This article is a review of El teatro español del siglo de oro: métodos y enfoques críticos

NC DOCKS at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Williamsen, Amy R.

English

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Review of El teatro español del siglo de oro: métodos y enfoques críticos By: Amy R. Williamsen Williamsen, Amy. Review of El teatro español del siglo de oro: métodos y enfoques críticos in Bulletin of Comediantes 44:1 (1992): 169-171.  Made available courtesy of Bulletin of Comediantes: http://www.comediantes.org/   ***© The Author. Reprinted with permission. No further reproduction is authorized without written permission from the author & Bulletin of Comediantes. *** Abstract: This article is a review of El teatro español del siglo de oro: métodos y enfoques críticos.  Book Review | Theater | Spanish Classical Theatre | Literary Criticism   Keywords:***Note: Full text of article below   Reviews169the "comedia de teatro calderoniana está también íntimamente ligada al edifi-cio teatral, a su estructura arquitectónica, a la organización interior del espa-cio teatral donde el espectador percibe ocularmente la acción de la comedia"(151).The book's examination ends with Amadei-Pulice's "Conclusiones," areiteration of the principal arguments with additional supporting evidenceabout epistemological issues concerning seventeenth-century artistic and scien-tific thought. Following this section are the endnotes, the bibliography, andthirty four pages of reproduced drawings of stage machinery, scenery, and de-signs that enhance her textual explanations. Regrettably there is no index.With its solid theoretical basis and its clarity of expression, this volume is awelcome contribution to Calderonian studies.Teresa S. SoufasTulane UniversityEl teatro español del siglo de oro: métodos y enfoques críticos. Actas del VColoquio del G.E. S.T.E. Criticón [Toulouse: Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail], 42 (1988): 258 pp.This volume opens with a prologue recalling those elements of the 1988G.E.S.T.E. symposium which cannot be captured in print, such as "la son-riente fraternidad de los participantes y la fervorsa comunión intelectual yamistosa de tanto eminente crítico internacional." Yet, in many ways, the textdoes manage to communicate the spirit of the conference. The reproductionsof program materials and César Oliva's masterful caricatures give one a senseof the ambience. Of more scholarly import is the inclusion of abstracts inSpanish, French and English that provide an excellent overview of the collec-tion and summaries of the discussions that follow each article. These allow thereader to benefit from the dialogue—often a lively exchange of diverse opi-nions—generated by each study. One drawback of trying to convey the im-mediacy of the conference is that some of the essays read more as oral presen-tations than as published articles. Although the studies in question acknowl-edge their provisional nature, a few papers may leave the reader somewhat dis-satisfied. For example, Milagros Ezquerro begins her semiotic analysis of Lacueva de Salamanca by stating that she has "prescindido deliberadamente detoda erudición cervantista. No por falta de interés [sic], desde luego, sino porfalta de competencia..." (42). In addition to the actas themselves, this issue770BCom, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Summer 1992)also includes several of the series' regular features, including a critical responseand three book reviews.As Marc Vitse points out in the closing article, "A modo de síntesis: ar-queología y crítica, the collection proves difficult to synthesize because of thewide variety of methods employed and the diverse subjects addressed. In orderto attempt an analysis, he divides the studies into four categories: a) "historyof theatre," b) "theatre of history," c) "ahistorical theatre" and d) "thetheatre in history." It might have been helpful if the essays appeared in similargroupings to those proposed by Vitse rather than following what seems to bean arbitrary order.Luciano Garcia Lorenzo's opening article, "Teatro clásico y crítica ac-tual" analyses the state of contemporary scholarship from 1981 to 1988. In theclosing portion of his essay, he outlines what he believes to be important areasrequiring further investigation, including the need for collaborative, "encyclo-pedic" studies such as dictionaries of dramatic terminology and rigorouscritical editions of works from the period. He also suggests the creation of acenter for bibliographic information. To the several worthy areas he identifies,one might add a study of "teatro clásico" in the Americas, a possibility heseems to ignore when proposing "la catalogación y publicación de documen-tos sobre la historia teatral de numerosos lugares de España..." (37). In fact,of all the essays in the volume, only the one by Francisco Ruiz Ramón evenmentions the importance of Hispanic classical theatre outside Spain.The second essay by Milagros Ezquerro, "Análisis semiológico de La cue-va de Salamanca" proposes a semiotic reading of the entremés. As the com-mentary following her piece attests, her presentation generated active discus-sion regarding the merits and limitations of a semiotic approach to literature.Trevor J. Dadson's article examines "Una comedia problemática: El Empera-dorfingido de Gabriel Bocángel," a work he criticizes for its "pésima estruc-tura dramática." The only interesting facet of the play, in his point of view, isthe presentation of the character Bernardo whom he describes as a "verdaderohijo de la tierra" (60).In the third article, "Tipología de los lazzi en los pasos de Lope deRueda," César Oliva not only examines the evolution of the definition ??pasoand its relationship with the Italian tradition, he also considers the importanceof the actor's code of mimic and gesture for the study of theatre and proposesa method of studying the "didascalias no textuales" involved. José MaríaRuano de la Haza, in "Hacia una metodología para la reconstrucción de lapuesta en escena de la comedia en los teatros comerciales del siglo XVII" alsoconsiders elements belonging to the realm of performance. He perceptivelysustains that, as critics, we must bear in mind the impact of physical staging onReviews171the comedia. Although only one of the diagrams he includes is labelled, the il-lustrations do serve to help the reader visualize the spaces he describes. JoséMaría Diez Borque, in his study "Obritas de teatralidad y géneros fronterizosen la dramaturgia del XVII" argues convincingly that we need to expand ourconsideration to include theatrical manifestations often overlooked in favor of"canonical" genres.In his study "El enredo y la Comedia: deslinde preliminar," Frédéric Se-rralta considers the role of "enredos" and proposes that critics adopt a"genesic" approach to complement other methodologies. He argues that bykeeping in mind the creative possibilities and impossibilities faced by play-wrights of the period, we can come to understand their work more completely.For example, he suggests that women often become the active forces in enre-dos as "una consecuencia directa de su inferioridad—en este caso, de su relati-va irresponsabilidad—en la sociedad de su tiempo" (135). Although he usesthis argument to contest Wardropper's earlier affirmation that "Aunque escri-ta por hombres, la comedia adopta un punto de vista femenino... para com-pensar a las víctimas de la injusta sociedad...," both scholars seem to conceiveof comedia authorship as being the exclusive domain of men. The commentsfollowing the study reveal that the audience did question Serralta's classifica-tion of the role of women; however, none mentioned the need to reexaminesuch claims, given our growing awareness of the activities of women writers ofthe period.Agustín de la Granja's study of "El entremés y la fiesta del Corpus" com-plements Oliva' s and Diez Borque' s essays as it examines the development ofthe entremés and its relationship to other terms including "paso." He pro-poses that far from being a "secondary, dependent" genre, the entremés en-joyed a considerable reign of autonomy. In the next study, '"Su Majestad ha-bla, en fin /como quien tanto ha acertado': la conclusión ejemplar Ae FuenteOvejuna," Victor Dixon reexamines the ending of the play, concluding that:"Difícilmente podríamos imaginar una escena final más calculada y equilibra-da, que sintetizara mejor los distintos temas de la obra, o una serie de solucio-nes que complaciera más a todo el variado público de la época de Lope" (166).Ignacio Arellano's study, "Teoría dramática y práctica teatral: Sobre el teatroáulico y político de Bances Candamo" also offers a critical reexamination. Inthis case, he proposes that current interest in the political nature of BancesCandamo's production has obscured other important facets of his work, par-ticularly the aulic element.In the penultimate article, "Una anomalía sociocultural: la recepción his-pana del teatro clásico español," Francisco Ruiz Ramón examines the "gap"that separates "the Hispanic world and its classical theatre." He suggests that172BCom, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Summer 1992)the solution to this crisis "consiste en leer e interpretar a los clásicos, no literal-mente, sino haciendo contemporáneas las claves de lectura del texto." Hisremarks sparked lively debate regarding contemporary stagings of the classics.While a few of the participants were concerned that this process might lead usaway from the works themselves, others maintained that "cualquier artificioes válido con tal que no se traicione el original" (202). Marc Vitse's closingremarks not only offer an insightful summary of the proceedings, but alsoraise important questions regarding their implications. He astutely warnsagainst the divorce of criticism (portrayed as the arbitrary use of "subjective"methodologies) from history or archeology (perceived as the paradise of scien-tific objectivity) that some studies implicitly seem to evoke. He concludes bysaying that our task is not only to study the historical reality of Golden Agetheatre, but also to "translate" it into modern terms, to bring it to life.Despite the shortcomings of a few of the selections, overall, the collectionrepresents a significant contribution to our understanding of Spanish ClassicalTheatre in its different manifestations and should prove useful to scholars inthe discipline. Moreover, it demonstrates the need for continued studies dedi-cated to this rich and varied field which we have only begun to explore.Amy R. WilliamsenUniversity of ArizonaVitse, Marc. Eléments pour une théorie du théâtre espagnol du XVIIe siècle.Toulouse: France-Ibérie Recherche, Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail,1988. Paper. 719 pp.This iAèse d'Etat, which includes topics formulated in the medieval senseof questiones disputatae, is a fundamentally polemical work that makes twomajor contributions to our knowledge of the historical context and dramaticinnovations of the Comedia.First, Vitse addresses the issue of the concept of Golden-Age theater, di-viding it arbitrarily, though conveniently, into two parts: a) the ethical contro-versy and b) the aesthetic controversy. Employing an historical methodology,he launches into revisionist readings of a) Cotarelo y Mori's Bibliografía de lascontroversias sobre la licitud del teatro en España (1904) and b) Sánchez Escri-bano and Porqueras Mayo's Preceptiva dramática española del Renacimientoy el Barroco (1965 and 1972).In the first instance, he reformulates Cotarelo's material (originallyorganized alphabetically) in a diachronic sense and also supplies eight "miss-

Review of El teatro español del siglo de oro: métodos y enfoques críticos

http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/A_Williamsen_Review_1992.pdf

Review of El teatro español del siglo de oro: métodos y enfoques críticos

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro