Lope's Padre Roxas and Niño Inocente are Authentic Saints

FORUM LOPE'S PADRE ROXAS AND NIÑO INOCENTE ARE AUTHENTIC SAINTS ROBERT MORRISON Presbyterian College Unforeseen events sometimes cause maddening ironies even for the Siglo de Oro scholar. D. L. Bastianutti could hardly have known that his 1988 edition of Lope de Vega's La niñez del padre Roxas (Berne-New York: Peter Lang) would appear in the very year of that protagonist's long-delayed canonization. His beatification had occurred in 1679. On 3 July 1988 Simón de Roxas was formally canonized, and no longer was it necessary to explain, when discussing comedias de santos, that Padre Roxas, though not officially a saint, was seen as such by the populace around him. Regrettably, Professor Bastianutti's admirable and timely edition of the play went to press before a note concerning this canonization could be inserted. In another such irony, Anthony J. Farteli, in his meticulous 1985 edition of Lope's El niño inocente de La Guardia (London: Tamesis), seems to miss altogether the saintly status of the young protagonist. Farrell errs, citing an equally mistaken H. C. Lea, in his declaration (page xiii, note 1) that the child is not listed in The Book of Saints compiled by the Benedictine monks of St. Augustine's Abbey, Ramsgate. He cites but discounts my 1963 finding that the boy "received the title of saint under Pius VII in 1805" (Sainthood in the Theater ofLope de Vega, diss. U of Florida, 223), but evidently did not turn to my bibliography to learn that I had used the fourth edition of 77ie Book of Saints. Nor, apparently, did he notice the sentence preceding the one he quoted, which begins with mention of St. Christopher of Guardia. There is the 181 182BCom, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Summer 1992) key. The niño inocente was not canonized as Inocente or even as Juanico, the name Lope gives him; he appears in the hagiographies as Cristóbal, or Christopher. I, too, struggled to find this listing. Probably I came upon it accidentally, whereupon it dawned on me that searching for the young martyr under "Inocente " was akin to searching for El santo negro Rosambuco under "Negro": the word is merely an adjective. Or I may have found my clue in Sainz de Robles' 1955 nota preliminar to the play (Aguilar 3: 383), which cites Damián de Vegas' 1544 book, Memoria muy verdadera de la pasión y martirio que el glorioso mártir, inocente niño, llamado Cristóbal, padeció. . . . (This book was not published, but was leaned on by Rodrigo de Yepes for his 1583 book, Historia de la muertey glorioso martirio del Sancto Inocente que llaman de La Guardia, and Lope in turn leaned on Yepes). A question immediately arises as to why Lope chose to name the young martyr Juanico instead of Cristóbal. Perhaps Lope saw ways to turn the matter of the name into a captivating scene in the play. In scene 5 of act 2, the Jewish kidnappers complain that "Juan" is a poor name for the youngster, because the character and standards of John the Baptist are above reproach among all nations, except perhaps their own. But "Cristo" won't serve, "que no es nombre usado." Benito suggests "Cristóbal," adding that "lo mismo es." The plotters then experiment by calling the boy various names, but it is only to the name "Cristóbal" that he responds. They find his firm response striking, for they know that his name is Juan. Quintanar, another of the plotters , asks the meaning of "Cristóbal." Benito quotes almost verbatim Yepes' explanation that "en Griego . . . quiere dezir el que trae consigo a Christo" (fol. 28, vo.). Readily subscribing to this insight, Hernández concludes, Mesuras dice muy bien; Cristóbal se llame Juan, y en uno se matarán a Cristo y a Juan también. Thus the playwright crafted a scene in which the child has a prophetic awareness of his new name, and the discussion and decision surrounding the name emphasize its great significance. Had the youth been called Cristóbal from the start, the dramatic effect of this scene would not have been possible. This...