Prometheus

In this article, I intend to present a comparative lecture of three of the most fundamentals versions of Prometheus Myth, the hero (or villain, it depends on the one you ask to) that stole the fire, as a technical resource, from the gods to give it as salvation to the mankind.

Our first stop must be Hesiod and his perspectives of the myth in "Theogony" and "Works and Days". In his works, the use of this myth serves to reassure the importance of Zeus as vigilante of Cosmos and Justice. Zeus itself embodies the order and the Justice and he gives us for granted the reward that comes from a quiet, hard-working and devoted life. Prometheus is a rebel that fooled the Gods. His attempt for improving human life by stealing and defeating the divine laws and powers only could bring suffering and disgrace (Pandora and the necessity of hard work). The technical knowledge only can bring misery and pain to the mankind. Prometheus is a real sample of the dangers that comes along with pride and impiety. Hesiod, as every other writer, was a son of his times. Technology had just begun its development and the poet is not able to face the changes that the new classes of artisans and traders was about to bring to Greece. Prometheus doesn't fit in the old school view of the world, he meant a violent irruption, embodying the radical new ways in politics and production, and the radical social and economic differences that came from those. He is seen as the root of every evil, and nothing  more evil than the hunger of knowledge and progress, moreover if this hunger breaks through undermining the gods will. Prometheus is the revolution of the technicians and Hesiod was right when he foresaw that this was going to lead to multiple alterations, alterations that, obviously, he disliked. Actually, the importance that the tyrants were about to give to traders and artisans will eventually change forever the western world, and this take us straight to the tragic version of the Myth, because when the revolution reaches the political structure, the tragedy becomes the most powerful Greek tool to look for the answers or, at least, to deal with the questions.

Only one play remains from the trilogy that Aeschylus dedicated to Prometheus (I defended in my first book the thesis of Aeschylus as original author of the "Prometheus bound"). We are now in the fifth century, in the climax of Athenian democracy and pan-Hellenic euphoria, after the Persian war. In Aeschylus age, the hesiodic fears became one of the main roles in the new political organization (is with the tyrants when the future democratic mentality starts to be shaped), and these new circumstances were asking for a new order: Democracy. Prometheus still is a rebel that took the wrong way but he is not evil, he is the solution, the answer, the new class fighting for the necessary changes that needed to be promoted. Prometheus faces Zeus absolute power, he faces a God that pretends mankind to remain ignorant, a puppet on the god's strings. Zeus is wrong, so does Prometheus. Both must learnt, that's the aeschilean dialectics: there is always a third path. Prometheus must learn that there is another way to grant the progress (not tyranny but democracy), a way supported by the law, not forced by revolutions, crazy, stubbing and suicidal way, as Prometheus is about to find out by himself. Zeus must learn indeed that his power requires a fair and moderate execution, or will come to an end (yes, even the gods can fall if they don't learn). Zeus and Prometheus must work together, the old world must deal with the new times in order to the foundation of a new order, a new state. This conciliation is on the basis of the new democratic system. Prometheus is only a mandatory stop in the journey, and democracy is going to configure everything like if was new, with unknown meanings and senses: gods, laws, myths, costumes, rights, freedoms, war...

Now that we have the political and tragic answer to the myth, is time for the philosophers to speak out their minds, here comes Plato and his "Protagoras". Prometheus stole the fire, it is true, but this was never the key to human survival, not at least in Plato's era, now the things  are complicated so far. Plato lived in a consolidated democracy and Prometheus is not as useful as he was any more. Now his heroism is anecdotal, he brought indeed the technical knowledge but this is not enough. The technical wisdom and the arts are now perfectly assimilated by the democratic system and the philosophers are in a rush to find the key of the social and political perfection, inside (women, slaves, foreigners, citizens) and outside the borders of the City-State (Sparta and  and other political civilizations as the Persians). In this situation, the discover of fire is meaningless and now the political skills are the leading and urgent ones. In the platonic play his point against Protagoras is not about Prometheus, both agree in his loss of significance. The dialogue evolves into a political discussion: the political virtues, and not the technical skills, are the ones that are going to compromise the survival of the Athenian world's conception. The way of teaching and learning such skills, the way of making everyone involve in the "polis", is going to be the root of the conflict between philosophers and sophists. The technical skills are essential, it is true, but this is not the problem any more. Its meaning and social relevance and economic utility is settle down and now they need to get the same equilibrium and balance regarding the status of the citizenship, its meaning, its importance, its scope and range. Is at this point where the analysis is more urgent, because the govern of the City-State is not threatened by the technical power, now the enemy is the very politics itself, inside and outside (the right to be citizen, the politics of other empires and cities). And the enemies are so powerful that even the tragedy starts to focus on that topics (like Euripides and his concern  about those ones that are not being assimilated by the democratic system, that is Media's tragedy).

The myth of Prometheus is about the technical assimilation in the Greek world and about the evolution of its treatment depending on the social and political stages. In Hesiod, Prometheus, as the technical skills, is seen with fear and distrust, as long as is something new and revolutionary. In Aeschylus is a tyrannical hero that needs to learn the democratic ways to become part of the system. In Plato, we can say that they had another problems at the moment.

Always that the technology evolves fast and in threatening ways, the men turn their eyes to this myth, that constitutes a powerful tool in the reflection about science and its social consequences. It is not strange that another great version of the myth came along in the nineteenth century by the hand of Mary Shelley, but in complete accord with the hesiodic version, just a modern update on the old epic lecture. When mankind faces technical advances and science, the first answer is always full of fear (Hesiod, Shelley), but as we learnt from the Greeks, it becomes the moment when we need to put ourselves together and to give an answer to technical and scientific knowledge: a political answer (Aeschylus) or a philosophical one (Plato). At the end, the men, as political and social animals, need to assimilate every progress into a deeper consideration, where our own success as society lies down.

Science and technology are not evil tools but are not the ultimate answer as well. These are only essentials elements of our evolution, but are not the end of our problems or the close of our history, political and social. As humans, the answer that we demand is always a political and philosophical one, because there is always a moment, as Plato taught us, when we realize that scientific and technical progress are mere tools that require a further discussion about its use and meanings, and there will be always a fundamental question that remains the same time after time, although the circumstances may change: how can we build a righter and fairer society besides all the tools that we achieved in our journey? Schiller told us that the most advanced use of science, reason and technical abilities does not come hand by hand with the most fine society. Often, the men search for salvation in the wrong places. We still think that science and technology are the ultimate answers and we forget about philosophy. Bur the history always takes us back to Plato and the necessity of wondering about our political existence. The most essential question is still asking from us to do our best, and is a question that never will be obsolete: how do we take every tool, every skill, every advance, every knowledge, in order to learn to live with each other avoiding the most senseless destruction and brutality.

Greek Tragedy and Spanish Golden Age Theatre: Reading the tragic genre Part four

Appendix

On the translation of “El medico de su honra” by Gwynne Edwards

“Similarly, Brenan’s suggestion that Calderon approved of Gutierre’s murder of Mencia can be shown to be erroneous, for what he shows us is the process whereby a man who is basically good and loving is destroyed by an inflexible ideology” Edwards, Introduction, xxi.

Edwards is one of the scholars that consider a mistake the thesis that I held in this paper: that Calderon supports the crime. The question is that, with the purpose of defending Calderon from this mistake, the critics are manipulating the play, and Edwards translation is the perfect sample.

On the following lines I quote the Spanish text, the Edwards translation and a completely literal translation that follows the Spanish words. As anyone can see, the textual evidences that can be argued against Edwards view of the play, are completely vanished in his translation: lines that disappear, words that change substantially, the sense of the play becoming another… Edwards, by the way an excellent translator, seems to do a reinterpretation about some aspects of the play that can sustain other thesis (that no supports his own reading). 

In his version, his English version, Gutierre’s jealousy is not vile, despicable or wrong, no; he is only a man that gets worried about his honour.

In his version, Mencia’s blood is guilty, and Leonor accepts Gutierre in the condition of that he killed a guilty woman, and, of course, she doesn’t say that the crime doesn’t frighten or amazed her… These few changes modify completely the sense of the play: not even Calderon dares to say that Mencia’s blood is guilty; his vision of Gutierre is not so naïve as the one of his defenders.

Spanish text	Edwards translation	Literal translation
TEXT 1 Gutierre, mal informado / por aparentes recelos, / llegó a tener viles celos / de su honor; TEXT 2 Rey- Dásela, pues, a Leonor, / que yo sé que su alabanza / la merece. Don Gutierre- Sí la doy. / Mas mira, que va bañada / en sangre, Leonor. Doña Leonor- No importa; / que no me admira ni espanta. / Don Gutierre- Mira que médico he sido / de mi honra: no está olvidada / la ciencia. Doña Leonor- Cura con ella / mi vida, en estando mala. / Don Gutierre- Pues con esa condición/ te la doy [...]. (vv. 2940-2951).	TEXT 1 My master is, as you well know, Aman suspicious of his honour, and of hiswife, Mencia, in particular. TEXT 2 King: Then give your hand to Leonor. Her reputation merits it. Gutierre: So be it, with the reservation that It has been cleansed with guilty blood. Leonor: On that condition I accept it. Gutierre: Do not forget. I have already been The surgeon of my honour. It is A skill, I promise you, that lasts forever. Leonor: If I am ever sick, Gutierre, do Not hesitate to cure me. Gutierre: Then here’s my hand, my dear”.	TEXT 1 Gutierre, that handles wrong information, became despicably jealousy by his own mistrust and suspicious mind about his honour TEXT 2 2940 King: Give it, then to Eleanor, I know that she is worth it. GUTIERRE: Yes I give it. But look, which is bathed in blood, Leonor. ELEANOR: It doesn't matter; 2945 not admire me or scares. GUTIERRE: Look that I have been the doctor of my honour.It is not aforgotten Science. LEONOR: Cure with it my life in being bad. 2950  GUTIERRE: On  that condition I give it to you.

Notes

1 Many authors exercise a political definition of the tragic genre. Only to mention, by way of example, the following: Jaeger (1933 / 1954: 248), Murray (1940 / 1954: 29), Luis Gil (1988), Carlos García Gual (1988: 182-183), Adrados (1992: 4, 5), Trapp (1996: 82), Pelling (1997: 224), Parker (1997: 146), Vidal-Naquet (2001 / 2004). I refer, for a detailed justificaci6n, to the first chapter of Varela Álvarez (2008).

2 While Lope himself considers as a tragicomedy his play “the Knight of Olmedo”, “The punishment without revenge” was conceived, I insist, by the author as a tragedy. The difference would hinge on the non-fictional origin of the story, although the author does not hesitate to modify following the first Aristotelian principle which differences the history from the tragedy according to this judgement: the History tells the particular facts while the Tragedy tells the facts as should have been. Lope is moving between the new and old art, between the comedy and the tragedy and what make the difference and serves for distinguishing between tragedy and tragicomedy is not the level of the characters, or the outcome of the play, but the historicity of the argument. It's a historic fact, taken from written sources; this is something that Lope makes clear. On the contrary, this kind of historicity is not found in plays as “The Celestina”, for example». (Ynduráin, 1987: 148). (Translation by Violeta Varela Alvarez).

3 The dedication and the preface do not appear in Kossoff edition (1985).

4. For a discussion about the sources of “the punishment without revenge” I refer to Kossoff (1985: 20 and ff.).

5 “If the protagonist, before facing his own death, has to humbly regret about all the mistakes in his life, he can be a Saint, but not a tragic hero ". (MacCurdy, 1989: I, 180).

6 It has been pointed out how such tragedies, which would be after the undermining of revenge, are connected with the reign of Felipe IV and his interest for loving affairs, as well as the adjustment to the courtly taste. (Ynduráin, 1987: 150).

7 I entirely agree with MacCurdy (1989: I, 178) and the thesis that emphasizes the incompatibility between Catholic values and the tragic perspective: « Catholicism, according to several critics, is mainly the value that avoids the tragedy, because the true tragic experience is not going with the essential optimism of the Christian faith».

8 I disagree, consequently, with Ynduráin (1987: 151): [...] It seems that there is a progression from revenge to punishment, through discretions, secrets and prudence: the one replaces the other, with all that it implies. Lope, is even pleased to lead the reader or listener into a revenge fact to, at the last moment, with one master swerve, frustrate that expectation and replacing it with an act of punishment, new and different, an unexpected outcome in any case.

9. Actually, Lope would have been pointed out, on more than one occasion, as the responsible for the extinction of the tragic genre in Spain. «On the contrary, Agustín Montiano, in his “discourse on the Spanish tragedy”, does not hesitate to claim for the Spanish a natural inclination to the tragedy: "the cause of this tragic, serious and great inclination, would be discovered in the Spanish mentality, that naturally prefers the tragic circumspection;»» The pity that excites; the authenticity that exercises; the benefit that produces and the rationality that keeps; opposite to unsuitable triviality, the insensitivity of the soul, the impossible facts, the useless activities, the disruption of the speech: and this, not only when it is possible to discern what’s best, but even when the tendency to goodness is hidden». Montiano, inveterate classicist by the way, considers Lope de Vega the responsible for the denaturising of the Spanish propensity to tragedy» (MacCurdy, 1989: I, 176). Same opinion would be shared by Martínez de la Rosa (apud MacCurdy, 1989: I, 177).

10. I do not believe that the outcome of the play can be considered ironic (O'Connor, 1982: 788-789). The end of the play is a happy ending and is even facetious. The attitude of Leonor, the King and Gutierre communicate an absolute satisfaction about the new marriage, and the young woman, that feels confidence in her own virtue, doesn’t seem to fear anything about her future marriage with a man who is able of such a brutal act.

11 Life, in the tragic experience, is an insignificant value, but a value after all. If life is not absolutely essential, its sacrifice would be meaningless. 

12 we disagree, consequently, with O'Connor’s opinion regarding to the treatment of the honour in the play: «In some way, he demonstrates [Calderon] how the honour is divorced of the virtue, its traditional source, as he describes what kind of resorts the man will use to protect its place in the social hierarchy. [...] In “The doctor of his honour” Calderon is interested more in the human problems that underline the obvious troubles caused by an unreasonable consideration of the honour» (1982: 785).

13 O'Connor says (1982: 784): “The Prince Don Enrique behaves boldly, without worrying about the problems that he provokes to Mencfa. He abuses of his position and of his royal powers, he refuses as well to consider the situation that she describes... Mencia shall be the innocent victim of this egomaniac prince, although she had already been before when she was forced by her father to marry don Gutierre». It is true, but this fact does not mean the existence in the play of any sort of social critic. Enrique's attitude serves Calderon for, through the figure of the King, the demonstration and enunciation of a doctrine in which the honour is the only fundamental only value.

14 «In this paper I propose to broaden the traditional conception of the drama by the inclusion, basically, of other problems: those that concern the relations between men and women» (O'Connor, 1982:783).

15 We must remember that Leonor refuses to marry don Arias because she believes that this union could serve as a confirmation to old suspicions (vv. 1755-1784).

16. Again, we disagree deeply with the interpretation of O'Connor (1982: 786-787): "At the end of the work, the marriage between Leonor and don Gutierre emphasizes the victimisation of women by men." We have just seen the sacrifice of Mencia due to the honour- and with his hands already bathed in her blood, the high priest of honour extends the link of marriage to Leonor, previous victim and, in this terrible scene, likely candidate for a new victimisation. [...] With the murder of the innocent Mencia and the victimisation of the naive Leonor, Calderon reveals the acceptable traditions of his society; a society established on a false and destructive pattern, the need of the subordination of women to the male power and privilege. To carry out ineluctably with this debt of honour, serves Calderon to reveal tacitly those horrible assumptions of a society dominated and driven by men».

I do not see anything naive in the behaviour and the character of Eleanor: is vindictive (she wants that the evil caused by Gutierre reverts in himself VV. 1007-1020); It is clever (knows that a marriage with don Arias will not return her previous social position); It is cruel (she tells to Gutierre, in the face of Mencia’s corpse, that if she acts badly, Gutierre can apply the same medicine to her): she takes an approving look on the murder of Mencia (Mencia introduced doubts in the honour of her husband and she deserved the punishment, but Leonor, on the contrary, considers herself as a virtuous woman whose dishonour was due to a misunderstanding and for this reason she accepts Gutierre with the confidence possessed by those that believe themselves better); and, finally, she does not feel any pity or sorry for Mencia (she couldn’t care lees and she says it clearly: the crime does not frighten or amazes her, as well as she is not worried about the bloody hands of her future husband). Calderon performances for sure a horrible act, but it doesn’t mean that he makes a critical approach. Finally, it is true, as O'Connor says (1982: 787), that Leonor represents the exposed situation of a woman without males in the family that can protect her, but it is not true that Calder6n intends to denounce the indefensi6n of Leonor: what Calderon shows us is that even the more humble and unprotected vassals can expect relief and protection of their King.

Bibliography

BIBLIOGRAFÍA

For the translations:

Lope de Vega, Three Major Plays, Gwynne Edwards, Oxford University Press (2008).

Calderon de la Barca, Plays: one, Gwynne Edwards, Methuen Drama (2000).

1- FUENTES PRIMARIAS

ARISTÓTELES 1974: Poética, edición trilingüe por Valentín García Yebra, Madrid: Gredos.

ARISTÓTELES 1994: Metafísica, introducción, traducción y notas de Tomás Calvo Martínez, Madrid: Gredos.

CALDERÓN DE LA BARCA 1633-1635/1989: El médico de su honra, edición de D.

W. Cruickshank, Madrid: Castalia.

ESQUILO 2000: Tragedias, traducción y notas por B. Perea Morales, introducción por

F. Rodríguez Adrados, Madrid: Gredos.

EURÍPIDES 1977: Tragedias, Vol. I, traducción y notas de A. Medina, J. A. López Férez; introducción general de C. García Gual, Madrid: Gredos.

EURÍPIDES 1985: Tragedias, Vol. II, introducciones, traducciones y notas de J. L. Calvo Martínez, Madrid: Gredos.

EURÍPIDES 1979: Tragedias, Vol. III, introducciones, traducciones y notas de C. García Gual y L. A. de Cuenca y Prado, Madrid: Gredos.

HOMERO 1997: Ilíada, edición y traducción de A. López Eire, Madrid: Cátedra.

LOPE DE VEGA 1631/1985: El perro del hortelano y El castigo sin venganza, editado por David Kossoff, Madrid: Castalia.

LOPE DE VEGA 2002: Novelas a Marcia Leonarda, edición de Antonio Carreño, Madrid: Cátedra.

PLATÓN 1992: Parmenides; Teeteto; Sofista; Polftico en Diálogos V, introducción, traducción y notas de Mª. I. Santa Cruz, A. Vallejo Campos y N. L. Cordero, Madrid: Gredos.

PLATÓN 1998: República en Diálogos IV, introducción, traducción y notas por C. Eggers Lan, Madrid: Gredos.

ROJAS ZORRILA, F. de 1650/1996: Del rey abajo, ninguno, edición de Brigitte

Wittmann, Madrid: Catedra. Es la edici6n por la que citamos.

SÓFOCLES 1981: Tragedias, introducción por J. Lasso de la Vega, traducción y notas por A. Alamillo, Madrid: Gredos.

2- FUENTES SECUNDARIAS

ALVAR, M. 1987: «Reelaboración y creación en El castigo sin venganza», en R. Doménech (ed.), «El castigo sin venganza» y el teatro de Lope de Vega, Madrid: Cátedra (207-222).

BOARDMAN, J., GRIFFIN, J., MURRAY, O. (directores) 1986/1988: The Oxford

History of the Cassical World, 2 vols., Oxford: Oxford University Press. Versión española de Federico Zaragoza: Historia Oxford del Mundo clásico, Madrid: Alianza.

BUENO, G. 1996: El animal divino, Oviedo: Pentalfa.

CRAWFORD, J. P. W. 1922: Spanish drama before Lope de Vega, Philadelphia: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Pensylvania.

DOMENECH, R. (ed.) 1987: «El castigo sin venganza» y el teatro de Lope de Vega, Madrid: Cátedra.

GARCÍA GUAL, C. 1988: «Democracia, tragedia y educación», conferencia y posterior coloquio, en Tragedia griega y Democracia, seminarios del XXXIV Festival de Teatro clásico de Mérida, Mérida: Editora regional de Extremadura (181-190).

GIL FERNÁNDEZ, L. 1988: «La democracia ateniense», conferencia y posterior coloquio, en Tragedia Griega y Democracia, seminarios del XXXIV Festival de Teatro Clásico de Mérida, Mérida: Editora regional de Extremadura (164-175).

JAEGER, W. (libros I y II: 1933, libro III: 1944, libro IV: 1945/2001), Paideia. Die Formung des Griechischen Menschen I-II, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1936. Traducción española de J. Xirau (I-II) y W. Roces (III-IV), Méjico y España: F.

C. E.

LESKY, A. 1937: Die griechische Tragödie, Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner Verlag, 1958. Trad. esp. de Juan Godó Costa, revisada por Montserrat Camps: La tragedia griega, Barcelona: El Acantilado, 2001.

MACCURDY, R. R. 1989: «Lope de Vega y la pretendida inhabilidad española para la tragedia. Resumen crítico», en A. Sánchez Romerazo (ed.), Lope de Vega: el teatro, vol. 1, Madrid: Taurus (163-190).

MACCURDY, R.R. 1979: «A Critical Review of El médico de su honra as Tragedy»,

Bulletin of Comediantes, 31 (3-14).

MORBY, E. S. 1943: «Some observations on Tragedia and Tragicomedia in Lope»,

Hispanic Review, 11 (185-209).

MURRAY, G. 1940/1954: Aeschylus: the Creator of Tragedy, Oxford, Carendon Press. Versión española de L. Mirlas: Esquilo: el creador de la tragedia, Madrid: Austral.

O'CONNOR, T. A. 1982: «El médico de su honra y la victimización de la mujer: la crítica social de Calderón de la Barca» en Asociación Internacional de Hispanistas, Actas VII, editado por G. Bellini, Roma, Bulzoni (783-789).

PARKER, R. 1997: «Gods cruel and kind tragic and civic theology», en C. Pelling (ed.),

Greek tragedy and the historian, Oxford: Clarendon Press (143-160).

PEDRAZA, F. 2007: Sexo, poder y justicia en la comedia española, Vigo: Editorial

Academia del Hispanismo.

PELLING, C. 1997: «Tragedy and ideology», en C. Pelling (ed.), Greek tragedy and the historian, Oxford: Clarendon Press (224-236).

RODRIGUEZ ADRADOS, F. 1992: «El significado de La Orestíada dentro de la tragedia griega», en F. Rodríguez Adrados (ed.), La Orestíada (simposio de 1990), Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas (1-16).

SANCHEZ ROMERALO, A. (ed.) 1989: Lope de Vega: el teatro, 2 vols., Madrid: Taurus.

TRAPP, M. 1996: «Tragedy and the fragility of Moral reasoning: Responsey to Foley», en M. S. Silk (ed.), Greek tragedy and the tragic: Greek theatre and beyond, Oxford: Clarendon Press (73-84).

VARELA ÁLVAREZ, V. 2008: Destino y libertad en la tragedia griega, Vigo: Editorial

Academia del Hispanismo.

VIDAL-NAQUET, P. 2001/2004: Le miror brisé. Tragédie athenienne et politique,Société d´Édition Ls Belles lettres. Traducción española de M. llenares García: El espejo roto: tragedia y política en Atenas en la Grecia antigua, Madrid: Abada Editores.

WARDROPPER, B. W. 1987: «Civilización y barbarie en El castigo sin venganza», en R. Doménech (ed.), «El castigo sin venganza» y el teatro de Lope de Vega, Madrid: Cátedra (191-206).

YNDURÁIN, D. 1987: «El castigo sin venganza como género literario», en R. Doménech (ed.), «El castigo sin venganza» y Lope de Vega, Madrid: Cátedra (141-162)

Greek Tragedy and Spanish Golden Age Theatre: Reading the tragic genre Part three

Calderon

Calderon’s play tells us the story of an atrocious crime: the murder of a innocent woman due to the honour of her husband. The man instigates the murder of his wife on the belief, falsely, that she has committed adultery with the prince don Enrique. Such a crime appears, as we will see, completely justified in the play and in the outcome the author will guarantee the killer a happy ending and a new marriage with Leonor (v. 2940. and next).

Is not new in the wide field of the tragic events that a horrible crime being justified. In the Greek tragedy, we attend to multiple and terrible deaths and crimes, but the insertion of these actions in the conflict between the family range and the political ambit confers to this actions a tragic dignity, what it means that the tragedy lies in the fact of killing someone beloved due to political or religious reasons. The tragedy always has shown us the pain and suffer of whom that are meant to loose. These notes are fundamental, because, as we will see soon, the crime that Calderon places for us in the stage is absolutely irreconcilable with the tragic experience, since in the last scenes the death of the woman does not mean anything to anyone 10. Her savage murder does not matter or concern anybody, with the only exception, we will see further, of Coquin, the clown and the comic relief in the play.

Even with her remains being still on the stage, Calderon decides to resolve comically the play. There is no possible a bigger disdain for a human life, contempt that barely and hardly fits in the tragic perspective 11. The death of the wife is divested of any significance in Calderon’s play. With the corpse bloodily present, a new wedding will be set up for the murderer, weddings sponsored and blessed by the king who, even being aware of all the facts, does not consider that the death of the woman deserves any kind of punishment. The outcome of the play gives us a happy ending and the reasons of the murderer prevail through the words of the king. The play involves from beginning to end the simplistic statement of the codes of honour 12. The honour Code is above all: either above state distinctions (Enrique is not safe in spite of his noble condition), or even above evidences and realities (Enrique and Mencia never consummate their relationship). The laws of honour do not meet estates or realities and the deaths that come of its application are not questioned, nor censored, and nor judged.

Moreover, the honour is defined as a category that is always moving in the level of the appearances: it doesn't matter so much that the honour being intact: the essential issue is that the honour must seem intact. If the appearance of honour vanishes, then, equally, this appearance must be repaired with a public and ostentatious act, as finally happens in Calderon’s play. It is true that Gutierre’s honour didn’t take any offence at the actions of Mencia and Enrique, but it is no less true that their acts caused a dishonourable appearance that Gutierre shall repair with the public execution of his innocent wife. The appearance that holds the honour of Gutierre is restored by a crime that is displayed in front of the King and of other spectators.

Calderon, in a different way than other Spanish authors, shows off such a socio-political idealism in his play that even goes against the political reality that effectively shapes The Spain of the seventieth century. Other authors, like Rojas Zorrilla, in example, dramatised analogous situation but in this case the rules of honour are highly liable to its dissolution in the more complex structure of estates, stratum and classes that are implied by a Nation, which it means that if the King is the offender there is no possible reparations. In Calderon’s play, the King embodies the reason. His judgment about the crime will prevail at the end of the drama: he sanctions, approves and rewards, with a new marriage, the right and the moral prerogative of Gutierre to kill his innocent wife making use of the codes o honour, according to which the apparent offences demand the same response as well as the real ones.

Calderon had in his hands a perfect tragic material: the brutal murder of an innocent woman due to the only suspicions of her husband, the terrible duty that the honour Code, regulated by appearances, imposes to anyone, a Code that rules the life and that makes a beloved husband become a cruel executioner. Lope, as we have just seen, was so critic with the honour and its reasons and rules. But Calderon make the choice of reducing this tragic event to a mere anecdote without meaning and importance, what’s more, the death of Mencia is the only way to solve the problems of honour that another woman, Leonor, is suffering.

We will see now the basic and essential significance of these points that I come repeating and insisting on. It could be argued that in Claderon’s play we effectively have two dialectical approaches: the genre and the socio-political ones (O'Connor, 1982).

In this paper I'm going to defend that there is no way of talking about any presence of such dialectical conflicts in this play. I will argue this thesis down to the last detail.

1- Regarding the socio-political dialectic 13, I have already argued that the play has as one of its main purposes the denial of this sort of conflicts regarding to the Idea of honour in the Spanish golden age. The important matter is not the estate to where each one belongs, but the honour that each one owns. In the play, Gutierre is above the prince Enrique because Gutierre has fulfilled the requirements of honour, ordering the killing of his wife, while Enrique has desecrated those same rules, does not matter that he was unsuccessfully, courting and wooing a married woman. This is not, therefore, a dialectical approach, but a not critic and idealistic assertion of the honour and its procedures. Here are the words of the King claiming the rules of honour above any distinction of any other kind:

Act three, 75: “King: Do you not realize

That, more than once, avenging swords

Have sought to right with royal blood

Unjust offences done to them?

Enrique: I do, your majesty, But who

Can you be saying this about?

King: You, Enrique! How could you so forget

That honour is a sacred thing,

The province of the soul, where I,

The King, have no authority?

I’ll say no more.

Enrique: It isn’t true.

King: You must take greater care where love’s

Concerned and learn to act more prudently

Where female beauty, even though

It draws you, is impossible.

We deal here with the soul of someone whose

Allegiance is forever promised to

Authority far greater than my own;

Who, if he asks me to be fair

And just to him, as I must be,

Would make it difficult for me

To spare the blood of my own family”.

Rey- Vos, Enrique no sabéis / que más de un acero tiñe / el agravio en sangre real. / Don Enrique- Pues, ¿por quién, señor, lo dice / Vuestra Majestad? Rey- Por vos / lo digo, por vos, Enrique; / el honor es reservado / lugar, donde el alma asiste; / yo no soy Rey de las almas: / harto en esto solo os dije. / Don Enrique- No os entiendo Rey- Si a la enmienda / vuestro amor no se apercibe, / dejando vanos intentos / de bellezas imposibles, / donde el alma de un vasallo / con ley soberana vive, / podrá ser de mi justicia / aun mi sangre no se libre. (vv. 2189 y ss.).

2-The sexual dialectics.14  I can’t find in his play any sort of critic about the subjugation of women, but all the contrary. The play defines the wife role as a kind of slavery (in the verses 1240-1241, words that are not counteracted by any other assertion in the play), but, even, moreover, the damage of one woman, Mencia, becomes the solution for another, Leonor. Mencia’s death means the salvation of Leonor, that finally reaches a marriage and a happy ending with the only man that can give this to her, the man that had already promised to her before15 . Let’s see how both of them, Leonor and Gutierre, received the news regarding their future wedding:

Act three, 97-100 Mencia’s body is revealed, a bloodless corpse lyingon a bed.“King: The tale is most remarkable!

Aside.

But prudence is required here.

His vengeance is quite admirable.

Aloud.

Conceal this vision; hide at once

This pitiful admission of

The way misfortune rues our lives,

And flls our hes with fear for

Those things that lie in store for us.

Gutierre, you have our pity.

Your loss is great, and our duty is

To try to compensate that loss

As best we can. And so it seems

The best solution is to marry Leonor.

Do not forget, she is a creditor

To whom you owe a debt of honour.

And that will satisfy me too,

And help me keep a promise I

Once made to her.

Gutierre: Your majesty,

It is not time to think of this.

The ashes of my tragedy

Are not yet cold. I beg you, do

Not make me keep this bargain. Give

Me time, the opportunity

To weep and find some peace again.

King: I have decided. See it’s done.

Gutierre: Your majesty. Mencia’s death

Has freed me from the storm that raged

About my head. Must I set sail

Upon that sea again now she is dead?

King: It is your King’s command.

Gutierre: My lord,

I beg of you. Do not make this demand.

King: You think I am unreasonable?

Gutierre: What if again I were to find

Myself in such a situation?

What if again your brother’s presence in

JMy house inflamed suspicions…?

[…]

Gutierre: A man must sometimes cleanse his hands with blood

In order to protect his honour.

King: Then give your hand to Leonor.

Her reputation merits it.

Gutierre: So be it, with the reservation that

It has been cleansed with guilty blood.

Leonor: On that condition I accept it.

Gutierre: Do not forget. I have already been

The surgeon of my honour. It is

A skill, I promise you, that lasts forever.

Leonor: If I am ever sick, Gutierre, do

Not hesitate to cure me.

Gutierre: Then here’s my hand, my dear”.

Rey- Dásela, pues, a Leonor, / que yo sé que su alabanza / la merece. Don Gutierre- Sí la doy. / Mas mira, que va bañada / en sangre, Leonor. Doña Leonor- No importa; / que no me admira ni espanta. / Don Gutierre- Mira que médico he sido / de mi honra: no está olvidada / la ciencia. Doña Leonor- Cura con ella / mi vida, en estando mala. / Don Gutierre- Pues con esa condición

/ te la doy [...]. (vv. 2940-2951).

Where is, in these words (for the problems with the English translation see the appendix), the gender solidarity that some critics notes and realizes in the play? Leonor says clearly: the crime does not amazes or scares her 16, as well as to all the characters of the play but the clown, Coquin, the only one that feels horror of Mencia’s death describing the jealous and possessive conduct of Gutierre as vil and despicable.

This character, the clown, is the only one that seems to have some empathy for the hideous and cruelty of the crime, a character whose ideas and beliefs are discredited in the play by its own kind of "clown" and "coward" (v. 1253 Et seq. Act two 43 and 44, note the contrast that Calderon establishes between Gutierre and Coquin in this specific dialogue: Don Gutierre, future killer of his wife through a forced Ludovico, embodies the honesty of those who can’t flee from justice, Coquin does not). How a coward and a clown is supposed to understand the issues of honor? No way. Let's take a look at the lines of Coquin, verses 2728 et seq.

Act three, 93. “Coquin: I swear,

Your majesty, that this time it

Is most unfunny. I know you think

That I’m a clown, but want to tell

You that, deep own, there’s really quite

A serious side o me, and what

I have to tell you now is, not

To put too fine a point on it,

Well… pretty bloody. No, I haven’t come

To make you laugh; more to see if what

I’ve got to say will break your heart.

My master is, as you well know,

A man suspicious of his honour, and of

His wife, Mencia, in particular.

Well just today, by some unlucky chance,

He came across her just as she

Had started putting pen to paper, which,

It seems, consisted of a letter to

Your brother, Prince Enrique. She begged

Him not to leave the city, knowing well

That people, when they heard the news,

Would straight away believe that she’s

The one who ought to be accused

Of it. Approaching her, Gutierre saw

How she was overcome by fear, took

The letter, thought suspicion justified,

Had all the servants leave, the doors

All locked, and him the only one

Still left inside with her. I feel

Such pity for the poor girl.

She seems so cruelly abused

By harsh, unfeeling fate, I had

To come and tell your majesty,

So you could maybe bring your strong

And mighty arm to bear on it”.

Esta es una honrada acci6n I de hombre bien nacido, en fin; I que aunque

hombre me consideras / de burlas, con loco humor, / llegando a veras, señor,

/ soy hombre de muchas veras. / Oye lo que he de decir, / pues de veras vengo a hablar, / que quiero hacerte llorar, / ya que no puedo reír. / Gutierre, mal informado / por aparentes recelos, / llegó a tener viles celos / de su honor; y hoy, obligado / a tal sospecha, que halló / escribiendo (¡error cruel!) / para el Infante un papel / a su esposa, que intentó / con él que no se ausentase,

/ porque ella causa no fuese / de que en Sevilla se viese / la novedad que causase / pensar que ella le ausentaba... / con esta inocencia pues / (que a mí me consta), con pies / cobardes, adonde estara / llegó, y el papel tomó, / y, sus celos declarados, / despidiendo a los criados, / todas las puertas cerró, / solo se quedó con ella. / Yo, enternecido de ver / una infelice mujer, / perseguida de su estrella, / vengo, señor, a avisarte / que tu brazo altivo y fuerte / hoy la libre de la muerte.

It could be argued that the clown is the one that bears the hard work of telling the truth. It could be argued that Calderon beliefs agrees Coquin’s ones, but the truth is that we will never know what Calderon thought about, the only thing that can be proven is that the end of the play points to the fact that the crime is viewed as something excusable and pardonable, and what we can demonstrate it is also that the acclaiming of the codes of honour, as Calderon does, supposes to support a system in which the mere appearance of crime implies guilt and revenge, what is absolutely consistent with the outcome of the facts and with the drawing of offences and reparations that the author puts in the scene.

The development of the play discredits the clown, not Gutierre. The King supports Gutierre, and, consequently, turns a blind eye to a vile and unfair murder. May be objected too, it is true, that the King responses to Coquin’s calling, and he doesn’t save the life of Mencia because he can't (he arrives late). It’s also true that he feels a faithful horror when he discovers the bleeding body of the woman, and expresses his reproach to Gutierre for his rush, but all these gestures and signs, quite insignificant, lose all their meaning when the King decides, I must insist, not to punish Gutierre by the horrible crime (see verses 2923-2939, Act three 97: in this dialogue it’s clear that the king couldn’t care less about the murder), and to reward him with a new wife (Act three 97, vv. 2940-2942), and Gutierre does not hesitate to warn her that he would do the same again if the situation requires it.

The denial of dialectics through the category of honour help us to find out that in Calderon’s mentality, the contrary that in Lope, then rules of honour are use for legitimating criminal proceedings. The honour dissolves in this play all sort of socio-political conflict, even above estates or classes. In Calderon there is politics and he puts his play in the service of very specific political ideas: the reaffirmation of the royal power. In this sense, the classical tradition remains alive in his work.

The main problem that we find to consider this play as a tragedy comes from its treatment of violence. To finish such a brutal and terrible play according to comical codes (the announcement of a wedding) is something that any tragedy can’t stand. The tragic genre has always offered us valuable reflections on the terrible fact of violence, doesn’t matter how much unavoidable or necessary it may be. A King that, in the face the corpse of an innocent murdered woman, does not punish the guilty; a woman who isn’t frightened or amazed by the crime; a man who receives the new nuptials threatening his future wife with the image of the inert body of his first one... Unpunished injustices which no one cares or concerns about, apart from Coquin the servant…  And all of this is happening in the midst of the joy for the new wedding... The tragedy becomes extinct in Calderon as the same time as the respect due to Mencia vanishes, at once with the absence of dignity of murderers and spectators, almost accomplices. And this is not a critic taken out of the context. The Greeks knew this respect and this dignity, both were present in its literature, it is not an extrapolation of modern sensibilities, it’s simply the horror that has always gone with the violence and the injustice in every tragedy that worth it.

Greek Tragedy and Spanish Golden Age Theatre: Reading the tragic genre Part two

Lope de Vega: Punishment without revenge

Lope conceptualized, without any kind of doubt, his play “Punishment without Revenge” as a tragedy 2, both in the dedication as in the prologue, and in the final lines of the play 3. He pointed out that the play is written in Spanish style, not Roman or Greek, and he argued that the tragic rules, as the suits, the taste and the costumes, can change (apud Ynduráin, 1987: 146).

“The punishment without revenge” performs the ideal and tragic vision (from the point of view of the author himself) of some historic facts 4 together with an exemplary and moral aspect. What is intended to transmit by Lope in his play? To answer this question is very useful what it had been said by the author in the pages 282-284 of his work, “The most prudent revenge”, that appears in «the novels to Marcia Leonarda». The objective of the tragedy is clear: Historic facts that have been modified in order to offer an exemplary story. Both tragedies, in prose and in verse, would serve to discredit and undermine the act of revenge in cases of honour, due to the Catholic mentality, in which the way of repentance and salvation of the soul must be kept always open. In other way, the Catholicism prevents the tragedy, the revenge hastens it 5.

The conception of the tragic genre in Lope leads directly to the reassertion, in a negative way, of the catholic thesis about guilt, regret and divine forgiveness: revenge is an interference of the men in the powers and duties of the catholic God 6. And all this discussion is directly related with the Honour Codes that rules in the Spanish Golden Age theatre (I said codes because every author has his own vision of the honour and its rules).

So what we find in Lope’s plays: proper tragic exercises or moralizing and exemplary Catholic dramas? I'm going to bet on the second option 7.

 At this point is absolutely necessary to analyze the type of phenomena that we are attending in the play: punishment or revenge? I defend that the fact dramatized by Lope is the performance of a private revenge that will be presented and pretended in public as a political punishment, a fake political punishment 8.

Being truth that the scholars tried to make a definition of Spanish tragedy particular, specific and according to the schemes of the author himself, they pointed out as well other elements that they consider such an evidence of the direct relation between Lope and Greek tragedy (Ynduráin, 1987;) (Alvar, 1987):

1) The topic of the incest.

(2) The high tone which aims to move away from the predictable applause of the uneducated masses and common people.

(3) The characters of Aurora and the Marques as figures akin to the classical choir.

(4) The decisive intercession of fate, accelerating the fatal outcome: the incident of the carriage.

(5) The tragic irony present, especially, in the character of the Duke.
(6) The classic formal reminiscences: names, et caetera.

Regarding these tragic features it must be said that there are very questionable and problematic features. The topic of the incest, for a start, is, in Lope’s play, such a diluted topic, for two main reasons: Cassandra is the stepmother of Federico, the bastard son of the Duke, her future husband. It is true that Federico is treated as a proper son by the Duke and his situation in the dynastic line presents not doubt, but he is still a bastard, being such condition the one that prevails at the end of the play. There is incest, of course, but not by blood, only by law, and has nothing to do with the incest reflected by Sophocles or Seneca in his dramatizations of Oedipus. Actually, according to the classical sources, I believe that the relationship between Federico and Cassandra owes more to the “Hipolit” of Euripides or to the Seneca’s Fedra (although Seneca’s play could be based on the eponymous tragedy of Euripides which, unfortunately, we do not conserve), that to any Greek or Latin version of the myth of Oedipus.

Even much more incestuous appears the relation of Federico with Aurora, because the blood and because they have been raised together as brother and sister (vv. 700-717, Act one: ”Aurora: As well, you gave me Federico, your son, to be my brother, cousins both, always together throughout our youth”).

Regarding the figures of Aurora and the Marques, even admitting their analogy with the figure of the classic choir, this still is a secondary and merely formal similarity that serves, in Lope’s play, to a completely opposite objective to the classic theatre. The same could be argued respect the use of names such as Cassandra or certain literary figures and images that are intended to evoke the Trojan War.

For which concerns to the tragic irony, in the sense of the famous sophoclean one, I completely disagree with scholars and critics. The tragic sophoclean irony lays in the fake security of Oedypus and in the kind of his character and curiosity that makes him to go rushing towards his own misfortune. In Lope’s play, the Duke is not this way. He is a cheater husband that has completely abandoned his wife; he couldn’t care less about her. Marriage is not one of the concerns of the Duke until he returns from fighting in the service of the Church. His lack of interest badly can fit in the tragic irony. The scenes of the play by Lope that might acquire an ironic dye (2295 verses et seq.), in fact acquire an humoristic profile derived from the character of the Duke, lustful and unfair man who returns from the war speaking of virtue and love, the love of his wife who, tired of waiting, goes to find it in the arms of her stepson.

The character of Oedipus, which remains constant up to break at the end of the tragedy, has little to do with the character of the Duke. The tragedy of Oedipus is concern about a city harassed by a plague and by a criminal stain that has not been cleaned. And he is guilty without knowing it: the irony lies in his own efforts to be threatened and to be hunted by himself. In Lope’s play, the Duke has never care about his wife, not even to give birth to a new and proper son, because he always accepts as heir his bastard son. His wife has not had any kind of contact with him. Is not that He does not trust about his wife loyalty, he simply doesn’t care about it (see the recitative of Cassandra in the lines 998-1043, Act two 2 and f. “Cassandra: The Duke is of the school that thinks a wife is something to adorn his house […] a woman wants to be a wife and mother, not another stick of furniture”). Only on its return, the desire of resuming their married life will be born, and that's when he will be advised of the betrayal that it going on, betrayal that he didn’t realized before by his absolute lack of interest. It is true that the myth of Oedipus also attended the blindness of the hero, but it's blindness due to the erroneous information managed by the protagonist. There is not a hidden force that maintains the Duke away from the truth. It’s no the fate the responsible of the relationship between Cassandra and Federico. They would have met equally although the carriage wouldn’t have the accident (this fact was useful as, at most, an accelerant or precipitant occurrence). Regarding the love between them, it’s very important to remind that there are important human reasons that can explain these feelings: Cassandra has more connection with Federico than with her own husband. She is not running from a prophecy or trying to avoid the incest as the most evil thing that could happen to her, she is simply married to a man that couldn’t care lees about her and she is going to find love and support in another. Anyway, and although I don't have the chance in this paper to prove it, I want to highlight that in the Greek tragedy we never attend to the simply statement of Fate as a mere chain of events that lead purely to an inevitably denouement (outcome). The strengthening of Fate, if any, is always problematic and Fate is dialectically developed against freedom.

I consider, therefore, that even Lope himself named his play “tragedy”, many data should make us questioning, at least, such a denomination. Lope’s play responds to drama, a terrible drama, more than to tragedy. The love between Cassandra and Federico will cause the wrath of the Duke, husband and father, respectively, of the lovers, and he plans the murder of both, pretending that the crime is due to political motivations and its corresponding punishment (the sovereignty of Federico, as a bastard son, is threatened by the birth of a legitimate son of Cassandra and the Duke) but, in fact, the murder is a revenge for the matrimonial betrayal which is even more worse for the circumstance of being his own son the protagonist of the love affair. What underlies Duke’s terrible conduct is the anger for the personal betrayal of his son and wife, and the collapse of the new life which he had decided to begin after his return of the battle. Even his revenge fits perfectly within the codes of honour, he prefers to justify with lies the murders. Lope restricts the political motives to a mere appearance, appearance that will support his actions, which means that Lope doesn’t consider the codes of honour, whom mechanisms will be clearly exposed in the play of Calderon which we'll discuss below, strong enough as justifying the deaths. The Duke could have justified his actions relying on the affront that his honour had suffered, so, if Lope avoided that source, the message turns clear: Lope does not consider the rules of honour as solid enough to justify a terrible crime, which is obviously related to his thoughts about revenge. It supposes, morally and politically, a very critical and innovative point of view. The political reasons appear to be, in Lope’s play, over the honourable reasons. The Duke had make up his mind to revere and please his wife and to change his attitude in the marriage (vv. 2322-2327, Act three 267 “Duke: And you, my lady, are most worthy of a love that is at least its rival”, talking about his love for Federico and Cassandra both). But everything changes when he realizes, through an anonymous letter - 2484 v. et seq., Act three 455 - and the accidental hearing of a private conversation between Federico and Cassandra - 2707 v. et seq., Act three 695-, that his wife is in love with his son. In Lope’s plays are passions, and not the fate or the destiny, which delineate the storyline: the love that arises between Federico and Cassandra; the possessive attitude of Cassandra, that makes him to desist of trying to conceal or dissimulate the facts through the convenient marriage with Aurora (vv. 2714-2737, Act three 687-693); the spite of Aurora that made herself to reject Federico, true object of her love (Act three 670). The truth becomes clear in the face of the Duke.

There is no trace of the dialectic conflict between moral and politics, family and power. Moreover, political motives are completely displaced by love issues 9. Federico forgets any kind of political concerns, about the possible birth of a new and lawful son of the Duke, when he meets Cassandra. In fact, these concerns existed before falling in love (I am using Gwynne Edwards translation):

Act one, v. 252 et f. “If I could but escape or find

Some refuge from the hideous prospect of

My father’s marriage! I am his son and heir,

And now on this account must bear

The consequences of this deed.

I must pretend to those I know that I

Am pleased, when in reality my heart

Is heavy with disgust and bleeds

For everything I now consider lost.

My father bids me go to Mantua.

Where I shall meet my future stepmother,

And every step I take is one more reason

Why I should regard her as a fatal poison”

Act one, v. 317 and f. “But should I care

That my own father, having strayed

So far, should now regret the error of

His ways and by his change of heart ensure

That only sons who are legitimate

Can, as from now, lay claim to his state?

I am a mere messenger,

My task to bring to him a lion bent

On my destruction”.

“Federico- […] de mí mismo quisiera retirarme, / que me cansa el hablarme / del casamiento de mi padre, cuando / pensé heredarle, que si voy mostrando

/ a nuestra gente gusto, como es justo, / el alma llena de mortal disgusto, / camino a Mantua, de sentido ajeno, / que voy por mí veneno / en ir por mi madrastra, aunque es forzoso. […] Mas ¿qué me importa a mí que se sosiegue

/ mi padre y que se niegue a los vicios pasados, / si han de heredar sus hijos sus estados, / y yo, escudero vil, traer en brazos / Algún león que me ha de hacer pedazos? (vv. 247-312).

By the way, the attraction is reciprocal (see the dialogue between Federico and Batin, v. 623-651, Act one 622, and the dialogue between Cassandra and Lucrecia, v. 582-606, Act one 583). Their love which is not due to any mysterious force (Ynduráin, 1987: 156), it is a physical attraction that will be supported and increased by the lack of desire from Cassandra to marriage a man as the Duke (the facts will demonstrate that Cassandra fears were true): “Cassandra: I shall go on to where the Duke awaits me in Ferrara; though if the stories I have heard about his wayward life are true, they are for any wife-to-be a source of some anxiety” Act one,  601).

Otherwise, The Duke doesn't care any time about the fact that his only son is a bastard, and he never doubts that Federico is his lawful heir, feeling even guilty (vv. 658-666) by his marriage with Cassandra («y fue casarme traicion», v. 667).

Act one, v. 666: “But now I am

Embarked upon this marriage, he

Believes I do it of my own accord

And thinks it is some treachery

That I deliberately do

To him, when, if the truth be known,

My subjects are the ones to blame

For forcing me to marry and,

In consequence, offending him”.

Aurora pretends that she wants to marry Federico to claim and assure his power and his right to govern, just in case the new marriage threatens his position, but, in fact, she wants to marry the man she loves since her childhood (vv. 730-733, Act one 720 “Aurora: I love him just as truly and as honestly as he loved me, our life together one: one law, one love, one will that joined us both in such true harmony as now our marriage would make permanent by giving him to me and me to him, thereby ensuring that only death can ever break a bond tied so securely”).

The political reasons are restricted to the level of appearances, being absolutely false and, actually, vanishing as the causes of the actions. In the “punishment without revenge” the only political conflict is false, is concocted ad hoc by the characters to conceal or hide the true motives of the action: the Duke hatches a fake conflict and a fake story that imply succession problems. Federico killed Cassandra (lie) after knowing that she was pregnant (another lie), murder that leads to his own death by his father hands.

Publicly, he pretends a conflict that involves matters of legitimacy, the right to govern, the succession fight and the political ambition. Privately, we have a plot of jealousy, dishonour and furtive passions (Act three 722). Let's see how the Duke refers it in the verses below:

Act three, v. 819: “I swear the punishment that I

Intend to take is sent from Heaven above.

The justice I now seek comes not

From any sense of private hurt

But from God’s love. For this is His

Revenge, not mine, and I am but

The instrument of punishment divine.

I act not as a husband wronged,

But as a father called upon to thus

Avenge a hideous sin and so demand

A punishment without revenge.

It is in any case what each

Of us by honour’s law is clearly told:

Avenge the insult secretly,

Or else dishonour is twofold.

The man is doubly shamed who gives

The punishment publicity;

For having lost his honour once,

The world then knows his infamy”.

“Cielos, / hoy se ha de ver en mi casa / no más de vuestro castigo. / Alzad la divina vara. / No es venganza de mi agravio; / que yo no quiero tomarla / en vuestra ofensa, y de un hijo / ya fuera bárbara hazaña. / Éste ha de ser un castigo / vuestro no más, porque valga / para que perdone el cielo / el rigor por la templanza. Seré padre y no marido, / dando la justicia santa / a un pecado sin vergüenza / un castigo sin venganza. / Esto disponen las leyes / del honor, y que no haya / publicidad en mi afrenta/ con que se doble mi infamia.

/ Quien en público castiga / dos veces su honor infama, / pues después que le ha perdido, / por el mundo le dilata. (vv. 2834 - 2857).

In Lope’s play, the core and the heart of the tragic genre has completely disappeared becoming a brilliant and magnificent drama that shows a superb game between appearance and reality, between truth and falsehood, between the tragedy and the politics as a pretext, against the drama and the passions as a text.

There is no politics in Lope’s play, it’s true, but, however, his play is very useful to work his convictions out: the honour can’t justify such a criminal actions and the murder of Federico can only be explained as a punishment and a reaction to a previous assassination (the death of Cassandra due to the political ambition). Only a political charade can be worthwhile in itself. Calderon is another story.

To be continued...