Obras dramáticas, (Cancionero de 1496) (review)

auto (más o menos considerada en los trabajos de Bataillon, Wardropper, R. G. Barnes y aun en los manuales de Pfandl y Margaret Wilson), un género cuyo propósito edificante se subraya por encima de las aspiraciones intelectuales que Ie daría Calderón (al fin y al cabo la mucha teología calderoniana no impide que en Los misterios de la Misa salga la Sabiduría, que viene a enseñar a la Ignorancia, diciéndole "soy la Sabiduría inmensa / de Dios, que a serlo del Hombre,/ yo tan Ignorancia fuera / como tú," en términos parecidos a los del poco teológico Timoneda, que en La fuente de los siete sacramentos da al Entendimiento, empeñado en que se le explique la Eucaristía, la siguiente instrucción: "Calle la razón / y quede viva la fe;/ que querer escudriñar / los secretos de la altura,/ sabed que es muy gran locura") y que fue primordialmente concebido para mover (y de ahí la importancia de sus dimensiones líricas y afectivas en que tanto sobresalen Lope y Valdivieso) a un público con cuya fe se contaba de antemano. A pesar de que su enfoque sea discutible y de algunos otros reparos menores (Gómez Manrique no escribió églogas; Lope no niega el Ubre albedr ío en Pastor lobo, donde Cordera sí admite y llora su "grande error"; el el nombre de E. M. Wilson es Edward y no Edmond), el libro de Dietz (de igual título que la tesis doctoral presentada por su autor en 1968) es obra muy respetable, no sólo como valiosa contribución que el iniciado en el género debe añadir a la media docena, o poco más, de libros dedicados al auto sacramental, sino también porque sus observaciones sobre el arte dramático de Calderón importan a todo estudioso del teatro del siglo XVII. Enrique Mabtinez-Lopez Univ. of California, Santa Barbara. ^*í»3^v JUAN DEL ENCINA, Obras dramáticas , (Cancionero de 1496), ed. Rosalie Gimeno (Madrid, Istmo, 1975), 228 pp. including 79 pp: estudio preliminar. Humberto López-Morales' 1968 edition of the Églogas completas de Juan del Enzina was a major event for students of Spanish theatre. In a handy single volume, attractively printed, one could read, for the first time since 1893, all of Enzina's surviving dramatic works. In addition, López-Morales' prologue , an abstract of his well-known book on early theatre, had some interesting and even novel observations on Spanish drama and Enzina himself. It was, however, something of a shock to discover that the texts of the plays themselves were almost entirely unannotated , except for variants. This evasion of a major editorial responsibility made a new annotated edition necessary . And one has now appeared in Rosalie Gimeno's presentation of the eight dramatic églogas which were first published in 1496 as a part of Enzina's Cancionero. Its most welcome feature is, precisely, that it is conscientiously annotated. Further judgments as to the merits of this edition are necessarily tentative because it is incomplete. Enzina 's six other plays will presumably be printed in the second volume announced on the back cover of the first. And, indeed, my first complaint is over the two parts. Physically and spiritually Enzina fits so well into a single volume that I am at a loss to justify the two. Of course, of the absent six plays, four came into the Can115 donerò in later printings, and two were published apart from it. But the spiritual gap between the plays of 1496 and the later ones is not nearly so great as the temporal. Enzina has already moved into secular drama in the fifth égloga, and there he largely remains. Grateful as one is for the abundant notes to these exacting texts, one still wonders if the notes could not have been better sorted out. Professor Gimeno regularly writes an introductory statement as a note at the beginning of eagh égloga. Would not a brief introduction to the text, apart from the text, be less distracting? Such a procedure would have been particularly helpful in the second égloga, for...