201

'A New Book on the Art of The Celestina', HR, xxv (1957), 1-25. This drew from Gilman 'A Rejoinder to Leo Spitzer', ibid. 112-21. Two other important review-articles are by P. E. Russell, 'The Art of Fernando de Rojas', BHS, xxxiv (1957), 160-7, and M. Bataillon, NRFH, xi (1957). 215-24.

202

Celestina cites Hadrian, Amphion, and Orpheus in Act IV, and Sempronio cites Antipater of Sidon in Act VIII, adding a non-Petrarchan reference to Ovid. In the first case Celestina is trying to convince Melibea of the respectability of her mission, and classical exempla would help to do this. In the second Sempronio gives an ironical twist to the exempla which is in keeping with his character, as Samonà, 145, points out. There are, of course, non-Petrarchan exempla used elsewhere by these characters, but (apart from a large number cited by Sempronio in Act I) what is said above is broadly true for these as well.

203

The first view is expressed by (among others) Menéndez y Pelayo; the second by Rachel Frank, 'Four paradoxes in the Celestina', Romanic Review, xxxviii (1947), 53-68.

204

ii. 20; 160. Sempronio hits back soon afterwards with a criticism of Calisto's rhetorical style: 'Dexa, señor, essos rodeos...' (ii. 22; 161)

205

Op. cit. 45-51

206

Op. cit. 24-25.

207

Op. cit. 187 et seq.

208

Russell (art. cit. 163) suggests that the increased sensitivity to the possibilities of dialogue may have been intuitive rather than conscious. In either case the insertions may have been dictated by practical necessity rather than a preoccupation with dialogue as such: if La Celestina were often read aloud, as Proaza's verses (ii. 215-18; 305-7) imply, then the addition of tú, señor, and similar words may have been needed to indicate which character was speaking. Unfortunately we have no means of knowing how often such a reading took place

209

Op. cit. 52.

210

Op. cit. 23.