.jer which was p u b l i s h e d i n Lope • s Parte 20 (I625) and was g i v e n i t s aprobaciSn by M i r a . T h i s passage r e v e a l s two t h i n g s i Morales presented Mira's L a rueda, and Lope&thought h i g h l y o f it« R o s e l i o _.Y d6nde en e f e c t o v a i s ? C e l i a A l a comedia famosa que r e p r e s e n t a Morales. LUdovico iFamosa? _,C6mo se nombra? t|0tavia L a rueda de l a Fortuna,. >3Roselio __enes razo'n, e s c r i b i S l a e l d o c t o r Mescua. 23 i>^-^|(Iira moved to Madrid sometime between 1601 and I607, irtHWMch year e_l procurador JerSnimo from Madrid wrote to F r a n c i s c o de V i l l a l t a , the a l c a l d e mayor of Guadix, a s k i n g f o r a^bopy ;of M i r a ' s appointment as a l c a l d e mayor i n 1600. M i r a i s d e s c r i b e d as " r e s i d e n t e en Corte de S.M." (Rodriguez Marin, 'Nuevos da t o s , ' p. 3 2 2 ) . Between 1604, the date of M i r a ' s p o s s i b l e move t o Madrid and 1610, the year o f h i s journey to I t a l y , he c o n t r i b u t e d t o f o u r l i t e r a r y works. He c o n t r i b u t e d poems to F r a n c i s c o 22 Bermuclez de Pedraza's Antigfledad y_ e x c e l e n c i a s de Granada 24 ~~~~~™~—"~ (Madrid, 1608) Obras d e l i n s i g n e c a v a l l e r o don Diego de Mendoza (Madrid, 1610)2-* G r e g o r i o Bravo de Sotomayor's H i s t o r i a de n u e s t r a senora de Valuanera (LogroKo, 1610), and Diego de Hojeda's L a C r i s t i a d a ( S e v i l l e , 1611).27 The l a s t named poem was p r o b a b l y w r i t t e n before M i r a l e f t S p a i n , which would account f o r the date. H i s f i f t h c o n t r i b u t i o n was to Balbuena's E l Bernardo o V i c t o r i a de R o n c e s v a l l e s _ _________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____________ (Madrid, 1624). The l a t e date i s e x p l a i n e d when i t i s seen t h a t the c e n s u r a i s dated I609. M i r a censored t h i s poem and i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g f o r three reasons: evidence o f h i s l i t e r a r y knowledge, h i s a r t i s t i c credo, and the f a c t t h a t one of h i s own p l a y s i s on the s u b j e c t of Bernardo d e l C a r p i o (Las d e s g r a c i a s d e l r e y A l f o n s o e l C a s t o ) . The f o l l o w i n g i s M i r a ' s v e r d i c t on Bernardo de Balbuena's poemt E s t e poema heroyco, llamado e l Bernardo que v.m. me r e m i t i 6 he v i s t o con p a r t i c u l a r a t e n c i o n y pienso que l o s espanoles i n g e n i o s o s dados a l a l e c c i f i n de poetas no t i e n e n en su lengua poema como e s t e i porque en l a v a r i e d a d de l o s sucesos y e p i s o d i o s h a l l a r o n imitado a Ludovico A r i o s t o y en l a unidad de l a a c c i S n y c o n t e x t u r a de l a fSbula a Torquato Tassoi y as£ merece ser impreso y l e f d o y su autor alabado. Tambien a d v i e r t o a v.m. que ho hay en e l cosa c o n t r a l a f e c a t o l i c a y buenas c.ostumbres. Guarde D i o s a v.m. l a r g o s anos, de c a s a , 2 q y Febrero a 9 de 1609 anos. E l Doctor M i r a de Amescua. y The c e n s u r a r e v e a l s t h a t M i r a was acquainted w i t h Tasso and A r i o s t o b e f o r e h i s journey t o I t a l y . I t a l s o shows t h a t he b e l i e v e d a work o f a r t should c o n t a i n a v a r i e t y o f events and episodes and u n i t y o f a c t i o n . T h i s credo can be seen i n such a p l a y as L a rued a de l a F o r t u n a (see below, pp. 208-27). VfCMira c o n t r i b u t e d to no more works u n t i l 1618. There i s a l o n g p e r i o d of s i l e n c e about M i r a , which i s e x p l a i n e d by h i s journey to I t a l y w i t h the Count o f Lemos. The Count was appointed V i c e r o y of Naples on August 21, 1608.^° The v i c e r e g a l entourage was arranged by the b r o t h e r s L u p e r c i o and Bar t o i ome' Leonardo de A r g e n s o l a . The o n l y person o f note they i n c l u d e d was M i r a i they broke pledges they appear t o have g i v e n to Cervantes and G6ngora. T h i s s t a y i n I t a l y may have been i n f l u e n t i a l on the f o r m a t i o n o f M i r a ' s dramatic art,, f o r t h e r e i s a marked change i n the p l a y s 23 w r i t t e n a f t e r he r e t u r n e d from I t a l y (see below, p. 62 ). Thi s can p o s s i b l y be a s c r i b e d not o n l y to the i n f l u e n c e of I t a l y but a l s o t o h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the A r g e n s o l a 31 b r o t h e r s , who were i n c l i n e d t o the c l a s s i c a l tragedy-' (see below,pp.l56ff ). Before he l e f t S p a i n , he was appointed c h a p l a i n o f the G a p i l l a Real i n Granada (September 1 s t , 1609) but there i s some doubt as to whether he ever took p o s s e s s i o n o f the p o s i t i o n . Sanz quotes the L i b r o de fundaciones de l a G a p i l l a  Real de Granada. . . " E l d o c t o r Antonio M i r a de Mesqua, de Guadix, inmediato poseedor de e s t a prebenda, tomo* p o s e s i 6 n a (hay un b i a n c o ) , ano de m i l y s e i s c i e n t o s d i e z " (Sanz, p. 562). The blank space suggests t o me t h a t M i r a never a r r i v e d i n Granada t o take p o s s e s s i o n . ( A l s o see below, p. 26 .) The ,appointment t o the c h a p l a i n c y i s r e p r i n t e d by Rodriguez Marin ('Nuevos da t o s , ' pp. 323-4). Mi r a ' s t r i p t o I t a l y i s mentioned i n the expedientet Es muy n o t o r i o en e s t a ciudad que cuando e l d i c h o don Antonio de M i r a y Amesqua passo en e l reyno de N&poles con e l Conde de Lemos, que fue v i r r e y de d i c h o reyno, estubo a pique de s e r obispo en I t a l i a , y que tubo much© tiempo e l govierno de un obispado de I t a l i a , no , se, acuerda en qui c i u d a d , y que d i o muy buena cuenta \de*l (Sanz, pp. 563-4). T h i s i s another example of Mi r a ' s c a p a b i l i t i e s as an a d m i n i s t r a t o r . The o n l y p r o o f o f M i r a ' s journey t h a t C o t a r e l o c o u l d f i n d was i n the Comentarios d e l desenganado by a r a t h e r ^picaresque c h a r a c t e r c a l l e d Diego Duque de Estrada.-^ 2 ^ C o t a r e l o says (p. 480), t h a t t h i s man was a member o f the v i c e -r e g a l p a r t y but, i n f a c t , he a r r i v e d i n Naples by chance i n I6l4. I t i s owing t o Duque de E s t r a d a ' s evidence t h a t M i r a was c r e d i t e d w i t h b e l o n g i n g t o the Academia de l o s o c i o s o s . O t i s H. Green, i n an a r t i c l e p u b l i s h e d the same year as C o t a r e l o ' s study, and which the l a t t e r d i d not see, c o u l d f i n d no p r o o f o f M i r a ' s membership i n t h i s l i t e r a r y c o t e r i e . Green d i d f i n d the f i r s t c o n c l u s i v e p r o o f t h a t M i r a was i n I t a l y , andv d i s c o v e r e d t h a t the b i s h o p r i c i n which M i r a served was t h a t o f Tropea. Reproduced below are the documents Green found 1 Napoles, 26 de f e b r e r o de I615. 24 C a p e l l a n mayort Su e x c e l e n e i a d i z e que V u e s t r a S e n o r i a informe de l o c o n t e n i d o en e s t e memorial d e l D o c t o r M i r a en que se p i d e se l e haga bueno e l s a l a r i o de Economo de Tropea h a s t a que e l Obispo tome p o s e s i o n de aquel Obispado, s i n embargo de l a orden que se d i o por C o l l a t e r a l (Consejo C o l a t e r a l ) p a r a que no e x e r c i t a s e e l economato. De P a l a c i o 26 de Hebrero 1615. Napoles 11 de j u n i o de 1616. Su e x e e l e n c i a d i z e que d e l d i n e r o que metera en esa T h e s o r e r l a Marco Tomar que l o pague V u e s t r a S e n o r f a a l Doctor M i r a de Mesqua s e s s e n t a y t r e s ducados que ha de hauer d e l s a l a r i o d e l ec6nomo de Tropea conforme a una c e r t i f i c a t o r i a de l a r e g i a camara de l a Sumaria despachada a s i e t e deste mes, l o qual manda Su E x c e l e n e i a que se execute no embargante que no se haya saeado l i b r a n z a en v i r t u d de l a c e r t i f i c a t o r i a , que r e s p e c t o de l a brevedad d e l tiempo se d i s p e n s a agora en e s t o , que despue*s se sacaran l o s reeados en forma y se daran a V u e s t r a S e n o r l a p a r a su c a u t e l a . P a l a c i o a 11 de j u n i o de 1616. 33 Green a l s o t r a n s c r i b e s a t h i r d document dated the f i r s t o f June, 1614, r e l a t i n g t o an unnamed Ec6nomo de Tropea. These documents are the o n l y c o n c l u s i v e evidence t h a t M i r a a c t u a l l y went to I t a l y . They a l s o r e v e a l the l o c a t i o n of the d i o e e s i s i n which he worked and the f a c t t h a t he was s t i l l i n I t a l y i n June, 1616. D u r i n g M i r a ' s s t a y i n I t a l y , Andre's de Claramonte i n h i s L e t a n i a moral ( S e v i l l e , 1612) c a l l s him "famoso i n g e n i o de E s p a n a i " C r i s t o b a l Suarez de F i g u e r o a i n h i s P l a z a . u n i v e r s a l de todas c i e n c i a s £ a r t e s (1615)^ l i s t s him as "Entre l o s mas farnoses poetas d r a m S t i c o s j " Cervantes i n the prologue to h i s Comedias ;__ entrerneses (1615) r e f e r s t o " l a gravedad d e l d o c t o r M i r a de Amescua, honra s i n g u l a r de n u e s t r a naci<5n." In 1619» he c o n t r i b u t e d a poem to Hernando de Camargo's Muerte de D i o s por v i d a d e l hombre (Madrid, 1619)-^ He a l s o censored a poem by F r a n c i s c o d e l C a s t i l l o , c a l l e d Nuestra  SeKora de l o s Remedios (Madrid, 161,9).-^ I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o see t h a t t h i s i s another book, censored by M i r a , d e a l i n g w i t h a s u b j e c t about which he a l s o wrote. D u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d i t would seem probable t h a t M i r a l i v e d as an independent gentleman who had l e i s u r e t o w r i t e , but not the need to t u r n out works a t a g r e a t r a t e . Sanz 25 r e f e r s to the houses given to Juan de Mira by the Catholic monarchs and which "ered6 e l dicho pretendiente" (Sanz, p. 568). This would probably have given Mira s u f f i c i e n t income to l i v e on. There i s also evidence of h i s l i f e s t y l e from a s e l e c t i o n of correspondence dating from the period 1619 to 1622. This was a l l gathered by Rodriguez Marin ('Nuevos datos, 1 pp. 324-9). The correspondence i s lengthy, but can be summarised f a i r l y b r i e f l y . 30 October 1619. L e t t e r from Mira and doctor Bartolome* de Llerena i n Madrid. Llerena had been i n Madrid on leave from the cathedral of Almerlai while there he had been offered a oanongla i n Guadix, Llerena was a native and graduate of Granada and would have preferred to return to h i s native town. Mira complains that he had not found himself "bien de salud" i n Granada, and so they are requesting an exchange of appointments» Llerena to go to the C a p i l l a Real i n Granada, Mira to go to Guadix. 16 September 1620. A note, dated nearly a year l a t e r , has the following three comments on the request« the request should be granted, but the King should be consulted and they should both vacate t h e i r present positions f i r s t . 31 August 1621. After nearly twelve more months, Jorge de Toyar, the king's secretary, writes to the Bishop of Guadix asking f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the issue, since Mira has been t o l d to go to Granada, but has made the excuse that as the exchange i s pending he i s not sure where to go. There i s here the f i r s t h i n t that Mira i s baulking at h i s p r i e s t l y duties. 12 September 1621. The bishop's reply i s phrased i n general terms but complains of p r i e s t s who "quieren ma's l a s prebendas por e l temporal que por e l s e r v i c i o de Dios." The inference to be drawn from the l e t t e r i s that Mira wanted to l i v e i n Madrid. 23 March 1622. Another l e t t e r from Tovar, t h i s time to the president of the audiencia 2 c h a n c i l l e r l a of Granada, Porto-carrero, seeking information. I t appears that Mira i s not happy because a f t e r the exchange with Llerena had been agreed 26 t o , i t had f a l l e n through because L l e r e n a had withdrawn h i s req u e s t . M i r a now wants to exchange wi t h a Diego de Bracamonte, who has o f f e r e d a l i v i n g i n Medina S i d o n i a p l u s some e x t r a f i n a n c i a l inducements. The k i n g ' s s e c r e t a r y wants to know i f Bracamonte i s a s u i t a b l e person. 12 A p r i l 1622. P o r t o c a r r e r o r e p l i e s t h a t Bracamonte i s a " c l e r i g o v i r t u o s o " and approves the c h o i c e . There i s a l s o a l e t t e r from Diego de Cordova, c a p e l l a n mayor i n Granada, which approves the appointment of Bracamonte as w e l l . T h i s l e t t e r , which Rodriguez Marin quotes o n l y i n p a r t , i s the most important of a l l the documents f o r a knowledge of Mira. C6rdova complains of the b e h a v i o r of M i r a and welcomes the new incumbentt por e l remedio que da a l a f a l t a de r e s i d e n c i a d e l . d o c t o r M i r a de Mesqua, que a d i e z anos que no e n t r a a q u i , n i avemos podido r e d u c i l l o a que l o haga. T h i s means t h a t M i r a has not been to Granada f o r a t l e a s t t e n y e a r s , which would be s i n c e 16121 s i n c e he was i n I t a l y a t t h a t date, i t appears v e r y dubious whether M i r a ever went ?to Granada to take p o s s e s s i o n o f the c h a p l a i n c y . The l a s t l e t t e r i s dated 3 May 1622 and i s the o f f i c i a l appointment o f Bracamonte to the c h a p l a i n c y i n the p l a c e o f M i r a . Before M i r a had attempted to make t h i s exchange, he was appointed c h a p l a i n to Fernando, son o f P h i l i p I I I , the new t e n - y e a r - o l d c a r d i n a l and archbishop of Toledo. He had a l s o attempted to get Juan de Fonseca to c o l l e c t h i s money from the C a p i l l a R eal i n Granada.-* 7 I t appears t h a t the c l e r g y r e f u s e d to grant t h i s because he had not s a i d the misas y_ demas p r e c e s f o r the C a t h o l i c Monarchs. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s g i v e n by C o t a r e l o from an u n i d e n t i f i e d source (p. ^ 8 6 - 7 ) . While t h i s e c c l e s i a s t i c a l maneuvering was going o n — i t i s w e l l t o remember t h a t M i r a was a l a w y e r — M i r a was t a k i n g an a c t i v e p a r t i n the a f f a i r s o f the c a p i t a l . In 1620 he was engaged to take p a r t i n the c e l e b r a t i o n s i n honor of the b e a t i f i c a t i o n of San I s i d r o . ^ 8 In the same year he c o n t r i b u t e d to F r a n c i s c o de H e r r e r a ' s t r a n s l a t i o n o f Sannazaro."^ He a l s o censored J a c i n t o de E s p i n e l ' s E l premio 27 de l a c o n s t a n c i a (Madrid, 1 6 2 0 T h e r e i s a l s o another p r o o f of h i s p o e t i c a c t i v i t i e s from the pen of what appears t o have been the c l o s e s t o f h i s p l a y w r i g h t f r i e n d s , Lope de Vega* Paso, senor e x c e l e n t l s i m o , e n t r e l i b r i l l o s y f l o r e s de un h u e r t o , l o que queda de l a v i d a , que no debe ser mucho, compitiendo en enredos con Mescua y don G u i l l e n de Ca s t r o sobre c u a l l o s hace mejores en sus comedias ( C a r t a a l Conde de Lemos, 6 de mayo de 1620). M i r a i s simply c a l l e d by h i s surname, whereas C a s t r o i s g i v e n h i s f u l l name, t h i s would suggest a degree o f in t i m a c y w i t h Lope and the Count, w i t h whom M i r a went t o I t a l y . 1621 passed without r e f e r e n c e s , but M i r a ' s name occurs f r e q u e n t l y i n 1622. At the c e l e b r a t i o n s i n honor o f the 41 c a n o n i s a t i o n o f San I s i d r o he won f i r s t p r i z e i n the p o e t r y c o m p e t i t i o n . Lope r e f e r s to him as C a p e l l a n de su A l t e z a . He a l s o came second i n the c o m p e t i t i o n c e l e b r a t e d by the Co l e g i o I m p e r i a l i n honor o f the c a n o n i s a t i o n o f S t . I g n a t i u s 42 L o y o l a and S t . F r a n c i s X a v i e r . In h i s d e s c r i p t i o n o f these c e l e b r a t i o n s he i s a g a i n p r a i s e d by Lope» honor d e l Monte Parnaso. . . Sus comedias i n g e n i o s a s veneen en a r t e a T e r e n c i o l a t i n o , con su i n v e n t o r Rodio, A r i s t S f a n e s g r i e g o . (BRAE, 1930, p. 493) In 1622, Tomas Tamayo de Vargas i n h i s e d i t i o n o f the poems of G a r c i l a s o p r a i s e d M i r a f o r h i s " d i s e u r s o . " In the same year he a l s o c o l l a b o r a t e d w i t h e i g h t other d r a m a t i s t s i n a p l a y c a l l e d Algunas hazanas de l a s muchas de don G a r c i a  Hurtado de Mendoza, Marque's de Canete. ^ Among the poets w i t h whom he c o l l a b o r a t e d were Belmonte, who organised i t , Ve"lez de Guevara, Guille'n de C a s t r o and Juan Ruiz de A l a r c 6 n . T h i s i s p r o o f o f Mi r a ' s acquaintance w i t h some of h i s b e t t e r known contemporaries. H i s r e l a t i o n s with Alarco'n were t o become a l i t t l e s t r a i n e d . D u r i n g 1623 A l a r c C n was g i v e n the job o f w r i t i n g poems to c e l e b r a t e the a r r i v a l i n S p a i n o f the P r i n c e o f Wales, l a t e r C h a r l e s I o f England, who was l o o k i n g f o r a w i f e . In order to c a r r y t h i s out, A l a r c o n appears t o have sought h e l p o f 28 v a r i o u s o t h e r poets i n c l u d i n g M i r a (BRAE. 1930, 4 9 3 - 4 ) ^ Alarc6n was a t t a c k e d by these poets because of t h e i r d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h him. The poems which a t t a c k A l a r e o n are r e p r i n t e d i n the e d i t i o n of A l a r e o n ' s works i n the B i b l i o t e c a de Autores E s p a n o l e s . " ^ The poets i n c l u d e d i n t h i s were C a s t i l l o Soltfrzano, S a l a s B a r b a d i l l o , V e l e z de Guevara, Perez de Montalban, T i r s o de M o l i n a , Quevedo, Gfingora, Lope, M i r a and f o u r o t h e r s . The poems are addressed 'A un p o e t a eorcovado, que se valid* de t r a b a j o s ajenos.' Most complain t h a t Alarc6n had r e f u s e d to pay them, but M i r a complains t h a t he h i m s e l f was the i n v e n t o r o f j o i n t a u t h o r s h i p : A l a r e o n , Mendoza, Hurtado, Don Juan R u i z , y a sabe*is que l a mitad me d e b e l s d e l d i n e r o que os han dado, porque soy e l que ha inventado e l componer de c o n s u n o — No p i e n s o daros n i n g u n o — S i l a s l e y e s son i g u a l e s , e s a cuenta no es muy d i e s t r a pues cada comedia v u e s t r a no s a l i e r a a doce r e a l e s ( B A E , 20, x x x i i i ) . I f M i r a ' s statement i s t r u e i t might suggest t h a t he was the j o i n t author of more works which were p u b l i s h e d as b e i n g by t r e s i n g e n i o s . A l e t t e r o f G6ngora from the same year c o n t i n u e s the i d e a of the feud between the two« L a comedia, digo E l i A n t i c h r i s t o de don Juan de Alarc6n, se estren6" e l mie'rcoles pasado. E c h a r o n s e l o a perder aquel d i a con c i e r t a r e d o m i l l a que e n t e r r a r o n en medio d e l p a t i o , de o l o r t a n i n f e r n a l que desmay6 a muchos de l o s que no p u d i e r o n s a l i r s e t a n a p r i s a . Don Miguel de Cardenas h i z o d i l i g e n c i a s y a voces invi6 un recado a l V i c a r i o p a r a que p r e n d i e s e a Lope de Vega y a M i r a de Mescua, que s o l t a r o n e l domingo pasado porque • p r e n d i e r o n a Juan Pablo R i z o en cuyo poder se encontraron m a t e r i a l e s de l a eonfesi6n. . . ( C a r t a a l maestro H o r t e n s i o , 19 diciembre 1623). Although the two men were r e l e a s e d , i t i s scandalous t h a t they should have been a r r e s t e d i n the f i r s t p l a c e . I t i s worth remembering t h a t n e i t h e r was an i r r e s p o n s i b l e y o u t h i both were p r i e s t s , M i r a was f o r t y - e i g h t and Lope s i x t y - o n e . The feud between the two men seems to have been a t h i n g of the moment, however, f o r the f i r s t volume of the p l a y s of 29 Alarcon (Madrid, 1628) was approved "by Mira with the words: "Hay en e l l a s muoha doctrina moral y p o l i t i c a digna del ingenio LA y l e t r a s de su autor." Mira contributed to more works during t h i s period, including Desengano de amor en rimas (Madrid, 1623) by Pedro Soto de Rojasi ^ Exposicion p a r a f r u s t i c a d e l P s a l t e r i o (Madrid, liQ. "" ———————— 1623) by V a l d i v i e l s o j Nave t r a g i c a de l a India de Portugal (Madrid, 1624) by Francisco de ContrerasT^ Mira also approved two works. The f i r s t was Epigramas ^ h i e r o g l l f i c o s a l a v i d a de Cristo (1625) "by Alonso de Ledesma.^ Mira comments thati E l l i b r o tiene sentencias y agudezas admirables, porque en este e s t i l o es su autor peregrine y singular en Espana. 8 de diciembre de 1624. The other book i s more important and i s the Parte v e i n t e ^ 1 of the plays of Lope de Vegai No tiene cosa contra nuestra santa Fe n i costumbres Christianas, merece ser impreso, no s6_o para ensenar virtudes morales y p o l l t i e a s , que es e l f i n de l a Comedia, sino para honra de Espana y admiracion de otras nacionest pues s i Suidas y Quintiliano se H admirauan de que Menandro huuiese e s c r i t o ochenta Comedias, que* admiracion se deberS a aque"l de quien oy se leeii mSs obras e s c r i t a s en l o s tres e s t i l o s de l a Poesia, que de todos l o s Poetas Griegos, Latinos y vulgares, desde que Museo y Orfeo inventaron e l e s c r i u i r en verso _-2 ensenangas filos6*fieas. En Madrid 5 de Otubre de 1624. D This t e s t i f i e s not only to the erudition of Mira, but also to th# importance he gave to the moral purpose of the Comedia. The aprobac16n i s headed, presumably by Lope, " e l insigne ingenio en l e t r a s divinas y humanas, e l doctor Mira de Amescua, capellan de su Alteza." There i s no lack of evidence of the regard that Lope had f o r Miraj Rafael Carrasco find s yet another* Los siguientes de una LOA que por entonces eseribi6 Lope para ser recitada por su h i j a Antonia Clara. . . •Compre* comedias famosas/ de Montalban y de Mescua' v Nueva revelacio'n de sus gustos y preferencias. 53 There are few f a c t s known about the r e s t of Mira's l i f e . His collaboration with other authors was increased with La manzana de d i s c o r d i a , which he wrote with Guille*n de Castro» and Pplifemo y Circe (1630) which he wrote with Montalban and the young Calderon. He also contributed to various other 30 works at t h i s period, including E l santo milagroso augustiniano, S. NicolSs de Tolentino (Madrid, 1628) by Fernando de Salgado y Gamargo;^*:~Francisco Perez de Navarrete's Arte de enfrenar (Madrid, 1 6 2 6 ) ; ^ Ana de Castro Egas's Eternidad del Rey don  F l l i p e Tercero nuestro senor (Madrid, 162Q)|^ 6 i n 1630 he approved Alonso Rem6n*s description of the celebration i n honor of San Pedro Nolasco (Madrid, 1630).^ 7 He contributed to Avisos  para l a muerte (Madrid, 1634)^® the date when he wrote t h i s must be a matter of speculation. In a poem he contributed to the Anfiteatro de Felipe e l  Grande (Madrid, I 6 3 D , there i s the f i r s t mention of any change i n h i s state. The poem i s signed by Mira "Capellan de su Alteza i Arcediano de l a Santa I g l e s i a de Guadix." This marks the beginning of the retirement of Mira de Amescua and brings t h i s biography f u l l c i r c l e . The expediente de pruebas de  limpieza de sangre, which i s the basis f o r the early biography of Mira, was written i n order to v e r i f y that he was of pure Ch r i s t i a n blood, so that he could become archdeacon of the Cathedral of Guadix, (See below,pp328-3l). The r e s u l t s of the tribunal were favorable and i n 1632 Mira appears to have r e t i r e d from Madrid to l i v e q u i e t l y i n Guadix. Rodriguez Marin reproduced the document d e t a i l i n g h i s taking up the p o s i t i o n on 16 June 1632. ('Nuevos datos,* 1918, pp. 330-1). Before h i s death he was praised again by Lope, and also by Montalban and Velez de Guevara. Lope i n h i s Laurel de Apolo (1630) ' S i l v a I I ' says? , Oh musas, r e c i b i d a l doctor Mira que con tanta j u s t i c i a a l auro aspira s i l a inexhausta vena, de hermosos versos y conceptos l l e n a , enriquecio" vuestras sagradas minas en materias humanas y divinas. Rafael Carrasco i n h i s Lope y_ Mira also found the following proof of f r i e n d l y r i v a l r y between Lope and Mira. In a l e t t e r to Antonio Hurtado de Mendoza, one of the l e s s e r known poets involved i n the s a t i r e on Ruiz de Alare6n (see above, pp. 27-$, Lope says* V Estos dias se decreto" en e l senado cfimico que Luis Velez / D. Pedro Calderd'n y e l doctor Mescua, hiciesen una comedia 31 y otra en competencia suya el doctor Montalban, el doctor Godlnez y el licenciado Lope de Vega, y que se pusiese un jarro de plata en premio. Respondl que era este ano (1628) Capellan mayor de l a CongregaciSn (de S . Pedro), y que para el que viene aceptaba e l desaflo (p. 15). Whether anything came of this contest i s not known, but i t i s interesting to see that Mira and Lope were regarded as the •anchor men', and that Mira was associated with Caldertfn. Montalban praised Mira in his Para todos. Los que . escriben cornedias en Castilla . (1632)1 i — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ E l doctor d. Antonio Mira de Amescua, gran maestro deste nobilisimo arte, asi en lo divino como en lo humano, pues con eminencia singular logra los autos sacramentales y acierta las cornedias humanas. Mira's name might have been expected to appear in the Fama pSstuma, prepared by Montalban on the death of Lope. ' It would seem f a i r to suppose that the reason for his non-inclusion in this work was the fact of his retirement to Guadix, where his l i f e was either deliberately cut off from his former l i f e in Madrid, or else because Montalban did not know he was there. The fact i s perhaps less significant i f one remembers that only Montalban, Velez de Guevara, Rojas Z o r r i l l a , Belmonte and Valdivielso, among the better known writers, signed the Fama pSstuma, whereas Quevedo, Tirso, Calder6n, Ruiz de Alarc6n, Quinones de Benavente, Coello, Diamante, Cubillo de Aragon, as well as Mira, were among those who did not sign i t . ^ : " The l a s t l i t e r a r y mention of Mira i s in the picaresque novel!by Velez de Guevara, E l diablo cojuelo (1641). In Tranco VI the following appears: No nos olvidemos, de camino, de Guadix, ciudad antigua y celebrada por sus melones, y mucho mils por el divino ingenio del doctor Mira de Amescua, hijo suyo y arcediano. It i s reassuring to see Guadix*s cultural claim to fame raised above i t s economic one. Mira's period of retirement in Guadix was far from unevent-f u l . In his Pedro Espinosa, Rodriguez Marin collected a l l the documentary evidence concerning the events of June 1633. On June 7th, Mira became annoyed at the fact that Jusepe Rodriguez had been appointed colector for the Rio de Alcudia. He called 32 Rodriguez a s a s t r e , and was d i s p l e a s e d t h a t a " c a b a l l e r o , s a c e r d o t e , b e n e f i c i a d o y deudo suyo" had been overlooked. He l e f t the c a b i l d o "Dando voces descompuestas, s i n hacer v e n i a a l C a b i l d o , y dando un golpe a l a p u e r t a d£l." He appears to have shouted t h a t "en Ginebra no se p o d i a hacer l o que aqui se h a e l a . " The C a b i l d o then decided to suspend him from j o i n i n g o r v o t i n g i n i t s meetings, to f i n e him t e n ducats, and to r e p o r t him to the bishop w i t h a r e q u e s t t h a t he should make the a r c h -deacon moderate h i s b e h a v i o r . However, on the f o l l o w i n g morning, M i r a "ocasion6 a l senor M a e s t r e s c u e l a grandes pesadumr*" br e s . " E x a c t l y what t h i s e n t a i l e d i s not c l e a r . On June 10th the c a b i l d o met a g a i n and f i n e d M i r a a f u r t h e r 44 ducats. Both M i r a and the M a e s t r e s c u e l a were presos a t t h i s p o i n t , and the c a b i l d o wanted the bishop to take a c t i o n s i n c e M i r a "desde que entr6 en e s t a Santa I g l e s i a ha t e n i d o v a r i a s pesadumbres, ocasionando a e l l a s muchos seKores c a p i t u l a r e s , como es n o t o r i o , y no ha t e n i d o enmienda. . . , se s i r v a senor obispo de r e p a r a r en e s t o s i n c o n v e n i e n t e s . " The matter was r e s o l v e d a t a f u r t h e r meeting of the c a b i l d o on June 17th, w i t h the bishop p r e s e n t . The c a b i l d o asked the bishop not to go f u r t h e r w i t h the a c t i o n , he agreed, a s k i n g i f he should give M i r a a reprimand. The c a b i l d o d e c i d e d t h a t i t should be i n p r i v a t e n o t i n p u b l i c . M i r a was consequently r e l e a s e d , and the bishop s a i d t h a t M i r a was "muy a r r e p e n t i d o y pesaroso de l o hecho, y con muchos deseos de mostrarse s e r v i d o r d e l C a b i l d o y dar l a satisfacci6n en p r e s e n c i a de S. S. a." The i n c i d e n t appears t o have terminated t h e r e . The c o n c l u s i o n s t o be drawn from the i n c i d e n t are e i t h e r t h a t M i r a was always i r a s c i b l e , ^ 1 or t h a t t h i s was an unusual occurence s i n c e there i s no o t h e r evidence to support h i s having a s h o r t o r v i o l e n t temper. In 1638 there i s a document showing t h a t M i r a headed a t r i b u n a l on the b e h a v i o r of the other c l e r i c s and l a y members o f the c a t h e d r a l community. The document i s only i n t e r e s t i n g •as one o f the few examples of M i r a ' s p r o s e , and f o r the f a c t i t shows t h a t he was now a s o l i d p a r t of the c a t h e d r a l community (Rodriguez. Marin, 'Nuevos da t o s , ' p. 331-2). 33 The l a s t document of a l l i s one t h a t was reproduced by Rodriguez Marin i n h i s Pedro Es p i n o s a t En ocho d i a s d e l mes de septiembre de m i l s e i s c i e n t o s c u a r e n t a y c u a t r o f a l l e c i O e l senor Arcediano d o c t o r don Antonio M i r a de Amesqua. Recibi6 l o s Santos Sacramentos. 0torg6 su testamento c e r r a d o ante Pablo H i n o j o s a , e s c r i b a n o p u b l i c o . Enterr6se en e s t a saneta i g l e s i a . Fue a su e n t i e r r o su I l u s t r l s i m a y e l .Dean y C a b i l d o . Albaceas e l d o c t o r don Diego Gomez de Mora y e l d o c t o r Antonio Mesas, canoriigo y r a c i o n e r o de e s t a s a n c t a i g l e s i a , y h e r e d e r a su anima. D i j e l a misa de V i g i l i a , y l o firme u t s u p r a . — H i e r S n i m o A l f o c e a de l a Obra. 62 34 NOTES TO CHAPTER ONE, 1 B o l e t i n de l a R e a l Academia E s p a n o l a . 17 (1930), 467-505, 611-658; 18 ( 1 9 3 D . 7-90. A l l f u t u r e r e f e r e n c e s to t h i s j o u r n a l w i l l appear as BRAE. 2 *E1 Dr. Antonio M i r a de Amescuai Nuevos datos para su b i o g r a f i a , ' BRAE, 1 (1914), 551-72. ^ ' E l Doctor M i r a de Amezcua,' L a i l u s t r a c i 6 n espanola y_ americana, Suplemento a l num. 43 (18BB"), 307. [ P r e v i o u s l y p u b l i s h e d i n E l Lunes de e l I m p a r c i a l , (16 September 1878}] Don Manuel B a l l e s t e r o s , canonigo l e c t o r a l de l a Santa I g l e s i a C a t e d r a l de Guadix, i n a l e t t e r t o the author, dated 23 January 1973» s a i d i t "seguramente. . . d e s a p a r e c i o con o t r o s v a l i o s o s documentos de nue s t r o A r c h i v e en tiempo de l a dominaciSn m a r x i s t a . . . . Suponemos que. . . fue p r e s a c o d i c i a d a en e l e x p o l i o s i es que no fue pasto d e l fuego." I would l i k e to express my g r a t i t u d e to don Manuel B a l l e s t e r o s and to the V i c a r General of the D i o c e s i s o f Guadix f o r t h e i r c o o p e r a t i o n and e f f o r t s i n t r y i n g t o l o c a t e the expediente. — Valbuena P r a t has suggested t h a t "Los a p e l l i d o s de l a madre p o d r l a n hacer pensar en un o r i g e n gitano.". (Mira de Amescua, E l e s c l a v o d e l demonio, [ C l a s i c o s Ebro, Zaragoza, 1970] p. 10.) Valbuena was perhaps t h i n k i n g o f F e d e r i c o G a r c i a L o r c a ' s Romancero Gitano, i n which one o f the g y p s i e s i s c a l l e d Antonio T o r r e s Heredia. ^ At l e a s t two o t h e r major Golden Age w r i t e r s d i d not conformi G6*ngora and Rojas Z o r r i l l a both used maternal surnames. 7 F. Rodriguez Marin, Pedro E s p i n o s a . E s t u d i o b i o g r g f i c o , b i b l i o g r a r i c o y_ c r l t i c o . (Madrid, 1907). PP. 91-5. Nobleza de A n d a l u c i a . Nueva e d i c l g n i l u s t r a d a . . . d e l  senor don Manuel Munoz y G a r n i c a , Jaen, 18~6"6. (Jaen, 1957) pp. 6 3 9 ^ 3 . Q 7 T h i s p o r t i o n of Argote de Molina's book was a p p a r e n t l y unknown to C o t a r e l o y Mori and to Rodriguez Marin. 1 0 See below ,pp338-31, where the expediente i s d e s c r i b e d from the d e t a i l s g i v e n by Sanz and Tarrago. I I Sanz, p. 568. 12 I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t a s e c t i o n o f the p l a y L a c a s a d e l  t a h u r might p r o v i d e f u r t h e r evidence of a d e l i b e r a t e c o n f u s i n g o f g e n e r a t i o n s . In the p l a y a mother d e l i b e r a t e l y confuses her i d e n t i t y w i t h t h a t of her daughter, so as to deceive a s u i t o r who i s s e e k i n g the daughter's hand. In the sequence the common surname of mother and daughter i s Heredia. (La c a s a d e l tahur, 2558-78 [ F o r e d i t i o n see below, p. 154 n o t e ] , 7 " v f ^ P r o f . A r s e n i c Pacheco has suggested to me t h a t medicine has-been t r a d i t i o n a l l y one.of t h e , p r o f e s s i o n s f o l l o w e d par- _ t i c u l a r l y by Jewsj ana i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t d o c t o r s were one o f the p r o f e s s i o n a l groups most exposed to s u s p i c i o n s about t h e i r j i m p i e z a de sangre. 35 ^ Mira de Amescua, Teatro II, ed. A. Valbuena Prat (1928t rpt. Clasicos Castellanos, MadridT 1957). lines 853-68. It has been previously suggested that there may have been doubts concerning Beatriz*s limpieza de sangre (see above, pp. 8&34) This i s another possible reason why she and Melchor never married. 16 Prof. H.V. Livermore suggested to me that Cotarelo's basis for thus dating Mira's birth was inconclusive for this reason. 1 7 See A. Dominguez Ortiz, Crisis y decadencia de l a Espana de los Austrias, pp. 29-30. It i s possible to reach this conclusion from certain clues given by Dominguez Ortiz. He says that in 1582 E l , P. Pedro de Leon accompanied el P. Juan Gertfnimo "rector del colegio de Granada" to Sanlucar de Barrameda on a mission at the request of the Duke of Medina Sidonia (p. 29). The Duke "agradecido. . . a tan senalado servicio, propuso al P. Pedro de Le6n ceder a sus padres un pedazo que se habia reservado de l a casa que habia cedido a l a CompanSa enfrente de l a parroquia de San Miguel, tan necesario para e l ensanche del colegio de l a Cojnpanfa" (p. 30). The. evidence i s not conclusive since one can only infer that the college was that of San Miguel in Granada, of which Ger6nimo was presumably the rector. 18 Cayetano Alberto De La Barrera y Leirado, Catalogo  bibliogra-ico del teatro antiguo espanol. . . Madrid, 1860. (Tamesis, London, 1968), p. 255. 19 7 The confirmation date would seem to support a later rather than an earlier birth date. Without evidence of the custom of the period, however, this fact cannot be used as proof. 20 •Nuevos datos de algunos escritores de los siglos XVI yXVII,' BRAE, 5 (1918), 321-332. 2 1 CristSbal Perez Pastor, Bibliografla-Mtdrilena de los siglos XVI y XVII (1907» rpt. 3 vols., Amsterdam, 1971). II. #826, 31. 22 Cayetano Alberto de l a Barrera y Leirado, Nueva biografla de Lope de Vega, (Madrid, 1890), p. 134. 2-^ Rafael Garrasco, Lope de Vega x Mira de Amescua (Guadix, 1935)i P. 19note. 2 ^ Perez Pastor, II, #992, 133-4; and J. Simd*n Diaz, : *Textos dispersos de clfisicos espanoles* Revista de Literatura 18 (I960), 169-70. 2 5 Perez Pastor, II, #1096, 183; and Sim6n Diaz, pp. 171-2. 26 Sim6n Diaz, p. 171. 2 7 Sim6n Diaz, p. 172. ^ 2 8 P^rez Pastor, III, #2049, 189> and Sim6n Diaz, p. 179. 2 9 Sim6n Diaz, p. 179. Alfonso Pardo Manuel de Villena, E l Conde de Lemost Un  Mecenas Espanol del Siglo XVII, (Madrid, 1912). This book contains a l l the details of the Count of Lemos's Viceroyalty. 36 31 • A l f r e d o Hermenegildo, L a t r a g e d i a en e l renacimiento espanol (Barcelona, 1973)• T h i s book, among o t h e r s , d i s c u s s e s the i d e a s of the Argensolas, pp. 2 4 - 3 6 . 3 2 In Memorial H i s t o r i c o E s p a n o l , V o l . 12 (Madrid, I860) J J O t i s H. Green, 'Mira de Amescua i n I t a l y , ' Modern  Language Notes, 45 (1930) , 3 1 7 - 9 . ^ P e r e z P a s t o r , I I , #1370, 3 6 3 - 6 . 3 5 Pe*rez P a s t o r , I I , #1587. W . Z 3 6 Perez P a s t o r , I I , #1589, 4 7 9 - 8 0 . 3 7 Perez P a s t o r , I I I , 427. 3 8 Perez P a s t o r , I I I , 427-31. J 7 Sanazaro espanol, l o s t r e s l i b r o s d e l p a r t o de l a v i r g e n n u e s t r a senora (Perez P a s t o r . I I , #1697, 437^9) 41 42 43 Perez P a s t o r , I I , #1655, 522? and Sim6n D i a z , p. 179. Perez P a s t o r , I I I , #1905, 130-1. Perez P a s t o r , I I I , #1861, 100-1. Perez P a s t o r , I I I , #1809, 74. ^ A l p r i n c i p e de Gales (1623) (Perez P a s t o r , I I I , #1967, 161) . — ^? V o l . 20, XXXII-IV. A l l f u t u r e r e f e r e n c e s to t h i s s e r i e s w i l l appear as BAE. 4 6 Simon D i a z , p. 180. ^ Perez P a s t o r , I I I , #2020, 177$ and Sim6n D i a z , pp. 172-3. ^ 8 Perez P a s t o r , I I I , #2028, 181j and Sim6n D i a z , pp. 173-^. Perez P a s t o r , I I I , #2055, 194. 5 0 Perez P a s t o r , I I I , #2173, 276. 5 f Perez P a s t o r , I I I , #2233, 305. 5 2 Sim6n D i a z , pp. 179 -80 . 5? Lope _ M i r a , p. 15» ^ Simon D i a z , p. 175. 5 5 Sim6n D i a z , pp. 174-5. Simon D i a z , pp. 175-6. ^ 7 Simon D i a z , pp. 176-7. 5 8 Sim6n D i a z , pp. 177-9. ^ 9 B a r r e r a , Nueva b i o g r a f l a de Lope, pp. 506-7. , ^° Rodriguez Marin, Pedro E s p i n o s a , pp. 91-5. ^ Cf. " e r a de c a r a c t e r c o l e r i c o e impaciente" (A. Valbuena P r a t , ed., M i r a de Amescua, Teatro I [19261 r p t . C l a s i c o s G a s t e l l a n o s , Madrid, 1959], p. x v ) . Rodriguez Marin, Pedro E s p i n o s a , pp. 91-5. 37 CHAPTER TWOJ AN INVESTIGATION OF THE AUTHORSHIP AND CHRONOLOGY OF THE DRAMATIC WORKS WHICH HAVE BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO MIRA DE AMESCUA Since the death o f M i r a de Amescua i n 1644, v a r i o u s b i b l i o g r a p h e r s and c r i t i c s have c r e d i t e d him with h a v i n g w r i t t e n one hundred p l a y s and a u t o s . 1 In order to examine the p l a y s of M i r a de Amescua, i t must be d e c i d e d which of these dramatic works can be a s c r i b e d to him w i t h any c e r t a i n t y . The mass of evidence i s v e r y c omplicated and i t has t h e r e f o r e been p l a c e d i n s i x t a b l e s . The f i r s t f i v e t a b l e s have two purposes. F i r s t t o decide which p l a y s can be regarded as having been w r i t t e n by M i r a de Amescua: the f i v e t a b l e s s e t out the a v a i l a b l e evidence and the d e d u c t i o n s t h a t can be made from t h a t evidence. The second purpose o f the f i v e t a b l e s i s to l i s t a l l the extant manuscripts o f the p l a y s and the f i r s t e d i t i o n s o f p l a y s t h a t were p u b l i s h e d d u r i n g the seventeenth c e n t u r y . T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s d i v i d e d i n t o f o u r s e c t i o n s , each o f which bears one of the f o l l o w i n g numbers: (1) Any l a c k o f unanimity among the b i b l i o g r a p h e r s c o n c e r n i n g the a u t h o r s h i p o f the p l a y . I f there i s no e n t r y i t means t h a t a l l the b i b l i o g r a p h e r s a s c r i b e the p l a y to M i r a . (2) Any l a c k of unanimity among the b i b l i o g r a p h e r s c o n c e r n i n g the t i t l e o f the p l a y . The b i b l i o g r a p h e r s may not give the f u l l t i t l e , but t h i s i s not noted u n l e s s they b e l i e v e t h a t p a r t of the t i t l e belongs to a separate p l a y . I f there i s no e n t r y i t means the b i b l i o g r a p h e r s agree about the t i t l e . (3) A l i s t o f a l l manuscripts o f the p l a y s — m o s t of which are i n the B i b l i o t e c a N a c i o n a l i n M a d r i d — a n d a l i s t o f a l l seventeenth c e n t u r y f i r s t e d i t i o n s of the p l a y s . I f there i s no e n t r y i t means t h a t there i s no known seventeenth c e n t u r y e d i t i o n o f the p l a y . In every case the manuscript or the e d i t i o n c r e d i t s M i r a w i t h the p l a y u n l e s s otherwise noted. • (4) References to any works which c o n t a i n e x p l a n a t i o n s o f any o f the problems l i s t e d i n the f i v e t a b l e s . The p l a y s are d i v i d e d i n t o the f o l l o w i n g f i v e t a b l e s : !-,A. P l a y s which are almost c e r t a i n l y by M i r a . B. P l a y s which were w r i t t e n i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h other authors 38 and i n which M i r a ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n i s almost c e r t a i n . G. P l a y s which are prob a b l y by M i r a , but about which the evidence i s not c o n c l u s i v e . D. P l a y s which are pr o b a b l y NOT by M i r a , but about which the evidence i s not c o n c l u s i v e . E. P l a y s which are almost c e r t a i n l y NOT by M i r a . In e v e r y case the c o n c l u s i o n s are based on the a v a i l a b l e evidence and i t i s always p o s s i b l e t h a t the d i s c o v e r y o f new evidence might a l t e r these c o n c l u s i o n s . In these f i v e t a b l e s the f o l l o w i n g a b b r e v i a t i o n s w i l l be used to r e f e r t o the works of the b i b l i o g r a p h e r s and c r i t i e s t T 4 K ft 7 ft A m e l i a ; J Anlbal» B a r r e r a i 3 C o t a r e l o j M e d e l r Mesonero Catalogo; Mesonero I n d i c e j ^ Morley and B r u e r t o n j 1 0 Paz y M e l i a i 1 1 and 12 Valbuena P r a t . Cross r e f e r e n c e s w i t h i n these t a b l e s are i n d i c a t e d by the number a s c r i b e d t o the t i t l e , e.g. No. 36. Information c o n c e r n i n g the most modern e d i t i o n s o f the p l a y s , and about the e d i t i o n s used i n t h i s t h e s i s , w i l l be found i n the B i b l i o g r a p h y o f the P l a y s examined. The f i n a l t a b l e i n t h i s c h a p t e r p r e s e n t s the a v a i l a b l e evidence c o n c e r n i n g the chronology o f Mira ' s p l a y s . A d e s c r i p t i o n o f the d e t a i l s c o n c e r n i n g t h i s t a b l e immediately precedes i t (see below, pp. 51 ). TABLE At PLAYS WHICH ARE ALMOST CERTAINLY BY MIRA  1. La a d f i l t e r a v i r t u o s a (2) B a r r e r a (p. 260) and Mesonero Cat&Logo give the sub-t i t l e S a nta M a r i a E g i p c i a c a . T h i s almost c e r t a i n l y belongs to La mesonera d e l C i e l o (No. 35). 2» La adversa f o r t u n a de don A l v a r o de Luna (1) T h i s p l a y was the s u b j e c t o f g r e a t c o n t r o v e r s y u n t i l the d i s c o v e r y o f M i r a ' s autograph manuscript i n 19^3 c o n c l u s i v e l y s e t t l e d the q u e s t i o n . (3) The autograph manuscript i s not i n the B i b l i o t e c a N a t i o -n a l , but i n the l i b r a r y o f don Ar t u r o Sed6 Guichard. Segunda p a r t e de l a s cornedias d e l Maestro T i r s o de Mo l i n a . (Madrid, 1635). j T t t r i b u t e d t o T i r s o . J (4) Adversa f o r t u n a de don A l v a r o de Luna, ed. L u i g i de F i l i p p o ( F l o r e n c e , i960), pp. x x - x x v i i i g i v e s a good y - account o f the h i s t o r y o f the a t t r i b u t i o n s o f the p l a y . 39 3. Amor, inge n i o y_ mu.ier (2) B a r r e r a (p. 259) and Mesonero Catalogo both f a l s e l y c o n s i d e r t h i s to be an a l t e r n a t i v e t i t l e to La t e r c e r a de s i  misma (No. 54). Although both p l a y s use the r e f r a i n Amor. . ., they are v e r y d i f f e r e n t p l a y s . 4. E l amparo de l o s hombres 5. E l arpa de David (2) B a r r e r a (p. 259) c a l l s t h i s an auto. (3) There are two MSS.t 15.516^ seventeenth century; 16.326 e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y (Paz y M e l i a , 266). 6. E l c a b a l l e r o s i n nombre (3) Parte t r e i n t a y_ dos. Doce comedias de d i f e r e n t e s  autores (Saragossa, 1640). 7. Los c a b a l l e r o s nuevos (1) Mesonero Cat&logo omits t h i s p l a y , but i n Mesonero Indice (p. x x v i i ) i t i s l i s t e d w i t h the s u b - t i t l e Los c a r -boneros de F r a n c i a and c r e d i t e d t o Lope. (2) The MS. bears the s u b - t i t l e Y carboneros de T r a e i a , which i s w r i t t e n i n a d i f f e r e n t hand from the r e s t _ o f the p l a y . The T r a c i a appears to be a m i s r e a d i n g of F r a c i a . B a r r e r a comments t h a t the p l a y i s ' d i v e r s a de l a t i t u l a d a Los carboneros de F r a n c i a £ R e i n a S e v i l l a ' (p. 259), on account of t h i s s u b - t i t l e . See No. b. (3) MS. 15.284, dated 7 March 1608 (Paz y Meli£, 510). 8. Los carboneros de F r a n c i a Y R e i n a S e v i l l a (2) T h i s p l a y has caused some c o n f u s i o n w i t h Los c a b a l l e r o s  nuevos. ( c f . B a r r e r a , p. 259). See No. 7. (3) MS. 15.658, l a t e seventeenth c e n t u r y , has the t i t l e R e i n a S e v i l l a y carboneros. . . 1 MS. 17.4488, seventeenth c e n t u r y , c o n s i s t s o f A c t One o n l y (Paz y M e l i a , 3115). P a r t e t r e i n t a y nueve. Comedias nuevas (Madrid, 1673)* 9. En l a c a s a d e l tahur poco d u r a e l a l e g r i a (3) MS. Res. 118, dated 20 December 1616, i s p a r t l y autograph (Paz y M e l i l , 590). 10. E l c l a v o de Ja§l (1) Omitted by Medelt Mesonero Catalogo l i s t s i t as b e i n g by M i r a , but Mesonero Indice c r e d i t s i t t o Lope (p. x x v i i i ) . (3) MS. 15.331, seventeenth c e n t u r y 'Tiene algunas en-miendas de mano de D. F r a n c i s c o de Rojas' (Paz y M e l i a , 675). 1 11. E l conde A l a r c o s ^ (3) Q u i n t a p a r t e de comedias nuevas (Madrid, 1653) 40 12. La confusifln de Hungria (3) Parte treinta y_ cinco. Corned ias nuevas (Madrid, 1670). 13. Cuatro milagros de amor (3) MS. 15.252, nineteenth century (Paz y Melia, 853) 14. La desgraciada Raquel (1) Credited to Diamante and published as La .iudia de Toledo. (2) As well as La .iudia de Toledo the play i s also 'known as La desdiehada Raquel and La desgracia de Raquel. (3) The MS. which belonged to George Ticknor and i s now in the Boston Public Library confirms that this play and that published under Diamante's name are identical. The MS. bears a date of 1 April l625t when i t was submitted for approval. This was refused, but was later accepted, and the date was changed to read 1635. Barrera read the Spanish translation of Ticknor*s History of Spanish  Literature, and repeated the error which the translator, Gayangos, had made, stating that the MS. date was 1605 (p. 255) . Parte veinte y_ siete. Corned ias nuevas (Madrid, I667), [Attributed to DiamantejT (4) Donald A. Murray, 'Mira de Amescua's La desgraciada  Raauel (Ph. D. thesis, Stanford University, 195D * P. 257 c l a r i f i e s the confusion over the date of the play. . 15. Las desgracias del rey don Alfonso el Casto (2) Medel (p. 173) l i s t s the king as Alonso. (3) Flor de las cornedias de Espana de diferentes autores (Alcala, Io"l5T~"Barce 1 ona,"T616). 16. E l e.iemplo mayor de l a desdicha y_ e l eapitan Belisario (1) Mesonero Indice i s the only place i t i s credited to Lope (p. xxxii), the f i r s t edition credits i t to Montalban. (3) MS. Res., 112, dated 1625. i s autograph and bears under neath Mira's signature the approval and signature of Lope de Vega; MS. 16.906 i s dated 1635 (Paz y Melil, 1172). Parte veinte y cinco. Comedias de diferentes autores (Saragossa, 1632), [Attributed to MontalbanJ. 17. E l esclavo del demonio (3) Tercera parte de comedias de Lope de Vega y. otros autores (Barcelona, 16121 Madrid, 1613T7 3 18. Examinarse de rey. o m£s vale f i n g i r sue amar (3) MS. 14.953, seventeenth century (Paz y Meli£, 1357). 19. Auto. La fe de Hungrla (3) MS. 15.318, seventeenth century (Paz y Melia, 1388). 41 20. L a fe*nix de Salamanca (3) Parte t e r c e r a de comedias nuevas (Madrid, I653). 21. E l galan s e c r e t o (3) Parte t r e i n t a 2_ quatro de comedias nuevas (Madrid, I670). 22. Gal an, v a l i e n t e d i s c r e t o (3) MS. 17.025, dated 1636$ MS. 15.323, seventeenth century (Paz y M e l i a , 1188). P a r t e v e i n t e y_ nueve de comedias de d i f e r e n t e s a u t o r e s ( V a l e n c i a , I636T 23. Auto. E l heredero ! (1) Mesonero Catalogo and Ind i c e omit t h i s auto. (3) Autos sacramentales con quatro comedias (Madrid, I655). 2k, Hero __ Leandro (1) Mesonero I n d i c e c r e d i t s the p l a y t o e i t h e r Lope o r M i r a (p. xxxv). Galderon mentions the p l a y i n h i s L a dama duende (Jornada I, 11. 23-30) as b e i n g by M i r a . L a dama duende i s from the year 1629. (3) MS. 15.367, seventeenth century? MS. 15.264, n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y (Paz y Melia", 1652). 25. L a hi.ia de C a r l o s V 26. E l hombre de mayor fama (3) Doze comedias de Lope de Vega. Parte veynte ^ nueve (Hue sc a, 1634), L A t t r i b u t e o f t o Lope]. 27. Auto. L a s a n t a Inquisici6n (3) MS. Res., 68, dated 10 May 1625 (Paz y M e l i a , 33°5). (4) Menfindez y Pelayo p u b l i s h e d t h i s i n h i s e d i t i o n o f Lope's plays,, which have been r e p u b l i s h e d i n BAE, 158. In h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n MenSndez y Pelayo admits i t i s almost c e r t a i n l y by M i r a , but he t h i n k s i t o f i n t e r e s t because i t i s one of the few works t o d e a l w i t h the Ho l y O f f i c e . He i s a l i t t l e dubious about h i s own l o g i c (BAE, 158, 241). 28. Auto. L a .jura d e l P r i n c i p e de A s t u r i a s (3) MS. 17.098, i s dated I633 but i t s t a t e s t h a t the auto was f i r s t performed i n 1632. (Paz y M e l i f i , 1865).  • 29. Las U s e s de F r a n c i a I' (3) Parte c u a r e n t a y_ quatro. Comedias nuevas (Madrid, I678). 30. Lo que es no ca s a r s e a gusto (1) Medel and Mesonero Catalogo omit i t , but Mesonero I n d i c e c r e d i t s i t to M i r a (p. x x x v i i ) . 42 31. Lo que l e t o c a a l v a l o r y_ P r i n c i p e de Orange (1) B a r r e r a says 'Es, segun e l senor Duran, l a a t r i b u l d a a Tomas Os o r i o en l a Parte c u a r t a con t i t u l o de E l r e b e l d e a l b e n e f i c i o ' (p. 260). A c c o r d i n g to C o t a r e l o (pp. 17-8) t h i s O sorio was an a c t o r and h i s name would pr o b a b l y have been on a copy o f the p l a y , and t h a t a p r i n t e r e r r o n e o u s l y thought i t was t h a t o f the author. 3) L a u r e l de comedias. Quarta p a r t e (Madrid, 1653), A t t r i b u t e d t o O s o r i o J . 32. Lo que puede e l o l r misa (3) Primera p a r t e de comedias nuevas (Madrid, 1652). 33. Lo que puede una sospecha (3) L a u r e l de comedias. Quarta p a r t e (Madrid, 1653). 34. E l m a r t i r de Madrid (1) Mesonero Catalogo omits t h i s p l a y . (3) MS. Res., 107 i s an autograph manuscript, and bears the a p p r o v a l date o f 1619» MS. 16.886, seventeenth c e n t u r y , has the s u b t i t l e , No hay mal que por b i e n no venga (Paz y Melia", 2 2 3 D . 35« L a mesonera d e l C i e l o y_ ermitano g a l an (3) Parte t r e i n t a y. nueve de comedias nuevas (Madrid, 1673). See No. 1. 36. Auto. L a mayor s o b e r b i a humana de Nabucodionosor (3) Navidad y_ Corpus C h r i s t i f e s t e j a d o s (Madrid, 1664). 37. Auto. E l monte de l a piedad (2) Mesonero Catalogo omits the l a from the t i t l e . (3) MS. 15.490, seventeenth c e n t u r y (Paz y M e l i a , 2426). 38. Auto d e l nacimiento de C r i s t o n u e s t r o b i e n y_ s o l a medianoche y e s t r e l l a s a mediodla (1) Mesonero I n d i c e c r e d i t s i t to V i l l e g a s (Juan) or M i r a (p. x l v i i i ) . (2) T h i s auto i s commonly r e f e r r e d t o as S o l a medianoche t o d i s t i n g u i s h i t from No. 39. (3) Navidad y Corpus C h r i s t i f e s t e j a d o s (Madrid, 1664). 39. Auto d e l nacimiento d e l senor (1) Mesonero Catalogo omits i t , Medel has i t as anonymous (p. 271). (3) Autos sacramentales con quatro comedias (Madrid, 1655). See No. 38. 43 40. No hay b u r l as con l a s mujeres o c a s a r s e y_ vengarse (3) Quinta p a r t e de comedias esco g i d a s (Madrid, 1654). 41. No hay d i c h a n i d e s d i c h a h a s t a l a muerte (1) Medel l i s t s two works: No hay d i c h a h a s t a l a muerte which he l i s t s as anonymous, and No hay d i c h a HX d e s d i c h a  h a s t a l a muerte which he c r e d i t s t o Rojas (p. 216TI (3) Autograph MS. Res., 76, dated 20 J u l y 1628: MS. 14 .920, dated 1685 (Paz y M e l i a , 2555). P a r t e quarenta y_ c i n c o . Comedias nuevas (Madrid, 1679). 42. No hay r e i n a r como v i v i r (3) Comedias v a r i a s . Parte t r e z e (Madrid, 1660). 4 3 . Auto. Nuestra senora de l o s remedios , (1) Mesonero Indice c r e d i t s t h i s to Calderon (p. x i i ) . ( 3 ) MS. 16.724, seventeenth c e n t u r y j MS. 16.872, seventeenth c e n t u r y (Paz y M e l i a , 2631). 44. O b i i g a r c o n t r a su sangre (3) MS. 18.142, has a p p r o v a l date of I638 (Paz y M e l i a , 2656). 4 5 . Auto. Los p a s t o r e s de BelOn (1) Bjarrera and Mesonero Catalogo omit t h i s t i t l e ; Mesonero Indice c r e d i t s i t to Gaspar Lozano (p. x i i i ) . Medel says there are two p a r t s by d i f f e r e n t authors, both unknown (p. 269). ( 3 ) MSS. 16.431 and 15.211, both seventeenth c e n t u r y (Paz y M e l i a , 2771). 46. Auto. Pedro T e l o n a r i o (3) MS. I6.636, seventeenth c e n t u r y (Paz y M e l i a , 2792). 1 47. E l primer Conde de F l a n d e s (1) T h i s i s a t t r i b u t e d to Zarate by Medel (p. 227) and Mesonero I n d i c e (p. x l i i i ) . [ Z a r a t e was born ca. 1620, and c o u l d n o t have w r i t t e n t h i s p l a y i n 1616], (3) MS. 16.688, w r i t t e n i n the l a t e e i g h t e e n t h century, bears; the date 24 November 1616 (Paz y Melia., 2963). Parte v e i n t e ^ nueve de comedias nuevas (Madrid, 1668). 48. Auto. E l P r i n c i p e de l a Paz % t r a n s f o r m a c i o n e s de C e l i a (4) MenSndez y Pelayo saw t h i s a t t r i b u t e d t o Lope i n a catalogue o f the London b o o k s e l l e r S a l v f i (1829-34) and he used t h i s as a p r e t e x t f o r p u b l i s h i n g i t i n the works o f Lope ( r e p u b l i s h e d i n BAE, 158), because he l i k e d the p i e c e •Obra p o e t i c a de m e r i t o nada v u l g a r ' (p. 240). 44 4 9 . Los p r o d i g i e s de l a v a r a v. c a p i t a n de I s r a e l ( 3 ) Parte t r e i n t a y_ ocho de comedias nuevas (Madrid, 1 6 ? 1 ) . 5 0 . Auto. Las pruebas de C r i s t o (1 ) Mesonero Catalogo omits t h i s , "but Mesonero Indice c r e d i t s i t t o M i r a ( x l i v ) . Medel l i s t s i t as anonymous (p. 270) . , ( 3 ) MS. I 6 . 6 9 0 , seventeenth c e n t u r y (Paz y M e l i a , 3 0 1 8 ) . Autos* sacramentales con quatro comedias (Madrid, I 6 5 5 ) . : 5 1 . L a rueda de l a F o r t u n a ( 3 ) F l o r de l a s comedias de Espana de d i f e r e n t e s autores ( A l e a l a , I c T l 5 i B a r c e l o n a , 1616). 5 2 . E l santo s i n nacer y_ m a r t i r s i n mo r i r . San Ram6n (1) Mesonero Catalogo omits t h i s and Mesonero I n d i c e c r e d i t s i t to Doctor Ram6n as M a r t i r s i n m o r i r y_ santo. . . (p. x x x v i i i ) . Medel, s i m i l a r l y c r e d i t s i t to Doctor Ramdn, (p. 244). ( 3 ) MS. 14.83410, seventeenth c e n t u r y (Paz y M e l i a , 3314). Doze comedias de v a r i a s a u t o r e s ( T o r t o s a , I638), [anonymous], 5 3 . Los sue nos de J o s e f y_ m£s f e l i z c a u t i v e r i o ( 2 ) Mesonero Catalogo omits i t , i n the I n d i c e he has i t as anonymous w i t h the t i t l e Los sucesos de Faraon y_ m&s f e l i z  c a u t i v e r i o (p. x l i x ) . Medel omits i t , C o t a r e l o (p. 631 has the t i t l e as Los suenos de Farafln y_. . . . 5 4 . L a t e r c e r a de s i misma ( 2 ) T h i s i s e r r o n e o u s l y c o n s i d e r e d a s u b - t i t l e f o r Amor. i n g e n i o y mujer (No. 3)by B a r r e r a (p. 259) and Mesonero Catalogo. ( 3 ) MS. 17.149* dated 1 6 2 6 , signed by the c o p y i s t , Juan Cal d e r o n (Paz y M e l i a , 3 4 9 7 ) . Parte ocho de, comedias nuevas (Madrid, 1 6 5 7 ) . 5 5 . V i d a y_ muerte de l a mon.ja de P o r t u g a l ( 3 ) MS. 17 . 4 2 8 , dated 1670 (Paz y M e l i a , 3 7 7 9 ) . P a r t e t r e i n t a y_ t r e s de comedias nuevas (Madrid, 1 6 7 0 ) . 5 6 . V i d a y_ muerte de San Lazaro ( 3 ) MS. 16 . 8 0 5 , w i t h censure date o f 1688, wi t h poems and c o r r e c t i o n s i n Mi r a ' s h a n d w r i t i n g (Paz y M e l i a , 3 7 8 3 ) . Autos sacramentales con quatro comedias (Madrid, 1 6 5 5 ) . 45 TABLE B* PLAYS WRITTEN BY MIRA IN COLLABORATION WITH OTHER AUTHORS, IN WHICH MIRA*'S CONTRIBUTION IS ALMOST CERTAIN 57. A1gunas h a z a n a s de l a s muchas de don G a r c i a H u r t a d o  de Mendoza, marque's de Canete (1) A t t r i b u t i o n s a r e c o m p l i c a t e d f o r t h i s p l a y . I t was o r g a n i s e d by B e l m o n t e , who wrote the end o f t h e f i r s t a c t and t h e end o f the t h i r d a c t . The r e s t o f t h e p l a y was w r i t t e n a s f o l l o w s i A c t One, M i r a and t h e Conde d e l B a s t o ; A c t Two, R u i z de Alarc6n, Ve'lez de G u e v a r a , and F e r n a n d o de Ludenat A c t T h r e e , J a c i n t o de H e r r e r a , D i e g o de V i l l e g a s and Guillen de C a s t r o . (3) P r i n t e d i n M a d r i d i n 1622 i n t h e name o f B e l m o n t e . See P e r e z P a s t o r , B i b l i o g r a f i a M a d r i l e n a , I I I , #1809, 74. 58. L a manzana de d i s c o r d i a y_ r o b o de E l e n a (1) W r i t t e n i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h G u i l l e n de C a s t r o . (3) MS. 15.645, s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y (Paz y M e l i a , 2195). (4) E d u a r d o J u l i f i M a r t i n e z i n h i s e d i t i o n o f G u i l l S n de C a s t r o , Obras (3 v o l s . , M a d r i d , 1927) p o s t u l a t e s t h a t ' n o s i n c l i n a m o s a c r e e r que l a p r i m e r a J o r n a d a , quizS en su t o t a l i d a d , s e a de M i r a de Amescua, y l a t e r c e r a de G u i l l e n de C a s t r o * (3 , x x v i i ) . He makes no comment on t h e second a c t . [ 59. P o l i f e m o Y C i r c e (1) W r i t t e n i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h M o n t a l b a n and C a l d e r t f n . (2) Mesonero C a t a l o g o g i v e s t i t l e as C i r c e y_ P o l i f e m o . (3) Ms. R e s . , 83, A c t Two i s a u t o g r a p h o f M o n t a l b a n , d a t e d A p r i l 1630j A c t T h r e e i s a u t o g r a p h o f C a l d e r o n , u n d a t e d ; the f i r s t a c t i s n o t a u t o g r a p h b u t h a s always been c r e d i t e d t o M i r a . T h e r e a r e two o t h e r MSS.» 15.052, e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y , and 15.053* n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y (Paz y M e l i _ , -2916). TABLE Ci PLAYS WHICH ARE PROBABLY BY MIRA, BUT ABOUT WHICH THE EVIDENCE IS NOT CONCLUSIVE  60. L a a d v e r s a f o r t u n a de don B e r n a r d o de C a b r e r a (1) M e d e l l i s t s two p l a y s , one by Lope and one b y M i r a ( p . 145). C o t a r e l o s a y s ' E n l o s pr6logos a l o s tomos 3 y 8 de l a n u e v a e d i c i d n de Obras de Lope de Vega. [ M a d r i d , 1916 and 1930] creemos h a b e r demostrado que s o l o Lope es e l a u t o r de ambas o b r a s d r a m f i t i c a s ' (1931, p . 82). H i s r e a s o n s , b a s e d on i n t e r n a l e v i d e n c e , a r e l e s s t h a n c o n c l u s i v e . Anlbal s t a t e d h i s b e l i e f i n M i r a ' s a u t h o r s h i p o f t h e p l a y s ( p p . 149, 152-61), and h i s r e a s o n i n g assumed much g r e a t e r w e i g h t w i t h the d i s c o v e r y o f t h e a u t o g r a p h m a n u s c r i p t o f L a  a d v e r s a de don A l v a r o (No. 2), w h i c h he a l s o championed ( p p . 136-149)• M o r l e y and B r u e r t o n r e j e c t t h i s p l a y a s b e i n g by Lope a d d i n g 'The same p o e t , p e r h a p s M i r a de Amescua, p r o b a b l y 46 wrote both the Bernardo de Cabrera p l a y s * (p. 332). (3) Doze comedias de Lope de Vega C a r p i o . Parte veynte y_ nueve (Huesca, 1 6 3 4 ), |_Attributed t o LopejT 61. E l animal p r o f e t a £ dlc h o s o p a r r i c i d a San J u l i a n (1) Mesonero Indice c r e d i t s t h i s t o Lope (p. xxv), but i n h i s Catalogo he says *Creo sea de Mirademescua (p. x l v i ) . C o t a r e l o quotes MenOndez y Pelayo 'Del examen i n t e r n o de l a comedia r e s u l t a n , a j u i c i o de MenSndez y Pelayo, de cuyo s e n t i d o c r l t i c o y conocimiento de Lope, no puede uno, s i n grandes pruebas, a p a r t a r s e n i dudar, mayores i n d i c i o s a f a v o r de este gran poeta que a l de M i r a ' (pp. 82-3). Morley and Bruerton have the grandes pruebas and r e j e c t Lope's c l a i m s a y i n g 'the p l a y , i f Lope's has been r e c a s t ' (p. 257). C o t a r e l o supports Lope's a u t h o r s h i p on two groundsi f i r s t Mene'ndez y Pelayo's s u b j e c t i v e evidence, second the f a c t t h a t 'a nombre de Lope se imprimi6 en un tomo d e l s i g l o XVII, que v i o don Juan I s i d r o F a j a r d o , y que hoy no conocemos, y l a t r a d i c i O n b i b l i o g r a r i e a c o n stante, que mantiene d i c h a a t r i b u c i o n a f a v o r de Lope durante e l s i g l o X V III' (pp. 82-3). The evidence seems to f a v o r M i r a r a t h e r than Lope. I t i s a ch o i c e between an extant MS. of 1631 and a n o n - e x i s t e n t seventeenth c e n t u r y p r i n t e d e d i t i o n . (3) MS. 16.899» dated 1631» MS. 14.980, seventeenth eentury, MS. I 6 . 6 9 I , e a r l y e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y (Paz y M e l i S , 221). 62. Nardo Antonio, bandolero (1) Amelia l i s t s E l v a l i e n t e Nardo Antonio by M i r a (p. 378). Des p i t e t h i s contemporary evidence, a l l the b i b l i o g r a p h e r s c r e d i t i t to Lope, u n t i l the t w e n t i e t h century. C o t a r e l o accepts Mira's a u t h o r s h i p (p. 40) and Morley and Bruerton r e j e c t Lope's a u t h o r s h i p (p. 321). (3) Parte veynte ocho de_ comedias de v a r i o s autores (Huesca, 1634), [ A t t r i b u t e d t o Lope]. 6 3 . E i p a l a c i o confuso (1) Amelia l i s t s t h i s as b e i n g by M i r a (p. 3 7 8 ) 1 Medel a l s o c r e d i t s i t t o M i r a (p. 2 2 1 ) j Mesonero Indice c r e d i t s i t to I M i r a or Lope (p. x i i i ) . C o t a r e l o accepts M i r a ' s a u t h o r s h i p (pp. 4 9 - 5 0 ) . C h a r l e s Henry Stevens i n h i s e d i t i o n of Lope  de Vega's " E l p a l a c i o confuso" (New York, 1939)» however, supports Lope's a u t h o r s h i p V 'Presented w i t h a l l these d e t a i l s , r e l a t i n g our p l a y as they do to the work of Lope, we must f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t now t o admit M i r a as our author i n p l a c e o f Lope. A l l our evidence, voluminous, d e t a i l e d , and a t times somewhat i n c o n c l u s i v e , i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t was Lope de Vega who composed E l p a l a c i o confuso' (p. I x x i v ) . The evidence he gathers i s c i r c u m s t a n t i a l , and c o u l d be made to prove M i r a ' s a u t h o r s h i p as w e l l . Stevens' c o n c l u s i o n i s i n v a l i d a t e d by the work of Morley and Bruerton, who r e j e c t Lope's a u t h o r s h i p (p. 3 1 7 ) . 47 64. P r g s p e r a f o r t u n a de don A l v a r o de Luna y_ adversa de  Ruy L6"pe"z de Avalos (1 ) T h i s p l a y (with the Adversa f o r t u n a f N o . 2 ] ) has g e n e r a l l y been c r e d i t e d t o T i r s o , f o r i t was p u b l i s h e d i n h i s Segunda Parte (Madrid, 1 6 3 4 ) . A n i b a i advocated Mira's a u t h o r s h i p o f t h i s p l a y (pp. 1 2 9 - 1 3 5 ) . The d i s c o v e r y o f the autograph MS. of the Adversa f o r t u n a weighs the balance v e r y h e a v i l y i n M i r a ' s f a v o r . ( 3 ) MS. 1 7 . 1 0 1 , seventeenth c e n t u r y , w i t h the t i t l e Ruy. Lopez De Avalos, and w i t h a v e r y strange note by Paz y M e l i a "Es l a de Lope i Adversa. . . ?• (Paz y M e l i S , 3 2 1 8 ) . Segunda p a r t e de l a s comedias d e l Maestro T i r s o de M o l i n a I (Madrid, 1 6 3 5 ) . [ A t t r i b u t e d t o " " T i r s o J . : 1 6 5 . L a p r g s p e r a f o r t u n a de don Bernardo de Cabrera (1) The c l a i m s and c o u n t e r - c l a i m s about t h i s p l a y are much the same as f o r i t s second p a r t , L a adversa f o r t u n a . . . (No. 6 0 ) . Medel has the f o l l o w i n g e n t r y : Pr6spera fortuna—-de Lope. Pr6spera f o r t u n a — D o n Bernardo de Cabrera (p. 2 3 0 ) . What i t means i s not v e r y c l e a r . A n i b a i advocates M i r a ' s a u t h o r s h i p on the b a s i s o f the name, or pseudonym, L i s a r d o (pp. I 5 0 - I 6 I ) . Morley and B r u e r t o n r e j e c t Lope's a u t h o r s h i p , and suggest t h a t both p a r t s are by one man, perhaps M i r a (p. 3 3 2 ) . TABLE D: PLAYS WHICH ARE PROBABLY fWT BY MIRA, BUT FOR : WHICH THE EVIDENCE IS NOT^NCLUSIVE I. E l condenado por desconfiado (1) This i s generally considered to be by T i r s o , but Anibai suggests the p o s s i b i l i t y that i t i s by Mira (p. 175ff.). Menendez y Pelayo thought i t was by Tirso, but allowed the p o s s i b i l i t y that Mira may have been the author 'unico entre los autores de segundo orden que podia imaginar algo semejante* ("Calderon: Dramas r e l i g i o s o s ' i n Estudios y_ discursos de c r l t i c a h i s t 6 r i c a y. l i t e r a r i a , v o l 3 (Madrid, 1941), 201. Another a r t i c l e supporting the view of Anibai i s L i d i a Santelices, 'El probable autor de E l condenado. . .,* Anales de l a facultad de F i l o s o f l a y, LetrasTuniversity of Chile, Santiago, 1936), pp. 48-56. The evidence i s too inconclusive, however, to decide against Tirso's t r a d i t i o n a l l y accepted authorship. I I . E l negro del mejor amo (1) This i s generally attributed to Mira, although Medel creates confusion by l i s t i n g three plays—one by Mira, one by Lope and one by Juan VSlez (p. 215). Lope did write a s i m i l a r play with the t i t l e E l santo negro Rosambuco. Cotarelo quotes a MS. 17.317. which he says i s the same as ;that credited to Mira (p. 84). This MS. ends with a few l i n e s s t a t i n g the play to be by Luis VSlez. I t i s worth 48 remarking that Medel and Cotarelo do not agree as to which Ve"lez de Guevara should "be credited with the play. III. E l pleito que tuvo el diablo con e l cura de Madrilejos (1) This iplay was a joint effort of three men, and most of the bibliographers credit i t to Mira, Ve_ez de Guevara and Rojas Z o r r i l l a . Cotarelo quotes the line 'ya no se usan copetes,* and goes on to argue that since copetes were not banned u n t i l 1639, the play must have been written after that date, which would make Mira's claim to a contribution very doubtful (p. 85). It i s possible that this line was added to the play to give i t topical reference, and that i t was, in re a l i t y , written much earlier. There i s no proof either way, however. IV, La ventura de l a fea (1) This play i s incomplete. Anlbal states his belief in Mira's authorship (p. 176ff.) j Morley and Bruerton reject Lope's (p. 353). The evidence i s not conclusive. TABLE Ei PLAYS WHICH ARE ALMOST CERTAINLY N O T BY MIRA V. E l alcaide de Madrid (1) Listed by Amelia (p. 378), unknown. • - VI. E l capitan de Israel (2) Listed as separate play by Medel (p. 162). Los  prodigios de l a vara has this as i t s sub-title. See No. 49. VII. Los celos de Rodamonte (1) Sometimes attributed to Mira. Cotarelo explains that i t was published under Mira's name in 1638 (p. 83). Cotarelo shows i t to be by Lope, and Morley and Bruerton accept i t as being definitely by Lope (p. 140). VIII. E l cisne de Alexandria (1) Listed by Amelia (p. 379). unknown. Ix» __ conde don Sancho nifio (1) Listed by Amelia (p. 379). unknown. X. E l cuerdo en palaua (1) Listed by Amelia (p. 378), not even the meaning of the t i t l e i s known. XI. E l desengano en celos (1) Amelia l i s t s this (p. 378) and although nothing i s known about i t , i t i s possible that this—and other t i t l e s he l i s t s — a r e sub-titles, cf. E l examen de maridos (No. XIII). 1 49 X I I . E l Duque de Memoransi (1 ) L i s t e d by Medel (p. 178) but i t i s otherwise unknown. (2 ) The t i t l e i s p r o b a b l y a form of Montmorency. X I I I . E l examen de maridos (1 ) T h i s i s l i s t e d by Amelia (p. 3 7 8 ) . (2 ) T h i s i s p r o b a b l y the s u b - t i t l e f o r e i t h e r Galan. v a l i e n t e y_ d i s c r e t o or Cuatro m i l a g r o s de amor. I t means t h a t one of these p l a y s i s s l i g h t l y e a r l i e r than has so f a r been thought. I t seems probable t h a t other t i t l e s on Amelia's l i s t may a l s o be s u b - t i t l e s . See No. XI. XIV. Auto. L a fe de Abraham (1 ) B a r r e r a i s the o n l y b i b l i o g r a p h e r t o a t t r i b u t e t h i s t o M i r a (p. 2 6 0 ) . Mesonero I n d i c e has i t by ' t r e s i n g e n i o s ' ( x x x i i i ) . C o t a r e l o b e l i e v e s i t to be anonymous (p. 8 3 ) . XV. E l gran c a r d e n a l de Espana (1) L i s t e d by Amelia (p. 379)» unknown. XVI. Primera d e l J u i c l o (1 ) L i s t e d by Amelia (p. 3 7 8 ) . See No. XVII. XVII. iSegunda d e l .juicio (1) L i s t e d by Amelia (p. 3 7 8 ) , with No. XVI* both are unknown. (2) I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t these two t i t l e s c o u l d r e f e r to one of M i r a ' s two p a r t p l a y s , e i t h e r A l v a r o de Luna or Bernardo de Cabrera c o u l d be t h e i r p r o t a g o n i s t . XVIII. 1 E l marque's de l a s Navas (1 ) C o t a r e l o r e f e r s t o the volume which e r r o n e o u s l y a t t r i b u t e s tWe p l a y t o M i r a (pp. 8 3 - 4 ) . ( 3 ) Lope's autograph manuscript dated 22 A p r i l 1 6 2 4 , e x i s t s and i s accepted by Morley and B r u e r t o n (p. 4 6 ) . XIX. Los m a r t i r e s d e l Jap6n (1 ) Medel (p. 2 0 6 ) , B a r r e r a (p. 260) and Mesonero Catalogo c r e d i t t h i s t o M i r a , e i t h e r as a p l a y or an auto. There , i s n o t h i n g e l s e known about the p l a y . XX. Los m a r t i r e s de Madrid (2 ) T h i s has been a t t r i b u t e d t o M i r a by Mesonero Catalogo among o t h e r s , p r o b a b l y through c o n f u s i o n w i t h Lope's auto o f the same t i t l e , and Mira's p l a y E l m a r t i r de Madrid; (No. 3 ^ ) . XXI. Mis v a l e f i n g i r que amar (2 ) Mesonero Catalogo l i s t s t h i s as a separate p l a y , but i t i s the s u b - t i t l e t o Examinarse de r e y (No. 1 8 ) . 50 XXII. Auto. E l pastor lobo y. cabana c e l e s t i a l (1) Medel attributes t h i s to Mira (p. 269), Barrera (p. 260) and Mesonero Catalogo repeat t h i s a t t r i b u t i o n , (4) Mene*nde_ y Pelayo explains that i t i s by Lope, but was once published i n Mira's name, hence Medel's error (BAE, 157, l i x ) . XXIII. E l Principe de Orange (2) This i s l i s t e d by Medel (p. 228) as a separate play, but i t i s the s u b - t i t l e to Lo que l e toea a l valor (No. 33). XXIV. E l principe don Carlos (1) This i s l i s t e d by Amelia (p. 379). unknown. XXV. E l purgatorio de San P a t r i c i o (1) This i s l i s t e d by Amelia (p. 379). There i s a play of t h i s t i t l e believed to be by Caldero'n, from the same period (1628).  XXVI. Reina S e v i l l a (2) This i s l i s t e d by Medel as a separate play (p. 162). I t i s the s u b - t i t l e to Los carboneros de Francia (No. 8). XXVII. E l rey. don Alfonso e l sabio (1) This i s l i s t e d by Amelia (p. 379)t i t i s unknown. (2) I t i s possible that t h i s t i t l e r e f e r s to Las desgracias  del rey Alfonso e l casto (No. 15). XXVIII. E l r i c o avariento (2) Medel l i s t s t h i s as a separate play (p. 236) i t i s the s u b - t i t l e f o r Vida y muerte de San La-aro (No. 561 see also No. XXXII).  XXIX. Auto. Ronda y_ v i s i t a de l a c a r c e l (1) This i s credited to Mira by Medel (p. 270) and by Mesonero Catalogo, both omitting the l a . Cotarelo also mentions i t (p. 78). There i s no trace of the auto. XXX. San Benito de Palermo (2) This i s credited to Mira by Medel (p. 238), but i t i s the s u b - t i t l e of E l negro del me.jor arno. The l a t t e r play i s probably not by Mira anyway. See No. I I . XXXI. Ruy L6pez De Avalos (2) This i s l i s t e d by Medel as a separate play. I t i s the second part of the t i t l e Pr6spera fortuna de don Alvaro de  Luna. . . (No. 64). XXXII. San Lazaro (2) This i s l i s t e d by Medel as a separate play (p. 240) and i t i s the t h i r d v a r i a t i o n he gives of the play Vida y_ muerte 51 de San Lazaro (No. 56; see also No. XXVIII).  XXXIII. San Ramon/ Doctor Ram6n (2) These, are two variants, l i s t e d by Medel (p. 242) and Barrera (p. 260) for Santo sin nacer. . . (No. 52). XXXIV. Auto. La Vina (2) This i s l i s t e d by Cotarelo (p. 81). It i s another t i t l e for E l heredero (No. 23). See Valbuena, p. xxvinote. XXXV. La v i c t o r i a de las malmas (1) This i s l i s t e d by Amelia (p. 378). Nothing about i t i s known, not even the meaning of the t i t l e . It i s possible to date only about a third of the dramatic works of Mira de Amescua. These dates have been obtained from six different sources, only one of which can be regarded as being precise. (1) When Mira has dated the manuscript himself i t gives the precise date when he finished writing the play. Four of the six sources provide the terminus ad querni (2) Any date written on the manuscript by somebody other than Mira. This i s usually the date of the aprobacion or censura. (3) The play may also be dated from the external evidence of dated documents. Dates obtained in this way are usually those of productions of the play. (4) The play may also be dated from the external evidence of other plays. Dates obtained i n this way present a double uncertainty, since the date of the composition or production of the other play may not be certain. (5) The date of the f i r s t edition of the play. It must be remembered that the shortest known time-lag between the aprobaci6n of a play and the f i r s t edition i s seven years, in the case of E l e.jemplo mayor de l a desdicha (1625-1632). (6) The plays may also be dated from internal evidence. This method of dating is the least accurate and since i t depends on events, monarchs, fashions, or social customs i t may give 13 either a terminus ad quern or a terminus a quo. J The date of each play i n the following table must therefore be regarded* as a terminus ad quem unless otherwise stated. 52 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF MIRA'S DRAMATIC WORKS 1604 La rueda de l a Fortuna. External evidence of a l e t t e r of Lope. F i r s t published 1615 . 1 6 0 6(a quo) La hi.ia de Carlos Quinto. This play was written to eulogise the d e f i n i t i v e choice of Madrid as Capital of Spain i n 1 6 0 6 . (See J.H. E l l i o t t , Imperial Spain l 4 6 9-17l6fPenguin Books, 1 9 7 0 ] , p. 3 0 5 . ) I am grateful to Prof. H.V. Livermore f o r pointing t h i s fact out to me. F i r s t published i n the eighteenth century. 1607 La fe*nix de Salamanca (See Valbuena, p. xxvi.) F i r s t published i n 1 6 5 3 . 1608 Los caballeros nuevos. Dated MS. Unpublished. 1609 E l santo s i n nacer. (See Valbuena, p. xxvi.) 1613 E l Esclavo del demonio. F i r s t publication. (See Perez Pastor, I I , #1256, 2 7 5 . ) 1615 Las desgracias de Alfonso. F i r s t publication. 1616 La casa del tahur. Dated MS. F i r s t edited i n 1 9 7 0 . E l primer Conde de Flandes. Dated MS. F i r s t published i n 1668. 1619 E l martir de Madrid. Approval date on MS. Unpublished. 1 6 2 1(a quo) No hay burlas con l a s mu.ieres. (See Cotarelo, p. W$.) F i r s t published i n I 6 5 3 . 1622 Algunas hazanas de Mendoza. F i r s t publication. 1624 Adversa de Alvaro. Dated MS. F i r s t published i n 1634. Amor, ingenio y mu.ier. (See Cotarelo, p. 5 0 0 . ) F i r s t published ca. 1 6 4 0 . 1625 E l e.iemplo de l a desdicha. Dated MS. F i r s t published i n 1 6 3 2 . La inauisici6n (Auto). Dated MS. F i r s t published i n 1893-La deseraciada Raquel. Dated MS. Date altered to read 1 6 3 5 . F i r s t published i n I 6 6 7 . 1626 La tercera de s i misma. F i r s t publication. 53 l 6 2 8 ( p r e c i s e date) No hay d i c h a n i desdicha. MS. dated by Mira. F i r s t p u b l i s h e d i n 1679. 1629 Hero y Leandro. MS. Mentioned by Calde'roiu-i n L a dama duende. F i r s t e d i t e d i n 1951. 1630 Polifemo y C i r c e . The second a c t i s a dated MS. o f Montalban. F i r s t p u b l i s h e d ca. 1840. 1 6 3 0 - 2 GalSn, v a l i e n t e y d i s c r e t e (See C o t a r e l o , p. 500 and the e d i t i o n of W. Forbes [Madrid, 1 9 7 3 ] PP. 2 5 - 3 3 . ) F i r s t p u b l i s h e d i n 1 6 3 6 . 1631 E l animal p r o f e t a . MS. copy, dated. F i r s t p u b l i s h e d i n the e i g h t e e n t h century. 1632 L a .iura d e l p r i n c i p e . (Auto) MS. bears p r o d u c t i o n date. F i r s t e d i t e d i n 1 9 7 1 . (a quo) Cuatro m i l a g r o s de amor. Mention made of the J u r a d e l P r i n c i p e B a l t a s a r C a r l o s i n March, I 6 3 2 . F i r s t p u b l i s h e d i n the e i g h t e e n t h century. S i n c e M i r a seems to have abandoned h i s l i t e r a r y l i f e i n I 6 3 2 - 3 , when he r e t i r e d t o Guadix, u n l e s s f r e s h evidence to the c o n t r a r y i s found, i t must be assumed t h a t a l l h i s p l a y s had been w r i t t e n by t h i s date. M i r a appears to have been f a i r l y d i f f i d e n t about h i s p l a y s , and o n l y s i x were p r i n t e d d u r i n g the y e a r s o f h i s l i t e r a r y a c t i v i t y . Because of t h i s , any attempt to v e r i f y a u t h e n t i c i t y , date, and t e x t o f the p l a y s i s e x c e e d i n g l y d i f f i c u l t . 54 NOTES TO CHAPTER TWO I Mira de Amescua"s non dramatic works are not considered i n t h i s thesis, o In two cases, the f i r s t two editions have been l i s t e d , because i n both cases the c o l l e c t i o n s of plays were republished just one year a f t e r the f i r s t editions. 3 J 'Memoria de l a roba y comedies que Hieroni Amelia dona en comanda y en penora del debit a Hieroni Alfonso, c l a u a r i del Hospital General'' (June 14, 1628), B u l l e t i n Hispanique, 8 (1906), 377-9. 4 Claude E. Anibai, Mira de Amescua—Lisardo his pseudonym (Columbus, Ohio, 1925). ^ Cayetano Alberto de l a Barrera y Leirado, Catjtlogo  b i b l i o g r S f i c o y_ biogrSfico del teatro antiguo espanol> Madrid, 1860 (Lond"onT 1968), pp. 25B^6~0. Emilio Cotarelo y Mori, 'Mira de Amescua y su teatro,' BRAE, 17 (1930), 467-505. 611-58> 18 (1931). 7-90. n ' Francisco Medel del C a s t i l l o , 'Indice general alfabe'tico de todos l o s t i t u l o s de comedias que se han e s c r i t o por varios autores, antiguos y modernos. Y de l o s autos sacramentales y aleg6ricos, ass£ de don Pedro CalderSn de l a Barca, como de otros autores c l a s i c o s . Madrid, 1735.' Revue Hispanique,, 75 (1929), 149-369. [There i s a l i s t of a l l plays attributed by Medel to Mira on pp. 319-20.] Q Ram6n de Mesonero Romanes, ' Catalogo cronol6gico de lo s autores dramaVticos, y alfabe'tico de l a s comedias de cada uno. Parte Primera (1588-1635),' BAE, 45 (195D. I i . ^ Ramon de Mesonero Romanos, 'Indice alfabe'tico de l a s comedias, tragedias, autos y zarzuelas del teatro antiguo espanol, desde Lope de Vega hasta Canizares,' BAE, 49 (1951), x x x i i i - l i . 1 0 S. Griswold Morley and Courtney Bruerton, The Chronology  of Lope de Vega's'Comedias'(New York, 1940). I I A. Paz y MeliS, Catalogo de l a s piezas de teatro que se conservan en e l departamento de manuscritos de l a B i b l i o t e c a  NacionalT v o l . 1 (Madrid, 1934T. The references are to the numbers given to the t i t l e s by Paz y Melia". i n h i s catalogue. 12 Angel Valbuena Prat, ed., Mira de Amescua, Teatro I, pp. x x v - l i . 13 J This i s e s p e c i a l l y true i n the case of monarchs, f o r any play: which mentions P h i l i p III as the reigning king must have been written before 1621. On the other hand, any play which mentions P h i l i p IV as reigning king must be dated af t e r 1621. This method of dating i s the l e a s t accurate since i t frequently depends on one or two words which may or may not have been written by the author, e s p e c i a l l y considering the corrupt state of many texts of Golden Age plays. 55 CHAPTER THREEs A NEW CLASSIFICATION OF THE PLAYS OF MIRA DE AMESCUA No s a t i s f a c t o r y method e x i s t s of c l a s s i f y i n g the p l a y s of the Spanish Golden Age. The t r a d i t i o n a l method i s a d e s c r i p t i v e one which i s concerned w i t h the sources or s e t t i n g s of the pl a y s r a t h e r than w i t h t h e i r dramatic q u a l i t i e s . An example of t h i s type of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s t h a t used by Valbuena Pra t i n h i s e d i t i o n s of E l esclavo d e l demonio i VALBUENA PRAT'S FIRST CLASSIFICATION OF MIRA'S DRAMATIC WORKS1 OBRAS DE TEATRO DE MIRA DE AMESCUA (1) Autos sacramentales.... Comedias B l b l i c a s «< De Santos.. De h i s t o r i a y leyenda ex-t r a n j e r a s . . . De h i s t o r i a y leyenda na-c i o n a l e s . . . . P a l a c i e g a s . . . Pedro T e l o n a r i o Las pruebas de C r i s t o La j u r a d e l P r i n c i p e La mayor soberbia humana de Nabucodonosor [El heredero m Los p r o d i g i e s de l a vara y c a p i t a n de I s r a e l ( H i s t o r i a de Mois f s ) E l clavo de Jae'l (Idre"m~ore"T)5bora, L i s a r a y_ Jae'l) Vida y muerte de San Lazaro (Parabola d e l r i c o avariento) ^El arpa de David E l santo s i n nacer y m a r t i r s i n morir 4 L a mesonera d e l C i e l o E l esclavo d e l demonio Vida y muerte de l a monja de Portugal E l ejemplo mayor de l a desdicha y c a p i t a n B e l i s a r i o 4La. rueda de l a Fortuna Los carboneros de F r a n c i a E l conde A l a r c o s (La accign pasa en F r a n c l a ) Lo que puede e l o l r Misa La desdichada Raquel «No hay d i c h a n i desdicha hasta l a muerte p b l i g a r c o n t r a su sangre f&alan, v a l i e n t e y d i s c r e t o JEl p a l a c i o confuso No hay b u r l a s con l a s mujeres „La Fe*nix de Salamanca Lo que puede una sospecha La t e r c e r a de s i misma |De i n t r i g a y costumbres. \* (1) C i t o unicamente l a s mSs conocidas o que consider© c a p i t a l e s para su e s t u d i o . Las r e s t a n t e s caben en cada uno de l o s grupos. 56 VALBUENA PRAT'S SECOND CLASSIFICATION OF MIRA'S DRAMATIC WORKS2 fBIBLICAS: E l c l a v o de Jael, Los p r o d i g i o s de l a v a r a , y C a p i t a n de I s r a e l , E l arpa de D a v i d , V i d a y muerte de San Lazaro. |DE SANTOS* E l e s c l a v o d e l demonio, E l santo s i n nacer y M a r t i r s i n m o r i r , L a mesonera d e l Comedias. C i e l o . JHEROICAS* E l ejemplo mayor de l a d e s d i c h a , L a rueda de l a Fortuna, E l conde A l a r c o s , L a des-d i c h a d a Raquel. fc)E CAPA Y ESPADA* L a FS n i x de Salamanca, L a t e r c e r a de s i misma, L a casa d e l tahur. The method has many shortcomings, which w i l l be apparent from comparing the two c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s used by Valbuenat (1) H i s c a t e g o r i e s change and p l a y s which are p l a c e d i n separate c a t e g o r i e s i n one c l a s s i f i c a t i o n are grouped together i n the other* Comedias de leyenda y_ h i s t o r i a extran.jeras and Comedias de l e y e n d a y. h i s t o r i a n a c i o n a l e s become grouped as Comedias her6icas. (2) The t i t l e s o f c a t e g o r i e s change completely* Comedias de  i n t r i g a y. costumbres become Comedias de capa £ espada. (3) Some p l a y s appear to f i t i n t o more than one category* V i d a y. muerte de San Lazaro as the t i t l e suggests c o u l d a l s o be c l a s s e d as a Comedia de santos. (4) T h i s system l i n k s t o g e t h e r p l a y s which are b a s i c a l l y v e r y d i f f e r e n t , but which happen to share a source or a s e t t i n g * Lo que puede e l o l r misa i s a r e l i g i o u s play* L a desdichada  Raquel and No hay d i c h a n i d e s d i c h a h a s t a l a muerte are t r a g e d i e s (see below, pp.l56f_)» while O b i i g a r c o n t r a su sangre i s a tragicomedy (see below, pp.l97ff) which i s c l o s e r i n s p i r i t t o the Comedias de i n t r i g a or the Comedias de capa y_ espada than to the o t h e r three p l a y s . (5) The c a t e g o r i e s are i n a c c u r a t e * Sancho Osorio i n Lo que  puede e l o l r misa i s much c l o s e r to the C h r i s t i a n concept of a S a i n t than M a r i a , L a mon.ja de P o r t u g a l . In g e n e r a l , t h i s type of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n can be attacked on three major i s s u e s * (A) I t i s cumbersome. The l o g i c a l c o n c l u s i o n of the method i s t o have a d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r y f o r every s i n g l e p l a y . 57 (B) It i s imprecise. It links together plays which are only superficially similar. It leads to the error of plays being judged according to the classification, for example, an "historical" play may be judged as history not as drama.^ It i s impossible satisfactorily to classify plays which have no readily identifiable source or setting; once the c r i t i c has assigned the b i b l i c a l , mythological, hagiographical and h i s t o r i c a l ' plays, he i s bewildered by the problem of classifying the rest of the dramatic production of an author. Plays with non-identifiable settings or sources are ascribed in an apparently haphazard fashion to the categories Comedias de intriga, Comedias de costumbres, Comedias, palaciegas etc. as i f other plays lacked these qualities. (C) It i s neither very meaningful nor very helpful. The classification links plays which have no dramatic similarity and separates plays which are dramatically similar but set in different places or times. This thesis does not use the above method of classification for these reasons, but one element of i t has been retained: the subject matter and the dramatis personae have been considered in order to divide the plays into the religious theater and the secular theater of Mira de Amescua.^ The principal character-i s t i c which distinguishes the religious plays from the secular plays i s the indisputable knowledge of the existence of God(see below, pp.62ff) and the appearance on stage of supernatural— angelic or infernal—beings. Since these two theaters have very different premisses, they w i l l be further classified by using two different sets of c r i t e r i a . In the classification used in this thesis a l l the dramatic works li s t e d in Tables A and C in Chapter Two (see above, pp. 38-47 ) have been included except for five plays which I was not able to obtain—El caballero sin nombre (No. 6), Los caballeros  nuevos (No. 7), E l clavo de Ja§l (No. 10), Examinarse de rey (No. 18), and E l martir de Madrid (No. 34). 5 It i s possible to divide the religious theater into three main groups. The f i r s t group is the autos, which are differen-tiated from the plays by their form. Mira wrote thirteen autos. THE AUTOS L a fe de Hungrla (No. 19) 2. E l heredero (No. 23) 3. L a i n q u i s i c i 6 n (No. 27) 4. L a j u r a d e l p r i n c i p e (No. 28) 5. L a mayor s o b e r b i a humana (No. 36) 6. E l monte de l a piedad (No. 37) 7. Auto d e l nacimiento y s o l a medianoche (No. 38) 8. Auto d e l nacimiento de n u e s t r o senor (No. 39) 9. Nuestra Senora de l o s Remedios (No. 43) 10. Los p a s t o r e s de Bele*n (No. 45) 11. Pedro T e l o n a r i o (No. 46 ) 12. E l P r i n c i p e de l a Paz (No. 48) 13. Las pruebas de C r i s t o (No. 50) The r e l i g i o u s p l a y s can be d i v i d e d i n t o two groups. The dominant concern o f the f i r s t group i s the s u b j e c t of s a l v a t i o n . The group i s f a r from homogeneous but has two f u r t h e r d i s t i n -g u i s h i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . I n most of the p l a y s there appear on stage both good and e v i l s u p e r n a t u r a l b e i n g s — n o r m a l l y angels and d e v i l s . In s e v e r a l o f the p l a y s one or more o f the pro-t a g o n i s t s d i e and t h e i r e t e r n a l reward i s r e v e a l e d . There are e i g h t such p l a y s . . THE RELIGIOUS, "SALVATION", PLAYS 1. E l amparo de l o s hombres (No. 4) 2. E l animal p r o f e t a (No. 61) 3. E l e s c l a v o d e l demonio (No. 17) 4. E l hombre de mayor fama (No. 2 6 ) 6 5. L a mesonera d e l C i e l o (No. 35) 6. E l santo s i n nacer (No. 52) 7. V i d a y muerte de l a monja de P o r t u g a l (No. 55) 8. V i d a y muerte de San Lazaro (No. 56) The second of these groups c o n t a i n s those p l a y s i n which man r e c e i v e s a i d from God to enable or exhort him to achieve h i s g o a l s . As a r e s u l t the D i v i n e i n t e r v e n t i o n i s benign and mani-f e s t s i t s e l f as an angel or as the v o i c e of God or of C h r i s t . There are e i g h t such p l a y s . 59 THE: RELIGIOUS, "NON-SALVATION", PLAYS 1. E l arpa de David (No. 5) 2. Las desgracias del rey Alfonso el casto (No. 15) 3. La h i j a de Carlos V (No. 25) 4. Las l i s e s de Francia (No. 29) 5. Lo que puede el olr misa (No. 32) 6. El, mas f e l i z cautiverio (No. 53) 7. E l primer Conde de Flandes (No. 47) 8. Los prodigios de l a vara (No. 49) The secular plays of Mira de Amescua can be classified satisfactorily by using the traditional, neo-Aristotelian system of Tragedy, Comedy, and Tragicomedy. These three forms are discussed in detail in the relevant chapters of the thesis. In order to assign the plays to the three categories, however, certain aspects of the plot must be considered at this point. The f i r s t of the three categories i s the tragedies. These are distinguished byt (1) their emphasis on one character, who becomes the hero of the play; (2) the death or grave suffering of the hero who f a i l s to achieve his goals; (3) the overall tone of the plays which i s predominantly serious and somber. There are eight tragedies. THE TRAGEDIES 1. Don Alvaro de Luna (Two Parts) (No. 2 and No. 64) 2. Don Bernardo de Cabrera (Two Parts) (No. 60 and No. 65) 3. La desgraciada Raquel (No. 14) 4. El- ejemplo mayor de l a desdicha (No. 16) 5. Hero y Leandro (No. 24) 6. Lo que le toca a l valor (No. 31) 7. Nardo Antonio (No. 62) 8. No hay dicha n i desdicha hasta l a muerte (No. 41) The tragicomedies are distinguished by« (1) their emphasis on more than one protagonist, frequently including an e v i l protagonist; (2) the happy ending after the potential death or grave suffering of the good protagonists, the happy ending may include the death or grave suffering of the e v i l protagonists; (3) the overall tone of the plays, which is serious but not 60 n e c e s s a r i l y somber. There are t e n t r a g i c o m e d i e s . THE TRAGICOMEDIES 1. L a a d u l t e r a v i r t u o s a (No. 1) 2. Los carboneros de F r a n c i a (No. 8) 3. E l Conde A l a r c o s (No. 11) 4 . E l g a l l i n s e c r e t o (No. 21) 5. Lo que es no c a s a r s e a gusto (No. 30) 6. Lo que puede una sospecha (No. 33) 7 . No hay b u r l a s con l a s mujeres (No. 40 ) 8. No hay r e i n a r como v i v i r (No. 42) 9 . O b l i g a r c o n t r a su sangre (No. 44) 10. L a rueda de l a F o r t u n a (No. 51) The comedies are d i s t i n g u i s h e d by» (1) t h e i r emphasis on more than one p r o t a g o n i s t ; (2) the happy ending of the play? (3) the o v e r a l l tone o f the p l a y s which are never somber, although they may be s e r i o u s . There are e i g h t comedies. THE COMEDIES 1. Amor, i n g e n i o y mujer (No. 3) 2. L a c a s a d e l tahur (No. 9) 3. L a c o n f u s i o n de H u n gria (No. 12) 4. Cuatro m i l a g r o s de amor (No. 13) 5. L a fe"nix de Salamanca (No. 20) 6. Galan, v a l i e n t e y d i s c r e t o (No. 22) 7. E l p a l a c i o confuso (No. 63) 8. L a t e r c e r a de s i misma (No. 54) The remainder of t h i s t h e s i s w i l l d i s c u s s the p l a y s u s i n g t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . 61 . NOTES TO CHAPTER THREE 1 Teatro I, pp. x x v i i - x x v i i i . E l e s c l a v o d e l demonio ( C l a s i c o s Ebro, Saragossa, 1970), p. 16. 3 Cf. C o t a r e l o "La obra pretende s e r h i s t d r i c a . . . pero no hay en e l l a nada de h i s t o r i a " (p. 58, the s t r e s s i s mine). C o t a r e l o then a t t a c k s the p l a y f o r the i n a c c u r a c y of i t s h i s t o r y . E r i c h Auerbach i n Mimesis, t r a n s . W i l l a r d R. Trask ,, ( P r i n c e t o n , N.J., 1971) suggests t h a t r e l i g i o u s and s e c u l a r drama are i n r e a l i t y two separate genres (p. 160). J Numbers i n p a r e n t h e s i s i n t h i s c h apter r e f e r t o the numbers i n T a b l e s A and C i n Chapter Two o f t h i s t h e s i s . ^ See below$ p.84-5 » f o r the reasons f o r i n c l u d i n g t h i s p l a y about the myth o f H e r c u l e s . 7 ' F o r tragedy, see below, pp. 156ff. F o r tragicomedy, see below, pp. I97ff. F o r comedy, see below, pp. 259ff. 62 CHAPTER FOUR* THE RELIGIOUS PLAYS The p l a y s of M i r a de Amescua are a l l concerned w i t h the same "basic i d e a s . They d e a l w i t h the e t h i c a l and moral problems of man's e x i s t e n c e i n the world. M i r a i s always concerned w i t h what O t i s H. Green has c a l l e d "Fortune from the r o o f - t i l e s downward." 1 The r e l i g i o u s t h e a t e r a l s o d e a l s with other ideas which Green c a l l s "Fortune from the r o o f - t i l e s upward." T h i s chapter w i l l c o n c e n t r a t e on the l a t t e r and on the other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which d i s t i n g u i s h M i r a ' s r e l i g i o u s t h e a t e r from h i s s e c u l a r t h e a t e r . M i r a wrote h i s l a s t auto i n 1632, "but the evidence p o i n t s to the f a c t t h a t the m a j o r i t y o f h i s r e l i g i o u s p l a y s (comedias) were w r i t t e n i n the f i r s t h a l f of h i s l i t e r a r y l i f e . From the evidence which i s a t p r e s e n t a v a i l a b l e i t i s not p o s s i b l e t o say t h a t at one p o i n t i n h i s l i f e he stopped w r i t i n g r e l i g i o u s plays'} but i t does show t h a t the p l a y s he wrote before 1616 are almost e n t i r e l y r e l i g i o u s , while those w r i t t e n a f t e r 1616 are almost e n t i r e l y s e c u l a r . The autos are a. s p e c i a l case, s i n c e by d e f i n i t i o n they t r e a t r e l i g i o u s themes. T h i s dramatic form underwent a development which may be p a r a l l e l to t h a t o f the o t h e r dramatic forms (see below,pp.298-9), but i s separate from them. Because they have always been regarded as a separate genre and have been s t u d i e d as such, they w i l l not be d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s t h e s i s . The b a s i c premiss of the r e l i g i o u s p l a y s i s the t r a n s i t o r y nature and impermanence of the m a t e r i a l world, i n c o n t r a s t to the world beyond. T h i s i s expressed i n E l arpa de D a v i d > J jAy, mi Jonatas! A d v i e r t e que" breve, que" t r a n s i t o r i a es deste mundo l a g l o r i a . . . etc.(1370-93) D e c i r podemos que juego y b u r l a parecen l o s sucesos deste mundoj s6*lo e l c i e l o l o s entiende. (1593-6) S i m i l a r sentiments are expressed by the c e l i b a t e , monk-like k i n g , A l f o n s o I I i n Las d e s g r a c i a s d e l r e y A l f o n s o e l casto» E s t a v i d a es humo y sombra. . . . Los r e i n o s y monarqulas de c u a l q u i e r a r e y 0 r e i n a 63 son l a s o l a s d e l mar f r t a s s6lo D i o s por s i g l o s r e i n a , que e l nombre r e i n a por d i a s . Ningun r e y seguro v i v a , que e l imperio que c e l e b r a es de v i d r i o o f l o r a l t i v a que entre l a s manos se q u i e b r a o que e l a i r e l a d e r r i b a . ( f o l i o 5) A l f o n s o ' s s i s t e r r e p e a t s the i d e a i Gustos de e s t a v i d a f i n amargo han de tener. ( f o l i o 5) In La h i j a de C a r l o s Jm,-> Juana, the p r o t a g o n i s t , emphasises the same i d e a . Her words c l e a r l y d e f i n e the nature o f God« Todo es s i n D i o s vanidad s i n D i o s todo es sombra avara, Todo su poder d e c l a r a que e l hombre de mSs poder, muriendo p a r a en no s e r , y D i o s en s i mismo para. E s t a es una e f i g i e r a r a d e l archiduque mi abuelo, • espejo en quien me consuelo. ( 1 6 0 0 - 7 ) At the end o f the p l a y , she withdraws to a convent with the wordsi En ese t r a j e confundo d e l s i g l o l a s vanidades, porque vos saca_s verdades de l a s mentiras d e l mundo. (2539-42) 7 The same theme can be found i n E l e s c l a v o d e l demonio. The c o n v e r s i o n o f L i s a r d a i s brought about when she r e f l e c t s on the c o n t r a s t between t h i s world and the world to comes La f S b r i c a d e l mundo, comparada con l a c e l e s t e mSquina en su punto, y l a g l o r i a d e l hombre, es un t r a s u n t o , de l a ange*lica empresa d e r r i b a d a . Parece l a presente edad, pasada, s i l a e t e r n a de D i o s contempla junto, y a l f i n de l a r g o s anos ve d i f u n t o e l cuerpo envuelto en humo, en sombra, en nada. L a v i d a , e l mundo, e l gusto, y l a g l o r i a vana son junto nada, humo, sombra y pena. De l alma, que es e t e r n a , e l b i e n importa ; ; . * y Pues £c6mo una mujer, siendo c r i s t i a n a , se opone c o n t r a Dios y se condena por e l gusto que da v i d a tan c o r t a . ( 1 9 8 4 - 9 7 ) The c o n v e r s i o n o f G i l de Santarem (St. G i l e s of Santarem) i n the same p l a y i s a l s o e f f e c t e d by h i s r e a l i s a t i o n of the t r u t h of these i d e a s i Contempla e s t o s gustos, m i r a que no s6lo breves son, pero que son de mentira. ( 2 7 4 5 - 9 ) 6k The i n d i s p u t a b l e knowledge o f the e x i s t e n c e o f God and the world to come i s the p r i n c i p a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c which d i s t i n g u i s h e s the r e l i g i o u s p l a y s from the s e c u l a r p l a y s . As a r e s u l t there i s a group of p l a y s which d e a l w i t h the problems of s a l v a t i o n and how man achieves i t . Because o f the s t r u c t u r e of the p l a y s , the f a c t of man's s a l v a t i o n or r e p r o b a t i o n can be shown as a c e r t a i n t y . P a r t o f M i r a ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h i s s u b j e c t was p r o b a b l y the r e s u l t of a c o n t r o v e r s y t h a t took p l a c e d u r i n g h i s e a r l y l i f e . I n 1588-9 a J e s u i t , L u i s de M o l i n a , p u b l i s h e d h i s work, Con c o r d i a l i b e r i a r b i t r i i cum g r a t i a e d o n i s , d i v i n a p r a e s c e n t i a , p r o v i d e n t i a , p r a e d e s t i n a t i o n e e t r e p r o b a t i o n e , i n L i s b o n . T h i s was attacked v e r y s h o r t l y afterwards by the Dominican, Domingo Banez, i n h i s A p o l o g i a en defensa de l a d o c t r i n a a n t i g u a y_ c a t o i i c a por l o s maestros dominieanos de l a p r o v i n c i a de Espana c o n t r a l a s a f i r m a c i o n e s c o n t e n i d a s en l a Concordia de L u i s de  M o l i n a sobre l a g r a c i a , p r e s c i e n c i a , d i v i n a p r o v i d e n c i a , predestinaci6n y. reprobaci6n. 8 These two works caused a c o n t r o -v e r s y o f such magnitude t h a t i n 159^ "a law o f s i l e n c e forbade f u r t h e r w r i t i n g or debate while the papacy c o n s i d e r e d the q u e s t i o n . " 9 The r e s t o f the a f f a i r i s d e s c r i b e d by F a t h e r C o p l e s t o n i The d i s p u t e between the Dominicans and the J e s u i t s induced Pope Clement V I I I to s e t up a s p e c i a l Congre-g a t i o n i n Rome to examine the p o i n t s a t i s s u e . The Congregation i s known as the Congregatio de a u x i l i i s (1598-1607). Both p a r t i e s had f u l l o p p o r t u n i t y to s t a t e t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e cases; but the end o f the matter was t h a t both o p i n i o n s were p e r m i t t e d . At the same time the J e s u i t s were f o r b i d d e n to c a l l the Dominicans C a l v i n i s t s , while the Dominicans were t o l d t h a t they must not c a l l the J e s u i t s P e l a g i a n s . In other words, the d i f f e r e n t p a r t i e s c o u l d continue to propound t h e i r own ways o f r e c o n c i l i n g God's foreknowledge, p r e d e s t i n -a t i o n and s a v i n g a c t i v i t y w i t h human freedom, p r o v i d e d t h a t they d i d not c a l l each o t h e r h e r e t i c s . 10 The most remarkable aspect of t h i s debate i s t h a t there was no r e a l disagreement about the c o n c l u s i o n s , but o n l y about how these c o n c l u s i o n s should be reached. M o l i n a and Banez, w i t h S t . Thomas Aquinas and S t . Augustine before them, b e l i e v e d they had found the p e r f e c t compromise between p r e d e s t i n a t i o n and f r e e - w i l l . Aquinas s t a t e s t h i s q u i t e p l a i n l y , u s i n g the 65 words o f S t . Augustine to support h i s own p o i n t o f view» Two t h i n g s must en t e r i n t o i t ; D i v i n e grace, which i s the p r i n c i p a l agent, and the human w i l l , which cooperates w i t h grace. A c c o r d i n g l y , Augustine sayst "He who c r e a t e d you without you, w i l l not j u s t i f y you without you." 11 I t was a g a i n s t t h i s background t h a t M i r a wrote f i v e p l a y s on the s u b j e c t o f how man achi e v e s s a l v a t i o n . E l animal p r o f e t a , E l e s c l a v o d e l demonio, and L a mesonera d e l C i e l o d e a l w i t h the s u b j e c t o f the c o n t r o v e r s y , t h a t i s , how t o r e c o n c i l e f r e e w i l l and p r e d e s t i n a t i o n . V i d a y_ muerte de San Lazaro d e a l s w i t h the par a b l e o f D i v e s and Laz a r u s and the p o s s i b i l i t y o f s a l v a t i o n f o r the r i c h and the poor. E l amparo de l o s hombres combines the two themes. Four p r i n c i p a l s e c t i o n s o f the f o u r p l a y s t h a t d e a l w i t h f r e e w i l l and p r e d e s t i n a t i o n w i l l be d i s c u s s e d . These f o u r s e c t i o n s are* (1) the s i t u a t i o n a t the be g i n n i n g o f the p l a y s ; (2) the temptation and the f a l l o f the p r o t a g o n i s t s ; (3) the a t t i t u d e of the p r o t a g o n i s t s a f t e r they have f a l l e n and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the d e v i l ; (4) the c o n v e r s i o n o f the p r o t a g o n i s t s and the d i s c o m f i t u r e of the d e v i l . The problem of f r e e w i l l and p r e d e s t i n a t i o n i s most c l e a r l y expressed i n E l animal p r o f e t a . The theme i s presented f i r s t i n a comic s u b p l o t . Vulcano a c t s as the go-between f o r J u l i a n and Irene. When her f a t h e r appears, Vulcano pretends t o be a Mercader de p i e d r a s i n order t o e x p l a i n h i s presence. Her f a t h e r , A l e j a n d r o , i s something of a h y p o c r i t e and announces to h i s daughteri N i aun e l C i e l o puede 1 2 veneer e l l i b r e a l b e d r l o (p. 397) As soon as she l e a v e s he asks Vulcano f o r the p r e c i o u s stone c a l l e d z a r a b u l l l "con que no hay mujer segura" (p. 398) . A l e j a n d r o ' s b e h a v i o r r e v e a l s the ambivalence of the a t t i t u d e o f many people, f o r they support f r e e w i l l or the l a c k o f i t a c c o r d i n g to what s u i t s them. I t i s t h i s c o n t r a d i c t i o n which c h a r a c t e r i s e s the protago-n i s t , J u l i a n ( S t . J u l i a n the H o s p i t a l l e r ) . In the f i r s t a c t 66 of the p l a y he d i s c u s s e s the s u b j e c t o f p r e d e s t i n a t i o n and f r e e w i l l w i t h h i s p a r e n t s , J u l i a n s u p p o r t i n g p r e d e s t i n a t i o n . The v i s i o n o f God he p r e s e n t s i s a negative one, f o r he sees God as the g r e a t avenger who i s to be f e a r e d . H i s a t t i t u d e a l s o r e v e a l s the g r e a t moral danger o f p r e d e s t i n a t i o n and moral i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ; E l que dispone sobre todo, es D i o s j de D i o s son dependencias conformes l o s sucesos de este mundo l a s d e s d i chas de l o s hombres. S i esta*. de D i o s , padres m£os, m5s f u e r t e s e inexpugnables me e n c e r r ^ i s , l a s abre y rompe una p a l a b r a de D i o s , y me perdere"is entonces. (p. 399) His view i s accepted up t o a c e r t a i n p o i n t by h i s f a t h e r , Ludovico, but w i t h the reminder of the words of S t . Augustine that"He. . . w i l l not j u s t i f y you without you" (see above, p .65)» Es verdad, h i j o ; mas p i e n s a que D i o s ha dado a l o s hombres l i b r e a l b e d r l o , y en e"ste deben l o s Cuerdos varones p r e v e n i r s e a l a s desdichas y r e s i s t a r a sus golpes antes que a sus puertas l l e g u e n , que no porque hay o p i n i o n e s que esta 1 e l f i n determinado a l punto que nace e l hombre, e l j u s t o que se r e m i t a a l o que a s i se dispone. Obrar b i e n es acertado, l i b r a n d o s e de ocasiones donde p e l i g r a l a v i d a , es de prudentes varones; mas tomaria con su mano, es acto barbaro y t o r p e . (p. 399) Ludovico*s i d e a s form the b a s i s f o r the s t r u c t u r e o f so many p l a y s by M i r a de Amescua. Men are t e s t e d i n the world. These t e s t s depend on circumstances and how men r e a c t to the opportunities(o_3aji_Dn_s) which are o f f e r e d to them. The theme of "opportunism" i s developed much more f u l l y i n other p l a y s (see below,ppl23-7 )• J u l i a n does not accept h i s f a t h e r ' s o p i n i o n . But very s h o r t l y a fterwards he i s put to the t e s t . He d i s c o v e r s t h a t he i s d e s t i n e d t o k i l l h i s pa r e n t s (p. 400). He now r e j e c t s 67 h i s own view o f p r e d e s t i n a t i o n and decides t h a t * . . . Vencere* l o s e f e c t o s de mi e s t r e l l a . (p. 401) T h i s d e c i s i o n i s repeated* A s i p i e n s o veneer yo mi e s t r e l l a . (p. 406) He t h e r e f o r e f l e e s from A l b a n i a and goes t o F e r r a r a . H i s d e c i s i o n t o f l e e i s l e s s the r e s u l t o f any moral c o n v e r s i o n , than the r e s u l t o f p r i d e * he wishes to overcome h i s own d e s t i n y . The s i t u a t i o n o f J u l i a n i s v e r y s i m i l a r to t h a t of Oedipus f o r both decide t o f l e e from t h e i r p a r e n t s i n order t o cheat f a t e . In both cases the p r o p h e c i e s can onl y be f u l f i l l e d by the two men see k i n g t o escape t h e i r t h reatened d e s t i n y . J u l i a n ' s d e c i s i o n t o f l e e from A l b a n i a i s seen by him p a r t l y as a c o n f l i c t between h i s l o v e f o r h i s parents and h i s l o v e f o r Irene. He chooses t o f o r s a k e the woman he l o v e s i n or d e r t o save h i s p a r e n t s . He does not see i t as merely a c h o i c e between sexual and p a r e n t a l l o v e , however, f o r he b e l i e v e s t h a t by r u n n i n g away he w i l l a l s o avoid murder* No es b i e n p e r d e r l o mfis por quedarse con l o menos. (p. 401) The s i t u a t i o n i n the other three p l a y s i s not presented i n such t h e o r e t i c a l terms and i s not as complex. The c o n f l i c t i n these other p l a y s i s between D i v i n e l o v e and sexual l o v e and the element of p a r e n t a l l o v e , i f pr e s e n t , i s not a major f o r c e . E l e s c l a v o d e l demonio t r e a t s the s u b j e c t o f marriage and sexual immorality, as w e l l as t h a t o f p r e d e s t i n a t i o n and f r e e w i l l . The p l a y opens with Marcelo d i s p o s i n g o f h i s daughters. He regards them as c h a t t e l s and has not asked t h e i r o p i n i o n , f o r he i s i n t e n t on s a t i s f y i n g h i s own d e s i r e s not t h e i r s * Una monja, o t r a casadar q u e d a r S mi c a s a honrada. ( 6 6 - 7 ) The obedient Leonor says* 'Tu e s c l a v a he de s e r ' ( 7 4 ). Her s i s t e r , L i s a r d a , however, w i l l n ot accept h i s tyrannous behavior* 'Y y o / he de s e r h i j a inobediente* (7^-5)• The s i t u a t i o n i s p a r a l l e l t o t h a t o f J u l i a n i n E l animal p r o f e t a , f o r Leonor accepts the decrees o f f a t e , while L i s a r d a r e b e l s 68 a g a i n s t them. L i s a r d a and Marcelo then argue about the s i t u a t i o n . She t e l l s him t h a t she l o v e s Diego, who had k i l l e d her b r o t h e r , and who consequently i s hated by Marcelo. L i s a r d a informs her f a t h e r t h a t "Fuerza de e s t r e l l a s me i n c l i n a " (107), and he r e p l i e s t h a t "No se f u e r z a l a que es buena" (108). Marcelo's statement i s a p p a r e n t l y the most C h r i s t i a n , but h i s a t t i t u d e i s f a r from C h r i s t i a n . He i s l i k e A l e j a n d r o i n E l animal  p r o f e t a (see above, p.. 65 ), who chooses to support whichever view s u i t s him. Marcelo i s angry w i t h L i s a r d a f o r not r e s i s -t i n g the f o r c e o f l o v e , but expects her to bow to h i s own de s i g n s ; he v a l u e s h i m s e l f above the s t a r s . Marcelo's r e a c t i o n t o L i s a r d a ' s r e f u s a l i s extreme. He c u r s e s h e n the m a l e d i c t i o n i s s p e c i f i c a l l y s e x u a l , f o r he c o n t r a s t s L u c r e c i a and Penelope, who were symbols o f c h a s t i t y , 13 w i t h F l o r a and Lamia, who were c l a s s i c a l c o u r t e s a n s . J The speech shows how c l o s e l y the concepts o f honor and sexual v i r t u e were l i n k e d : P l e g a a D i o s , i n o b e d i e n t e , que casada no te veas, quewlvas infamemente, que mueras pobre y que seas a b o r r e c i b l e a l a gente. P l e g a a Di o s que, d e s t r u l d a , como una mujer p e r d i d a , te llamen f a c i n e r o s a , . y en e l mundo no haya c o s a t a n mala como t u v i d a . . . . _ Quien ve t a n t a desverguenza tambien verS mi deshonra, porque en l a mujer comienza a m o r i r credit© y honra cuando p i e r d e l a vergUenza H i j a que a l padre d e s p r e c i a v i v a y muera con i n f a m i a j s i g a como l o c a y n e c i a a l a a n t i g u a F l o r a y Lamia, no a Penelope y L u c r e c i a . (121-45) Leonor i s much l e s s p a s s i o n a t e than her f a t h e r and suggests! . . . S i e s t S p o r f i a n d o una mujer, yo te d i g o que es mejor consejo blando que c o l e r i c o c a s t i g o . (157-60) She a d v i s e s her f a t h e r t o ask G i l t o i n t e r v e n e : P a r a que a don Diego p i d a se contente d e l r i g o r 69 con que fue nuestro homicida s i n p r e t e n d e r e l honor que es de l o s nobles l a v i d a . (166-70) Both Leonor and Marcelo are concerned more with honor than w i t h v i r t u e , and i t should be noted t h a t Leonor i s convinced t h a t honor i s something which belongs to nobles. T h i s c o n t r a s t s s t r o n g l y w i t h the i d e a t h a t i s t o be found i n E l Santo s i n nacer' among other p l a y s , which answers the f o l l o w i n g query: Por s e r pobre ino es honor e l d e l pobre? (p. 24) A s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n to t h a t o f E l e s c l a v o d e l demonio i s seen t o e x i s t i n E l amparo de l o s hombres. 1^ The f a t h e r , H o r a c i o , attempts t o f o r c e J u l i a to marry whom he chooses, but she r e p l i e s : S i ttf p r o c u r a s casarme £no es b i e n que a mi gusto sea? (389-90) Her words emphasise t h a t the q u e s t i o n o f marriage i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f s a l v a t i o n , and indeed J u l i a i s compared to g l o r y i n l i n e s 1585 and 1589. J u l i a p o i n t s out t h a t both her f a t h e r ' s consent and her own f r e e c h o ice are necessary, j u s t as s a l v a t i o n needs f r e e c h o i c e and God's grace. J u l i a determines t o r e s i s t her f a t h e r , however: Aunque e l padre mlo. . . qu i e r e mi i n t e n t o e s t o r b a r , es querer medir e l mar o v o l v e r a t r f i s un r i o . (636-41) L a mesonera d e l CieJLo 1^ d e a l s w i t h the s u b j e c t o f the temptation, the f a l l , the repentance, and the s a l v a t i o n o f S t . Mary the E g y p t i a n ( M a r i a ) . The p l a y p r e s e n t s the s t o r y o f S t . Mary, and t h a t o f her uncle, S t . Abraham (Abrahan). The s t o r i e s of the two are i n sharp c o n t r a s t f o r Abrahan i s seen to be capable o f r e s i s t i n g a l l temptation w h i l e M a r i a i s unable t o do so. Abrahan m a r r i e s L u c r e c i a a t the be g i n n i n g o f the p l a y , but d e c i d e s to abide by the t e a c h i n g o f S t . Paul (978-98) and r e f u s e to consummate the marriage. He determines t o " h u i r l a ocasi6n" (855). He i s l a t e r tempted by the reappearance of L u c r e c i a who i s s e a r c h i n g f o r him and i s anxious t o consummate t h e i r union. Abrahan i s a g a i n able t o r e s i s t temptation, although he has to s t r u g g l e w i t h h i s d e s i r e f o r L u c r e c i a , h i s p i t y f o r her, the 70 u r g i n g s of the d e v i l , and o f the o p p o r t u n i t y t h a t i s o f f e r e d to him: T i r a d l a r i e n d a , raz6n s u p e r i o r ! C6rcovos no de" e l c a b a l l o a p e t i t o , que s i camina b r i o s o dara*. con l a c a r g a e n ^ t i e r r a . ( 1 5 5 9 - 6 3 ) T e r r i b l e ocasi6n es e s t a (1595) mas con e l f a v o r de D i o s he de s a l i r v i c t o r i o s o . ( 1 6 1 9 - 2 0 ) E s t a es mayor c o n f u s i f i n que a p r i e t a mas l a o c a s i o n . ( 1 6 6 2 - 3 ) Que es c o s a d i f i c u l t o s a p e l e a r con mujer hermosa y no d e j a r s e veneer. ( 1 6 6 6 - 8 ) In c o n t r a s t to him, h i s n i e c e , M a r i a , allows h e r s e l f to be conquered by the ocasi6n ( 1 8 7 7 ) . Her f a l l i s urged on her by the d e v i l who summons up e s p l r i t u s l a s c i v o s to h i s a i d . She i s unable to r e s i s t the o p p o r t u n i t y to s a t i s f y her d e s i r e w i t h her l o v e r , A l e j a n d r o ; A l l ! l a s penas et e r n a s me amenazan r i g u r o s a s , aqui l a ocasi6n me a p r i e t a . . . a D i o s temo, amor me i n c i t a . . . . ( 1 9 8 8 - 9 3 ) Maria's f a l l i s thus seen t o be c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to the concept of f r e e w i l l , f o r she has freedom to r e s i s t or accept an o p p o r t u n i t y and she f r e e l y chooses to s i n . Her f a l l i s v e r y s i m i l a r to t h a t of G i l i n E l e s c l a v o d e l demonio. G i l i s d e s c r i b e d by Leonor as " E l s a n t o / que Coimbre r e v e r e n c i a " ( 1 6 2 - 3 ) . Diego c o n t r a s t s h i m s e l f to G i l — " U n o es f l a c o y o t r o f u e r t e " ( 2 3 3 ) — b u t the speech i s a c l e a r example o f Mira's use of dramatic i r o n y . On G i l ' s f i r s t appearance, he seems t o bear out the d e s c r i p t i o n o f him g i v e n by Leonor, but, i n r e a l i t y , he i s a young man who i s r a t i o n a l l y aware of the need t o be good, but whose l a c k o f experience i s such t h a t he i s unable to r e s i s t temptation when the o p p o r t u n i t y a r i s e s . G i l harangues Diego twice (235-34-7} 4 0 7 - 4 8 ) , and e x h o r t s him t o overcome h i s d e s i r e f o r L i s a r d a . H i s i d e a s are summed up i n the r e f r a i n ; G i l Busca e l b i e n , huye e l mal, que es l a edad c o r t a , y hay muerte y hay i n f i e r n o , hay D i o s y g l o r i a . (300 -1 j 3 3 4 - 5 ) The i r o n y o f the s i t u a t i o n i s p r e s s e d home by M i r a when l a t e r i n the p l a y ( 1 9 7 0 - 1 ) , Diego uses G i l ' s own words t o u r g e h i m 71 to r e l i n q u i s h h i s l i f e o f s i n . In the event G i l ' s words appear to he those o f an unt e s t e d s c h o l a s t i c r a t i o n a l i s e r — i n d e e d o f a s e l f - s a t i s f i e d h y p o c r i t e — r a t h e r than those o f a S a i n t . In the f i r s t a c t , Diego had decided to seduce L i s a r d a *