|
|
|
|
attributed to Juan Bautista Diamante 1
Introduction to an edited version based on the 1713 Zaragoza 2 MS. in the Biblioteca Municipal, Madrid (Sig. 1-128-11) .
|
|
|
Edition and commentary by R.V. Pringle, MA MLitt (Edin.)
|
|
|
(a) Textual Sources (b) Authorship (c) Possible Date
[Go to: Part Two of this Introduction]
|
|
|
La Magdalena de Roma, long attributed (see note 1) to Juan Bautista Diamante (?1625-1687), was not published in his lifetime, nor has any MS. copy been found which dates from before his death. There are four printed editions of the work, all eighteenth-century sueltas; two were published in Madrid, one by Francisco Asensio and the other by Antonio Sanz; one in Cordoba; and one in Seville. Only one of these is dated: Antonio Sanz's Madrid edition of 1748. All ascribe the play to Diamante and give the title as "La Magdalena de Roma". The Sanz edition adds to this the secondary title "Cathalina la Bella". There are two important MSS. The first, dated 1695, is incomplete, giving only the first act of the play. It contains two attributions: one on the title-page, to 'Don Pedro fran(cis)co Lanini y Sagredo'; the other on the first page of the text, to 'tres Yngenios desta Corte.' On the title-page, a different hand has added the secondary title, "Cathalina la Vella". The second MS., carrying a censura dated Zaragoza, November 1713, is complete, and ascribes the play to Diamante. Both MSS. are to be found in the Biblioteca Municipal, Madrid (Sig. 1-128-11). In addition, there is to be found in the above library (Sig. 1-128-11) a copy of the undated Asensio edition with copious MS. additions and censuras dated 1758. Also in the Biblioteca Municipal (Sig. 1-128-11) is a MS. copy incorporating these additions and emendations and omitting the censored passages. While the Zaragoza MS. contains material not included in any of the sueltas (vv. 2421-6, 2535-6, 2540-3, 2547-50, 2719-20 in my edition), the Lanini MS. containing only the first act has several lines not found in any other version (vv. 33-52, 223-4, 586, 667-85) (note 5). The Zaragoza MS. is however closer to the printed editions than the Lanini. Readings in the two MS. versions are generally preferable to the printed copies. These repeatedly agree with regard to variants, suggesting that one of them (or a third, unidentified MS.) represents the model from which the others, directly or indirectly, were copied. If anything Antonio Sanz's Madrid edition of 1748 and the Seville suelta are closer to each other than to the other two printed versions, and the Lanini readings (apart from scribal errors, of which the Lanini MS. has many) are preferable for Act I to all of the others. As the earliest complete version (as far as can be identified) the Zaragoza manuscript has been chosen as the basis for the present edition. <top> If La Magdalena is the work of Lanini, or simply a work of collaboration, it is not difficult to understand why it should have been attributed to Diamante. The two men were collaborators, and Diamante was by far the better known: the play would therefore attract a larger public if presented as the work of the latter. Actually, there is nothing in the theme, structure, vocabulary or versification of this play to suggest that it must be a work of Diamante, and much to suggest that it is not. The theme itself, of course (in general terms, the working out of Grace in a sinner), does not exclude Diamante's authorship; but a detailed examination of the play's style, syntax, vocabulary and versification reveals a striking lack of parallels between La Magdalena and Diamante's work as represented in the twenty-four plays published as Comedias, I and II. The positive differences in style are too many to give here in detail, but I shall instance the following: a) The incessant and ingenious punning in La Magdalena, not confined to the graciosos (vv. 95-100, 166-82, 179-80, etc). Diamante's puns are few and usually confined to the latter. b) The elegant, almost precious vocabulary of La Magdalena,and the constant use of plurals where a singular would suffice (vv. 214, 582-4, 949, 1002-13, etc.). Diamante is more straightforward in general, and when presenting 'courtly' characters such as we find in La Magdalena, more limited in his vocabulary. Plurals are not used with nearly so much frequency by Diamante. c) The peculiar construction, as in 'sabiendo con la fineza que quiero a Lupercio' (v. 1254, and cf. also vv. 1147, 1149, 1934-5, 2766) occurs five times in La Magdalena. In the twenty-four plays of the Comedias, I and II, I have found only two examples of it, both in the same play, Pasión vencida (Comedias, I, 152 b). d) There are 54 lines in La Magdalena (vv. 255-308) of a verse-form (six-line liras) which occurs nowhere in Comedias, I and II. In fact, I have found only two other examples of it in the whole of Diamante's production: in the first and second parts of El Gran Cardenal de España, on which Lanini collaborated with Diamante (in the Primera parte at least, if not in both). Taking one Lanini play at random, El lucero de Madrid, I found in Act II by my count 96 lines of this verse-form (vv. 607-42, 717-752 and 863-86). There would seem to be three remaining possibilities: a) that Lanini and not Diamante is the author of La Magdalena; b) that Diamante and Lanini collaborated on this as on other plays, notably El apóstol de Valencia; and c) that it is the work of 'tres ingenios' (perhaps Lanini, Diamante and one other), as the second attribution of the 1695 MS. suggests. Because the play shows a degree of unity in plot and style which strongly suggests the work of one writer rather than two or more, the first of these is perhaps the most likely. But without a detailed study of the work of Pedro Francisco Lanini, it is impossible to reach any kind of conclusion on this. <top> A Possible Date for its Composition The fact that La Magdalena de Roma cannot be related to the dramatic production of Juan Bautista Diamante makes it – for this writer at least - more difficult to date. There is, however, a contemporary reference in the play which may allow us to assign it at least an approximate date. This reference (v. 897) is to the actress Manuela de Escamilla, and suggests that by the time the play was written, she had acquired a considerable reputation on the stage (it may well be that Manuela herself played the part of Catalina in the play when it was first performed). An examination of the Corpus Christi records published by Pérez Pastor (note 10) shows that Manuela almost certainly was not playing primeras damas until 1677. We may, therefore, adopt this year as a plausible terminus a quo. The Lanini MS. establishes the latest possible year of composition as 1695. A possible date for the play within that period might be, in view of the theme, a year with special importance for the Rosary Confraternity. One such is 1680, when the Indulgences, Jubilees and Absolutions of this Sacred Congregation were confirmed by Pope Innocent XI (note 11). Aberdeen (Scotland), May 2007 <top> [Go to: Part Two of this Introduction] Sources
Notes
[Go to: Part Two of this Introduction]
(1) For a discussion of the play's authorship, including a possible attribution to Pedro Francisco Lanini y Sagredo, click here. For a checklist of plays by or atttributed to Juan Bautista Diamante, click here. For more information on Juan Bautista Diamante go to the Wikipedia article. <back>
|
|
