José María Ruano de la Haza

Los carros de los autos sacramentales de Calderón (1659-1681)

Entre los muchos documentos de importancia que contiene el libro sobre Los autos sacramentales en Madrid en la época de Calderón, publicado por John E. Varey en colaboración con Norman D. Shergold, se encuentran treinta ‘memorias de apariencias’, autógrafas (en su mayor parte) o firmadas por el propio Calderón, que dan al investigador una buena idea de lo ‘aparatoso de las tramoyas’ utilizadas para la representación de los autos, aunque dejen todavía demasiadas incógnitas en el aire, como, por ejemplo, su preciso funcionamiento.1 No va a ser posible aquí explicar todo, pero una lectura atenta de la descripción de estos 120 carros nos ayudará, espero, a comprender cómo estaban construidos y cómo funcionaban algunas de sus tramoyas. Aunque, para cuando publicó la primera parte de sus autos en 1677, Calderón, según sus propias palabras, llevaba ya más de treinta años escribiéndolos (‘se han representado a Sus Majestades y sus Reales Consejos, de más de treinta años a esta parte’, Prólogo a la Primera parte),2 las memorias que se conservan en el Archivo de Villa madrileño datan todas del período 1659–1681. Poseemos todas las memorias para los primeros siete años (1659–1665) y para un segundo bloque de otros siete años (1670–1676) y asimismo las de los autos del último año de la vida de Calderón, 1681. Faltan, por tanto, las de los cuatro años del período 1666– 1669, cuando no se representaron autos en Madrid a causa del luto impuesto por la muerte de Felipe IV, y los de un segundo bloque de otros cuatro años (1677–1680), cuando se representaron autos, aunque persisten todavía algunas dudas sobre cuáles fueron. Se sabe que hubo autos durante el período 1677–1680, pues se han conservado suficientes documentos en los legajos del Archivo de Villa para

Noticias para el gobierno de la Sala de Alcaldes de Casa y Corte

The Alcaldes de Casa y Corte were entrusted with the policing of the Madrid corrales during the seventeenth century. The Noticias, preserved in a manuscript in the Archivo Histórico Nacional of Madrid, is a detailed account of their daily duties and obligations. It also offers a curious insight into the more picturesque and unusual aspects of life in the corrales. Great concern is expressed, for example, about fights, prostitutes and transvestism (the latter being practiced, I hasten to add, manfully and for the most honourable motives). The Noticias is probably the only important item about the Madrid corrales not included in the series of documents published during the last 20 years by J.E. Varey and N.D. Shergold. This article therefore is meant to fill a minor gap in what is otherwise the most complete and thorough series of documents ever published on Spanish theatres.

La publicación de los autos de Calderón (1655–1717)

Abstract ¿Por qué tuvieron que esperar los lectores de Calderón treinta y seis años después de su fallecimiento para poder leer, en la edición de Pando de 1717, la primera colección completa de sus autos? Durante la vida del autor, se publicaron varios volúmenes adocenados de sus comedias y, poco después de su muerte, Vera Tassis se encargó de publicar el resto. ¿Por qué son los autos una excepción? La respuesta se halla en una serie de documentos conservados en la Biblioteca Histórica del Ayuntamiento de Madrid, que arrojan importante luz sobre la publicación de los autos después de la muerte del poeta. Las razones principales eran tres: 1) los autos de Calderón eran considerados, tanto por las autoridades madrileñas como por los actores y el público en general, mejores que los de sus sucesores; 2) al haber sido originalmente escritos durante más de cuatro décadas antes de la muerte del poeta, muchos de ellos podían ser representados después de su muerte como autos nuevos; y 3) utilizándolos, el Ayuntamiento de Madrid se ahorraba tener que pagar a otros poetas por componer autos nuevos. Al final, las sublimes alegorías calderonianas tuvieron un fin prosaico: financiar la reconstrucción del Puente de Toledo.

Entre Don Pedro Calderón y Don William Cruickshank

This is a review-article of Cruickshanks definitive biography of the first fifty years of Don Pedro Calderóns life. Cruickshanks emphasis is on Don Pedros secular theatre, with some pertinent allusions to his autos, poems, short pieces, palace plays and the rewriting of certain plays. The article examines Cruickshanks masterful outline of the literary, social, political and religious life of Madrid in the first half of the seventeenth century; the connections he makes between actual events in the dramatists life and incidents in his plays; the political allusions and implied criticism of the monarchy that he finds in some plays, especially those performed before the Court; and the wealth of personal details that this admirable biography has managed to unearth. My conclusion is that this is one of the most significant and illuminating works published on the life and works of Don Pedro Calderón in the last few decades.This is a review-article of Cruickshanks definitive biography of the first fifty years of Don Pedro Calderons life. Cruickshanks emphasis is on Don Pedros secular theatre, with some pertinent allusions to his autos, poems, short pieces, palace plays and the rewriting of certain plays. The article examines Cruickshanks masterful outline of the literary, social, political and religious life of Madrid in the first half of the seventeenth century; the connections he makes between actual events in the dramatists life and incidents in his plays; the political allusions and implied criticism of the monarchy that he finds in some plays, especially those performed before the Court; and the wealth of personal details that this admirable biography has managed to unearth. My conclusion is that this is one of the most significant and illuminating works published on the life and works of Don Pedro Calderon in the last few decades.

Spanish Classical Theater in Britain and North America

n his History of the Theatre in Europe, John Allen begins the five pages allotted to Spanish classical theater by declaring that “the Spanish people have not on the whole been distinguished for their contribution to European drama” (140). More recently, Oxford University Press published a four-volume history of the American theater from 1869 to 2000 (Bordman; Hischak), in which, as one would expect, Shakespeare’s presence is pervasive. The authors also mention with some frequency seventeenth-century French playwrights, especially Molière (thirty-seven occasions), and the Italian Goldoni (nine occasions). By contrast, there is not a single allusion in the 2,000-plus pages of the series to Lope de Vega, Tirso de Molina, or Calderón. The same pertains to Eric Bentley’s popular What Is Theater? Whatever theater may be, seventeenthcentury Spaniards do not seem to have contributed to it, for they do not appear in his book. Nor do they figure in Richard Southern’s The Seven Ages of the Theatre, which deals not only with English, French, and Italian drama, but also Tibetan, Chinese, and Indian. These are not isolated cases of theatrical history’s neglect of Spanish drama. Alfredo Hermenegildo remarks on “la ignorancia casi total que del corpus teatral [del Siglo de Oro] hacen gala, consciente o inconsciente, los repertorios, tratados y estudios teóricos sobre el fenómeno dramático de la llamada cultura occidental” (5). Harold Bloom, for example, excludes Spanish dramatists from his Western Canon. A canonical author is one whose influence in Western culture is incontestable; in Bloom’s perspective Spanish dramatists of the Golden Age are not influential. In recent years, thanks mainly to the effort of some British hispanists, the drama of Lope de Vega, Tirso de Molina, and Calderón is receiving some recognition, at least in theater histories published in Britain. The Oxford Illustrated History of Theatre, for example, contains a thirty-page article by Victor Dixon on In his History of the Theatre in Europe, John Allen begins the five pages allotted to Spanish classical theater by declaring that “the Spanish people have not on the whole been distinguished for their contribution to European drama” (140). More recently, Oxford University Press published a four-volume history of the American theater from 1869 to 2000 (Bordman; Hischak), in which, as one would expect, Shakespeare’s presence is pervasive. The authors also mention with some frequency seventeenth-century French playwrights, especially Molière (thirty-seven occasions), and the Italian Goldoni (nine occasions). By contrast, there is not a single allusion in the 2,000-plus pages of the series to Lope de Vega, Tirso de Molina, or Calderón. The same pertains to Eric Bentley’s popular What Is Theater? Whatever theater may be, seventeenthcentury Spaniards do not seem to have contributed to it, for they do not appear in his book. Nor do they figure in Richard Southern’s The Seven Ages of the Theatre, which deals not only with English, French, and Italian drama, but also Tibetan, Chinese, and Indian. These are not isolated cases of theatrical history’s neglect of Spanish drama. Alfredo Hermenegildo remarks on “la ignorancia casi total que del corpus teatral [del Siglo de Oro] hacen gala, consciente o inconsciente, los repertorios, tratados y estudios teóricos sobre el fenómeno dramático de la llamada cultura occidental” (5). Harold Bloom, for example, excludes Spanish dramatists from his Western Canon. A canonical author is one whose influence in Western culture is incontestable; in Bloom’s perspective Spanish dramatists of the Golden Age are not influential. In recent years, thanks mainly to the effort of some British hispanists, the drama of Lope de Vega, Tirso de Molina, and Calderón is receiving some recognition, at least in theater histories published in Britain. The Oxford Illustrated History of Theatre, for example, contains a thirty-page article by Victor Dixon on I