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

de Tirso, II, 785-786) emphatically rejects the idea, as does this critic. There are two references to bobas in this play (III, ix, 65ab and x, 66). Violante, having spoken of "bellacos que andan de noche, / y engañan a troche y moche / a quien de ellos se fió" will conclude: "Si no hubiera tantas bobas no hubiera embeleco tanto." Later, speaking of "la dama indianesa," she will ask: "¿Luego, ella creyó que hablaba con el buen señor a bobas?" '5SaIaS Barbadillo had satirized Alarcón as "el hombre con dos maletas" in Fiestas de la boda de la incasable malcasada which came out in 1622 (Madrid) but was apparently in press by July 7, 1621. For a discussion of that poem and the relation to Alarcón, see my study, "Contemporary Satire against Ruiz de Alarcón as Lover," HR, XIII (1945), 145-165; more specifically, 153-154. 16See R. L. Kennedy, "Literary and Political Satire in Tirso's La fingida Arcadia, included in The Renaissance Reconsidered (91-110). Smith College Studies in History, XLIV (1964), Northampton, Massachusetts. ,7Alarcón dedicated his Primera parte "al vulgo." It begins: "Contigo hablo, bestia fiera. . . . Allá van esas comedias; trátalas como sueles. . . . ellas te miran con desprecio y sin temor, como las que pasaron ya el peligro de tus silbos y ahora pueden solo pasar el de tus rincones. . . ." 18I have dated El melancólico between Nov. 11, 1622 and Feb. 11, 1623. See "Studies for the Chronology of Tirso's Theatre," HR, XI (1943), specifically 17-27. ^»€3^î Four Loas and Their Data On Actors and Actresses (continued) Gerald E . Wade, University of Tennessee There are two has that have titles containing the name of the famous autor, Roque de Figueroa. The first of these is number 226 on Cotarelo's page 531 (of his Colección, II), and it is called Loa con que empezó en la corte Roque de Figueroa. The second has the title Loa segunda con que volvió Roque de Figueroa a empezar en Madrid. It is number 234 and begins on page 544. It is convenient to consider the second of the two has first, as its date is obvious. Although Cotarelo mentions the ha on page xlv of his Colección I, he does not date it. In order to find a statement of the date, one turns to Rennert : In the paragraph devoted to Alonso de Osuna, he gives the year 1632 for the ha. This date must be correct, since Figueroa's company for 1631 is not the same in a number of its names (Cotarelo , Invest, biobibliográf., 206), and our ha, in one of its lines (545b, 41) calls the present company "nueva." (That the ha is for a year previous to 1631 or '32 is hardly possible.) It is strange that Rennert slipped up on the data for several of the members of the ha's company; he gives for six of them the year 1631 as the latest for their association with Figueroa. They are Miguel Jerónimo and his wife Isabel la Velera, Francisco de Sotomayor and his wife Vicenta López, Marcos de Herrera, Juan López. (Of Bezón, Rennert says he was with Avendaño in 1632. We have seen that an actor could be with two companies in one calendar year.) The ha's cast is probably not the full company for 1632, although we are not able to indicate other names. That of Bartolomé Romero occurs within the Zoo's lines where his wife Bernarda Ramírez, a member of the group, identifies herself as such. They had both been in Figueroa's company in '31, but Romero is not presented to the audience as are the other members of the cast, and so it seems doubtful that he 12 is with the company. Francisco de Sotomayor had been an autor, but is back acting. He presents himself thus: Soto:Sotomayor, que de autor nombrado, vengo a ser compañero ogaño, por faltarme compañeros. (546a, 40-43) As for Figueroa himself, it is strange that his appearance in Madrid in 1632 was only the second one. (We observed...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 12-15
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.