In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviews145 decades characterized by the popularity of Moratin, translations (of the works of Scribe in particular), and the comedies of Gorostiza and classically educated writers like Martinez de la Rosa; Post-Romantic theater (sub-divided, with useful observations on historical drama); Realistic theater (good on the influence of French writers of the Second Empire); and the fin de siècle, where the author explains the enormous success of Echegaray—das Phaenomen Echegaray, as he calls it—a popularity that has seemed incomprehensible to critics of the midtwentieth century. With the exception mentioned, every essay in this volume is a balanced, competent, up-to-date study of the material under discussion . Das spanische Theater will doubtless advance the study of Spanish literature in German-speaking areas, and it should be translated into Spanish as soon as possible for the benefit of the rest of us. Joseph R. Jones University of Kentucky Rodriguez, Evangelina, and Antonio Tordera. Calderón y Ia obra corta dramática del siglo XVII. London: Támesis Books Limited, 1983. 228 pp. Current interest in the entremés, loa, mogiganga, and related forms of reaíro menor generally takes one of two directions: it is either concerned with the function of these brief forms in the context of a baroque festival or with analysis of the texts themselves. While Rodriguez and Tordera do not ignore questions of original context—indeed, three chapters that are primarily historical alternate with three that are primarily aesthetic—they show clearly that formal analysis is the approach they find congenial. In chapter 1, «Estado bibliográfico actual de la cuestión,» they remind us that for much of this century scholarship on the teatro menor consisted chiefly of recycling material assembled by Cotarelo in his Colecci ón de entremeses, mogigangas y jácaras (NBAE, 17-18, 1911). As they point out, not until 1965 was another major step taken, when Eugenio Asensio's Itinerario del entremés appeared. (We should perhaps recall that the Itinerario was not conceived as a survey of the entremés throughout the Golden Age but rather as an introduction to 146BCom, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Summer 1987) five newly discovered entremeses oí Quevedo.) Rodríguez and Tordera acknowledge the contribution made by Hannah Bergman in Luis Quiñones de Benavente y sus entremeses, also published in 1965, which Bergman followed with editions and shorter critical studies. Similarly, they review the studies—brief, partial, and few in number—on Calderón's teatro menor. Just as chapter 1 is an introduction to the literary-historical chapters, so chapter 2, «Perspectiva: diseño de una poética de la obra corta dramática del siglo XVII,» looks ahead to chapters in which critical analysis is the chief tool. Rodriguez and Tordera show that they are comfortable with a post-structuralist vocabulary; moreover, they reveal familiarity with a wide range of recent studies on literary theory. Here they make an important point frequently applicable to the género dramático corto in the period under discussion: «su doble consideración o vertiente de ser un espectáculo susceptible de manifestarse abierto a lo popular, pero al mismo tiempo marco especular de recreaciones cortesanas y cultas.» In chapter 3, «Descripción, acotación y clasificación de la obra dramática corta,»' Rodríguez and Tordera define the several subgenres and give a brief bibliographical entry for the examples of each that are attributed to Calderón. The entremés receives the fullest comment, both because it is the central form of tearro menor and because seventeen entremeses that have been attributed to Calderón are retained. They also discuss nine loas, one ba//e, five mogigangas, and two jácaras. In addition, they take up such terms as folla, relación, matachín, and fin de fiesta. While few specialists would deny that probing the question of authorship of brief dramatic works can be a daunting task, the usefulness of the study would have been enhanced here if Rodriguez and Tordera had reviewed the evidence in favor of Calderón's authorship for the seventeen entremeses that they do not reject . (For eleven others, they summarize their arguments against his authorship...

pdf

Share