Reviewed by:

• Drawing the Curtain: Cervantes’s Theatrical Revelations ed. by Esther Fernández and Adrienne L. Martín
• Melanie Henry

CERVANTES’S DRAMATIC OEUVRE HAS LONG BEEN CONSIDERED a failed endeavor and, in many quarters, a body of work undeserving of scholarly attention particularly when held up to the incomparable Don Quijote. Yet as Bruce R. Burningham goes so far as to say in his contribution to this volume, present-day critics are “obligated” to “account for Cervantes’s theatre” owing precisely to the fact it is written by the Quijote’s author (18). Cervantes’s dramatic work—mostly contained within the Ocho comedias y ocho entremeses nunca representados (1615)—received scant recognition during the dramatist’s own time and was generally subject to dismissive attitudes and negative attention during the boom of twentieth-century Cervantine studies. This stems not only from the overwhelming popularity of Don Quijote but also from the long-held idea that Cervantes was seemingly unable to compete with the “monstruo de naturaleza” Lope de Vega, who wrote so prolifically and successfully for the Golden Age stage. Following this vein, Cervantes has more often than not been depicted as a frustrated playwright incapable of keeping up with—or even understanding—the fashionable comedia nueva as championed by Lope and his followers. Nonetheless, more recent criticism has rightly pointed out that evaluation of Cervantes’s drama vis-à-vis Lope results in a one-dimensional argument that prioritizes what Cervantes’s theater does, or does not do, within a limited context. On a more significant note, scholarly attention in recent years has redirected the conversation in an effort to explore Cervantes’s dramatic output on its own terms—an approach which has consistently evoked a dynamic and complex theater espousing an alternative voice to the theatrical imaginings of early modern Spain. The tide is, therefore, slowly changing, and it is heartening to see critical work on Cervantes’s theater gaining traction and finding its place outside of the looming shadow of the playwright’s more famous works.

It is within this context of a new and more confident trajectory for Cervantine drama studies that Fernández and Martín’s volume enters. Its thirteen essays aim collectively to shed light on how Cervantes “experiments [End Page 163] with and manipulates theatricality in and beyond his theatre to create performative spaces where limitless ideas can be rehearsed before an audience” (4). As a group of essays which examine Cervantes’s theater as well as the theatricality of his prose works, the volume is composed of two parts. Part 1, entitled “Alternate Theatricalities in Cervantes’s Drama,” contains four articles on plays included in Ocho comedias. John Slater and Sonia Velázquez each examine El rufián dichoso: he from the perspective of queerness, she focused on the theatricality of gambling. With respect to the theme of captivity, there is an essay on Los baños de Argel by Sherry Velasco and another on La gran sultana by Ana Laguna. In addition, Julia Domínguez studies the four-act El trato de Argel (ca. 1580, from Cervantes’s first period writing for the stage). Part 1 also includes an article by Burningham on Cervantes’s conceptualization of the stage and on the entremeses by Fernández and Martín, respectively. It may have been fruitful to have widened the reach of part 1 to explore more of the comedias, particularly those that are lesser known and even considered unperformable (La casa de los celos, for instance). Overall, however, the essays in part 1 add further weight to recent criticism that moves forward the discussion of the counter-perspectives and unorthodox dramatic paradigms fashioned and promoted by Cervantes’s theater.

Part 2 consists of six essays and deals with “Acts of Disclosure in Cervantes’s Prose.” Paul Michael Johnson considers La galatea (1585), while Eduardo Olid Guerrero and José R. Cartagena Calderón offer essays on Don Quijote. This section also explores one of the novel’s interpolated stories, “El curioso impertinente,” in a study by Mercedes...

 审阅者：

• 
  拉开帷幕：塞万提斯的戏剧启示编辑。作者：埃丝特·费尔南德斯和艾德丽安·L·马丁
•  梅兰妮·亨利

塞万提斯的戏剧性作品长期以来一直被认为是一次失败的努力，并且在许多方面，都是不值得学术关注的作品，尤其是在面对无与伦比的堂吉诃德时。然而，正如布鲁斯·R·伯宁汉（Bruce R. Burningham）在他对本书的贡献中所说，当今的批评家“有义务”“解释塞万提斯的戏剧”，正是因为它是由《堂吉诃德》的作者写的（18 ）。塞万提斯的戏剧作品——主要包含在《Ocho comedias y ocho entremeses nuncarepresentados 》（1615）中——在这位剧作家的时代很少受到认可，并且在二十世纪塞万提斯研究的繁荣时期普遍受到轻视态度和负面关注。这不仅源于《堂吉诃德》的压倒性受欢迎，还源于长期以来的一种观点，即塞万提斯似乎无法与“自然怪物”洛佩·德·维加竞争，后者为黄金时代的舞台创作了如此多产且成功的作品。遵循这一脉络，塞万提斯常常被描绘成一位失意的剧作家，无法跟上甚至无法理解洛普及其追随者所倡导的时尚新喜剧。尽管如此，最近的批评正确地指出，对塞万提斯的戏剧相对于洛普的评价导致了一种一维的争论，即在有限的背景下优先考虑塞万提斯的戏剧做了什么或不做了什么。 更重要的是，近年来学术界的注意力已经转向，试图以塞万提斯的戏剧作品本身的方式来探索塞万提斯的戏剧作品——这种方法始终唤起一种充满活力和复杂的戏剧，支持对早期现代戏剧想象的另一种声音。西班牙。因此，潮流正在慢慢发生变化，令人振奋的是，看到塞万提斯戏剧的批评作品越来越受到关注，并在这位剧作家更著名的作品的阴影之外找到了自己的位置。

费尔南德斯和马丁的著作正是在塞万丁戏剧研究新的、更加自信的轨迹的背景下进入的。它的十三篇文章共同旨在阐明塞万提斯如何“在他的剧院内外实验和操纵戏剧性，以创造可以在观众面前排练无限想法的表演空间”（4）。作为一组考察塞万提斯戏剧及其散文作品戏剧性的文章，本书由两部分组成。第 1 部分的标题为“塞万提斯戏剧中的另类戏剧性”，包含四篇关于奥乔喜剧中的戏剧的文章。约翰·斯莱特（John Slater）和索尼娅·委拉斯开兹（Sonia Velázquez）各自审视了《El rufián dichoso》 ：他从酷儿的角度出发，她则专注于赌博的戏剧性。关于囚禁的主题，有一篇由Sherry Velasco撰写的关于Los baños de Argel的文章，还有一篇由Ana Laguna撰写的关于La gran sultana的文章。此外，朱莉娅·多明格斯还研究了四幕《El trato de Argel》 （约 1580 年，来自塞万提斯第一阶段的舞台剧创作）。第 1 部分还包括伯宁汉关于塞万提斯舞台概念化以及费尔南德斯和马丁分别撰写的关于舞台概念的文章。扩大第 1 部分的范围以探索更多喜剧，尤其是那些鲜为人知甚至被认为表现不佳的喜剧（例如《La casa de los celos 》），可能会取得丰硕成果。然而，总体而言，第一部分中的文章进一步增加了最近的批评的分量，这些批评推动了对塞万提斯戏剧所塑造和推广的反观点和非正统戏剧范式的讨论。

第二部分由六篇文章组成，涉及“塞万提斯散文中的披露行为”。保罗·迈克尔·约翰逊（Paul Michael Johnson）考虑了《加拉泰亚》（La galatea ，1585），而爱德华多·奥利德·格雷罗（Eduardo Olid Guerrero）和何塞·R·卡塔赫纳·卡尔德隆（José R. Cartagena Calderón）则发表了有关《堂吉诃德》的文章。本节还探讨了梅赛德斯的一项研究中小说中插入的故事之一“El curioso unpertinente”……