Andrés de Claramonte y 'El burlador de Sevilla.' (review)

Reviews185 ticos alemanes y clave en la reinterpretación parkeriana del teatro del siglo de oro, Isaac Benabú cuestiona su establecida denominación de tragedia. Destacando su "felice fin," replantea la problemática de la resolución aparentemente satisfactoria en un sinnúmero de dramas a través del siglo de oro. De nuevo Hans Flasche ha logrado editar otro tomo valioso de estudios sobre Calderón. En este último, sin embargo, se echa de menos la archiconocida eficiencia del decano de calderonistas alemanes; pues adolece el tomo de múltiples erratas que inclusive dificultan la lectura de algunos ensayos. Así y todo, no cabe duda alguna sobre la calidad meritoria de esta periódica contribuci ón que todos los calderonistas agradecemos a los colegas patrocinadores del coloquio anglogermano. Susana Hernández Araico California State Polytechnic Univ., Pomona Rodríguez López-Vázquez, Alfredo. Andrés de Claramente y 'El burlador de Sevilla. ' Kassel: Reichenberger, 1987. xi + 198 pp. Alfredo Rodríguez López-Vázquez has dedicated numerous publications over the past several years to proving that Andrés de Claramonte is, without a doubt, the author of El burlador de Sevilla. The most recent entries in his bibliographic tidal wave are his edition of the play and the companion volume, whose title purposely echoes Sturgis Leavitt's 1931 La estrella de Sevilla and Claramonte, that is the object of this review. Naturally, Rodriguez can count the present reviewer among those who support the need for greater study of Claramonte's theatrical production (in both senses of the word) in order to determine his rightful place in literary history, to assess the importance of his triple role as author-oHior-impresario, and to resolve allegations of authorship of plays including Dineros son calidad and La estrella de Sevilla. But while I no longer question Claramonte's extensive involvement with El burlador de Sevilla, I am not wholly convinced by Rodriguez's arguments. This 1987 Reichenberger book (with the series' editor's apparent refusal to render reading easier by indenting the paragraphs) is divided into four chapters, a conclusion and three appendices: "El estado de la cuestión," "La autoría de Tirso en discusión," "Sobre los rasgos de estilo de El burlador y los de Tirso y Claramonte," and "La intervención de Claramonte en El burlador de Sevilla: ¿Autor total o parcial?", the appendices are "Sobre la métrica de 186BCom, Vol. 43, No. 1 (Summer 1991) Claramonte," "El problema de las loas," and "El léxico marino de Claramonte." Rodríguez opens his study as he begins many others with a review of pertinent literature. To be entirely fair, the author lays out interesting and provocative circumstantial evidence concerning suggested dates of composition and, more importantly, showing how specific actors in Claramonte's and others' acting troupes at specific times came into possession of the Burlador playtext. Unfortunately, Rodriguez demands that the reader make certain leaps of faith in connecting data where cold, hard, definitive documentation has yet to be uncovered. On p. 5, for instance, and assuming attribution to Tirso, we read the argument that Manuel de Sande, upon editing in Sevilla Tirso's Primera parte, "no puede editar El burlador de Sevilla, lo que quiere decir que Tirso no dispone de esa obra, en el caso de que sea suya." Manuel de Sande acquires the play "seguramente" from Roque de Figueroa's company; thus "parece razonable [emphasis mine] pensar que, si Roque de Figueroa le hubiera vendido El burlador a Sande en 1626, la obra, caso de ser de Tirso, habría aparecido en la Primera parte de 1627." To lend weight to the opposite hypothesis—that Claramonte is the author—Rodriguez relates the peripatetic manuscript with the travels of the actor and autor Francisco Hernández Galindo who had acted with Claramonte in 1614 and who had, in 1625, performed the work in Naples. Furthermore, Rodriguez now mentions that Claramonte's Deste agua no beberé (containing a quintilla from Burlador) was performed in 1617. If Claramonte is the author, then a possible date of composition of 1614 is given. This is, in fact, part of the author's "Hipótesis B" (7...