A Lost Play of Salazar y Torres

quainted with Góngora's work, but he borrowed, adapted, and even copied it directly to suit his dramatic purposes. FOOTNOTES ' The two worked together on El jardín de Falerina, El Pastor fido, El privilegio de las mujeres, and Los yerros de naturaleza y aciertos de fortuna. 2 See "El Conde de Sex": A Critical Edition and Study (Madrid: Plaza Mayor, 1972), p. 64. A LOST PLAY OF SALAZAR Y TORRES Thomas Austin O'Connor, State University of New York, College at Cortland Bibliographic problems of the Siglo de Oro often seem insurmountable, especially when one considers the comedia. An illustration would be the recent problems concerning the dating of the first edition of El burlador de Sevitta of Tirso de Molina. When problems of such magnitude arise with outstanding figures of the 17th century, the lack of bibhographical information compounds those which concern figures of lesser stature or those which concern writers Httle studied. Often errors are passed on because one tends to give credence to such bibliophiles as La Barrera. While such authorities are guides to innumerable sources of material , they should be checked thoroughly before accepting their information as fact. A curious example results from La Barrera's article on Agustín de Salazar y Torres, in which he says: "Triunfo y venganza de Amor. (Sin loa.) Esta ultima es la misma que se titula: Mas triunfa el Amor rendido, en cuya composici ón tuvo parte Vera Tassis."1 Triunfo y venganza de amor is the last play in Salazar's Cytara de Apolo,2 and La Barrera knew of it from the edition of 1694. His knowledge of Más triunfa el amor rendido (Sin armas vence el amor, or El mayor triunfo de amor) came from two sources: first, the original manuscript from codex M-177 of the Biblioteca Nacional of Madrid,3 which today is MS-15083; second, a suelta from Madrid dated 1684.4 In spite of the material available to him, La Barrera committed a gross error by stating that these two plays were the same. He could never have read nor compared them textually, because the characters and plots are completely different. The first bibliophile to notice La Barrera's mistake was Salva y Malien, who said, concerning Más triunfa el amor rendido: "Ag. de Salazar y Torres, y J. de Vera Tásis y Villarroel . La he tenido anònima. Barrera se equivoca en suponer que esta comedia es la misma que Triunfo y venganza de amor, de Salazar."5 Thus, depending upon the source consulted, one could either find correct or incorrect information about these two plays. This in itself is not surprising, but what foUows is. Juan de Vera Tasis y Villarroel wrote in his introduction to Cytara de Apolo, Advertencia al qve aqvi llegare, about some of the works of Salazar which he could not find nor get from others: mas la injuria del embidiolo Cierço, y enemigo Noto de algunos Cortesanos (si este nombre merecen) repeló con maHciosa ambición, aunque con generoso hurto, muchas, que nunca podrá desfigurar la ignorancia, aunque las puedo encubrir su malicia. Si manifestaren algunas de tantas, 40 como en la noticia de los mas están publicas, las sacaré a luz en la segunda impression: y para que conste à todos las que mi diHgencia hà inquirido, las pongo aqui: . . .6 Vera Tasis then went on to mention "Aun mas de Vna lomada de la Comedia de Minos, y Britomartis."7 What is most curious is the fact that Minos and Britomarte are the main characters of Más triunfa el amor rendido, of which Salazar y Torres wrote the first act and Vera Tasis wrote the second and third. This assertion is based on several facts. First, the handwriting of MS15083 is the same throughout all the folios. The only author noted is Salazar y Torres at the head of the first act. Since I cannot prove nor disprove that the handwriting is Salazar's, this seems to indicate the following: Salazar probably handed over the first act to Vera Tasis, who then proceded to recopy it and write the second and third acts. This supposition appears...