The Cavalier in the Yellow Doublet

discreet man who spoke little, smiled a great deal, and sought to please everyone, and who concealed behind impeccable courtesy his pride at having reached such an enviable position. No one—apart from Calderon—enjoyed such fame in his lifetime, writing plays of a beauty, variety, and richness that were unequaled in Europe. He had been a soldier in his youth, seen action in a naval battle in the Azores, in Aragon, and in the war against England, and at the time of which I am speaking, he had written a good part of the more than one thousand five hundred plays and four hundred sacramental dramas that flowed from his pen. His status as a priest did not prevent him enjoying a long and scandalous life full of amorous intrigues, lovers, and illegitimate children, all of which meant, understandably enough, that despite his great literary reputation, he was never seen as a particularly virtuous man and so received none of the courtly benefits to which he aspired, such as the post of royal chronicler, which he always sought but never attained. Otherwise, he enjoyed both fame and fortune. And unlike good don Miguel de Cervantes, who died, as I said, poor, alone, and forgotten, Lope’s funeral, nine years after the dates that concern us here, was a multitudinous display of homage such as had never before been seen in Spain. As for the basis for his reputation, much has been written about that, and I commend those books to the reader. I later had occasion to travel to England and learn the English tongue. I read and even saw performances of plays by William Shakespeare, and I would say that although the Englishman could plumb the depths of the human heart, and while his characters are perhaps more complex than Lope’s, the Spaniard’s sheer theatrical skill, inventiveness, and ability to keep an audience on tenterhooks, the brilliance of his intrigues and the captivating way in which each plot evolves are all incomparable. And even when it comes to characters, I’m not sure that the Englishman always succeeded in depicting the doubts and anxieties of lovers, or the crafty machinations of servants as ingeniously as Lope. Consider, if you will, his little-known work The Duke of Viseu and tell me if that tragic play is not the equal of any of Shakespeare’s tragedies. Moreover, if it is true that Shakespeare’s plays were in some way so universal that we can all recognize ourselves in them—only Don Quixote is as Spanish as Lope and as universal as Shakespeare—it is no less true that Lope, with his new approach to drama, held up a very faithful mirror to the Spain of our century, and that his plays were imitated everywhere, thanks to the fact that Spanish, then, was a language that bestrode two worlds, a language admired, read, and spoken by everyone. However, it must be said, too, that this was due in no small measure to the fact that it was also the language of our fearsome troops and our arrogant, black-clad ambassadors. Unlike other nations—and in this I happily include that of Shakespeare—only Spain has left such a clear record of its customs, values, and language, and all thanks to the plays of Lope, Calderon, Tirso, Rojas, Alarcon, and their ilk, which made such a lasting impression on the theaters of the world. At a time when Spanish was being spoken in Italy, Flanders, the Indies, and the remote seas of the Philippines, the Frenchman Corneille was imitating the work of Guillen de Castro in order to find success in his own land, and the land of Shakespeare was home only to a bunch of hypocritical pirates in search of excuses to prosper and, like so many others, nipping at the heels of the weary, old Spanish lion, who was, nonetheless, still capable of far greater things than they ever were. To quote Lope:

Forward, Spanish sea-dogs,

In whose veins runs the blood of Goths,

Fill your hands with gold,

With slaves, with treasure,

You’ve earned it, take full measure.

During that conversation in the garden, we spoke about a little of everything. Captain Contreras brought news of various wars, and Lopito described to Diego Alatriste the current situation in the Mediterranean, where my master had once sailed and done battle. Then, inevitably, talk turned to literature. Luis Alberto de Prado read some of his own verse, which, to his great pleasure, drew praise from Quevedo, and Gongora’s name was mentioned again.

“Apparently, the man’s dying,” Contreras told them.

“Good riddance,” said Quevedo tartly, “there’ll be plenty to replace him. Every day, eager for fame, as many overcultivated, turd-mongering poets spring up in Spain as mushrooms in the winter damp.”

Lope smiled from his Olympian heights, amused and tolerant. He could not bear Gongora either, although, paradoxically, he had also always hoped to draw him into his circle, because, deep down, he admired and feared him, so much so that he even wrote these lines:

Bright swan of Betis who so

Sweetly and gravely tuned thy bow.

Gongora—that prebendary-cum-swan—was, however, the kind of man who ate alone and never succumbed to blandishments. At first, he had dreamed of snatching the poetic scepter from Lope, even writing plays, but he failed in that as he did in so many things. For all these reasons, Lope always professed to loathe him, meanwhile mocking his own relative lack of knowledge of the classics—for unlike Gongora and Quevedo, Lope knew no Greek and could barely read Latin—as well as the success of his plays with ordinary people. Of his plays he wrote:

They are ducks who splash in the waters of Castile

Which flow so easily from that vulgar stream

And sweetly flood the lower slopes;

From plain-born Lope expect no high-flown tropes.

Lope, however, rarely stepped into the public arena. He did his best to get along well with everyone, and at that point in his life and his success, he was in no mood to become embroiled in disputes and rivalries. He contented himself instead with gentle, veiled attacks and left the really dirty work to his friends, Quevedo among them, for the latter had no qualms about pouring scorn on Gongora’s culturanista excesses or, indeed, on those of his followers. Gongora could no longer hit back at the fearsome Quevedo, who was a past master when it came to tongue-lashings.

“I read Don Quixote when I was in Sicily,” remarked Captain Contreras. “Not bad at all, I thought.”

“Indeed,” replied Quevedo. “It’s already famous and will, I’m sure, outlive many other works.”

Lope raised a disdainful eyebrow, poured himself more wine, and changed the subject. This is further evidence, as I say, that in that Spain of never-ending envy and back-stabbing, where a place on Parnassus was as sought-after as Inca gold, the pen caused more blood to be shed than the sword; besides, enemies in one’s own profession are always the worst kind. The animosity between Lope and Cervantes—the latter, as I said, had, by then, entered the heaven reserved for just men and was doubtless seated at the right hand of God—had gone on for years and was still alive even after poor don Miguel’s death. The initial friendship between those two giants of Spanish literature quickly turned to hatred when the illustrious one-armed Cervantes, whose plays, like Gongora’s, met with utter failure—“I could,” he wrote, “find no one who wanted them”—fired the first shot, by including in Part One of his novel a caustic comment on Lope’s work, in particular his famous parody of the flocks of sheep. Lope responded with these rough words: “I will say nothing of poets, for this is a good century for them. But there is none so bad as Cervantes and none so foolish as to praise Don Quixote.” At the time, the novel was considered to be a minor art requiring little intellect and fit only to entertain young ladies; the theater brought money, but poetry brought luster and glory. This is why Lope respected Quevedo, feared Gongora, and despised Cervantes:

All honor to Lope, and to you only pain,

For he is the sun and, if angered, will rain.

And as for that trivial Don Quixote of yours,

Its only use is for wiping your arse