No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
La palabra vengada, Attributed to Zárate: More Evidence that It Is a Lost Play of Lope de Vega
Abstract
In 1925, Manuel Machado published a previously unedited plan of a play by Lope de Vega called La palabra vengada. Written in Lope's own hand and totaling some 1700 words, it is quite detailed. Based on its location within Durán's codex of Lopean autographs, Machado believes the plan was composed in late 1628 or early 1629, and the comedia itself written shortly thereafter. A half century later, a play entitled La palabra vengada was included in Parte 44 of the Comedias escogidas (Madrid, 1678), where it bears the name of Fernando de Zárate, the alias assumed by Antonio Enríquez Gómez upon his clandestine return to Spain from exile in France around 1649. Except for the denouement and a few other minor differences, the play follows Lope's plan closely. This study examines features of Parte 44 that appear in Lope's works but not Enríquez's, features that indicate that it is indeed Lope's lost play. Among these features are 1) the large number of verse forms and the use of specific meters; 2) references to four historical and quasi-historical figures; and 3) the laudatory reference to the Fénix himself. (JBW)
... Por lo demás, de todo ello se deduce que los romances son metros muy útiles para nuestros intereses, pues los usos lopescos difieren notablemente de los de muchos otros ingenios del Siglo de Oro, sobre todo los de generaciones posteriores, que, como es sabido, en general lo utilizaron con mayor profusión. Por ahí, conviene retener que todos estos paradigmas propios de los romances, unidos a otros muchos (como el número máximo de asonancias en los romances, cifra discutida pero que cabría situar en torno a ocho, de nuevo con la excepción de La limpieza no manchada 14 ), podrían devenir sumamente relevantes para los problemas de autoría que atañen a otros dramatur-11 Véanse Romero Muñoz (1995), Wooldridge (2005) y McGrady (2008). Solo García de la Concha y Madroñal (2011: 493), en su transcripción del plan en prosa, sugirieron que la obra podría deberse a Lope, aunque tal vez con modificaciones posteriores de Enríquez Gómez. ...
The contributions that compose this book were presented at the XIV Taller Internacional de Estudios Textuales (Perugia 2018), where different issues related to the transmission of Spanish Golden Age plays and its relevance for modern editing were discussed. The relationship between autograph manuscripts and prompt books, the usus scribendi of professional copyists, the textual variant readings in the transmission of printed texts, the importance of meter for establishing texts and proving authorships, the comparison of Spanish and Anglo-American editing practices, and the adaptation of plays for the modern stage, are all issues addressed by means of case studies that elucidate unexpected angles of textual criticism.
The article offers an analysis of the three prose plans of comedias by Lope de Vega, and provides several considerations regarding the different phases of the composition process of a comedy, from the draft to the final writing.
In this paper I will prove that La palabra vengada, a play published in 1678 under the name of Fernando de Zárate (pseudonym of Antonio Enríquez Gómez) and attributed by critics to Lope de Vega, is in fact a reworking by Antonio Enríquez Gómez of a play originally written by Lope. A careful study of its versification and rhymes shows that some of its characteristics deny Enríquez Gómez’s authorship and support that of Lope, but also the opposite, contrary to what has been thought by scholars. Following this, I study the holograph plan in prose of La palabra vengada, written by Lope. After comparing the play’s plot and Lope’s outline, I will demonstrate that the passages contrary to Lope’s usus scribendi do not follow the plot as he conceived it, while the passages that do not match Enríquez Gómez’s versification do respect it. The conclusion is clear: in order to transform Lope’s tragedy into a comedy, Enríquez Gómez introduced and removed several passages on his own, but kept other passages. I will explain them in detail at the end of this study.