Year: 1969
Type: book-review
Abstract: objective criteria will be utilized."Whenever possible, manuscript copies and early printed forms of the plays are referred to.Dr. Clark further explains his purpose (p.30): "to accumulate all the possible non-Lopean elements in the comedias in order to determine whether they provide sufficient evi- dence to warrant rejection of these plays as being by Lope and thus contribute in a small way to the establishment of a canon of Lope's comedias.'"After the detailed scrutiny of each play in the manner described, there is a good summing up, and "Conclusions" reached (and I would say proven) are that "The accumulation of non-Lopean elements revealed in the study of these ten comedias provide sufficient evi- dence for rejecting the plays from a canon of the dramatist's authentic works."(p.177) The "résumé of the most noticeable non-Lopean elements in the plays studied" (pp.178- 81) presents in a very concise manner the kernel of the arguments, sufficient to show that the plays are not Lope de Vega's, or, at best, in a few cases, "radically recast" by some other hand or hands.A reviewer can only congratulate Professor Clark on a job well done.Clear and logical, the arguments are brought forth systematically for the drawing of correct solutions.The bibliography is scholarly and to the point (why not the Morley and Bruerton Cronologia of 1968?).A helpful addition to the volume would have been an index of critics cited.But that is only a minor point.Let us hope that Dr. Clark will continue to apply his "ob- jective methods for testing authenticity" to the large number of other plays of doubtful Lopean attribution.
Source: Renaissance and Reformation
Language: English
Subfield: Literature and Literary Theory
Field: Arts and Humanities
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W2736228616