Kingship and Tyranny in the Theater of Guillén de Castro (review)

Reviews263 ña por los años 1580, con Artieda y Virués. El segundo volumen empieza por un apasionante análisis del ambiente valenciano que permite comprender las condiciones del nacimiento de la comedia. El autor estudia después las obras y técnicas dramáticas de Tárrega, Aguilar y Castro. Después de una mirada hacia Beneyto, Boyl y Ricardo de Turia, el investigador concluye aclarando el papel de Valencia en el nacimiento y en el desarrollo de la comedia nueva. Una esmerada bibliografía y un índice alfabético completan estos volúmenes que nos parecen dignos de la mayor difusión posible. Christiane Faliu-Lacourt Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail Crapotta, James. Kingship and Tyranny in the Theater of Guillen de Castro. London: Támesis Books Limited (Colección Támesis, Serie A-Monografías, C), 1984. 188 pp. The relatively brief, nine-page introduction to this study of five plays by Guillen de Castro, presents a fleeting overview of previous criticism dealing with Castro's and Lope's treatment of the unjust or tyrannical monarch and his abuse of power. These previously expressed critical opinions form the basis of Crapotta's approach to his subject throughout the monograph as he repeatedly contradicts, expands, or explicates one or another of them. The introduction concludes with a promise «to examine the portrayal of king and subject in both the theater of Virués and the comedia of Lope,» before setting out to examine Castro's works. That task certainly cannot be handled in the brief space of the one chapter devoted to it. In fact, the most sustained effort of the first chapter is a study of two works by the Valencian Captain, Vîmes . The study of those relatively unknown pieces is interesting enough even though Crapotta never fully explains the reasons behind choosing them as a starting point for a book on Guillen de Castro. Because the other subdivisions of this first chapter are devoted to political theory and the political situation in Aragón, we must assume that the six pages dealing with «The King in the Comedia» are meant to inform us about Lope's view of the tyrant. They do not. Lope is mentioned twice here; 264BCom, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Winter 1 986) but each time we are asked to accept serious over-generalizations as representative of Lope's views. In the first such generalization, we are told that the just king «displays generosity, magnanimity and concern for the well-being of the state and of his vassals» (p. 35) . This is not bad, but the immediate citation of Fuenteovejuna as an example is. Ferdinand, in that play, publicly displays those qualities only because they serve his selfish purpose: to centralize political power in his hands and remove it from those vassals who, like the Comendador, give him an excuse for doing so. The other arguable generalization is made when Crapotta states that «A subject [in Lope's plays] never need take corrective measures against the king...simply because the king invariably realizes his errors and corrects his own behavior» (p. 37). This may be true enough, but not all tyrants are kings. Sometimes they are representatives of the king who are brought to justice directly by the mistreated subjects (e.g., Fuenteovejuna and Peribáñez). On this relatively weak foundation Crapotta attempts, by using copious citations, to build a case for a new interpretation of Guillen de Castro's application of sixteenth-century political theory to five plays from his theater that deal with tyrannical rulers: El amor constante, El Conde Alarcos, El nacimiento de Montesinos, El perfecto caballero, and Las mocedades del Cid: comedia segunda (Las hazañas del Cid). His arguments in each case are weakened rather than strengthened by repeated references and comparisons to «Virués' plays» (he studies two of them) , and «Lope's king» (some amorphous character created from broad generalizations) . I find little enlightening about such statements as«Like El amor constante and El Conde Alarcos it [E/ nacimiento de Montesinos] tells of an act of royal injustice perpetrated against an individual loyal subject, which, before long, takes on broader political implications » (p. 103...