Eléments pour une théorie du théâtre espagnol du XVIIe siècle (review)

1 72BCom, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Summer 1992) the solution to this crisis "consiste en leer e interpretar a los clásicos, no literalmente , sino haciendo contemporáneas las claves de lectura del texto." His remarks sparked lively debate regarding contemporary stagings of the classics. While a few of the participants were concerned that this process might lead us away from the works themselves, others maintained that "cualquier artificio es válido con tal que no se traicione el original" (202). Marc Vitse's closing remarks not only offer an insightful summary of the proceedings, but also raise important questions regarding their implications. He astutely warns against the divorce of criticism (portrayed as the arbitrary use of "subjective" methodologies) from history or archeology (perceived as the paradise of scientific objectivity) that some studies implicitly seem to evoke. He concludes by saying that our task is not only to study the historical reality of Golden Age theatre, but also to "translate" it into modern terms, to bring it to life. Despite the shortcomings of a few of the selections, overall, the collection represents a significant contribution to our understanding of Spanish Classical Theatre in its different manifestations and should prove useful to scholars in the discipline. Moreover, it demonstrates the need for continued studies dedicated to this rich and varied field which we have only begun to explore. Amy R. Williamsen University of Arizona Vitse, Marc. Eléments pour une théorie du théâtre espagnol du XVIIe siècle. Toulouse: France-Ibérie Recherche, Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail, 1988. Paper. 719 pp. This iAèse d'Etat, which includes topics formulated in the medieval sense of questiones disputatae, is a fundamentally polemical work that makes two major contributions to our knowledge of the historical context and dramatic innovations of the Comedia. First, Vitse addresses the issue of the concept of Golden-Age theater, dividing it arbitrarily, though conveniently, into two parts: a) the ethical controversy and b) the aesthetic controversy. Employing an historical methodology, he launches into revisionist readings of a) Cotarelo y Mori's Bibliografía de las controversias sobre la licitud del teatro en España (1904) and b) Sánchez Escribano and Porqueras Mayo's Preceptiva dramática española del Renacimiento y el Barroco (1965 and 1972). In the first instance, he reformulates Cotarelo's material (originally organized alphabetically) in a diachronic sense and also supplies eight "miss- Reviews1 73 ing" items in a lengthy Appendix (II, pp. 87-168). Besides supplying these forgotten texts, Vitse rejects the traditional dichotomy of the antagonists into théâtrophobes and théâtropohiles, the former having been portrayed as clerics and the latter, laypeople, and devises three distinct categories, Enemies/Reformers/Defenders, usefully outlined in Appendix I, pp. 85-6. In the second instance, Vitse approaches the aesthetics of "comedia writing ," but from only one vantage point, that of Aristotelianism. According to him, Lope's harmonization ?? elgusto and lo justo established the first axiom of this new art, contributing ultimately to its modern nature, that is, theater conceived as an imaginative act of communication. The neo-Aristotelian compromise of the aesthetic controversy effectively combined Aristotle's emphasis on pleasure with Horace's regard for the utility of art. However, Vitse could have benefitted from Garcia Berrio's nuancements of the Spanish adaptation of the Horatian tradition found in his Intolerancia depoderyprotestapopular en el Siglo de Oro: los debates sobre la licitud del teatro (1978), a work haughtily belittled in the first chapter. I shall return to this point later on. There are some important remarks on the two rules of this new drama, la verosimilitud and el decoro, that further enhance our appreciation of the Comedia as neither truth nor lie, but as an imaginative and controlled projection and exploration of human experience. Second, Vitse examines what he labels Lefait littéraire, dividing this major portion of the work into three chapters: a) practical dramaturgy, b) the tragic genre, and c) the comic genre. However, by deliberately omitting reference to theatrical performance, he has, in effect, severely limited and markedly weakened what otherwise are subtle and important commentaries of a theoretical and practical nature. One example will suffice for...