El Otomano famoso (o la famosa comedia otomana) (review)

Reviews383 that pursuit's very allure for us. Stroud's The Play in the Mirror is thoughtful , stimulating, and valuable criticism. Christopher B. Weimer Oklahoma State University Vega, Lope de. El Otomanofamoso (o lafamosa comedia otomana). Edici ón de Lola Beccaria. Barcelona: Ediciones Altera, 1966. Paper. 232 pp. 1,900 pesetas. The editor, Lola Beccaria, discovered this seventeenth-century manuscript in the library ofthe Palacio Real, and claims that it is Lope de Vega's lost work, El Otomanofamoso mentioned in Lope's list of his plays El peregrino en supatria, 1604. The title ofthe anonymous manuscript in seventeenth -century handwriting is La famosa comedia otomana. It has all the characteristics of a defective copy rather than a careful original. The different title, and the lack of attribution to Lope de Vega, would give one pause given the eagerness with which manuscripts were often falsely attributed to el monstruo de la naturaleza. A prologue by Rafael Lapesa lends support to the editor's claim of Lope's authorship. The editor makes her case based not only on the title, but also on Lope's fondness for plays with Turkish settings. Another proof is the use ofthe name Lucinda, Lope's poetic name for his mistress Micaela de Lujan. The editor dates the play as having been written between 1598-9, the year Lope began his courtship ofMicaela. This date is also supported by the metrical studies of Morley and Bruerton who describe this year as one in which Lope showed a preference for quintillas, the preferred verse form in the manuscript. Surprisingly, the editor does not use other methods for verifying doubtfully-attributed plays; the studies by Walter Poesse, William F. Fichter, Fred Clark, J. H. Arjona and Manuel Ascarza. These studies demonstrate Lope's favorite internal line structures, as well as spelling, metrical, and rhyming preferences. They represent time-honored methodology which would greatly strengthen the editor's arguments if they indeed support Lope's authorship. The introduction to the play includes a recounting of the life of Lope de Vega, his dramaturgy at the turn of the century, the Turkish theme in Lope's theater, possible historical sources for Ottoman, the character Lucinda and her importance in dating the play, a table of versification, a description of the manuscript and the criteria for editing the play. A selected bibli- 384BCom, Vol. 49, No. 2 (Winter 1997) ography following the introduction lists only Spanish works or translations. The one English work, Walter Poesse's study of the internal line structure as a method of authenticating plays, was not applied to the work in question .. Throughout the book are a series of 1 1 interesting engravings from a 1590 Italian work which depict the costumes appropriate for the play's time and place. Unfortunately there is no editorial labeling of the costumes, no information on the engraver, the probable date of the costumes or the class to which the costume belongs. Some of the notes on the play are footnotes, which the editor claims are to explain the meaning of some words, while others are endnotes designed to note interesting details in the content, or peculiarities of the copy. Because there is no indication in the text ofwhether or not there is an endnote, I found this method both illogical and inconsistent. The notes are also not particularly extensive, consisting mostly of corrections of faulty copying. Two of the rather scanty notes attribute to emblem literature scenes which may just as easily have been general knowledge. The legend of how the beaver saves itself, for example, is found in many medieval bestiaries and Covarrubias has a rather lengthy note on its classical sources. Only a few minor errors in formatting and punctuation were noted, such as a missing question mark and a missing exclamation point, w. 55-6. The play itselfhas an interesting plot, detailing the shepherd-to-king story of Ottoman I. It is, however, extremely episodic with so many abrupt changes of scene and characters as to leave the reader thankful for the plot summary by scene division in the appendix. It has none ofthe lyricism one usually expects in Lope's plays. Its rather pedestrian metrics could...