Disguise, Identity, and Cross-Dressing in the Works of Tirso De Molina
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Vanderbilt Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Archive DISGUISE, IDENTITY, AND FEMALE CROSS-DRESSING IN SELECTED WORKS OF TIRSO DE MOLINA By Robert L. Turner III Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Vanderbilt University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Spanish August, 2006 Nashville, Tennessee Approved: Edward H. Friedman Victoria A. Burrus Earl E. Fitz Terryl W. Hallquist Copyright© 2006 by Robert L Turner III All Rights Reserved ii To Shell iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION ….………………….…………………………………………..………. iii Chapter I. TIRSO DE MOLINA: DISGUISE AND IDENTITY ………………...……….. 1 II. REALITY AND ILLUSION IN LA CELOSA DE SÍ MISMA: THE DOUBLING OF IDENTITY…………………………………………………….……….... 54 III. EL CELOSO PRUDENTE: THE DANGER OF DISGUISE ……...…....…... 98 IV. DON GIL DE LAS CALZAS VERDES AND THE BATTLE FOR IDENTITY 144 V. LOSS OF SELF IN EL AMOR MÉDICO: UNRESTRAINED DISGUISE ..... 187 CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………………. 223 BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………………. 242 iv CHAPTER I TIRSO DE MOLINA: DISGUISE AND IDENTITY The gap between the real and the perceived has been a constant source of fascination and frustration for human beings. The nether land between what “is” and what we “think is” introduces vexing questions about the nature of reality itself, about identity, and about our ability to accurately and meaningfully name what we see. It is, in fact, a source of anxiety, since it introduces an element of chaos into our perceptions. The theatrical use of disguise, deception, and misidentification is a manifestation of this gap and is hardly a new invention. Its practice was as common in Spain’s early modern period as it is today: “With regard to the seventeenth-century in Spain, the themes of deception and illusion also gain particular significance, and their most manifest expression in theatre is in the disguise” (McDonald 58). I will examine how one playwright, Gabriel Téllez, better known as Tirso de Molina, manipulates reality and perception to examine and critique the role of women in the Spain of his era. Tirso began writing comedias in the first decade of the seventeenth century, at a time when Lope de Vega was already well established, and Lope’s new invention, the comedia nueva, had already gained dominance on the Spanish stage. Lope’s new style, as explained in his Arte nuevo de hacer comedias en este tiempo, was comprised of three-act plays, usually about 3000 lines long, written in various types of verse. Lope, and those who followed, focused on a unity of action. This action commonly included a secondary plot, which was frequently an echo or parody of the central theme. Tirso distinguished 1 himself, not through stylistic innovations, as did Lope, but in the depth that he gave his characters. He is especially noted for his development of female characters, the focus of this study. In choosing to center my research on Tirso’s women characters, specifically on disguise and cross-dressing, I follow in the steps of P. R. K. Halkhoree, who also sees Tirso’s use of disguise and cross-dressing as a “means by which Tirso explores the problem of identity and personality” (39). Tirso de Molina exhibits the unique ability to explore the baroque concepts of reality and illusion while still creating vibrant and profound characters. Melveena McKendrick observes that [h]uman vanity and gullibility, the capacity of human beings to deceive themselves and others, the lack of honesty and realism in the way man and society conduct their affairs, are all strongly predicated in Tirso’s comedies, but the attractive thing about them is that they never preach and rarely judge.… His trump card was his ability to produce memorable characters. (Theatre in Spain 117) I examine here how four of Tirso’s female characters devise various forms of disguise in order to reach their goals, and what this tells us about self, identity, and the complex power relations of human society. Despite Tirso de Molina’s extensive use of female disguise and cross-dressing, his best known works do not make use of this technique. El burlador de Sevilla and El condenado por desconfiado are the two plays which are generally considered to be Tirso’s masterworks. The first is acclaimed for its creation of the Don Juan myth, and the second for its consideration of the relationship between divine foreknowledge and free will. In fact, these two works, in some ways, have served to push Tirso’s other plays into undeserved obscurity. At first, it may seem that since El burlador de Sevilla and El condenado por desconfiado are the subjects of significant study, Tirso’s other plays 2 should benefit from this attention. Unfortunately this is not the case. One of the causes is the difficulty in assigning the origin of these two plays to Tirso, a subject with which I will deal in greater depth later. The other problem is that each play, in its own way, leads scholars away from Tirso rather than towards him. In the case of Burlador, the play has frequently been studied in relation to other versions of the Don Juan myth, for example those of Molière, Zorrilla, or Byron. Since this approach requires multi-lingual research with texts crossing a number of centuries, it becomes easy to overlook other works by Tirso. In addition, as the foundational text, there may be a tendency to examine the evolution of the Don Juan myth itself rather than the text which brought him to life. The problem with Condenado is similar. The criticism has generally focused on the religious debate—the debate between free will and predetermination—which has been perceived as the heart of the play. The critical discussion of this play is mostly concerned with the concepts that Tirso addresses and, for the most part, does not examine this play in connection with other works by Tirso. Comparative studies which include this play tend to link it to other authors who also venture into the debate between predetermination and free will, and not to Tirso’s other plays. In comparison to the other two theatrical luminaries of the period, Tirso has been consistently understudied. While the MLA database lists more than thirteen hundred articles and books dealing with Lope de Vega and his works, and over two thousand entries for Calderón de la Barca, a search for Tirso on December 2005 returns only six hundred seventy-nine entries, a fraction of the other two. Of these entries, more than a quarter deal with either El burlador de Sevilla or El condenado por desconfiado. The 3 question of why Tirso has received so much less critical attention than either Lope de Vega or Calderón de la Barca is a difficult one and is, of course, impossible to answer completely. However, there are a number of elements which I believe have contributed to Tirso’s relative under representation within the field of comedia studies. Lope de Vega, as the originator of the comedia nueva, along with his high profile life and copious production, has long been the subject of interest. His genius and creativity place him as the founding father of Spain’s greatest era of theatrical production. As such, he clearly merits the attention, critical and popular, which is no more than his due. In a similar vein, Calderón has the renown of being the last great playwright of the period. His elaborate creations capped the baroque era. In addition, the privilege of being able to write almost exclusively for the palace after he entered the priesthood in 1651 (McKendrick, Theatre in Spain 140) gave him a great advantage over his contemporaries. Tirso falls as a middle point between the originator Lope and the culminating work of Calderón de la Barca, and despite his talents, he has often been perceived as either an imitator of Lope (McKendrick places him in the school of Lope, Theatre in Spain 115, despite her admiration for his work), or as part of a progression of playwrights who led to the apogee of the art in the works of Calderón. In the second instance, he is considered to be a stepping-stone leading to greater works (E. Wilson 86-87). In addition, while Tirso was popular, he never received the acclaim that Lope and Calderón did. Although McKendrick points out that he ruled the stage with Lope in the early 1620s (Theatre in Spain 115), for various reasons, which we will examine shortly, he did not enjoy the long-term dominance of the stage which Lope and Calderón did. 4 A second factor to consider, when we ponder Tirso’s lack of critical attention, is his relatively limited production when compared to Lope and Calderón. Lope de Vega produced an astounding number of plays. According to McKendrick, Lope’s production was claimed to be over 1500 plays, although she believes that eight hundred is a more accurate estimate (Theatre in Spain 72). Of those, roughly four hundred have survived. Calderón wrote somewhere in the neighborhood of one hundred eighty comedias. Tirso claimed four hundred plays, but the actual number of his surviving plays is in dispute: fifty-five, according to Xavier Fernández (2); sixty by the count of Urzáiz Tortajada (625); eighty according to McKendrick (Theatre in Spain 72); eighty-eight by the count of Blanca de los Ríos; and eighty-six via Henry Sullivan (“Tirso de Molina” 811). Even the higher figure of remaining texts presented by Ríos only gives Tirso twenty percent of Lope’s production. This simple disparity in numbers can account, in part, for the lack of attention that Tirso has received.