Even further towards a theory of attribution: advancing the cervantine attribution of La conquista de Jerusalen por Godofre de Bullon.
IN 2010, I PUBLISHED an article in which I created a particular theory of authorial attribution in order to address the possible Cervantine origins of the play La conquista de Jerusalen. Since that time, and building on the work of other scholars--particularly Stefano Arata and Hector Brioso Santos--I have continued the ongoing process of developing an attribution theory specifically for this play. This present essay explores the historicity of La conquista de Jerusalen in comparison with Cervantes's two extant plays from the era Los tratos de Argel and La destruccion de Numancia, reconsidering the Cervantine attribution of these two works along the way, in order to further contribute to the theoretical framework I established in my previous article. (1)
Because relatively few scholars have studied this play, a quick overview of Arata's previous work would serve well at this juncture. (2) In 1989, Arata included in his catalogue of unpublished manuscripts from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries housed in the Library of the Palacio Real in Madrid the anonymous three-act play entitled La conquista de Jerusalen por Godofre de Bullon. In 1992, Arata published a transcription of the manuscript, the state of which he refers to as "lamentable," along with an article in which he explores its possible Cervantine origins (10). Serving as a starting point for Arata is Cervantes's mention of La Jerusalen as one of his twenty or thirty plays written in the more classical style. The style and structure of the play belong to the mid-1580S, with the meter, versification, the use of allegorical characters, the number of characters and lines, and the detailed stage directions all bearing similarities to Tratos and Numancia. Finally, the subversive discourse that criticizes King Philip II's apparent abandonment of Christian slaves held in Northern Africa coincides with the interpretation of Cervantes's works.
In a subsequent article, Arata reveals the discovery of papeles de actor, sheets used by actors to rehearse their lines, from La conquista de Jerusalen ("Notas"). Containing speaking parts for Godofre, Solinda, Erminia, and Teodoro, the lines number 890 in total and present three useful pieces of information. First, the sheet for Godofre de Bullon clearly states that the lines belong in the fourth act. This reinforces Arata's previous claim that the three-act play in the Palacio was most likely originally written in four acts; the number of lines in act three are double those of acts one and two. Second, Arata's discovery shows that there existed at least two versions of the play. This prompted suggestions that the "complete" play in the Palacio Real, which formed part of the collection of the Conde de Gondomar en Valladolid, was transcribed later from the memory of actors who played the parts, and that it was written to form part of this collection. Finally, one of the glossed notes on the role of Herminia verifies that this play was being rehearsed for performance during the festival of Corpus Christi in 1586, thus giving us a positive date of performance during the time in which Cervantes was active as a playwright.
My 2010 article builds on Arata's research towards establishing a theory of authorial attribution for this play. (3) Since no confirmed universal theory of attribution exists, each case must be considered individually; as Jose Montero Reguera reminds us: "muy dificil es atribuir una obra anonima a un autor sin la mediacion de un documento que lo pruebe de manera definitiva" (" Una nueva?" 365). After briefly introducing the topic, this article places La conquista de Jerusalen within the context of Spanish drama in the 1570s and 80s, both structurally and ideologically, and then analyzes the play in conjunction with Tratas and Numancia in terms of character development, plot, use of allegorical characters, stage directions, and versification, much in the same way as had been done previously, but with extensive textual analysis. Following this, my article considers the other possible candidates from the era, but concludes that none meet the established criteria as thoroughly as Cervantes. (My article also explores the case against Cervantes's authorship using the only published source I know of that rejects Arata's attribution: Daniel Eisenberg's " Que escribio Cervantes?").
Without definitive proof that Cervantes wrote this anonymous play, there will always be those who doubt his authorship. But, as I previously argued, "since Cervantes did not publish any of these works [from this time], since most of his plays from this era are gone, since the dramatic production that has survived to the twenty-first century represents possibly as low as 5-10 per cent of what was actually written, and since Cervantes was writing in a period of transition and was experimenting with different forms and methods, he did not create or subscribe to a specific school of dramatic writing, and as far as we know he had no imitators" ("Towards a Theory" 124). Therefore, discovering a play that contains characteristics long thought to be unique to Cervantes sparks the curiosity of scholars intrigued by the possibility of more information about the relatively elusive figure that is Miguel de Cervantes.
So what constitutes a valid attribution, and how can one improve upon a theory of attribution that has already been established? The fact that La conquista de Jerusalen has been studied as a possible Cervantine creation qualifies it as being attributable to him, but such potential attribution is an evolving process. Now that the theory has been established, one must go beyond this and study the play in greater depth within the context of both Cervantine drama and drama of the period as well. By reviewing previously published studies on the play, particularly Brioso Santos's critical edition, we can establish a foundation for expansion. For the remainder of this essay, I will continue to explore the historicity of La conquista de Jerusalen in conjunction with that of Los tratos de Argel and La destruccion de Numancia; however, beyond a comparative study between these works and the historical record, I will maintain that these plays provide us with a historicity of the human condition, giving us great personal insight into the experiences of a captive. Moreover, studying an actor's sheet for Los tratos de Argel, transcribed and reproduced here for the first time, we gain access to the relic of a Cervantes stage production during this early period of his writing career. (4) Finally, working towards an attribution of La conquista de Jerusalen, I will reconsider the authorship of Tratos and Numancia, the latter of which also carries no mention of its writer in the extant manuscripts.
Since Arata's discovery and subsequent transcription of the La conquista de Jerusalen manuscript, only a handful of scholars has studied this play. In order to strengthen any theory of attribution, it is necessary to review what others have written and incorporate all arguments into a comprehensive data set that we might use for general reference. Ranging from merely reviewing the topic to providing critical analysis, the published academic studies on this play provide a collective theoretical foundation upon which we can stand to scrutinize the work.
Jose Montero Reguera has published multiple pieces in which he refers to or concentrates his study on La conquista de Jerusalen and its attribution to Cervantes. His mid-1990S article in Anales Cervantinos appeared between Arata's two studies on the play and mainly consists of reviewing Arata's 1992 findings. Montero Reguera emphasizes four parallels between Cervantine writing and the text of La conquista de Jerusalen with the aim of adding to the attribution argument. First, he compares a four-line stanza spoken by Aladino, King of Jerusalem, to lines that appear in "La epistola a Antonio Veneciano" (1579), three poems within Galatea (1585), and four lines spoken by the character Mujer in Numancia. The repetition of the luego / fuego rhyme, as well as the combination of lazo and fuego in the same line, prompts Montero Reguera to question if it is mere coincidence, " o, por contra, expresion cervantina que repite en varias ocasiones?" (" Una nueva?" 363). Unfortunately, he does not attempt to answer the question. Second, he examines the character of Enrique de Volterra (a character Arata also examines in his 1992 article), comparing him and the stage directions that introduce him to the character of Roberto in La gran sultana. Calling Cervantes "el creador del genero de la comedia de cautivos," Montero Reguera again raises a question that he does not really answer: " no seria logico pensar en un mismo autor, al menos en lo que se refiere a la conformacion de este personaje?" (" Una nueva?" 363). Montero Reguera then isolates two lines in La conquista de Jerusalen (2.442-43) that repeat twice and compares them to four lines spoken by Lira in Numancia (2.1944-47). Finally, a comparison between lines spoken by Tancredo (3.491-93) and the octava dedicated to Fray Luis de Leon in the Canto de Caliope (84; 583) leads Montero Reguera to end with his "hipotesis, muy verosimil, de que Cervantes sea el autor de La conquista de Jerusalen" (365). (5)
Written at approximately the same time, Montero Reguera's 1995 book chapter on Cervantes's works explores some of the works that have been attributed to elgran manco de Lepanto, but again this piece repeats many of the findings that Atara initially published regarding La conquista de Jerusalen and that appear in Montero Reguera's previouslymentioned article. He includes the attribution to Cervantes of Semanas del jardin and the Topografia in his chapter, bur adds little to the attribution study of La conquista de Jerusalen ("La obra" 50-54). (6) While much of this essay repeats Arata's previous findings, Montero Reguera adds his own contribution to the argument:
Acaso pueda efectuarse una interpretacion historica de la obra segun la cual la importancia que se otorga a Godofre de Bullon como Rey de Jerusalen puede esconder una alusion velada a Felipe II. La hipotesis sugerida por Arata es que acaso Cervantes concibiera La conquista de Jerusalen "como el sueno de una nueva cruzada por parte del viejo combatiente de Lepanto" (Arata "La conquista" 27). Este argumento, sin embargo, supone adentrarse en un terreno quiza demasiado especulativo, no necesario para defender la posible autoria cervantina. ("La obra" 53)
The political overtones of the play are crucial to the theoretical approach to the authorial attribution of this play, particularly as it fits in with previously established theoretical frameworks regarding the political readings of both Numancia and Tratos, the second of which openly calls Spaniards and Philip II to action against Islam. I contend that forming connections with political readings of plays provides a more credible mode of support for authorship than studying vocabulary and meter.
In this same book, Agustin de la Granja studies La conquista de Jerusalen within the context of the rise and fall of Cervantes's drama. He states that if one accepts the attribution to Cervantes, "puede afirmarse que antes que en El gallardo espanol el dramaturgo habia ensayado la mezcla de la historia y de la ficcion, introduciendo, como siempre, un episodio historico y casos de amor imaginados" (240). De la Granja explores the use of allegorical characters as an externalization of the thoughts and feelings of other characters, as well as the mujer varonil in the description of Clorinda in La conquista de Jerusalen, which he says is little different from that of the armed women in La Numancia (241). While de la Granja does not explicitly enter into the debate of establishing authorship, his article indicates an assumption that Cervantes wrote it merely by including it in this extensive study.
In 2005, Montero Reguera wrote the entry "Conquista de Jerusalen por Godofre de Bullon" in volume three of the Gran enciclopedia cervantina (2695-96). This entry is intended for information only, and while it does not add any new analysis to the debate, the mere fact that it appears in such a reference volume indicates the serious nature of academia's Cervantine considerations of the play. Additionally, a reference to the play by Montero Reguera appears in the Diccionario Filologico de Literatura Espanola: Siglo XVI in the section on Cervantes's comedias (209-12).
In an attempt to use vocabulary as an indicator of authorship, Alfredo Rodriguez Lopez-Vazquez takes advantage of modern technology to ascertain linguistic information about La conquista de Jerusalen in comparison with known Cervantine works. Using the Corpus diacronica del espanol (CORDE), which is designed "para extraer informacion con la que estudiar las palabras y sus significados, asi como la gramatica y su uso a traves del tiempo" (CORDE [Real Academia Espanola website]), and concentrating on works by Cervantes, Juan de la Cueva, Gabriel Lobo Lasso de la Vega, Andres Rey de Artieda, and Cristobal de Virues; Rodriguez Lopez-Vazquez limits the parameters of his search to "los elementos [en La conquista de Jerusalen] que aparecen usados al menos una vez por alguno de los cinco autores antedichos, pero que al mismo tiempo aparezcan usados como maximo por tres de los cinco" (2). The study results in forty words and expressions, thirtyone of which appear in Cervantes (77.5%), ten in Virues (25%), eight in both Cueva and Lobo (20%), and none in Rey de Artieda (5). Of the thirty-one, five appear in Numancia and four in Tratos, with twentyone in La Galatea and two in Cervantes's poetry.
While this study has merit in its own right, I dispute the value of its contribution to the attribution argument. First, I contend that the use of specific words does not assist us very much in this task because our only point of comparison is with two other dramatic works. This hardly provides a satisfactory control group. Of the thirty-one elements mentioned above, only nine (29%) appear in Cervantine plays; the rest appear in his pastoral novel and poetry. Second, Rodriguez Lopez-Vazquez offers no explanation for why he has limited his study to only these five writers. There are other pre-Lopean names from this era that have been omitted with no justification. Third, there is no explanation for why these forty elements have been isolated while others have not. I have not carried out a similar study with other words and expressions from La conquista de Jerusalen, but surely he would have done this with all elements rather than limiting his study to elements that definitely appear in the works of at least one of the writers in question.
Are there words or expressions from the play that do not appear at all in the others?
Moises R. Castillo's 2012 article takes the study of La conquista de Jerusalen to the level of not only attempting to prove Cervantes's authorship of the play and placing it within the context of Cervantine drama, but also going further by analyzing "una serie de aspectos tematicos, dramaticos, e ideologicos que ponen en conexion a La canquista de Jerusalen con las comedias de cautivos cervantinas El trata de Argel, La gran sultana y Las banos de Argel" ("Espacios" 128). His goal is to contextualize the attribution of the play within Cervantes's own "preocupaciones literarias" (128). Castillo provides us with a brief history of the scholarship on La conquista de Jerusalen, and then proceeds to develop his analysis. This article begins the thematic expansion of the play beyond the attribution study in a manner that lends credence to the theory that it is a lost Cervantes play.
In 2007, 2009, and 2010, Hector Brioso Santos wrote or co-wrote four separate pieces on this play which have contributed a great deal not only to notification of its existence, but also to its place within Spanish--and possibly Cervantine--drama of the 1580s. Brioso Santos's critical edition of La canquista de Jerusalen por Godofre de Bullon (printed by Catedra Letras Hispanicas and listing the author as "Atribuida a Miguel de Cervantes") was released in 2009. And perhaps the most significant aspect of this publication is a more widespread dissemination of the play beyond those scholars whose narrow specialties include early Cervantine drama. Short of specifically naming Cervantes as the author, Brioso Santos offers an extensive introductory study that addresses various issues, some of which I have already discussed here. Many of the points he raises come from previous publications, but his comprehensive analysis and development of the components of the study allow the reader to gain a thorough understanding of what the play is, what its history entails, and how we should view the authorship debate.
In the closing section of his introductory study, Brioso Santos refers to Arata's interpretation of La conquista de Jerusalen and his depiction of Godofre de Bullon as "una velada alusion a Felipe II" (Arata, "La conquista" 27), given that the Kings of Spain have always laid claim to the Kingship of Jerusalem. He finds the "Italian connection" with Tasso more pertinent, along with the Christian-versus-Muslim theme that Cervantes manifests in so many of his works ("Introduction" 98). Still, while these should form part of a theory of attribution, I contend that studying a political reading of the anonymous play within the context of pre-Lopean drama is just as crucial to our understanding of the play and to its Cervantine attribution. What Brioso Santos fails to mention is that among these pre-Lopean plays, the only one that explicitly censures Philip II in dialogue is Cervantes's Los tratos de Argel. In previous studies, I have tied this in with the notion that Cervantes wrote this play, and perhaps others, as a call-to-arms against Islam in an attempt to free the thousands of Christians held there as slaves. (7) Instead, Philip turns his focus and his resources against other European countries, both Protestant and Catholic alike, to gain more territory.
Brioso Santos goes on to discuss the chronology of Cervantes's works from the 1580s, including La conquista de Jerusalen within the context of his other works, dramatic or prose. He follows the generally accepted order dates of Los tratos de Argel being written soon after Cervantes's return from captivity in 1580, followed by La Numancia, and then La conquista de Jerusalen (107-09). However, in his 2010 piece on the meter and verse of La conquista de Jerusalen, Brioso Santos suggests an alternative theory. For most of the chapter, Brioso Santos refers back to previous studies and statistics about the types of verse and their frequency in La conquista de Jerusalen in comparison to Tratos and Nurnancia. He finds it useful, though, to remind us of this point regarding S. Griswold Morley's analysis of this time period of Spanish drama:
Es evidente [...] que tanto ese Cervantes [de los 1580] como el anonimo pertenecen al periodo metrico de transicion descrito y situado por S. Griswold Morley, hace casi un siglo, entre los anos 1575 y 1587 [Morley 519-25]. Ese estudioso norteamericano atribuyo entonces a los autores de esa etapa sobre todo la combinacion de metros castellanos e italianos, pero de un modo y en una proporcion que varia mucho de dramaturgo a dramaturgo. En general, es obligado partir de la base de que estamos ante una generacion teatral tan pionera en varios terrenos como muy dada a un tipo de experimentacion que podriamos llamar de gabinete. ("Analisis" 287-88)
A result of this period of transition and lack of uniformity--according to Morley there is not one play surviving from this decade written entirely in Spanish meters (527)--is a difficulty in establishing a clear chronology of Cervantes's two, and possibly three, plays that we possess.
However, Brioso Santos discusses the issues of the liras-sestinas and the quintilla. The latter comprises 7% of the verses in Tratos and appears in seven of the Ocho comedias. These quintillas or coplas reales do not appear at all in La conquista de Jerusalen or in Numancia, two works that were presumably written after Tratos ("Analisis" 290). Brioso Santos postulates that the absence of quintillas in Numancia suggests that this play could have been written first; furthermore, the reduction in the number of octavas reales from 57.5% in Numancia to 24.7% in La conquista de Jerusalen and 10.7% in Tratos appears to strengthen this argument. Brioso Santos ends his study by reviewing the existence of the lira-sestina with the rhyming scheme aBaBcC, an observation first made by Arata ("La conquista" 15). Other than Fray Luis de Leon and Cristobal de Virues, Cervantes is the only writer to have employed this particular strophe in Los tratos de Argel. According to Brioso Santos, Cervantes "escribio a la postre mas de cuarenta mil versos." Moreover, he says, "pueden ahora sumarse tentativamente los 2,635 de la Comedia de la conquista de Jerusalen por Godofre de Bullon" (294). The main contribution of this article is the possible dating of Numancia as the first of the two--and possibly three--plays by Cervantes that survive to the twenty-first century. Brioso Santos does not address the issue of attribution here.
Studying the meter and verse and the frequency of certain types of strophes can help us in attribution, but beyond the example cited above, there is nothing in the way in which Cervantes uses verse that is unique to him. We should not, therefore, rely on this line of analysis to prove authorship; more effective is studying the theoretical framework of Cervantes's compositions from the 1580s. Much has been written about Cervantes's theories and uses of history and historiography in his works, including in his early drama; thus, I will not take up much space here in addressing the issue. However, if we look at the historicity of La conquista de Jerusalen from the same theoretical and analytical approach with which we study the historicity of Numancia and Los tratos de Argel, such an examination can contribute to our understanding of the play both within the context of drama of the 1580s as well as its potential Cervantine paternity.
In my 2008 book, The Ambivalence of Imperial Discourse, I dedicate three chapters to the representation and interpretation of historical characters--namely Viriatus, Jugurtha, and Scipio Aemilianus--and the historical events surrounding the final siege and destruction of the Celtiberian city in Cervantes's play. While studying these aspects, I rely on the likely assumption that Cervantes used as sources well-known historical accounts of the conflict between the Numantians and the Romans, such as Esteban de Garibay's Compendio historial (1571) and Ambrosio de Morales's Coronica general de Espaca (1574), as well as romances, particularly those published by Juan de Timoneda in Rosa gentil (1573), and classical works too. (8) However, as noted by Alfredo Alvar Ezquerra, Cervantes in no way intended his play to be included as part of the historical record:
Existen muchas diferencias entre un historiador y un narrador de historias, bien sea periodista o novelista. La mayor parte de esas diferencias son epistemologicas y, una de ellas, es esencial: el historiador esta preocupado intensamente preocupado, por dilucidar la verdad de los hechos. El narrador de historias no, porque no tienen ni empacho ni conocimientos suficientes y entonces busca en la ficcion brillantemente adornada, la calidad de su escrito. (13-14)
With his retelling of the Numancia tragedy, Cervantes aimed to entertain his audience with a well-known legend that had become part of Spanish lore, while at the same time making a statement about the political situation of Spain in the early 1580s. (9) In fact, Cervantes intentionally manipulated the historical record here to suit his purposes (Kahn, Ambivalence 132). The inclusion of a boy whose suicide at the end robs Cipion of his official triumph in Rome cements the tragic nature of the patriotic sacrifice enacted by the collective city, but the episode is pure invention. Although Cervantes did not invent this suicide episode, naming the boy Bariato (or Variato) and associating him with the legendary Lusitanian hero Viriatus (d. 139 BC) is an example of Cervantes's dramatic creation (Kahn, "Representation" 583-84). (10) While Cervantes demonstrates a good knowledge of history here, I disagree with George Shivers's assertion that the play is a historical document (14).
In a recent article, Carlos Moreno Hernandez disagrees with the association of Bariato and Viriatus, and dedicates more than two pages of his article to explaining why he feels that my specific interpretation of the play as being negatively critical of Philip's incursion into Portugal is an "inexactitud" (20). His contention lies in my use of the word "Spain" in reference to Philip II's Iberian kingdoms prior to assuming the throne of Portugal in 1580. "Spain", Moreno Hernandez argues, should refer to the entire peninsula, including Portugal, and he explains that "Portugal se incorpora, o es anexionado, a la corona de Felipe II, a su imperio catolico, no a Espana" (20). Portugal, he maintains, already formed part of "Spain." Moreno Hernandez's claim that "Espana" in this play refers to the ancient Roman concept of Hispania, and in turn that Portugal in the play forms part of "Espana," has some merit in principle; however, I feel that his argument leaves many gaps still open.
While we as critics often write of Spain in this period as being what we now consider to be Spain--namely the kingdoms of Castile, Aragon, and Navarre--Spain and Portugal were considered separate kingdoms in the sixteenth century. Philip II might have considered Portugal to rightfully belong to him, but Moreno Hernandez claims that this was Cervantes's view as well:
Lo que hace Kahn es interpretar sesgadamente la anexion portuguesa, [...] apelando anacronicamente a sentimientos nacionalistas, sin considerar que Espana, como un todo, no tema entonces sentido sin Portugal, algo que Cervantes presenta con la imagen del jiron desasido o desgarrado, sin necesidad de cualquiera otra argumentacion. (22)
Reading this play in isolation can prompt a variety of conflicting interpretations, but studying the play in the context of other plays, playwrights, and writers of the 1570s and 80s gives much more strength to the notion that Cervantes intended both the Duero's reference to Lusitania (Portugal) and the inclusion of Viriatus/Bariato to negatively criticize Philip's threat of violence against a fellow Catholic country when Cervantes's main concern was to liberate Christians still in Africa. As mentioned above, this point is explicitly addressed in Los tratos de Argel. (11)
In addition, Moreno Hernandez does not argue his stance against my interpretation completely. He refers to the historical and literary sources that likely inspired Cervantes in the creation of Bariato, but still does not seem convinced by the Viriatus/Bariato connection:
No esta tan claro como les parece a Schevill-Bonilla, De Armas o Kahn, que este personaje represente al caudillo lusitano Viriato, muerto poco antes de la toma de Numancia, si bien existio, al parecer, una leyenda o creencia generalizada, segun la cual alli se habria refugiado un hijo de Viriato (Torres Nebrera 18) o Viriato mismo, segun la Cronica de Valera (Baras Escola Estudio 439). (16-17)
If Moreno Hernandez does not feel that Bariato represents Viriatus, then he should provide an alternative explanation for the origins of the name of Cervantes's character and develop the questions of why it is so similar to Viriatus; the river Duero specifically mentions Lusitania, Viriatus's homeland, not Portugal. (12) In the passage quoted above, Moreno Hernandez refers to Gregorio Torres Nebrera and Alfredo Baras Escola to attempt an explanation, but the former refers to Alfonso Sastre's play Cronicas romanas, written in 1968, which is a loose adaptation of Cervantes's Numancia and the only version of the story that suggests Viriatus sent his son to Numancia for refuge. (13) Baras Escola refers to Valera's history as a source for Cervantes's knowledge of Viriatus's existence and the idea that he was in, or even from, Numancia, but the factual inaccuracy of Valera's work would have been evident even to Cervantes. Finally, Moreno Hernandez highlights Timoneda's Rosa gentil (1573) "en la que aparece un romance con la historia de Bariato (Baras Escola, Estudio 21)" (16). There are two problems with this quotation: i) Timoneda's romance entitled "Romance de como Cipion destruyo a Numancia" indeed portrays a young boy who sacrifices himself so that his compatriots would not die in vain; however, the boy has no name and is certainly not called Bariato; and 2) Baras Escola does not write that there is a romance about Bariato in Timoneda's collection. (14)
Therefore, my interpretation that Bariato represents Viriatus, serving as a censure of Philip II's taking of Portugal, still stands, as Cervantes was the first one to name the boy. Perhaps scholars need to be more careful when referring to "Spain" before a sovereign state of that name existed. However, Moreno Hernandez provides little evidence to support the idea that Spaniards wanted Portugal to be part of "Spain" or that the Portuguese wanted their country to be part of "Spain." My interpretation is supported by literary analysis and historical sources, and his outright dismissal of my findings leaves more questions than answers. Nor does he address the problematic account of Spain's future history delivered by the Duero, if Cervantes had intended to make an overt defense of the Spanish imperial enterprise or any type of a Catholic Empire, why would be not have included the Reconquista or the Battle of Lepanto (1571)? (15) I certainly invite him to produce such evidence, as I am willing to reconsider my interpretation. La destruccion de Numancia is a history drama, which like all history plays, is a pseudo-historiographical piece. Part of its historicity, though, is a comparison of the dialogue and action of the play with the times in which it was written.
Brioso Santos's 2010 article, "Analisis metrico de La conquista de Jerusalen por Godofre de Bullon de ... Miguel de Cervantes?," explores the historicity of the play with a focus on the four miracles of the Crusade and on the main source of the play, Torquato Tasso's epic poem Gerusalemme liberam (1580). (16) The first page of the article offers a brief synopsis of the play's known history and then proceeds to study it without reference to its possible Cervantine origins. However, the anonymous playwright's employment of the miracles warrants a mention here. By mitigating some of the more fantastic aspects of Tasso's poem, "el autor anonimo sigue un criterio muy evidente de conceder a ciertos sucesos milagrosos--entonces tenidos por verdaderos--una gran importancia, pero mantenerlos al mismo tiempo sujetos a una matizada verosimilitud teatral, pues son siempre episodios relatados y no escenificados ante el espectador. [...] [Tienen] un especial valor enfatico y propagandistico dentro de la comedia" ("Analisis" 103). Although in an earlier piece Brioso Sanchez and Brioso Santos conclude that Tasso's epic poem must be the only inspiration for the anonymous play, the historicity of the play does not decrease (164).
Just as with Numancia, the historical sources available in Spain of the 1580s on the First Crusade "estaban a menudo nimbadas por un halo de irrealidad" (Brioso Santos, "Introduccion" 120). While Cervantes often strived for verisimilar action and dialogue on stage, there was space in Numancia for allegorical figures and a scene of necromancy, no matter how historically accurate he was in his depiction of the Roman Army or the figure of Scipio Aemilianus. The playwright who penned La conquista de Jerusalen also made room for dramatic license in his depiction of characters and events:
En suma, nuestra pieza atiende al principio constructivo del drama historico que combina los materiales que se tienen por autenticos con una cierta elaboracion estetica, si bien esta es bastante menos libre que en el caso del modelo tassiano. Pero hay que matizar tambien que, segun era tipico en el Renacimiento, prevalece el criterio aristotelico de la verosimilitud historica o de la ilusion de historicidad sobre los mismos datos historicos. (Brioso Santos 121-22)
This is what Brioso Santos refers to as "el discurso pseudohistorico teatral de la Primera Cruzada," giving it a "claro sesgo propagandistico y mesianico" (122). In addition, the play was written as an adaptation of an epic poem, and it was not intended to portray history. Returning to the depiction of allegorical characters in Numancia in comparison to La conquista de Jerusalen, what we see, according to Francisco Ruiz Ramon (who cites Alfredo Hermenegildo ), is the historicity of human emotions and feelings:
En [Numancia] Hermenegildo, por ejemplo, se ve logicamente obligado a ampliar considerablemente su funcion a la de exteriorizacion de los pensamientos, la iconizacion de las convulsiones espirituales y de los sufrimientos corporales de los miles de numantinos cercados por los romanos "con el fin de dejar manifiesta la exhibicion de la agitacion interior de Numancia." Pero tambien como "vehiculo privilegiado por Cervantes para hacer llegar al espectador sus reflexiones mas profundas" [...]. (53-54)
The repeated emphasis on the pain and suffering of the captive in these plays invites the inevitable comparison. Cervantes presents this dramatized version of historical events in order to give the audience a historical account of the pain and suffering that captives endure as they come to terras with their own imminent demise and tortuous existence.
Of the three plays in question, Numancia and La conquista de Jerusalen enjoy the fact that the basis of their plot comes from remote history, and while the facts might seem hyperbolic to a twenty-firstcentury reader, a theater audience of the 1580S would have no recourse to information or experience that could challenge the facts presented within. However, Los tratos de Argel takes place just a few short years before it (Tratos) was written, and it depicts a time and place that many watching or indeed performing on stage would know flora personal experience. The idea behind using this setting to tell a story or to call Spaniards to action is much more overt and explicit.
By using his own personal experiences during his five years in captivity and references to well-known historical events, Cervantes perpetuates the divide between Christians and the "other," while also displaying verisimilar action and dialogue to emphasize the plight of the Christian slave. The morisco in Aragon who died "por just a sentencia" and the Christian priest who was likewise murdered in revenge illustrate the consequences of this war between the faiths (Obras 2: 17); (17) the chants by the morillos that inform the prisoners that their one true hope of a rescuer, Don Juan de Austria, has died and that they will die like dogs in Algiers reflect the depths of despair that led many to eventually convert to Islam for a better life. (18) Can we speculate, then, that the battle that Aurelio has with his own conscience--manifested by the allegorical characters of Ocasion and Necesidad--is one that Cervantes had within his own stimulus-starved mind during five years of captivity? Aurelio is being tempted by his mistress Zahara, which represents a situation that Cervantes must have witnessed on various occasions:
Este motivo de la atraccion amorosa de los amos hacia sus esclavos pertenece a uno de los planteamientos centrales de El trato de Argel: el de las presiones que enfrentan los cautivos al verse apremiados doblemente por la necesidad (de libertad, de comer mejor, de higiene, etc.) y la ocasion (de integrarse en una nueva sociedad mediante la apostasia). (Ohanna 153)
Cervantes's unique use of allegorical characters, who represent the exteriorization of Aurelio's inner conflict, demonstrates the temptation to convert and have a better life. The characters offer the audience a glimpse into the soul of this Christian slave who feels that he has no hope of ever returning to Christendom. Cervantes provides the audience with genuine humanity, complete with amorous emotion, conflict of faith, and an attempt to achieve a balance between the spiritual within and the temporal without. (19)
In his recent article, Castillo analyzes La conquista de Jerusalen within the context of Cervantes's other plays of captivity: Los tratos de Argel, La gran sultana, and Los banos ele Argel. His textual analysis regarding the scenes in these plays in which Christians and Muslims alike ponder the love they feel for the "other" demonstrates that feelings of love, desire, and the temptation to convert in order to improve one's standard of living in the face of a hopeless situation invite us to connect "la comedia que nos ocupa [La conquista] con las obras de cautivos de Cervantes" ("Espacios" 136).
While La conquista de Jerusalen takes place nearly five centuries earlier, the anonymous playwright once again captures the plight of the Christian captive in a manner that helped the audience create a paradigm of what it means to be a human being. Away from the traditional mystery plays and the dramatic depictions of biblical tales that so often filled the stage in the decades prior to the 1580s, this play depicts the inner human emotions and sentiments that come with captivity in a manner identical to both La destruccion de Numancia and Los tratos de Argel. Esperanza, Contento, and Libertad, despite being allegorical characters, offer the reader a historical perspective from a writer who might have experienced these feelings himself. The historicity of La conquista de Jerusalen, just as with Tratos and Numancia, is from a human perspective.
The existence of a manuscript in the Biblioteca Nacional de Espana (BNE) in Madrid, first mentioned by Arata in his article on manusript transmission ("Notas"), adds to the notion that the allegorical characters are unique and provides yet another link between Los tratos de Argel and La conquista de Jerusalen. Actors' sheets, manuscripts containing dialogue that were used by actors to learn and rehearse their parts, reside in the BNE, and within the same signatura as the parts of Godofre, Erminia, Solinda, and Teodoro from La conquista de Jerusalen is an actor's sheet for the role of Ocasion in Cervantes's Los tratos de Argel (see figure 1). Transcribed and reproduced here for the first time with permission from the Biblioteca Nacional de Espana, at first glance the manuscript does not tell us much (see figure 2). However, when studied in conjunction with the two existing manuscripts of Tratos two notable issues arise.
First, the dialogue matches that of the manuscript in the BNE almost word for word while differing in many points from that held in the Hispanic Society of America (HSA) in New York. The representation of these characters as externalizations of Aurelio's thoughts is evident when Ocasion and Necesidad converse and Aurelio repeats their sentiments, slightly changing the words. There is no direct interaction between him and the allegorical characters, just as in La Numancia and La conquista de Jerusalen. In the HSA manuscript, there are additional lines that more thoroughly illustrate this notion but that do not appear in either the manuscript in the BNE or the actor's sheet for Ocasion (see figure 3). When considering the process of manuscript transmission, it seems that the similarities between the actor's sheet and the BNE manuscript would indicate that they were produced closer in time to each other than to that of the HSA manuscript. This would lead to the assumption that the actor's sheet--which as far as I am aware represents the only concrete proof, other than Cervantes's own words, that his plays from this era were actually performed--is closer to the playwright's original thoughts of how the dialogue should read. These observations, though, are merely speculation as no date appears on any of the three manuscripts.
Second, another alteration between the actor's sheet and the two versions of the complete play becomes apparent. In the actor's sheet, the line "de mi ligera ocasion y presta" becomes "de mi ligera condicion y presta" in both of the other manuscripts and all subsequent editions of the play. As Iargue elsewhere, while this does not change the meaning of the lines in any manner, the character Ocasion, repeating her name within the dialogue (which represents yet another level of depth within Aurelio's psyche), compares to the interpretation of the allegorical characters in La conquista de Jerusalen:
That these characters are more than just a chorus in the ancient theatrical style is further strengthened in the final scene; the allegorical characters have left the stage, and Godofre and his Christian forces have entered the liberated Jerusalem. In the final 58 lines, the dialogue demonstrates that the allegorical characters serve as an externalization of the other characters' thoughts and emotions, by repeating their names in the dialogue directly and with synonyms: 'alegre' (happy) (III. 1254), 'esperanca' (III. 1257), 'Prospera' (prosperous) (III. 1260), 'felicidad' (happiness) (III. 1262), 'humildad' (humility) (III. 1282, 12.92, 12.94, 1305), 'humilde' (humble) (III. 12.91), 'contento' (III. 1295), 'humildemente' (III. 1296). While humildad and its derivations do not appear as allegorical characters, they certainly provide an obvious contrast to Trabajo, who is portrayed as an arrogant anciano who represents the yoke of Muslim rule in Jerusalem. ("Towards a Theory" 117)
Not only do the allegorical characters manifest human emotion in their dialogue, but also the other characters remind us that vocalizing the emotions and thoughts serves as another manifestation of humanity.
The plays studied here are three historical works representing different historical eras that address similar themes. While, on the one hand, they provide us with a representation of historical events on stage, on the other hand, Cervantes and the playwright of La conquista de Jerusalen offer usa record of human thoughts and emotions in the face of captivity and certain death in a manner unprecedented on the Spanish stage. When studied in a comparative manner, the historicity within these plays suggests the likelihood that the same person who penned La destruccion de Numancia and Los tratos de Argel also composed La conquista de Jerusalen.
Whichever method one decides to use for attributing the play to Cervantes, the main sources for comparison are his two surviving plays from the time, Los tratos de Argel and La destruccion de Numancia. However, it is vital that we revisit these two plays in order to see how they came to be attributed to Cervantes. If the manuscripts for these plays were to be discovered now, they would likely undergo the same close scrutiny, and the same level of doubt, as La conquista de Jerusalen is now experiencing two decades after its initial publication and attribution.
As was common practice in the sixteenth century, there existed different types of manuscripts for different purposes within the process of dramatic presentation, The playwright often wrote a complete version of the play in an attempt to sell it to an autor de comedias. This version was then recycled into a script and actors' sheets comprising of individual roles with cues. If a play or playwright experienced success, wealthy patrons with their own libraries would desire a copy of the complete version for their collections, and these were at times composed by the actors remembering their lines. However, this sometimes took place years later, producing the possibility for errors, which in turn could create a separation between the author's original thoughts and ideas and the version that entered the collection. The versions of Los tratos de Argel, La destruccion de Numancia, and La conquista de Jerusalen that exist today (with the exception of the aforementioned actors' sheets of Tratos and La conquista de Jerusalen) formed part of collections, thus causing us to question how much they resemble the playwright's words from the beginning of the process. (20)
Figure 2: Transcription of the actor's sheet for "Ocasion" from Los tratos de Argel from the Biblioteca Nacional de Espana. papel de la ocasion necesidad fiel executora de qual quier delito que te ofrece la publica ocasion o la secreta ya ves quan apremiadas y forcadas del arebo infernal auemos sido para venir a conbatir la roca del pecho encastillado de un xtiano questa rrebelde y muestra q no teme del nino y ciego dios la grande fuerca[.] es menester que tu le solicites y te le muestres siempre a todas oras en el comer y en el vestir y en todas las cosas que pensare o pretendiere[.] yo por mi parte de contino pienso ponermele delante y la melena de mis pocos cabellos ofrecerle y detenerme un rrato por q pueda asirme della cosa poco usada de mi ligera ocasion y presta. traygo pues yo se si quisieses que hallarias ocasion de salir dese trabajo costa con no mas de querer a tu ama zara o con dar muestras solo de quererla haga o quan rrica es zara y quan hermosa pidiere estrana es la ocasion que se te ofrece deue quien tiene de saber lo que tu haces y un pecado secreto aunque sea graue cerca tiene el remedio y la disculpa dada y mas que la ocasion mil ocasiones te offecera secretas y escondidas culpa agora es tiempo Aurelio agora puedes asir a la ocasion por los cabellos mira quan linda dulce y amorosa la mora hermosa viene a tu mandado companera pues no a de obrar escucha en lo que para rrimo tales conbates juntas lemos dado entremonos con zara en su aposento y alli de nueuo quando aurelio entrare tornaremos a darle tientos nueuo
The play widely considered to be the earlier of the two, Los tratos de Argel exists in two different manuscripts, containing numerous differences in wording, line numbers, character names, etc. I refer to the play here as Los tratos de Argel because that is precisely how Cervantes entitles his play in his other writings. (21) However, the two manuscripts carry the title of El trato de Argel, in the singular and not the plural, which is the most commonly used form of the title today. This does not necessarily constitute a different play, but it provides distance between the writer's own words and those of the scribes who physically wrote the manuscripts.
Manuscript B2341 in the HSA contains Comedia del trato de Arxel, with no reference to whom the author might be. Manuscript 14.630/23 of the BNE in Madrid consists of Comedia llamada trato de Argel hecha por migud de zerbantes questuuo cautiuo enel siete anos. The latter specifically names "zerbantes" as the playwright, but states that he was held captive for seven years instead of the accurate total of five. This has long been dismissed as a simple oversight by the scribe, but it could have been intentional, as Maria Antonia Garces points out:
The slight exaggeration represented by the mention of seven years of slavery, instead of the actual five suffered by the author, can be read as a deliberate sleight of hand. In theory, Islamic legislation stated that a captive could not be retained for more than seven years, but as Sosa and other travellers told us, the Turks did not heed this rule (Topgrafia, III:238). [...] [T]he seven years of captivity in Cervantes's title also alludes to the seventh circle of Dantes Inferno, where all forms of violence are punished. [...] These chains of associations, invoked by the mention of seven years of captivity in the title of Cervantes's comedia, would have contributed to the vivid interest of the public in this drama. (136) (22)
Whether we interpret the reference to Cervantes's captivity as a scribal error or a deliberate manipulation of fact, the discrepancy causes us to question the level of contribution Cervantes had in the composition of this particular manuscript. While it would not be uncommon for the original writer to have little to do with the writing of a manuscript of this type, it, along with the discrepancies with the other manuscript, increases the separation between what has survived and Cervantes's own words.
Turning to La destruccion de Numancia, which, along with simply La Numancia, is how Cervantes refers to the play, we find an even more intriguing case. (23) Immediately preceding Tratos in Manuscript B234I of the HSA is Tragedia de Numancia, written in the same hand as its Cervantine counterpart in the same manuscript. Manuscript 15,000 of the BNE offers us Comedia del cerco Denumancia. In both cases the title is different than how the writer himself calls the play, and there is no author listed; yet there has never been any question that the play belongs to Cervantes.
This leads us to the possibility that someone else wrote both Tratos and Numancia. There were enough freed captives from Algiers in Spain to make the topic commonly available for playwrights, and the legend of Numancia was widely known. Due to the small percentage of plays that survive today, it is possible that other people used Numancia as the subject of their works, h is true that no other dramatization of the fall of the Cehiberian capital in 133 BC is known or referred to by other writers, but there is nothing specific in La Numancia that points to Cervantes as its creator. There are certainly similarities between Tratos and the Captive's Tale in Don Quijote (139-41), as well as other plays that were published in Cervantes's lifetime, but Cervantes was not the only one to have these experiences, h is true that the manuscript of Tratos in the BNE names Cervantes as the author, but even during his lifetime, works were falsely attributed to him after his rise in fame from the publication of part one of Don Quixote in 1605. Arata postulates that the manuscript of Numancia in the BNE was written between 1590 and 1596, before Cervantes's rise to fame, perhaps providing a reason for not naming him as the author, whether or not the scribe knew it was his ("Notas" 65). Therefore, it is conceivable that neither of these plays was written by Cervantes. When they each first appeared in print in 1784, two centuries after the plays were first composed, Don Antonio de Sancha used the two anonymous manuscripts now in the HSA without questioning their provenance.
Looking at this issue from an academic perspective, when considering the possible Cervantine origins of La conquista de Jerusalen, we are not only basing all we know about Cervantes's dramatic composition from this time period on two plays that today would be highly suspect regarding their authorship, but we are also relying on that fact that La conquista de Jerusalen is one of only a handful of titles that Cervantes bothers to mention in his other writings. Could there be others of the twenty or thirty (a vague reference in itself) that exist, but because Cervantes did not name them along with La batalla naval and El trato de Constantinopla we do not know their origins? It might make an attribution of La conquista de Jerusalen easier if we knew for certain.
As it stands, we can see that that the two manuscripts in the HSA are included in the same shelf marking and appear one immediately after the other in the same codex, so we can assume that they are from the same author. Can we assume the same from the fact that the BNE manuscript of Numancia and the Palacio Real manuscript of La conquista de Jerusalen appeared in the same codex of plays in the library of the Conde de Gondomar? These two manuscripts did not appear in sequence, nor are they transcribed in the same hand, but this likewise tells us nothing concrete. (24) It does open up another avenue of possibility.
I do not intend to question the attribution of Tratos or Numancia to Cervantes, bur rather to illustrate the difficulty involved with the theoretical attribution of La conquista de Jerusalen. Adding to the intrigue is the fact that the actor's sheets for Tratos and La conquista de Jerusalen were found in the same collection of hojas sueltas, thus presenting more questions: "Cabe preguntarse si nos encontramos con los papeles de actor de una compania a quien Cervantes habia vendido sus primeras comedias (El Trato y La Jerusalen) o si, por el contrario, la contiguidad de los dos fragmentos se debe a un simple azar" (Atara, "Notas" 62-63). When forming a theoretical framework for the authorial attribution of a piece of writing, it becomes ah ongoing process when we lack concrete verification of the writer's identity. In this study, I have revisited my own work and that of other scholars who have focused their attention on La conquista de Jerusalen and its potential Cervantine origins. The general consensus has favored the likelihood that the author of Don Quijote also penned this history play; only one scholar has openly disagreed with the attribution.
A comparative analysis of this play with Cervantes's two surviving plays from the same era reveals a great number of similarities. And when we explore the historicity of these works, we see that La conquista de Jerusalen, like Los tratas de Argel and La destruccion de Numancia, presents on stage the genuine human suffering of a captive. Having created allegorical characters to express the thoughts and emotions of the other characters on stage, analyzing the actor's sheet of the character Ocasion from Tratas leads us to speculate that this document is perhaps closer to Cervantes's original concept of the play than either of the surviving manuscripts in the HSA and the BNE. While this is pure conjecture, the examination of the papel de la ocasion in conjunction with the allegorical characters in La conquista deJerusalen uncovers an even closer link with the manifestation of humanity that Cervantes pioneered on stage.
Finally, investigating the paternity of the anonymous manuscript prompts the question of the attribution of Tratas and Numancia to Cervantes. While I do not intend to argue that Cervantes did not write these plays, the fact that their attribution comes mainly from Cervantes's mention of them in other works (just as with La conquista de Jerusalen), adds to possibility that Cervantes wrote it. The proximity of the HSA manuscripts of Tratas and Numancia and that of the BNE manuscript of Numancia and the Royal Palace manuscript of La canquista de Jerusalen insinuates that all three plays were written by the same playwright. If we accept that Cervantes wrote Los tratos de Argel and La destruccion de Numancia, then we must also accept the probability that he wrote La conquista de Jerusalen por Godofre de Bullon and perhaps begin to include this play in the Cervantes canon.
Alvar Ezquerra, Alfredo. "Cervantes, la epistemologia historica de su tiempo, y otros lugares comunes." Edad de Oro 25 (2006): 9-34.
Arata, Stefano. "La conquista de Jerusalen, Cervantes, y la generacion teatral de 1580." Criticon 54 (1992): 9-112.
--. Los manuscritos teatrales de la Biblioteca del Palacio (siglos XVI y XVII). Pisa: Giardini, 1989.
--. "Notas sobre La conquista de Jerusalen y la transmision manuscrita del primer teatro cervantino." Edad de Oro 16 0997): 53-66.
Arata, Stefano, and Debora Vaccari. "Manuscritos atipicos, papeles de actor y companias del siglo XVI." Rivista di filologia e letterature ispaniche 5 (2002): 25-68.
Baras Escola, Alffedo. Estudio y edicion critica de Tragedia de Numancia de Miguel de Cervantes. Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias, 2009.
--. "Los textos de Cervantes: Teatro." Anales Cervantinos 42 (2010): 73-88.
Brioso Sanchez, Maximo, and Hector Brioso Santos. "De Heliodoro a Tasso y a Cervantes?" Philologia Hispalensis 21 (2007): 155-71.
Brioso Santos, Hector. "Analisis metrico de La conquista de Jerusalen por Godofre de Bullon de ... Miguel de Cervantes?" Cuatrocientos anos del ARTE NUEVO DE HACER COMEDIAS de Lope de Vega: Actas selectas del XIV congreso de la Asociacion Internacional de Teatro espanol y novohispano de los Siglos de Oro. Ed. German Vega Garcia-Luengos y Hector Urzaiz Tortajada. Salamanca: Olmedo clasico, 2010. 287-94.
--. "A proposito de la historicidad de La conquista de Jerusalen: Los cuatro milagros de la Primera Cruzada." Anuario de Estudios Cervantinos 5 (2009): 101-24.
--. "Introduccion." La conquista de Jerusalen por Godofre de Bullon. Atribuida a Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra. Ed. Brioso Santos. Madrid: Catedra, 2009.9-114.
Canavaggio, Jean. Cervantes: Entre vida y creacion. Alcala de Henares: Centro de Estudios Cervantinos, 2000.
Castillo, Moises R. "Espacios de ambiguedad en el teatro cervantino: La conquista de Jerusalen y los dramas de cautiverio." Cervantes 32.2 (2012): 123-42.
--. ' Ortodoxia cervantina?: Un analisis de La gran sultana, EI trato de Argel, y Los banos de Argel." Bulletin of the Comediantes 56.2 (2004): 219-40
Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de. Comedia del cerco Denumancia. Ms. 15.000. Madrid: Biblioteca Nacional de Espana.
--. Comedia llamada trato de Argel hecha por Miguel de Zerbantes questuuo cautiuo enel siete anos. Ms. 14630-23. Madrid: Biblioteca Nacional de Espana.
--. Comedia del trato de Arxel. Ms. B2341. New York: Library of the Hispanic Society of America.
--. El cerco de Numancia. Ed. Robert Marrast. Madrid: Catedra, 1999.
--. El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha. Ed. John Jay Allen. Vol. I. Madrid: Catedra, 2000.
--, (Attributed). La conquista de Jerusalen por Godofre de Bullon. Ed. Hector Brioso Santos. Madrid: Catedra, 2009.
--. La Galatea. Ed. Francisco Estrada y Maria Teresa Lopez Garcia-Berdoy. Madrid: Catedra, 1995.
--. Papel de la Ocasion. Ms. 11.300, p. 27 [formerly MS 14.612/8, p. 27]. Madrid: Biblioteca Nacional de Esparia. Microfilm.
--. Obras completas. 4 volumes. Ed. Manuel Arroyo Stephens. Madrid: Tumer, 1993.
--. Tragedia de Numancia. Ms. B2341. New York: Library of the Hispanic Society of America.
Comedia de la conquista de Jerusalen por Godofre de Bullon. Ms. II-460, ff. 246-69. Madrid: Library of the Palacio Real.
--. Hojas sueltas. Ms. 14.612/8. Madrid: Biblioteca Nacional de Espana. CORDE. Real Academia Espanola. Web. 18 March 2013
Eisenberg, Daniel. "Cervantes, autor de la Topographia e historia general de Argel, publicada por Diego de Haedo." Cervantes 16.1(1996): 32-53.
--. Las semanas del jardin de Miguel de Cervantes. Salamanca: Diputacion de Salamanca, 1988.
--. " Por que volvio Cervantes de Argel?" Ingeniosa invencion: Essays on Golden Age Spanish Literature for Geoffrey L. Stagg in Honor of his Eighty-Fifth Birthday. Ed. Ellen Anderson and Amy Williamsen. Newark, DE: Juan de la Cuesta, 1999. 241-53.
--. " Que escribio Cervantes?" Sobre Cervantes. Ed. Diego Martinez Torron. Alcala de Henares: Centro de Estudios Cervantinos, 2003. 9-26.
Fernandez, Enrique. "Los tratos de Argel: Obra testimonial, denuncia politica y literatura terapeutica." Cervantes 20.I (2000): 7-26.
Garces, Maria Antonia. Cervantes in Algiers: A Captive's Tale. Nashville: Vanderbilt UP, 2003.
Garibay y Camolla, Esteban de. Los cuarenta libros del compendio historial de las cronicas y universal historia de todos los Reynos de Espana. Amberes: Christophoro Plantino, 1571.
Granja, Agustin de la. "Apogeo, decadencia, y estimacion de las comedias de Cervantes." Cervantes. Ed. Claudio Guillen. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Cervantinos, 1995. 225-56.
Hermenegildo, Alfredo. "Introduccion." La destruicion de Numancia. Por Miguel de Cervantes. Madrid: Castalia, 1994.
Kahn, Aaron M. The Ambivalence of Imperial Discourse: Cervantes' LA NUMANCIA within the "Lost Generation" of Spanish Drama (1570-90). Oxford: Peter Lang, 2008.
--. "Idealizing the Present with Future Histories: Ercilla, Cervantes, and Lobo Lasso de la Vega." On Wolves and Sheep: Exploring the Expression of Political Thought in Golden Age Spain. Ed. Aaron M. Kahn. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2011. 23-50.
--. "Representation and Interpretation of Historical Characters in Cervantes' La Numancia: Jugurtha and Viriatus." Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 84.5 (2007): 573-87.
--. "Towards a Theory of Attribution: Is La conquista de Jerusalen by Miguel de Cervantes?" Journal of European Studies 40.2 (2010): 99-128.
Montero Reguera, Jose. "Cervantes: Comedias." Diccionario Filologico de Literatura Espanola. Siglo XVI. Madrid: Castalia, 2009. 209-12.
--. "Conquista de Jerusalen por Godofre de Bullon." Gran enciclopedia cervantina. Vol. 3. Madrid: Castalia, 2005. 2695-96.
--. "Historia, politica y literatura en La Galatea de Miguel de Cervantes." Romeral: Estudios filosoficos en homenaje a Jose Antonio Fernandez Romero. Ed. I. Baez y Maria Rosa Perez. Vigo: Universidad de Vigo, 2002. 329-42.
--. " Una nueva obra teatral cervantina?: Notas en torno a una reciente atribucion." Anales cervantinos 33 (1995-97): 355-66.
--. "La obra literaria de Miguel de Cervantes (Ensayo de un catalogo)." Cervantes. Ed. Anthony Close et al. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Cervantinos, 1995.43-71.
Morales, Ambrosio de. Coronica general de Espana. Alcala de Henares: Iuan Iniguez de Lequeria, 1574.
Moreno Hernandez, Carlos "'El jiron lusitano' en La Numancia: Siglo de oro e imperio catolico." Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 89.1 (2012): 15-30.
Morley, S. Griswold. "Strophes in Spanish Drama before Lope de Vega." Homenaje ofrecido a Ramon Menendez Pidal. Vol. I. Madrid: Libreria Hernando, 1925. 505-31.
Ohanna, Natalio. "Lamentos de doble filo: El trato de Argel, y la dimension geopolitica de la lucha por la unidad religiosa." Cervantes 30.1 (2010): 141-61.
Rey Hazas, Antonio. "Cervantes frente a Felipe II: Pastores y cautivos contra la anexion de Portugal." Principe de Viana 18 (2000): 239-60.
Rodriguez Lopez-Vazquez, Alfredo. "LaJerusalen de Cervantes: Nuevas pruebas de su autoria." Artifara II (2011): 1-6. Web. 15 November 2011.
Rodriguez-Monino, Antonio. "Reaparicion de un manuscrito cervantino (El trato de Argel y La Numancia)." Anuario de letras 4 (1964): 269-75.
Ruiz Ramon, Francisco. "Las 'figuras morales' en la Numancia: Forma dramatica/ forma epica." El teatro en tiempos de Felipe II: Actas ele las XXI jornadas del teatro clasico---Almagro (1998). Ed. Felipe B. Pedraza Jimenez y Rafael Gonzalez Canal.
Almagro: Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 1999.51-64.
Sastre, Alfonso. Cronicas romanas: La sangre y la ceniza / Cronicas romanas. Ed. Magda Ruggeri Marchetti. Madrid: Catedra, 1990.
Shivers, George. "La historicidad de El cerco de Numancia de Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra." Hispanofila 39 (1970): 1-14.
Timoneda, Juan de. "Romance de como Cipion destruyo Numancia." Rosa gentil: Tercera parte de romances que tratan historias romanas y troyanas. Valencia: Joan Navarro, 1573.
Torres Nebrera, Gregorio. "Asedio y resistencia / epica y antiepica: La Numancia de Sastre." Teatro escogido [de Alfonso Sastre]. Ed. Javier Villan. Vol. 2. Madrid: Asociacion de Autores de Teatro, 2006. 9-19.
Valera, Diego de. Cronica de Espana abreviada. Sevilla: Alfonso del Puerto, 1482. Zimic, Stanislav. El teatro de Cervantes. Madrid: Castalia, 1992.
UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX
(1) This study was presented in part at the Kentucky Foreign Language Conference on April 20, 2012, and the Conference of the Association of Hispanists of Great Britain and Ireland in Oxford, UK, on March 26, 2013. I thank all in attendance for the comments and suggestions offered.
(2) Such critical inattention could perhaps be a result of few people knowing about this play, or the result of their not believing the Cervantine attribution, or--as Moises Castillo states--because so much has been falsely attributed to Cervantes that scholars are overly cautious ("Espacios" 123).
(3) Mata, unfortunately, died tragically in 2001.
(4) I am indebted to Dr. Victoria Rios Castano and Mr. David Sanchez for their efforts on my behalf in securing first a photocopy and then a digital copy of this manuscript in the interest of furthering my research.
(5) While Montero's points are useful in our study of the play, his article does not offer any extensive analysis and merely highlights certain words and phrases without discussing how common they might have been in the era.
(6) For more on these attributions, see Eisenberg (Semanas; and "Cervantes").
(7) See also Fernandez.
(8) According to Alfredo Alvar Ezquerra, Cervantes shared accommodation with Garibay's widow in Valladolid (10).
(9) The various political readings of La Numancia have also been studied extensively in recent times. Some scholars support the notion that it is a patriotic, pro-imperialist play, while others read it as anti-imperialist and subversive. For a comprehensive study of both the thematic and generic ambiguity of the play, see Kahn (Ambivalence, chapters 2 and 3).
(10) The manuscript in the Hispanic Society of America names the boy Bariato and Variato. The manuscript in the Biblioteca Nacional names him Bariato both in the list of dramatis personae and in the text of the play. In this study, the Latin spelling of Viriatus refers to the historical character.
(11) Antonio Rey Hazas identifies Cervantes's rejection of the Portuguese invasion at the expense of rescuing Christian slaves in Africa as "el castellanismo antiportugues" (257), a sentiment he also finds in La Galatea, written at approximately the same time as Los tratos. For a political reading of Cervantes's pastoral novel, see also Montero Reguera ("Historia").
(12) The lines in question come as the Dueto prophesies the future achievements of the Spanish Empire: "el giron lusitano tan famoso, / que un tiempo se corto de los vestidos / de la ilustre Castilla, ha de zurcirse / de nuevo, y a su estado antiguo unirse" (2.517-20). These lines from the Catedra edition come from the manuscript of La Numancia housed in the Hispanic Society of America in New York (121). In the other manuscript of Numancia in the Biblioteca Nacional de Espana in Madrid, the verb "asirse" is used instead of"zurcirse" (101). While the HSA manuscript is considered superior in quality, this discrepancy produces two different images of the union between Spain and Portugal: one of repairing damaged clothing, and the other of Portugal grasping or clinging on to Castille in desperation. Moreno Hernandez provides the alternative words in parentheses, but the discrepancy does not factor into his analysis.
(13) In Cuadro I of Cronicas romanas, Viriato sends his son of the same name, aged about five years, to Numancia for his own protection in the year 150 BC. Seventeen years later it is the son Viriato who jumps from the tower, wrapped in the flag of Numancia (Sastre, Cuadro 25:416).
(14) Jean Canavaggio dedicates a chapter to the historical and oral traditions that provide a basis for Cervantes's Nurnancia, particularly the episode of the boy ending his own life. However, his study does not speculate into the origins or purposes of Cervantes naming the boy Bariato/Viriato. See especially pages 97-108.
(15) Regarding this issue within the context of Alonso de Ercilla's Araucana and Gabriel Lobo Lasso de la Vega's Tragedia de la destruycion de Constantinopla, see Kahn ("Idealizing").
(16) As I note in a previous article, "Act III opens with a dialogue between Charles and Fabricio, two soldiers in Godofre's army, one French and one Italian. On the eve of battle, their spirits are high and they exude confidence in the coming jornada, or day of battle, which Charles describes as 'santa y justa, / las demas llenas de anbicion y envidia' ('holy and just, / all others full of ambition and envy') (111.10-11). They discuss the four miracles witnessed by the Christian army on their march towards Jerusalem that have validated their campaign: (I) the pope was able to unite all of Christendom in this cause; (2) all France simultaneously knew of the pope's intention at one time, no matter where in the country they were; (3) they have amassed an invincible army of 600,000 infantry and 100,000 cavalry to fulfil their destiny; and (4) during the battle of Antioch, as the Christians were near defeat, one among them found the santa lanca, the Holy Lance that pierced Jesus's side during his crucifixion (John 19:31-7), which turned the tide in their favor as they marched towards victory" ("Towards a Theory" 110).
(17) For Cervantes's defense and criticism of Christian orthodoxy in his plays of captivity, see Castillo (" Ortodoxia?").
(18) As the stage directions in Los tratos de Argel indicate: "Salen dos esclavos y dos muchachillos moros, que les salen diciendo estas palabras, que se usan decir en Argeh 'Joan, Juan, non rescatar, non fugir. Don Juan no venir; aca morir, perro, aca morir; Don Juan no venir; aca morir'" (Obras 2: 47). These lines are repeated in Los banos de Argel, reiterating what the stage directions tell us. Such words were was commonly heard by Christian slaves upon the death of Don Juan de Austria in 1578, thus dashing their hopes of rescue. The Christians seemed to understand that their rescue was not a priority of Philip II. See also Rey Hazas (258).
(19) For a discussion on the temptation for Christians to convert to Islam during their enslavement, see Eisenberg (" Por que volvio?").
(20) Arata and Vaccari provide a comprehensive description of the process of manuscript transmission. Arata addresses the issue with specific reference to La conquista de Jerusalen ("Notas" 61-62, 65). De la Granja addresses the relationship between Cervantes and actors of the time period.
(21) Cervantes refers to the play as Los tratos deArgelin the prologue of the Ocho comedias y ocho entremeses of 1615, as well as in the "Adjunta al Parnaso" of 1614.
(22) Again, according to Garces, Stanislav Zimic "has advanced the premise that the scenes represented in the four acts of Cervantes's play correspond to the four spheres of Dante's Inferno: Incontinence, Violence, Ordinary Fraud, and Treacherous Fraud, with their respective circles" 138). See Zimic (41).
(23) Cervantes refers to the play as La destruccion (destruycion) de Numancia in the prologue of the Ocho comedias y ocho entremeses (Obras 3: 158), and as La Numancia in "Adjunta al Parnaso" (Obras 2: 636) and in Don Quijote (1.48:557).
(24) As Arata argues, "Sabemos, ademas, que en un primer momento los manuscritos del conde de Gondomar estaban reunidos en varios volumenes segun un orden tematico, y solo posteriormente algunos de estos textos--entre ellos La conquista de Jerusalen--se desglosaron y vendieron. De haber aparecido La conquista de Jerusalen y La Numancia juntas en la misma coleccion, es muy posible que la atribucion cervantina de La conquista hubiese resultado inmediata a los ojos de los eruditos, dado el fuerte parecido metrico y estilistico de las dos piezas y por el hecho que Cervantes contaba haber compuesto a la vuelta del cautiverio 'Los Tratos de Argel, La Numancia .... La Jerusalen.. .'" ("Notas" 65)
Figure 3: Comparison of three manuscripts of Los tratos de Argel from the Hispanic Society of America, the Biblioteca Nacional de Espaiia, and the actor's sheet. Comedia del trato de Argel Comedia llamada trato de MS B2341, HSA Argel MS 14.630/23, BNE Ocasion Ocasion Yo de mi arte de contino pienso Yo por mi parte de contino ponerme delante y la miseria pienso de mis pocos cabellos ofrecerle ponerme delante y la melena y detener mi buelo por que de is pocos cabellos ofrecerle pueda y detenerme un rato porque asirme della cosa poco usada pueda de mi lixera condicion y presta asirme della cosa poco usada (321) de mi ligera condicion y pre sta. (11r) Necesidad Necesidad Grande es por cierto Aurelio Grande es por cierto Aurelio la que tienes la que tines Aurelio Aurelio Grande necesidad es la que paso Grande de necesidad cierto Necesidad padezco Rotos traes los capatos y el Necesidad bestido Rotos traes los capatos y Aurelio vestido Capatos y bestido tengo rotos Aurelio Necesidad Capatos y vestidos tengo rotos En un pellexo duermes y en el Necesidad suelo En un pellejo duermes y en el suelo Aurelio Aurelio En el suelo me acuesto y en un En el suelo me acuesto en un pellexo pellejo Ocasion Necesidad Pues yo se si quisieses que Corta traes la camisa y rota halarias traigo ocasion de salir dese trabaxo Aurelio muy presto sin contraste a Sucia corta camisa y rota poca traigo costa Ocasion Aurelio Pues yo se si quisieses que Pues yo se si quisiese que hallarias hallaria ocasion de salir ocasion de salir dese trabajo deste trabaxo muy presto sin Aurelio contraste a poca costa Pues yo se si quisiese que Ocasion podria Con no mas de querer a tu ama salir desta miseria a poca costa zara Ocasion o con dar muestras solo Con no mas de querer a tu ama de querella zahara O con dar muestras solo de Aurelio quererla Con no mas de querer bien a mi Aurelio ama Con no mas de querer bien a mi o fingir que la que quiero ama o fingir que la quiero me me bastaua bas taua Mas [ ]quien podra fingir lo Mas [ ]quien odra fingir lo que no quiere[?] que no quiere[?] (32v) (11r) Papel de la Ocasion MS(microfilm) 11.300, page. 27 Formerly MS 14.612/8 page 27 yo por mi parte de contino pienso ponermele delante y la melena de mis pocos cabellos ofrecerle y detenerme un rrato por q pueda asirme della cosa poco usada de mi ligera ocasion y presta. traygo pues yo se si quisieses que hallarias ocasion de salir dese trabajo costa con no mas de querer a tu ama zara o con dar muestras solo de querer la
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Kahn, Aaron M.|
|Publication:||Cervantes: Bulletin of the Cervantes Society of America|
|Date:||Mar 22, 2013|
|Previous Article:||Los tratos de Argel and the Muslim Story of Joseph and Potiphar's Wife.|
|Next Article:||?Donde esta el cabeza de familia?: el gobierno de Teresa Panza, razon de estado y ejemplaridad domestica.|