A Seventeenth Century Version of the «Grisel y Mirabella» Story: Juan Arze Solórzeno's «Tragedias de amor» (1607)

John T. Cull

“No hay libro tan malo, que no tenga alguna cosa buena”.

(Don Quijote II.59)

A pleasant surprise awaits the reader tenacious enough to follow Juan Arze Solórzeno's Tragedias de amor

(1607) to its conclusion, a surprise seemingly ignored by the authors of book-length studies dedicated to the

spanish libros de pastores1. The narration draws to a close with one of the characters reciting a truncated

version of Juan de Flores's Historia de Grisel y Mirabella (1495?). Barbara Matulka, in her study of the

influences of this late fifteenth century sentimental romance on subsequent Spanish literature, appears to be

unaware of Arze Solórzeno's rendition2. The present study will try to reach a determination as to whether we

are dealing with a shameless case of literary piracy or merely an example of what was meant by the precept of

mimesis, as understood by the literary theorists of the Renaissance. The issue is complicated by the likelihood

that Arze Solórzeno was unaware of the original text, and instead availed himself of a Spanish version of a

polyglot edition (1556; Italian, Spanish, French and English), that in turn based itself on a translation into

Italian (1521)3.

The Grisel y Mirabella plot is familiar to students and scholars of Spanish literature. Nevertheless, a brief

summary will prove invaluable for the analysis that follows. In the kingdom of Scotland, at some undetermined

time, the king's daughter Mirabella is ardently pursued by all the knights of the realm. Indeed, many perish in

their amorous quest. The monarch ensconces his daughter in a remote location to try to prevent the decimation

of the ranks of his knights, but without success. Two knights in particular, the best of friends, secretly woo

Mirabella at night, each unaware of the threat posed by the other. Eventually, with the rivalry discovered, the

two engage in combat for the right to pursue Mirabella's favors. Grisel kills his friend and competitor, and soon

enjoys nocturnal rendezvous with the princess. One night they are surprised in flagrante delicto due to the

treachery of a servant. Both are imprisoned until the question of culpability can be resolved. The law of the land

states that the individual most responsible for inducing the other into illicit dalliance will be executed, and the

lesser transgressor perpetually exiled. Even under torture, each of the lovers accepts full blame. To overcome

the impasse, the king agrees to a debate between a representative of each sex to decide which gender has a

greater role in enticing the other to love. Braçayda is the elected proponent of the feminine cause, while

Torrellas is brought from Spain to champion the side of men4. A lengthy debate ensues between the formidable

combatants, replete with personal insults and vicious indictments of the opposite sex. The judges, all men,

ultimately declare Torrellas the winner. Mirabella's father, torn between paternal sentiment and his duty to

uphold justice, declares that she must suffer execution by flames. On the day that the sentence is to be carried

out, Grisel hurls himself in the fire, in order to join his beloved in death. With one of the pair dead, however,

and justice therefore served, Mirabella's sentence is revoked. Unable to live without Grisel, she bides her time

until alone, then jumps into the lion pit, where she is savagely torn to bits and devoured. Torrellas, meanwhile,

has fallen madly in love with Braçayda, in spite of his unflagging misogyny5. The queen and other ladies of the

court, in order to exact revenge on the scourge of womanhood, advise Braçayda to play along with Torrellas

and feign a reciprocation of his passion. In this way, Braçayda lures Torrellas into a trap. He is bound and

stripped by the ladies, and then cruelly tortured all night long until all the flesh has been flayed from his bones.

The corpse is burned, and each of the ladies gathers some ashes as a blazon of their triumph. Nevertheless,

Flores reasserts the status quo by undermining, through authorial manipulation, the vengeance wrought by the

woman. In the closing sentences he reaffirms a paternalistic social order by declaring Mirabella's death

sentence as «just» (370).

The version of the Grisel y Mirabella story «imitated» by Arze Solórzeno was probably the aforementioned

Spanish text of the 1556 polyglot edition. In fact, a strong initial argument against viewing the Tragedias de

amor as plagiarism is the free and open admission that the tale Eusebio relates in the novel is one he has read in

four languages: «que es historia muy extraordinaria y antigua, y la leí en cuatro lenguas, Francesa, Italiana,

Castellana, é Inglesa: y lo mejor que la débil memoria me ayudare, os referiré lo más sustancial della» (f. 172r-

v). Further evidence is offered by the fact that the names given to the protagonists in the Tragedias de amor are

those employed in all the European translations. That is to say, Grisel, Mirabella, Torrellas and Braçayda, are

rebaptized respectively: Aurelio, Isabela, Afranio and Hortensia in the Tragedias and other European versions

of the story6. Other internal evidence that is incidental to the focus of this study help to establish the 1556

cuadrilingual edition as the probable source of Arze Solórzeno's treatment of the story.

Nevertheless, for the purpose of analyzing the Tragedias de amores literary mimesis, the versions offered

by Juan de Flores and the anonymous translator of 1556 of the Grisel y Mirabella story show negligible

differences. The principal difference is one of length. The later translation adds some extraneous material,

mostly in the form of invented dialogue, that in no way alters the intentions of the original. The prolixity of the

translator led J. A. Praag to exaggerate the differences between the three texts under consideration: «El texto

como va intercalado en la novela de Arze difiere bastante (parece muy abreviado) del de la edición cuadrilingüe

de Amberes (1556)» (349). In truth, the substance of the three versions of the story are strikingly similar, if we

disregard the verbose additions of the European translations. The only appreciable dissimilarity that separates

model and continuations at most points is a modernization of the Castillian. Though spatial constraints make a

detailed correlation of the three texts impractical, a representative passage will allow the reader to appreciate

the faithfulness with which Arze Solórzeno follows his model(s). In the example that follows, chosen

arbitrarily, the king, after torture has failed, wonders how he will get the truth out of the pair of lovers. I have

chosen to reproduce the original orthography only for the text of Grisel y Mirabella:

Historia de Aurelio y de Isabela (1556) Grisel y Mirabella (1495) Tragedias de amor (1607)

Y como el rey vio que y como el Rey viesse que no auia

Viendo el Rey que

ningún remedio hallaba para saber claramente ningun remedio para saber la claridat

ningún remedio había, para saber claramente

el secreto destos amores, ayuntando el consejo de sus

deste secreto: demando conseio a sus

el principio destos amores, ajuntando el Consejo de sus

sabios y doctores, les preguntó qué modo se debía

letrados, que era lo que sobre este

sabios, preguntóles qué modo se debía

tener en semejante caso. A lo cual caso se deuia hazer. alo qual tener en semejante caso?

todos respondieron, que en ninguna manera respondieron: que en ninguna manera

Respondieron, que no

conocían diferencia entre estos podían conoçer la differencia entre estos

conocían diferencia entre estos

enamorados, mas que firmemente creían que amadores. mas ante crehian: que ellos

enamorados, mas que creían que

igualmente se amasen, y que igualmente iuntamente se amauan. e ygualmente

igualmente se amaban, y que igualmente

se hubiesen fatigado por traer a efecto trabaiaron por traher a effecto sus

se habrían fatigado por traer a efecto

sus deseos grandemente deseados de que igual desseados desseos. e yguales merecian

sus ardientes deseos, y que así merecían

pena merecían. Mas porque según las la pena. Mas como las leyes de su

pena igual. Pero por guardar la orden de la

antiguas y aprobadas leyes de la Isla se ordenaba que quien

tierra antigamente ordenaron: el que

ley y castigar con menos rigor a quien

más ocasión o principio fuese al compañero mas causa o principio fuesse al otro

se verificase tener menos culpa:

de caer en el amoroso delito, la muerte recibiese: y

de hauer amado mereciesse muerte: y el

quien menos en esto pecaba, a destierro perpetuo fuese condenado: concluyeron los doctores, y dijeron al Rey.

que menos destierro. pero que en este

que pues en el caso de su hija y de Aurelio no se hallaba desigualdad alguna,

caso de su hija no conocian differencia

que un solo remedio parecía a ellos, (cuando a su Majestad plugiese) que se debiese experimentar. El cual fue tal: Tomad (dijeron los consejeros)

saluo vna: que examinasse si los hombres

acosenjaron, que se mandase ajuntar

el número de hombres y mujeres, que os parecerá, y haced sobre este caso

número de hombres y mujeres

con grandísima diligencia disputar entre los cuales se disputase

quien dé mayor ocasión de pecar, o el hombre a la mujer, o la mujer al hombre:

o las mujeres o ellas o ellos qual destos era mas occasion del yerro al otro.

cuál da mayor ocasión de pecar, el hombre a la mujer, o la mujer al hombre:

y hallándose que las mujeres en esto tengan más culpa,

que si las mujeres fuessen mayor causa

y hallándose ser más culpado el hombre,

muera Isabela: de amar los hombres: que moriesse Mirabella.

muriese Aurelio:

y si se conociere que los hombres sean ocasión principal,

y si los hombres a ellas: y si conociese ser la mujer ocasión principal,

que Aurelio reciba la debida pena. que padeciesse Grisel. muriese Isabela.

Así concluyeron determinadamente Y aquellos letrados o oydores Y concluyeron los consejeros y sabios,

aquellos Doctores y oidores del consejo Real, del conseio real determinadamente concluyeron

diciendo que para saber la verdad, no había mejor remedio que aquel. (N. P.)

diziendo: que no auia otra mayor razon para saber la verdad. (p. 342)

que para saber la verdad, aquél era el mejor medio, (ff. 175v-176r)

Before comparing and contrasting the texts in more depth, it will be helpful to consider the general context

in which the tale appears in the Tragedias de amor. This rather obscure pastoral romance, with its pretense to

vast erudition, is in the tradition of Lope de Vega's Arcadia, from which it borrows liberally7. Arze Solórzeno's

preliminary address to the reader acknowledges a certain amount of imitation in the composition of his

eclogues: «después de haber en estas églogas con artificiosas historias antiguas fábulas, filosóficos discursos,

latinas y griegas imitaciones dado alguna parte de dulce...» («Al Lector», N. pag.) This admission of

appropriation of outside sources should blunt any possible accusation of plagiarism. At the same time, it seems

to consecrate the Grisel y Mirabella as an «ancient fable» a little more than a century after its initial appearance.

This is plausible in view of the fact that the origin of the story was unknown in the early seventeenth century. It

was not at all uncommon in the period for authors of short fiction, and especially of the novella, to borrow the

plots of their narrations from the Italian masters of the genre. It is not until the prologue to Cervantes's Novelas

ejemplares that an author boasts of originality in his plots. Arze Solórzeno, like all his contemporaries, believed

that the Historia de Aurelio y Isabela was penned by an Italian author. His borrowing of the story, and

refashioning of certain elements to suit his own particular needs, was a well-established practice. It is certainly

ironic, nevertheless, that an author who depends so heavily on the inspiration of others claims as his reason for

publishing the work a fear lest others should pilfer it with improper imitation: «porque otro no los publicara

prevaricados y desconocidos, como ya los he visto» («Al Lector», N. pag.). This kind of lament, of course, is

not original with Arze Solórzeno, and appears as a conventional feature of many of the pastoral romances.

The Tragedias de amor is made up of five books (of the fifteen that the author claims to have written), each

with a brief allegory to summarize its didactic intention. The pastoral romance, as practiced by Arze Solórzeno,

is a great melting pot where many diverse kinds of writing are brought together. In terms of plot development,

the Tragedias relies heavily on the technique of the interrupted story. As the action progresses, each narrative

thread is related in halting fragments, by different narrators, from their unique perspectives. A series of often

violent peripetia interrupt the narration at crucial points in the stories. By the end of the first (and only

published) part, very little has reached resolution. The reader is left dissatisfied, with an incomplete narrative,

in anticipation of a continuation that never materialized.

The issue of imitation, or plagiarism, is a particularly difficult one to decide for the pastoral romance. One

of the most intertextual of literary modes, pastoral depends for its success on a fixed canon of topoi that must

be included and refashioned by each author. That is to say, it is a mode that not only encourages, but demands a

certain amount of «distillation» or «alembication», as literary mimesis has sometimes been called. Of the

Spanish pastoral romances, there is at least one instance where an author clearly steps over the line of

reasonable imitation and into the realm of unabashed theft: Jerónimo de Tejeda's continuation of the Diana

(Paris, 1627). The late date of its publication with respect to the Tragedias makes it evident that Arze Solórzeno

could not possibly have followed Tejeda's lead.

Every one of the pastoral novelists repeats certain conventions that can be traced back at least as far as

Theocritus and Virgil. It comes as no great surprise, consequently, to learn that the Grisel y Mirabella story is

not the only example of imitation in the Tragedias de amor. To cite just a few, Arze Solórzeno appends a «Tabla

de los nombres históricos y poéticos» to the end of the novel, in homage to Lope's Arcadia. Another apparent

borrowing from the first of Lope's two pastoral romances is the revelation of the secret properties of twelve

stones, from natural philosophy (f. 22r). Other pastoral commonplaces include the ubiquitous play on words

«locura /el tiempo lo cura» (f. 51r); a variation of the wild man theme (Camilo); the depiction of pastoral

ejercicios; the visit to the subterranean palace, and many other conventions repeated ad infinitum because of the

highly derivative nature of pastoral literature.

The inclusion in Tragedias de amor of the episode documenting the tragic love of Grisel and Mirabella in

no way strikes the reader as arbitrary or out of place. Rather, it is framed quite naturally. The story under

consideration follows logically in part because it is the third of a series of anecdotes in the novel that share the

common element of an untrustworthy servant who precipitates the transgression of social mores, and in part

because the telling of tales to illustrate moral truths is a standard feature of the Spanish pastoral romance. The

first of the three cases is the supposedly historical anecdote of Fernán Ruiz de Castro and his wife Estefanía,

daughter of Alonso VII8. A maid, dressed in her lady's clothes, engages in illicit sexual relations, and is

mistaken for Estefanía. Fernán Ruiz, in a blind rage, kills his innocent wife. Significantly, with respect to what

will follow in the tale of Aurelio and Isabela (Grisel and Mirabella), a group of wise men exonerate the

perpetrator of the homicide, while the servant is publically burned to death (ff. 103-04). In some ways, this

situation parallels the sentence of the judges in favor of Torrellas in Grisel y Mirabella, and perhaps prefigures

that planned for Torrella's counterpart Afranio in the never published continuation of Tragedias de amor.

The second incidence of a corrupt servant takes place in Tragedias, somewhat surprisingly, within the

bower itself. Again, the transgression involves unsanctioned sexuality, though the shock is somewhat tempered

by having it narrated from a safe temporal distance. The violence does not occupy the foreground, or principal

narrative plane: it is told rather than shown. Acrisio, the novel's protagonist, falls into disfavor with his

shepherdess Lucidora because he is able to persuade a corruptible maid into granting him entrance into

Lucidora's rustic chambers at night to engage in a form of voyeurism: «para sólo ver a Lucidora acostarse, sin

que ella me viese» (f. 135v). When Acrisio is caught spying by Lucidora, he openly admits his somewhat

lascivious intentions: «que sólo me trajo la fuerza de un curioso deseo de ver la hermosura y proporción de tu

cuerpo al desnudarte» (f. 136r). The series of three is completed with the Grisel and Mirabella story, in which a

maid of Mirabella's, unable to keep a secret, is the direct cause of the tragedy that follows. All three anecdotes

are intended to teach a moral lesson to the shepherds who hear or experience them. The appropriation of the

plot of this narrative, then, serves a clear and distinct purpose in the Tragedias.

The narration of the material imitated out of the Historia de Aurelio y de Isabela (and ultimately, out of

Juan de Flores) evolves convincingly from the course of events depicted. The framework that houses the story

is typically pastoral. Marcelo, who is an ardent misogynist, is the stock pastoral character of a pastor

desamorado, accused by his fellow shepherds of being an enemy of love. The disaffected shepherd freely

admits this and gives his reason for despising the love passion. The diatribe against love, and evil women,

incorporates many of the standard arguments enjoined by the misogynists, and common to many of the Spanish

pastoral novelists. His vituperation includes, as does the Grisel y Mirabella itself, isolated verses from Pere

Torroella's infamous Maldezir de mugeres9. It falls to Eusebio to come to the defense of woman and love.

Ironically, his apology itself appropriates at least one concept from the Maldezir: that nature, and not woman, is

to blame for their alleged defects. The verbal sparring between the two shepherds leads Eusebio to exclaim:

«Gran enemigo les eres (dijo Eusebio) según publicas, no querría que te sucediese con ellas como a Afranio,

que con ser tan sabio, se vengaron dél, por el más extraordinario camino que se ha oído» (f. 172r). After thus

whetting their curiosity, the shepherds present ask Eusebio to tell his story, both for their entertainment and to

persuade Marcelo of the error of his ways. The transition between the events transpiring in the pastoral

pleasance and the actions depicted in an ancient sentimental romance could not be more gentle.

Eusebio proceeds to narrate the story first penned by Juan de Flores. With some minor differences and

omissions, which will be summarized presently, Tragedias de amor follows the plot exactly from the beginning

to the crucial juncture where the judges retire to deliberate their decision. There is one respite in the telling of

the story, a kind of narrative aside to lend variety and break the monotony. This occurs when the shepherd

Daciano complains to courtly Eusebio for not relating extensively the arguments that took place between

Afranio (Torrellas) and Hortensia (Braçayda). Daciano's gentle chiding allows him the opportunity to introduce

a pastoral convention, the praise of pastoral life, while at the same time he is able to disabuse Eusebio of the

notion that pastoral simplicity is the same thing as ignorance. The latter's profuse recantation affords him the

chance to condemn urban dwellers. The hiatus is a narrative strategy that helps to fuse and interweave the two

narrative planes of showing and telling.

Our pseudo-rustic narrator again picks up the thread of the plot and gives a detailed rendering of the Grisel

y Mirabella / Historia de Aurelio y de Isabela until he arrives at a pregnant pause: «Hizo aquí pausa el cortesano

Eusebio, dando lugar a que los discretos pastores meditasen un breve rato el discurso, y diesen su sentencia,

para después decir la de los Jueces, y proseguir la historia» (f. 189v). At that precise moment, however, an

explosion of violence erupts on the foreground of the greensward, as several shepherds, their daggers

unsheathed, chase after a wounded shepherd. Just as the judges of the interpolated tale are frozen in time and

space with the adjudication about to issue from their lips, so too are the intrusive shepherds indefinitely

preserved in their homicidal posture. Feigning exhaustion, the narrator refuses to continue, but promises the

conclusion in a sequel. In a superficial sense, it can be argued that Tragedias de amor is not plagiarism simply

because it does not avail itself of the entirety of its source, regardless of whether a continuation was intended10.

There are certain textual indications that suggest an effort on the part of Arze Solórzeno to submit his

source materials to an editorial process and thereby improve upon the original. Such an attempt, whether or not

we view it as successful, constitutes an authorized literary practice for the period under consideration, and

therefore another argument against plagiarism. The major difference between the Tragedias and its two possible

models involves significant omissions on the part of Arze Solórzeno, and can be seen as a strategy to pare the

plot down to its essentials and thereby expedite the narration. Not only does the author of the Tragedias display

his innate aesthetic sensibility by excising most of what the Italian translator added to the original, but he also

eliminates some materials found in the Grisel y Mirabella.

The elements that Arze Solórzeno elects not to imitate from his model(s) can be summarized as follows: a)

elimination of extraneous and superfluous elements that bog the reader or listener down in unnecessary detail.

This is perhaps a function of verisimilitude, since a teller of tales could not possibly be expected to remember

every detail of what was read; b) elimination of repetitions and some tedious and complex argumentation.

Perhaps this material was being held in reserve for planned discussions between the shepherds in a

continuation; c) omission of some of the boastful bantering and insulting parries between the two litigants,

Afranio (Torrellas) and Hortensia (Braçayda). Their verbal sparring only encumbers the narrative pace; d)

«censorship» of some of the more risqué material, perhaps a lingering effect of the changes wrought by the

Council of Trent. This silenced material deals primarily with observations on the clergy, nobility and sexuality;

e) suppression of anything that might attribute the story to its original author. As an ancient fable, the plot is

now in the public domain. That Flores was its originator, even if known, is of little consequence. All of these

alterations to the source text seem to be aimed at improving upon it, and appropriating it to suit different needs;

in short, to write mimetically.

The story of the unlucky lovers whose passion is bridled in the interest of reasserting social and moral

order is not an end in itself in the Tragedies of Love, but rather a means to an end. Because it screeches to a halt

at the point of maximum tension, the decision of the judges and all that follows is left in abeyance. This would

allow the listening public to debate the issue themselves, in the cool shade next to a fountain, in true pastoral

tradition. One anticipates the shepherds to enjoin different theories of love in defense of their respective

positions. It is precisely the discussion of love that is the desired end in typical Renaissance pastoral, in

conjunction with the practical demonstration of its effects. The use of the Grisel y Mirabella story as a means to

an end is further proof that we are not dealing with a case of literary piracy.

The way in which Arze Solórzeno's contemporaries understood the precept of literary imitation is a topic

that has been exhaustively studied11, and which will therefore receive only cursory treatment here. Among the

ancients, Pliny, in his Epistles, introduced the analogy that soon became a commonplace: the writer must

imitate the bees, who cull the best of the flowers to make their honey12. Horace, in the Ars Poetica, tied the

doctrine of imitation to poetry, while Quintilian amplified upon it in the Institutio Oratoria. Aristotle's

comments on imitation in the Poetics only led to a great deal of confusion when the text was rediscovered in

the Renaissance.

The Italians were the first theorists to deal with the precept of mimesis in the Renaissance. Marco

Girolamo Vida popularized the notion in the Ars Poetica (1527, though written before 1520). After Vida, the

endorsement, and occasional rejection, of the imitation of models appears regularly in the poetics of the

sixteenth century. Julius Caesar Scaliger yoked the concept of mimesis to the imitation of nature in the Poetices

Libri Septem. The same author's Qui et Criticus provided a complete catalogue of proper models to imitate,

organized by themes and materials. Giovanni Battista Marino, well after Arze Solórzeno's borrowings,

continued to defend the practice of literary plagiarism in the prologue to his La Sampogna (1620), where he

euphemistically termed this appropriation as «coinciding» with another poet.

Among the Spaniards who commented on literary imitation, the vast majority embraced its practice. The

first major figure to defend it was Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas, el Brocense, in the prologue to the second

edition of his Anotaciones y enmiendas to the works of Garcilaso de la Vega (1581). El Brocense goes so far as

to declare that no good poet can fail to imitate the excellent ancients, and that imitation is an inherent part of the

creative process. El Brocense advocated the doctrine of poetic erudition, since mimesis demanded

extraordinary talent and artistry. In fact, he extols imitation over originality: «ansí tomar a Homero sus versos y

hacerlos propios, es erudición, que a pocos se comunica... y más gloria merece por esto, que no si de su cabeza

lo compusiera» (Vilanova 573). El Brocense does not condone uncritical stealing: the poet must attempt to

improve upon the original.

Another figure of importance in the long polemic on literary distillation is Fernando de Herrera. In his

Anotaciones to the works of Garcilaso (Sevilla, 1580), we find a more prudent and restrictive approach to the

problem of imitation. For Herrera, the mere transcription of classical and Petrarchan sources must yield to a

more critical culling. Servile imitation results inevitably in the fossilization of a language. Herrera champions a

marriage of imitation and originality, with an eye to surpassing the model. Other important contributions to the

debate on literary imitation are found in Alonso López Pinciano's Filosofía antigua poética (1596), and

Francisco Cascales's Tablas poéticas (1617), both of which depend heavily on the Aristotelian notion of ideal

imitation. But nowhere is the pragmatic Spanish attitude towards literary mimesis better encapsulated than in

the Adjunta al Parnaso that is appended to Cervantes' Viaje del Parnaso (1614). In the section entitled

«Privilegios, Ordenanzas y Advertencias Que Apolo Envía a los Poetas Españoles», we read: «Ítem se advierte

que no ha de ser tenido por ladrón el poeta que hurtare algún verso ajeno y le encajare entre los suyos, como no

sea todo el concepto y toda la copla entera, que en tal caso tan ladrón es como Caco» (190).

The concept of imitation, to summarize, covered a broad spectrum of meanings in the sixteenth and

seventeenth centuries. Though the theorists were concerned only with verse, we can apply their definitions

equally to what was then the less prestigious genre of prose fiction. Four clear possibilities of meaning for the

concept of literary mimesis can be distinguished: 1) Based on an apparent misinterpretation of Aristotle, some

viewed imitation as simply the photographic representation of nature; 2) The likely meaning of Aristotle's

comments in the Poetics, captured by some, involved the imitation of poetic truth, that is, the depiction of men

and things not as they are, but as they ideally could be, in accordance with the dictates of verisimilitude; 3)

Imitation as pure plagiarism: the appropriation of certain words, entire verses, phrases and passages, which are

incorporated into the new work. Even a good translation with nothing original added could be considered a

successful imitation under this definition; 4) Imitation as a refashioning of a part or the whole of a model,

governed by certain restrictions and limitations to distinguish it from thievery. This is the highest form of

imitation, and clearly the one to be emulated. Authors must carefully choose only the best models to imitate,

and use a process of keen artistic selection that requires a high degree of competence and erudition. The

borrowing must serve the writer's purpose and not be indiscriminate. There must be some resemblance between

the imitator and the author imitated. That is to say, an inept writer should not try to appropriate from the great

ancient and modern authors. The artist must choose his model in strict accordance with his own abilities and

short-comings. Most importantly, the imitator must succeed in creating a higher form of perfection and beauty

by means of the borrowing, by surpassing the original model.

We are now armed with sufficient information to pass judgment on Arze Solórzeno's attempt to imitate the

story of Grisel and Mirabella in the Tragedias de amor. It is evident that the question of whether we are dealing

with mimesis or plagiarism is moot for many who considered them one and the same thing in the Renaissance.

However, the prudent approach to literary imitation differentiates the terms according to very precise aesthetic

criteria. While Tragedias de amor has far too many failings to constitute an artistically successful pastoral

romance, the borrowings from the Historia de Aurelio y de Isabela / Grisel y Mirabella are clearly an example

of honest and authorized imitation as the term was understood in the Golden Age. The only serious reservation

that can be raised with respect to Arze Solórzeno's mimetic talents is his ability to improve upon his model. Yet,

this is an issue that can never be adequately addressed unless the alleged continuation is in fact discovered. The

Tragedias de amor was published several years too late to be included in the scrutiny of Don Quixote's library.

One questions whether or not its largely successful adaptation of the Grisel y Mirabella plot would have saved

if from the flames. They are pages, certainly, that will be of some interest to critics of the sentimental romance

as proof of its popularity and longevity. But more importantly, Tragedias de amor is valuable as a document of

the legitimacy and practice of literary imitation.

Works Cited

• Arze Solórzeno, Juan. Tragedias de amor, de gustoso y apacible entretenimiento de historias, fábulas,

enredadas marañas, cantares, bailes, ingeniosas moralidades del enamorado Acrisio, y su Zagala

Lucidora. Madrid: Juan de la Cuesta, 1607.

• Avalle-Arce, J. B. La novela pastoril española. 1959. Madrid: Istmo, 1974.

• Bach y Rita, Pedro. The Works of Pere Torroella: A Catalan Writer of the Fifteenth Century. New York:

Instituto de las Españas, 1930.

• Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de. Poesías completas, I: Viaje del Parnaso y Adjunta al Parnaso. Ed.

Vicente Gaos. Madrid: Clásicos Castalia, 1973.

• Darst, David H. Imitatio: (Polémicas sobre la imitación en el Siglo de Oro). Madrid: Orígenes, 1985.

• Durán, Armando. Estructura y técnicas de la novela sentimental y caballeresca. Madrid: Gredos, 1973.

• Fernández-Cañadas de Greenwood, Pilar. Pastoral Poetics: The Uses of Conventions in Renaissance

Pastoral Romances-Arcadia, La Diana, La Galatea, L'Astrée. Madrid: José Porrúa Turanzas, 1983.

• Historia de Aurelio y de Isabela. Antwerp: Juan Steelsio, 1556.

• Flores, Juan de. Grisel y Mirabella. The Novels of Juan de Flores and Their European Diffusion. A

Study in Comparative Literature. Ed. Barbara Matulka. New York: Institute of French Studies, 1931.

332-71.

• Lopéz Estrada, Francisco. Los libros de pastores en la literatura española: La órbita previa. Madrid:

Gredos, 1974.

• Matulka, Barbara. The Novels of Juan de Flores and Their European Diffusion. A Study in Comparative

Literature. New York: Institute of French Studies, 1931.

• Mujica, Barbara. Iberian Pastoral Characters. Washington, D. C.: Scripta Humanistica, 1986.

• Olmsted, E. W. «The Story of Grisel and Mirabella». Homenaje ofrecido a Menéndez Pidal. Miscelánea

de estudios lingüísticos, literarios e históricos. 2vols. Madrid: Hernando, 1925. 2: 369-73.

• Ornstein, Jacob. «La misoginia y el profeminismo en la literatura castellana». Revista de Filología

Hispánica 3 (1941) 219-32.

• ——. «Misogyny and Pro-Feminism in Early Castillian Literature». Modern Language Quarterly 3

(1942) 221-34.

• Palau y Dulcet, Antonio. Manual del librero hispano-americano. Barcelona, 1925. 3: 247.

• Porqueras Mayo, Alberto. La teoría poética en el Renacimiento y Manierismo españoles. Barcelona:

Puvill, 1986.

• Rennert, Hugo A. The Spanish Pastoral Romances. 1912. New York: Biblo and Tannen, 1968.

• Riley, Edward C. «Don Quixote and the Imitation of Models.» Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 31 (1954) 3-

16.

• ——. Cervantes's Theory of the Novel Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962.

• Siles Artés, José. El arte de la novela pastoril. Valencia: Albatros Ediciones, 1972.

• Solé-Leris, Amadeu. The Spanish Pastoral Novel. Twayne's World Author Series 575. Boston: Twayne,

1980.

• Tejeda, Jerónimo. La Diana de Montemayor. Nuevamente compuesta por Hierónymo de Texeda

Castellano, Intérprete de Lenguas, residente en la villa de París, do se da fin a las Historias de la Primera

y Segunda Parte. Paris, 1627.

• Torroella, Pere. Maldezir de mugeres. Ed. Pedro Bach y Rita. The Works of Pere Torroella: A Catalan

Writer of the Fifteenth Century. New York: Instituto de las Españas, 1930.

• Van Praag, J. A. «Algo sobre la fortuna de Juan de Flores». Romanic Review 26 (1935) 349-50.

• Vilanova Andreu, Antonio. «Preceptistas españoles de los siglos XVI y XVII». Historia general de las

literaturas hispánicas. Ed. Guillermo Díaz-Plaja. Barcelona: Barna, 1953. 3: 565-692.

• Whinnom, Keith. The Spanish Sentimental Romance 1440-1550: A Critical Bibliography. London:

Grant and Cutler, 1983. (Research Bibliographies and Checklists 41).

NOTAS

1 Books dedicated to the Spanish pastoral novel include: Hugo A. Rennert, The Spanish Pastoral

Romances (1912; New York: Biblo and Tannen, 1968), where he brands the Tragedias as «by far the dullest of

all these romances» (161); J. B. Avalle-Arce, La novela pastoril española (1959; Madrid: Istmo, 1974) who

points out Arze Solórzeno's imitation of Sannazaro's Arcadia (206); José Siles Artés, El arte de la novela

pastoril (Valencia: Albatros Ediciones, 1972), who ignores this romance altogether; Amadeu Solé-Leris, The

Spanish Pastoral Novel, Twayne's World Author Series 575 (Boston: Twayne, 1980), where the focus is on the

novel's moral allegories (125-26); Francisco López Estrada, Los libros de pastores en la literatura española: La

órbita previa (Madrid: Credos, 1974), which will likely deal with the Tragedias in subsequent volumes; Pilar

Fernández-Cañadas de Greenwood, Pastoral Poetics: The Uses of Conventions in Renaissance Pastoral

Romances - Arcadia, La Diana, La Galatea, L'Astrée (Madrid: José Porrúa Turanzas, 1983), which fails to

consider Arze Solórzeno's novel, as is also the case for Barbara Mujica, Iberian Pastoral Characters

(Washington, D. C.: Scripta Humanistica, 1986).

2 One writer betrays reservations about classifying the Grisel y Mirabella as a sentimental novel proper.

Armando Durán places it outside of the mainstream because it does not involve the rejection of the

protagonist's amorous advances. Estructura y técnicas de la novela sentimental y caballeresca (Madrid: Gredos,

1973), 29-35. The most comprehensive bibliography to date on the Spanish sentimental novel is Keith

Whinnom's The Spanish Sentimental Romance 1440-1550: A Critical Bibliography, Research Bibliographies

and Checklists 41 (London: Grant and Cutler, 1983). See pp. 56-62 for entries on the Grisel y Mirabella.

3 For more complete bibliographic information on the diffusion of the Grisel y Mirabella story in Europe,

see Barbara Matulka's The Novels of Juan de Flores and Their European Diffusion. A Study in Comparative

Literature (New York: Institute of French Studies, 1931); E. W. Olmsted, «The Story of Grisel and Mirabella»,

in Homenaje ofrecido a Menéndez Pidal. Miscelánea de estudios lingüísticos, literarios e históricos (Madrid:

Hernando, 1925), II: 369-73; Antonio Palau y Dulcet, Manual del librero hispano-americano (Barcelona, 1925),

II: 247. The Matulka book includes a critical edition of the Grisel y Mirabella (332-71), which is the text quoted

throughout this study. I am most grateful to Mr. Nash, curator of the Rare Book Room at the University of

Illinois Library, for providing me with a microfilm copy of the rare 1556 polyglot edition of the Historia de

Aurelio y de Isabela (Antwerp: Juan Steelsio).

4 The historical Torrellas authored the fifteenth century misogynistic stanzas entitled Maldezir de

mugeres. The reaction against him and his work occasioned violent polemics and led to his martyrdom in

literature and a remorseful palinode in real life. In spite of his recantation, Torrellas could never live down his

anti-feminist reputation. See Pedro Bach y Rita, The Works of Pere Torroella: A Catalan Writer of the Fifteenth

Century (New York: Instituto de las Españas, 1930). Jacob Ornstein deals with the issue of pro and anti-

feminism in early Spain in «La misoginia y el profeminismo en la literatura castellana», Revista de Filología

Hispánica 3 (1941): 211 -32. There is also an English version of the same: «Misogyny and Pro-Feminism in

Early Castillian Literature», Modern Language Quarterly 3 (1942): 221-34.

5 An ancillary issue that is raised by the inclusion of the Grisel and Mirabella story in the Tragedias is the

place of misogyny in the Spanish pastoral novel. At first glance, the vituperation of women would seem

woefully misplaced in a literary mode that normally places women on pedestals, and even deifies them. And

yet, a close reading of the pastoral romances reveals a certain degree of woman-hating in many of them, and

virulent attacks in not few. I believe that this feature reinforces the primarily moral-didactic purpose of the

Spanish books of shepherds. Beneath the idyllic surface lies a deceptive landscape fraught with moral perils,

one of the greatest of which is the «free love» inherent in the pastoral ideal. Misogyny is a paradoxical way to

hold passion in check. However, it usually fails as a curb, and functions instead as an ironic spur to love.

6 According to Bach y Rita, as well as Olmsted, the name change is the work of the pseudonymous Lelio

Aletiphilo, in his translation into Italian (Milan: Gianotto da Castiglio, 1521). It is this text that served as the

basis of all subsequent versions of the story (The Works, 70; «Story», 370).

7 Arze Solórzeno goes to great lengths in his introductory epistle to convince the reader that the Tragedias

were nearly complete in 1598, when the author was nineteen. The claim that a novice author cuts his first

literary teeth on the low, or pastoral style, is a standard convention. The date of 1598 is suspicious, however, for

if true, it would indicate that Arze wrote his novel independently of Lope's Arcadia, published in the same year.

In truth, Arze's deception is probably aimed at masking his debt to Lope.

8 Avalle-Arce identifies this episode as a possible source of Lope's comedy, La desdichada Estefanía (La

novela pastoril 207, in note), a fitting irony in light of Arze Solórzeno's obvious borrowings from Lope. The

«Fénix de los ingenios» was certainly an avowed master of the intricacies of literary imitation.

9 For example, in Tragedias, Marcelo says: «tengo a la mujer por animal imperfectísimo» (f. 170v), while

the corresponding verses of the Maldezir read: «Muger es un animal / Que se dize hombre imperfecto» (IXa,

211). Where the Tragedias assert: «Lo accidental (replicó Eusebio) no es defecto de la cosa, sino de la

naturaleza, que lo que da, nadie lo puede desechar, ni eximirse dello, y así la mujer no tiene en eso culpa» (f.

171r), the Maldezir states: «Procreado en el defecto / Del buen calor natural. / Aquí (en) s'encluyen sus males /

Y la falta del bien suyo, / E, pues les son naturales, / Quando se demuestran tales, / Que son sin culpa

concluyo» (IXa, 211). Arze Solórzeno occasionally shows some judicious restraint Where the Maldezir says of

women: «De natura de lobas son / ciertamente'n escoger» (III, 201), and the Grisel y Mirabella follows suit

with «soys lobas en scojer» (354), Arze Solórzeno timidly translates: «Y así escogéis lo peor» (f. 189r). The

text of the Historia de Aurelio y de Isabela reads: «vosotras en escoger y distinguir las cosas sois más que

tuertas, o por mejor decir cegajosas» (N. pag.).

10 It is tempting to speculate on how a continuation would have been handled. Typically, shepherds who

boast of being desamados, such as Marcelo in this novel, or Lenio in Cervante's La Galatea (1585), ultimately

capitulate head over heels to the amorous passion. If the Tragedias copied its source to its conclusion, where

misogyny and cruel vengeance triumph over love, Marcelo would be even more confirmed in his hatred of

passion, and confusion would reign in the bower. A much more orthodox pastoral ending would be to have the

guilty lovers pardoned by enjoining the adage «yerros por amores, dignos son de perdonar». Such a solution,

however, would significantly alter the course of events depicted in the Grisel y Mirabella.

11 Antonio Vilanova Andreu, «Preceptistas españoles de los siglos XVI y XVII», in Historia general de las

literaturas hispánicas, ed. Guillermo Díaz-Plaja (Barcelona: Barna, 1953), III: 565-692. See also Edward C.

Riley, «Don Quixote and the Imitation of Models», BHS 31 (1954): 3-16, and his Cervantes' Theory of the

Novel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 61 -67. Many of the appropriate texts of the theorists are reproduced in

Alberto Porqueras Mayo's La teoría poética en el Renacimiento y Manierismo españoles (Barcelona: Puvill,

1986). I have been unable to consult David H. Darst's Imitatio: (Polémicas sobre la imitación en el Siglo de

Oro) (Madrid: Orígenes, 1985).

12 Epistle IV. 3 to Arrius Antoninus. He also deals with imitation of models in IV. 28 (to Vibius Severus);

VI. 21 (to Caninius Rufus) and VII. 9 (to Fuscus Salinator). This last letter is the one that deals most

extensively with the issue of imitation.