Women in the Prose of María de Zayas (review)

With Women in the Prose of María de Zayas, Eavan O’Brien presents a remarkable, exceptionally well-researched addition to the ever-increasing María de Zayas library, albeit with what is, in my estimation, an unfortunate and inexpressive title. O’Brien wholly succeeds in her stated intention to study “the complex ramifications of women’s interaction in [Zayas’s] prose” (5). Without a doubt, this study does represent “a new contribution to the study of Zayas’s prose, unearthing a neglected and innovative aspect, its gynocentrism” (6). Using a very close reading of all twenty tales in Novelas amorosas y ejemplares and Desengaños amorosos, supported by an extensive bibliography and myriad footnotes, O’Brien examines friendships, sisterhood, and their subversion; female relationships crossing the boundaries of class; and mother–daughter relationships, including surrogate mothers and the Virgin Mary, Mother of God.

O’Brien’s sources are both wide and deep, ranging from the structuralist theories of Gérard Genette; the post-structuralist theories of Luce Irigaray, Julia Kristeva, and Hélène Cixous to philosophical thought; literary, ecclesiastical, and art history; Benito Pérez Galdós and Alejo Carpentier; Mikhail Bakhtin’s theory of Carnival; and Janice Raymond’s notion of ‘Gyn/affection.’ O’Brien makes fine use of all of the major Zayas critics before her and includes insights from Zayas’s drama, La traición en la amistad. Further, she summarizes her findings in two handy appendices of “Women’s Interrelationships” in both of Zayas’s collections (246–47).

The novel aspect to O’Brien’s offering is precisely its women-centered, gynocentric approach. While most critics examine María de Zayas’s women in relationship to men and the brutal patriarchy of her time, O’Brien focuses on the women’s relationships with one another. In addition, while the twenty internal tales are by far the most popular topic of scrutiny among most critics, O’Brien’s is the rare volume that studies Zayas’s two collections as a whole, examining the external frame narrative as much as the interior tales, analyzing how both parts interconnect with regards to the various female relationships therein.

O’Brien concludes that María de Zayas’s works are populated with strong women, both good and bad; female relationships are consistently important in both the frame and the tales; sisterly bonds are affirmed, but female treachery can be as dangerous as that perpetrated by men; the convent solution so often employed by Zayas is essential to the development of sisterly bonds, as well as those between mother and daughter, as evidenced in the frame narrative; class boundaries are more permeable than may be supposed; the mother–daughter relationship is foregrounded in a new way in Zayas’s work; the importance of motherhood is underscored in both the tales and the frame; a surrogate mother figure often takes the place of an absent biological mother; and the Virgin Mary often plays an important role in maternal surrogacy.

Like many scholars before her, O’Brien argues that Zayas does not seek to transform her female protagonists into revolutionaries; she does not propose solutions that would transcend or transgress social and class expectations. Where O’Brien disagrees, very convincingly, with her sister-critics, however, is with the supposed proto-feminism of María de Zayas espoused by many. O’Brien makes a strong case for refuting this contention by highlighting the lack of sisterhood across classes in Zayas’s portrayals of female relationships, a requirement, in her view, for true feminism or proto-feminism. O’Brien argues that “[Zayas] does not attempt to propound a ‘sisterhood’ that would eclipse all social differences” (107).

Our author quite clearly is more comfortable with the more general term “gynocentrism” with regard to María de Zayas. This is a solid, expressive term that, surprisingly, has not been applied to Zayas’s work until now; after reading O’Brien’s excellent and convincing...