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

14.The reference may be found in Emilio Cotarelo y Mori, Colección de entremeses . . . (NBAE, 18, Madrid, 1911), p. 515b. 15.Or is it Tirso's entremés? The Señora de los Río· (op. cit., 964 ff.) claims it for him because it is in his Segunda Parte. 16.Cotarelo, op. cit., 672b. 17.See the Revista de bibliotecas, archivos y museos, X (3.a época, año VIH), 198. The play, an autograph, is dated 1642. 18.The persistence of the term into our modern times is strikingly evidenced by its use in 1877 when in a letter written in that year by Carlo· Coello to Ruperto Chap!, the former mention· that he hopes the two can collaborate on a Convidado de piedra for November 2. See the Boletín de la Real Academia Española, XIX (1932), p. 121. But that Coello or any other writer should show interest in the title is really not surprising; the title'· capacity to survive ha· also been indicated by its use in other countries, in Italy for example, with II convitato di pietra. See Everett W. Hesse*· Catalogo bibiográfico de Tirso de Molina (Publicaciones de la Revista Estudios, Madrid, 1949, p. 90 ff.) for a list of the plays that have appeared with the title during the past three centuries. 19.Professor Joaquin Casalduero (Contribución al estudio de Don Juan en el Teatro español, Smith College Studi« in Modera Language·, XIX, 1938, Chapter II) calls attention to this difference between the passages in the Burlador and TL, although he uses it for an argument that TL is the second of the two versions rather than the first. We shall give space to his argument below. Here, let is suffice to «ay that a number of his acute observations enter into our discussion at this point, and we wish to acknowledge his aid in the matter. 20.For an instance of a similar error in a character'· name,, see Miss Ruth Lee Kennedy's "Two Interrelated Plays of Tirso' (Hispanic Review , XXVIII, 191): The copyist of a manuscript of Tirso's El amor y el amistad carried over the name of Dalmao from an earlier manuscript although the revision of the play that he was reproducing omitted Dalmao as a character. 21.An amusingly curious detail of our play concerns the matter of Don Juan's becoming the Conde de Lebrija, a title he actually assumed before the end of the play (see 5's III, 986). The details are handled in satisfactory fashion in both TL and B, so our only reason for mentioning the matter here concerns the fact that there really was a Conde de Lebrija. IHe had not, however, existed as early as Don Juan's time. Julio de Atienza (Nobiliario español, Madrid, 1948, p. 1513) rereports that the title was granted in 1696 to Don Luis José Pérez. The title still exist». 22.Manuel de la Revilla, "Una redacción nueva," La ilustración española y americana, XL, (octubre, 1878), p. 255-256. Revilla calls attention to the new del Valle edition of TL, then advances his arguments for believing TL the earlier version of the play. Revilla's Obras (Madrid, 1883, p. 431-456) in general repeats the same material. Incidentally, Revilla wrote TL's title as ¿Tan largo me lo fiáis?, as does the Señora de los Río·. Our own preference excludes the question mark·. 23.It may indeed have been Sancho Rayón who found the suelta, but, a· we have seen, it was del Valle who edited it. 24.Casalduero, loc. cit. 25.We do not mean to imply that Mr. Casalduero took the Burlado': text as a complete and finished draft of the play. To the contrary, on his page 42, he recognizes the imperfect quality of the 1630 edition: "Que la edición ofrece un texto viciado es indudable. Ademáas de las consabidas erratas , existen lagunas y versos debidos a una mala lectura evidente, sin olvidar la propia falta de esmero por parte del autor." And yet he uses this "texto viciado" from which to draw broad, and...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 16-17
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.