Abstract

The text of Amado y aborrecido, published by Vera Tassis in the Novena parte of Calderón’s Comedias (1691), shows clear signs of deriving from a late and already rather corrupt testimony: the one included in the unauthorized Quinta parte (1677). However, it offers a longer and more coherent text, and its variants seem to reveal the hand of the author. In this paper, two alternative hypotheses are proposed in order to explain these facts. Perhaps the composer of the 1691 text worked from a copy of the Quinta parte accompanied by a list of corrections taken from a more reliable testimony. Or, perhaps, Vera Tassis used the text of a new palace performance of the play, based on the Quinta parte but revised and corrected by Calderón himself. The conclusions may well be relevant for the textual criticism of other plays by the same author.

Abstract

The critical study of El escondido y la tapada implies a series of textual problems related to the complexity of various materials that exist in the play, mostly printed.The first of these difficulties relates to the hierarchy that must be established in the quality of the testimonies. The primary texts are considered useful, and the secondary texts less utile. The editor’s task faces the variety of sources and to evaluate the importance of the documents, in order to find the most consistent source using the ecdotic analysis. In the case of this calderonian play, the corrections made by Vera Tassis are considered legitimate, including certain elements of the earlier editions of El escondido y la tapada.

Abstract

The article focuses on the analysis of Calderón’s editorial intention when publishing the Cuarta parte of his comedies. The printed edition of these theatrical texts meant a qualitative change in terms of its social repercussion (a greater and different socialization of Calderón’s texts) and the role of the author who now takes on an editor role as well, which is very important regarding a current critical edition. Leaving aside the economical reasons that might have moved Calderón, the 1672 and 1674 editions together with Vera’ of 1688 provide us with the Spanish author’s editorial intention at the time of fixing the texts, even though the numerous errors of the 1672 and 1674 editions and the interventions of Vera Tassis in the one from 1688 cause problems to the modern editor.