211
Op. cit. 148.
212
Op. cit. 170-1, 188-9.
213
The relation of La Celestina to humanistic comedy has not been fully treated in any critical work. Both Menéndez y Pelayo and Castro Guisasola underrate its importance because of a lack of textual borrowings, but it is is structure that the chief resemblances are to be sought. The best and most recent discussion of the subject is in J. M. Casas Homs, Poliodorus: Comedia humanística desconocida (Madrid, 1953), part ii, ch. 14. This work is stimulating, though it contains a number of inaccuracies. Corrections are offered in the lengthy review by María Rosa Lida de Malkiel, NRFH, x (1956), 415-39; the reviewer's suggested borrowings by Rojas from Poliodorus are not, however, very convincing, and La Celestina's debt seems to be to the general tradition of humanistic comedy rather than to any individual work.
214
Op. cit. 48-52
215
Op. cit. 69-70. Samonà recognizes an ultimate Italian origin, stressing Boccaccio's fiction rather than Petrarch's poetry. It must, of course, be remembered that, apart from any question of Petrarchan influence, Petrarch and the cultured Spanish writers of the fifteenth century were working in a common rhetorical tradition deriving from classical, through medieval, Latin, as Curtius has shown. Samonà makes the interesting point (68) that such antithetical formulae in the lovers' speech as lloro-gloria and plazer-dolor are suited to the medieval view that passion must be balanced by expiation.
216
These are discussed by Samonà, 90.
217
Op. cit. 136-7, 145.
218
Gilman, reviewing Samonà's book in NRFH, x (1956), 73-80, criticizes him for not insisting on 'el efecto estimulante del latín - el latín de Petrarca to mismo que el de Terencio', and says that: 'Una y otra vez enumera como recursos de "retoricismo" aspectos de estilo que son, en realidad, adaptaciones personales del latín' (76). But any Spanish writer of the fifteenth century who was making personal adaptations from Latin would (and the similarities between Rojas, Francisco de Madrid and other translators confirm this) be likely to do so in terms of the prevailing rhetorical conventions. I should be the last to query the stimulating effect of Petrarch on Rojas, but this effect does not seem to be a stylistic one, and Gilman does not, unfortunately, go on to say in his review what he considers the effect to be.
219
It is discussed in the next chapter. It is possible that, as Gilman suggests, Petrarch's prefatory letter to De Remediis, Book I, saying he wrote it because of a friend's need, inspired Rojas's letter a vn su amigo. On the other hand, this was a common literary convention, and there are no Petrarchan borrowings in the letter.
220
This chapter has inevitably given the appearance of ignoring non-Petrarchan exempla and learned sententiae, but I do not think I have made any statements about the use of Petrarchan material which are invalidated by borrowings from other authors.