Texas Tech University

One of the most interesting and intriguing character types in the Golden Age comedia is the non-acting dramatic figure who never really visibly participates in the play's action but whose name is constantly being mentioned by the main characters and whose silent presence is continually felt by the audience. Many times, these non-appearing characters play a central role in the plot's development and in the elucidation of the play's major theme. Yet critics have devoted very little attention to these curious character types⁸.

This study proposes to take a close look at the priest in Lope's El mejor alcalde, el rey⁹. In so doing, we will necessarily bring into the discussion a second character in this same play who fits into the category of the non-acting type -the executioner. Actually, the roles of the priest and the executioner are interrelated and, although it is doubtful that the audience ever saw either of them on the stage, both are pivotal to the plot and crucial to the play's dramatic structure.

Most studies concerning Lope's El mejor alcalde approach the play from the socio-political perspective. Along with Fuenteovejuna and Peribáñez y el comendador de Ocaña, El mejor alcalde is seen as part of Lope's trilogy concerning social injustice and the abuse of power. In these plays Lope is viewed traditionally as the champion of the campesino and the gente chica¹⁰. Specifically with regard to El mejor alcalde the nobleman, Don Tello, is the villain who permits his passions to dominate him when he seduces Doña Elvira. While some critics almost excuse Don Tello's actions as no worse than excessive machismo, others see him as a cold-blooded, calculated rapist, hungry for power¹¹. Still interpreting the play from the socio-political point of view, Díez Borque maintains that Lope really intended to defend the nobility and preserve the status quo. The rebellious and proud Tello had to be put in his place in a power struggle with the king. According to Díez Borque, the play does not depict a conflict between nobleman and villager but rather between king and nobleman («Estudio»)¹².

As we pursue our analysis of the non-acting character of the priest, we intend to argue that beside the socio-political interpretations brought forth by past analyses of Lope's play, there is another possible dimension to the play's interpretation that has yet to come to light -the play's theological implications. These additional theological perspectives will afford new insights into the play's socio-political meaning, its structure, and its very title.

Before investigating the role and function of the non-appearing priest in Lope's El mejor alcalde, it would be helpful to review an article by Alexander A. Parker, «Los amores y noviazgos clandestinos en el mundo dramático-social de Calderón». In the article, Parker asserts that the principal dramatic conflict of many of Calderón's plays results directly from secret courtships and marriages. These clandestine commitments and entanglements, unknown to others and to society as a whole, caused jealousies and intrigues of all types, typical material for the honor plays of the capa y espada variety. Parker extends his observations beyond Calderonian drama to encompass all of 17th-century Spanish theater: «A través de todo el teatro del siglo XVII se presentan los noviazgos clandestinos como una realidad de facto, como una premisa del comportamiento social» (80).

In addition, Parker points out the two theological views of what constituted a valid marriage   —15→   that were prevalent in Spanish society of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, one before the Council of Trent, another after. Before the Council of Trent, the Church accepted as valid secret marriages contracted by a man and woman without the presence of ecclesiastical authorities. In other words, for centuries the pre-council attitude was the traditional Thomistic theology of marriage which stated that the contracting parties dispense to each other the sacrament and that their free consent (the «volo») was sufficient to validate the marriage and obtain the sacramental graces. However, Parker stresses that the Church changed its attitude at the Council of Trent in 1563-64 because of the widespread abuse and social ill effects of such clandestine arrangements and of the secret dispensing of the sacrament. After the Council of Trent, a priest had to be present to bless and witness the exchange of vows between bride and groom in order for the sacrament to be valid¹³.

Let us now begin an analysis of the play and the role of the non-appearing character, the priest, toward the end of Act I on the night of Sancho and Elvira's wedding. Nuño, Elvira's father, and all of his household are awaiting the arrival of the priest so that the marriage can take place. Apparently the priest is already somewhere on the premises and is on the verge of entering the stage.

Suddenly, Don Tello the noble lord, who has come to celebrate the marriage but who himself has fallen head over heels in love with Elvira, shouts:

Tello decides to delay the wedding until the next day. «Mañana será mejor» (668).

Nuño and his household are upset with the sudden turn of events and the frustrated father asks how and by what authority Don Tello has delayed the marriage: «Pues, Don Tello ¿puede hacello?» (701). To this question Pelayo, the gracioso, replies:

Clearly Pelayo couches his reply in theological terminology, especially with his use of the word «impedimento», a word often found in reference to the sacrament of matrimony and denoting obstacles or circumstances that would prevent a couple from entering a valid marriage¹⁵. The «impediment» to which Pelayo refers is the absence of the priest, for without the priest's presence to witness and bless the exchange of vows, there can be no marriage. Pelayo is referring to the post Tridentine concept of matrimony. Don Tello orders the priest detained so as to prevent a valid marriage.

Immediately after the mention of the impediment by Pelayo, Elvira and Sancho face each other center stage. From their emotionally charged dialogues, the audience understands that the two lovers are at the other end of the theological debate. Unlike Don Tello, they accept the pre-Tridentine view of marriage. They believe themselves already wedded because they gave themselves to each other freely and willingly. They do not need the priest and are anxious only to consummate their marriage to complete the sacrament. According to Catholic theology, after the free exchange of vows, a valid marriage between the couple exists and there remains only the sex act itself to fulfill the sacrament. We find all of these theological ideas implicit in the dialogue between the two lovers:

There can be no doubt that Sancho believes that he and Elvira are morally married and that he has the right to enter her house and possess her sexually. The play on the word «cura» as both priest and cure and the metaphor of love that cures or binds two wills clearly presents a theological view of the sacrament diametrically opposed to that of Tello. Later, in Act II, Sancho again affirms his belief that he is already married through his consent to marry: «quien dijo que sí / ya era casado» (1038). Lest there be any doubt that Elvira also believes she validly has a husband and that she has conjugal rights to consummate the marriage, she says to Sancho: «Ya eres, Sancho, mi marido: ven esta noche a mi puerta» (715-16).

So far it would seem that we have in Lope's El mejor alcalde the same type of dramatic dynamics mentioned in Parker's study; that is, there exists between two lovers a secret marriage which leads to misconceptions, false   —16→   assumptions and tragic endings. However, this is not precisely the case with Lope's play. Actually, Sancho and Elvira's love for each other is not secret and one of the most striking aspects of the play is that the villagers seem to accept and to act as though Elvira and Sancho were wed; the only one who acts differently is the nobleman, Don Tello, who will maintain, until his death, that there was no marriage because the priest was absent. Thus, not only are the villagers and the noblemen socially and politically out of sync, but they are theologically out of sync as well.

There is plenty of evidence throughout the play that Lope was more than conscious of the theological dichotomy in his play and that he actually kept it before the audience in order to heighten the dramatic tension. Throughout Acts II and III, Sancho and Elvira continue to address each other as husband and wife:

Later, Sancho, again yearning for physical love, says to Elvira:

On numerous occasions, too often to be considered as anything but a deliberate stylistic device, Sancho repeatedly addresses Nuño as «padre y señor»; Nuño, in turn, frequently addresses Sancho as «hijo». In Act II, when Sancho heeds Nuño's advice to seek help from the king before he leaves on the journey, Sancho asks for Nuño's blessing: «Padre, adiós; partirme quiero. / Échame tu bendición» (1240-41). Nuño complies: «Hijo, pues eres discreto, / habla con ánimo al rey» (1242-43). In Act III, Sancho refers to Nuño as his father-in-law as he answers the question posed by the king with regard to Nuño's identity: «Es Nuño, mi suegro» (2030).

In contrast, while Nuño, Sancho, and Elvira are treating each other as family, there are many instances in Acts II and III which reveal Don Tello's utter refusal to recognize Sancho and Elvira's married state. At one point in Act II, Don Tello seems confused and does not understand why everyone is angry with him and why Sancho would go to the king to denounce him. When he hears that Sancho has done so, he complains:

Don Tello seems to be saying that he can understand why Nuño, the father, would be hurt because of dishonor; but why Sancho? After all, isn't all fair in love and war with regards to unmarried people?

The second major intrusion of the non-appearing character occurs, once again, at the end of an act; this time it is Act II. Sancho has returned from the palace where he has lodged a complaint against Don Tello. The king replies with a letter to be delivered to Don Tello by Sancho. In the letter the king orders Don Tello to behave and to desist from his despicable behavior. Don Tello rejects the letter, scoffs at the king and openly defies the royal authority.

The entire scene may be viewed as the climactic moment in the play. Critics are quick to indicate the political implications of Don Tello's treacherous defiance which they see as justification for his death at the end of the play¹⁶. However, no one has yet fully observed the theological dimensions associated with the final scenes of Act II. The audience again is faced with the pre-Tridentine and post-Tridentine dogma on marriage.

In the final scene, Don Tello is curious as to what transpired at the Court and he wants to learn from Sancho what Sancho told the king concerning himself:

By now, from our discussion above, the two opposing theological views expressed in this dialogue are familiar to us. At this point, however, Sancho seems to abruptly shift the focus from the theological back to the socio-political. To Tello's question: ¿Cómo puede ser que sea matrimonio?, Sancho answers:

The point to be made here is that Lope provides   —17→   convergence of the play's major themes in this climactic scene. Critics have been quick to pick up the socio-political implications but have missed the theological dimensions inherent in the scene's conflict.

The third and last time the priest surfaces as a major force in the play is yet once more, characteristically, at the end of an act; this time it is Act III. Now it is the king who involves the priest and a second non-appearing character, the executioner. The play's ending is one of the most interesting in Lope's repertoire¹⁷. The king, upon hearing Sancho's grievance against Tello, seeks verification from several sources. Having erased any doubt, the king shouts angrily to his servants:

The audience was undoubtedly stunned by the king's decisiveness. Everyone, no doubt, jumps to the conclusion that Tello will be put to death for his dishonorable conduct and high treason but only after he has had an opportunity to make peace with God through confession to the priest.

The resolution is not as Nuño had guessed nor as the audience might have anticipated. The king orders the priest to marry Don Tello and Elvira; he then commands the executioner to behead Don Tello. After the beheading, the priest will finally bless Sancho and Elvira's marriage. There is no reason to believe that the audience ever sees the priest and executioner in their public and religious duties. The priest remains non-appearing until the end, as does the executioner.

Critics have interpreted Lope's unusual and disconcerting ending in light of the social and the political perspectives. The king has proven himself to be the «best mayor» because he restores social and political order. By putting Don Tello to death after his marriage to Elvira, the king avenges Sancho's and Nuño's dishonor and also allows Elvira to become heiress to the nobleman's wealth. Then, by marrying Elvira, Sancho also is elevated to the nobility; and thus, the noble spirit exemplified by the two peasants throughout the play is now matched by the social reality of their acquired wealth. Politically, of course, the king reinstates harmony by justly squelching a rebellious nobleman.

Is there, however, another dimension to Lope's fascinating ending, one which would be in line with the theological discussion which we have been developing, and one which would follow more naturally from my analysis of the priest figure? Professor Díez Borque in the «Estudio Preliminar» to his edition of Lope's play indicates Lope's acceptance of the theory of the divine right of kings; he quotes passages from the play where the king's divine right is acknowledged (95). However, in light of our discussion, this entire concept of the divine right of the monarch takes on additional importance in terms of over-all structure and the dual socio-political and theological themes.

The king is «el mejor alcalde» because he is the dispenser of both socio-political and divine justice. He calls upon the verdugo and the cura because these two silent, invisible characters are symbolic instruments of justice, one in the realm of the state, the other in the City of God. The verdugo helped the king restore honor to Elvira, Sancho, and Nuño, and to the king himself who was threatened; the cura put an end to the possible scandals that might have existed as a result of the confusion and controversy concerning the validity of matrimony among the fictional villagers in the play and possibly among members of the audience.

There is one final quotation taken from the last act, just before the scene in which the king calls for the executioner and the priest, which indicates clearly that Lope intended to convey to his audience the need to understand the king, and therefore the play, in the dual socio-political and theological dimensions. The passage is laden with Biblical allusions concerning the definition of God as being «I am who I am»¹⁸.

Celio, a servant, is talking to the king, who has left the court and come to Galicia to confront Don Tello personally:

Later, when Celio returns, he describes to the king what he said to Don Tello. Continuing with the Biblical allusions, Celio clearly refers to the two domains, or two levels, of the   —18→   earthly and the divine, which only God and the king can share:

In summary, this analysis of the non-appearing character of the priest -and, to a lesser but important extent, the also non-appearing executioner- enables us to comprehend clearly the theological facet of Lope's comedia, an element which has received very little critical attention. It should also be obvious from this study that the priest figure is central to the play's overall structure. At the end of Act I, the priest never appears on the stage, yet his very absence is pivotal to the plot. In the crucial moments at the end of Act II, the priest again surfaces in the dialogue and his failure to bless the couple's marriage in Act I is kept in front of the audience. Finally, in the closing moments of Act III his silent but active participation helps in the play's resolution. We have also observed that this carefully wrought drama, when it is interpreted with its dual socio-political and theological conflicts, gives greater force and meaning to Lope's carefully selected title, El mejor alcalde, el rey.

Bentley, Bernard P. E. «El mejor alcalde, el rey y la responsibilidad política». Lope de Vega y los orígenes del teatro español; Actas del I congreso internacional sobre Lope de Vega. ed. Manuel Criado de Val. Madrid: EDI-6, 1981. 415-24.

Carter, Robin. «History and Poetry: A Re-examination of Lope de Vega's El mejor alcalde, el rey». Forum for Modern Language Study 16 (1980): 193-213.

Dietz, Donald T. «Characterization of Calderón's La devoción de la cruz: Eusebio's Bum Rap». In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Golden Age Spanish Drama Symposium (El Paso, Texas: Univ. of Texas at El Paso, 1986). 30-47.

——. «Calderón's La devoción de la cruz: Eusebio and the Interplay of Theology and Drama». In National Symposium on Hispanic Theater (Cedar Falls, Iowa: Univ. of Northern Iowa, 1985). 10-16.

Díez Borque, José María. «Estructura social de la comedia de Lope: A Propósito de El mejor alcalde, el rey». Arbor 85 (1973): 453-66.

——. «Estudio Preliminar». Lope de Vega, El mejor alcalde, el rey. Madrid: Ediciones Istmo, 1974. 9-104.

Halkoree, Premraj R. K. «El arte de Lope de Vega en El mejor alcalde, el rey». Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 56 (1979): 31-41.

Leavitt, Sturgis E. «A Maligned Character in Lope's El mejor alcalde, el rey». Bulletin of the Comediantes 6 (1954): 1-3.

Morrow, Louis Laravoire. My Catholic Faith. Kenosha, Wisconsin: My Mission House, 1963. 362-64.

O'Connor, Thomas Austin and Lynn Weston. «Estupro y política en El mejor alcalde, el rey.» Actas del sexto   —19→   congreso internacional de hispanistas. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto, 1980. 531-34.

Parker, Alexander A. «Los amores y noviazgos clandestinos en el mundo dramático-social de Calderón». Hacia Calderón: segundo coloquio anglogermano. Hamburg: Walter de Gruyter, 1973. 79-87.

Sloman, Albert E. «Lope's Mejor alcalde el rey: Addendum to a Note by Sturgis E. Leavitt». Bulletin of the Comediantes 7 (1955): 17-19.

Spitzer, Leo. «Soy quien soy». NRFH 1 (1947): 113-27.

Sullivan, Henry W. «Love, Matrimony and Desire in the Theater of Tirso de Molina». Bulletin of the Comediantes 37 (1985): 83-99.

——. Tirso de Molina and the Drama of the Counter Reformation. Amsterdam: Editions Rodopli N.V., 1976. 24-6.

Varey, J. E. «Kings and Judges: Lope de Vega's El mejor alcalde, el rey». Themes in Drama. Ed. James Redmond. Cambridge, n.p., 1979. 37-58.

Williamsen, Vern. «The Women Characters in Lope de Vega's La discreta enamorada». In Proceedings of the Second Annual Golden Age Spanish Drama Symposium (El Paso, Texas: Univ. of Texas at El Paso, 1982). 127-43.

Hispania [Publicaciones periódicas]. Volume 71, Number 1, March 1988