Abstract

This essay reviews the controversy over the political interpretations of Calderón’s mythological play, El mayor encanto, amor. While a number of scholars perceive a critique of the Count-Duke of Olivares through the characterization of the witch Circe, others deny such an interpretation noting that it would infringe upon the decorum needed for palace performances. This essay then offers three levels of interpretation, noting that there could be at least three kinds of audiences watching the play. El mayor encanto, amor can be interpreted as a laudatory work since it includes the figure of Astraea. She is the goddess of justice, truth and chastity who signals the return of the mythical Golden Age during the times of Philip IV and his minister the Count-Duke of Olivares. However, a more critical yet prudent audience regards the play, although laudatory in nature, as presenting a useful piece of advice in a decorous manner: the king ought not to forget his governing duties while enjoying the pleasures of his new palace. Finally those that were discontented with the minister, such as the queen and her ladies, could perceive other designs in the work. Here, the minister would be metamorphosed into Circe who controlled the king/Ulysses through her power and magic.

Abstract

Focusing on the manuscript El mayor encanto of 1668, it shows some of its curious aspects and problems.This testimony is divided between the Hispanic Society of America (two first days) and the BNE (third day), with the added value that in the last act it has autograph final verses by Calderón.The author reconstructs the days’ division process and thoroughly analyses the variants of the three hands that appear in the manuscript in relation to the princeps, concluding that the two non autograph hands take into account the princeps text, though with various deviations and corrections.