EL PRINCIPE DON CARLOS OF DIEGO XIMÊNE2 DE EMCISO : A CRITICAL EDITION WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOIES DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The % i o State University By FRANK THOMAS PLATT, B. A., M. A. The Ohio State University 1956 Approved by* Advisor Department of Romance Languages TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE,,................................. ill INTRODUCTION Description of Texts.,,vi Stemma ...................... ..xxix Synopsis of El principe don Carlos,...... xxx Sources,,...,,,,..,..,,....... xlv Date of Composition................. xlviii Comedies of Related Theme,.,,..... lii History of Criticism of Enciso and El principe don Carlos............. Ixviii An Evaluation ............... Ixxxv Versification Tables. ,,,,........ cxxiii EDITORIAL POLICY cxxv TEXT OF EL PRÎNCIPE DON CARLOS Act I ........ 1 Act II........ 53 Act III...... 109 Variants......... ,,,,,,,,,.......... ,163 NOTES................................... ,,203 APPENDIX A ................................ 308 APPENDIX B..................... ,321 BIBLIOGRAPHY.................... ..,,,,..... 327 WORD INDEX TO NOTES........ 339 - ii — PREFACE More plays were probably written in Spain during its Golden Age than in all the rest of Europe during the same period. The total productivity of England, France and Italy is surprisingly small when compared to that of even a single Spanish dramatist, such as lope de Vega, who is said to have written over fifteen hundred plays. The prolific out-pouring of Tirso de Molina, Vêlez de Guevara, Mira de Amescua, Calderên de la Barca, and other dramatists increases the ratio to an almost incredible degree.^ In order to maintain such a tremendous and steady stream of new theatrical presentations for an impatient public, a formula had to be developed in which the dramatist would not risk the displeasure of the audience, one which was easy to follow in order to meet their demands, which was flexible enough to accommodate their changing tastes, and which was ample enough to a How the dramatist to pursue diverse themes. ,£ope atteaqpted to set forth this formula in El arte nuevo de hacer comedias en este tiempo (1609). During some twenty years as a successful dramatist he 4:f. Hugo Albert Renpert, The Spanish State in the Time of tope de Vega (New York, 1909;, p. xi. - ill - - IV - had recognized the demands of the public and had catered to them, somewhat reluctantly, he admits. In order to capture and maintain the attention of a restless and hard-to-please audience, the majority of whom remained standing, Lope realized that he had to give them action above all else, that he had to mystify them with intrigue, a complicated plot, unexpected twists, disguises, misunderstandings, hidden identities, mujeres tapadas and hombres embozados. Coherent, leisurely and credible characterization was sacrificed in all this rapid movement and hurried' change of scene. However, here and there, in an occasional eomsdia. a character does develop, does assume perspective, depth and credibility as a human, living figure, one capable of self-motivated action and not a mere puppet in the demands of the plot. But these occasions are relatively rare; Peribahez, in the play of the same name, Marfa de Molina, in La prudencia en la mujer. Pedro Crespo in El alcalde de Zalamea. etc. Diego Ximlnez de Enciso y Ztjhiga (1535-1634) is, therefore, almost unique in his field because his only play of renown, El principe don Carlos, is distinguished by its excellent characterizations. Enciso was not a professional dramatist and had no known reason to write for the theatre other than a sincere desire to p "2 participate in it. His relatively few plays attest that he accepted as adequate the dramatic formula in use at his time, that he was a facile versifier and an opponent of mannerism. His masterpiece, El principe don Carlos is one of the best historical dramas of Spanish literature. Although El principe don Carlos has been praised through the years by critics in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and the United States, it has been generally overlooked by the modern scholar. There has been no critical edition, no serious study, evaluation, or interpretation of the play. It is hoped that the present text will fill this gap and make available for re­ appraisal one of the better plays of the Spanish siglo de oro. % e è Cotarelo y tori, "Don Diego Jimenez de Enciso y su teatro," Bol, de la Real Ac. Esp.. I (1914) > 215- 248, for all that is known of Enciso*s life. ^Seven authenticated plays (La mayor hazana de Carlos V. El principe don Carlos, Los todicis de PTorencia. Santa Margarita. Fabula de Criselidlr CleSn. El encubierto. Juan Latino) and four doubtful (Los celos'en el caballo. El valiente sevillanot primera y°°sequnda parte). DESCRIPTION OF TECTS All the known texts of El principe don Carlos have been carefully collated for the present study, either through examination of microfilms and photo­ static reproductions at the Ohio State University Library, or through direct consultation at the Biblio- teca Nacional de Madrid, and the Biblioteca Palatina, Parma, Italy. In many cases actual contact with the manuscripts or printed editions supplemented previous research with photographic copies. All these texts have been described by Emilio Cotarelo y Mori in his article "Don Diego Jimenez de Enciso y su teatro?,^ which is the source of much of the following informa­ tion. I have studied these various texts described by Cotarelo, established their order of precedence and assigned identifying symbols to them. Considerable research has failed to turn up new ones. X — El principe don Carlos is a manuscript cited in a list of plays which the autor de comedias Jeronimo Almella left as security when he departed from I'Loc. cit., pp.510-520. - VI - - vil - Valencia in 1628. In the manuscript the play is attributed to Mira de Amescua. This play, however, has been lost, Henri Mirimie first mentioned this list in the Bulletin Hispanique (VIII [1906], 377-379) and it was later studied by Antonio Restori (Un Elenco di "comedias* del 1628 [Torino, 1912]),who rejects the attribution to Mira and believes that the play concerned is by Enciso or is possibly the Segundo Sineca de Espafia of Jtontalban, a play of very similar content. The texts which I have designated as A, T, and H apparently derive from this or from another lost manuscript. — A — La Famosa Comedia de el Rrincipe don Carlos de don Diego Ximenez de Anciso has been chosen as our basic text and has been designated as A. It is the second manu­ script cited by Paz y Melia in Cataloqo de las piezas de teatro (2nd ed. of 1934) under nuntoer 2981, and is found under the signature MS. 15.554 at the Biblioteca Nacional. It consists of 56 unnumbered folios, in 4°, written in a single column in a handwriting which - viii - Cotarelo says is of the first half of the seven­ teenth century. The first page, which contains the title, is much newer than the rest and was probably added when the manuscript was bound into its present form. It is written in a more recent hand and reads merely El Principe D. / Carlos / de / D, Diego Ximenez. The following page, badly torn at the upper right corner and partially effacing the title, is written in two or three different scripts and reads as follows: La Famosa Gom^ de... de el Principe d. Car... 1^ Jornada *2) P. 36** appears above the title and Comedia del principe Don Carlos is lettered in smaller characters in the center of the page. Beneath this second title is a large beneath another ^IX** which is partially obliterated. In the lower portion of the page appears De don diego Ximenez de Anciso / El Principe D. Carlos. The text of the play begins on folio [3r] and continues through [58r]. The sudden termination of Act I at the very bottom of [20v] implies the possible loss of a page presumably written only on the recto - IX - side, for fourteen verses are missing.^ The absence of a page containing the cast of characters is also unusual, but the extremely worn condition of the second page suggests that a previous one also has been lost. It is possible that these two missing pages were parts of the same doubled sheet, lost through wear before the section comprising Act I was bound with the rest of the play. The edges of many pages are yellowed and brittle, especially folios [9], [10 ], [11 ], [%], [5 5 ], which are so torn and stained that numerous words are illegible or obliterated. The bottom lines of each page are extremely faint. The manuscript is written by the same scribe throughout, although another hand (possibly two) has made numerous trivial and often false alterations (w, 344, 776, 14 .30-3 5 , 182S, 2762-64, etc.). It is impossible to identify this interfering hand because of the brevity of the individual entries. The changes correct the reading in only a few instances (w, 1077, 1361, 1642, etc.). The original scribe makes 2 ’Cotarelo does not question this abrupt and incon­ clusive termination of Act I. He does, however, dispute the authenticity of the missing verses supplied by other texts (loc. cit.. p. 512 ). — X — frequent errors which he usually corrects immediately within the line itself by crossing but the offending element. He is extremely careful and has almost always caught his own errors. These consist principally of (l) visual anticipation, in which he begins to write a word from the following line (vv, 534-j 3 5 0 , 2116, 2503 , etc,); (2) mental antici­ pation, in which he writes what he evidently assumes should come next (w, 190, 1025, 2293, 2794, etc,); (3) valid corrections of wrong sense (w, 474, 1123, 2261, etc.), and (4) apparent carelessness, in which he repeats syllables, misspells words or writes them twice (w, 363, 637, 1134, 2295, etc,).