Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900)
www.copyrighthistory.org
Identifier: s_1677

Commentary on “Calderón de la Barca’s Pirated Editions (1677)”

José Bellido (Birkbeck College, University of London)

Raquel Xalabarder (Universidad Oberta de Catalunya)

Ramón Casas Valles (Universidad de Barcelona)

 
Please cite as:
Bellido, J., Xalabarder, R. & Casas Valles, R. (2011) ‘Calderón de la Barca’s Pirated Editions (1677)', in Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org

 1.        Full Title

2.         Abstract

3.         Expert Evidence       

4.         X Marks the Spot

5.         Calderón against the Pirates

6.         False Attributions 

7.         References

1.         Full Title 

Piratería de las obras de Calderón de la Barca (1677) 

2.         Abstract

The spectrum of fake, pirated and forged editions of Calderón de la Barca's works has constituted an enormous bibliographical puzzle for literary scholars and textual critics. In order to comment on what could be considered privilege violations, pirated or fraudulent editions and different forms of appropriations in the prehistory of Spanish copyright law, we have included images of controversial editions held in different libraries. The commentary attempts to discuss the co-existence of privileges and piracy in Spanish dramatic works during the second half of the seventeenth century. It also offers a glimpse of the manner in which Calderón reacted to the circulation of unauthorised material.

3.         Expert evidence

If we were to prepare a contemporary copyright infringement case concerning the works of the major Spanish playwright, Calderón de la Barca (1600-1681), we would face a number of challenges. Ghost, fakes and pirated editions of his oeuvre have plagued catalogues and caused confusion among bibliographers.[1] The survival of undated manuscripts used by acting companies and the loop-holes in the legal regulation of Spanish book production in  Golden-Age theatre has led to a blurring of the already unclear boundaries between fraudulent and lawful; original and copy.[2] As a result of these intricacies, modern attempts to delineate between lawful and unlawful editions frequently occupy a state of uncertainty, classified as “may be”; “supposed” or “relatively faithful” materials in need of bibliographic expertise.[3] In order to strengthen our case, the obvious recommendation to the client would be to enlist the help of Professor Don W. Cruickshank. There are many reasons for the selection and admissibility of this expert: no other scholar has investigated the materiality of Calderón works so meticulously and no other scholar has elucidated with such detail the textual output in relation to the life of the Spanish dramatist.[4] For more than four decades, Cruickshank travelled to libraries and archives throughout the world looking for the famous Calderón sueltas, following the scholarly interest previously shown by his mentor, Edward Meryon Wilson (1906-1977).[5] It might be suggested that the specificity and distinctiveness of such a literary format (sueltas) was one of the factors that caused piracy in Spanish Golden-Age theatre to be curiously creative.[6]

Cruickshank developed innovative approaches to the study of piracy that would enrich interdisciplinary approaches made visible in recent copyright doctrine.[7] Moreover, his research did not only account for the origins and publication dates of  surreptitious editions but, more importantly, the manner in which unusual and pirated material could have been produced as well as the spaces and channels through which it circulated.[8] If all crimes of writing and publishing are indeed different, Cruickshank was prudent enough to identify the singularity of each case.[9] In doing so, he edited texts and recommended techniques of comparison to distinguish originals from fakes. In an attempt to find substantial similarities and differences, Cruickshank frequently mentioned documentary evidence and distinguished it from circumstantial evidence.[10] As regards the task of detecting differences and similarities in types and ornaments, when he refers to conclusive evidence and when we writes bibliographic notes about Calderón de la Barca or Lope de Vega,[11] we cannot avoid imagining him as a forensic expert in the pre-history of Spanish dramatic copyright.[12]

4.                  X Marks the Spot

It is frequently forgotten that the expression autores in Spanish Golden-Age theatre was not reserved for dramatists such as Calderón but for impresarios (directors of theatre companies).[13] Even though some originals have been lost, the question of origins and legitimacy of materials may be studied from different perspectives. There might be an attempt to view the originals as the versions used and modified by stage directors and acting companies.[14] Moreover, it might be possible to search for the autographed manuscripts or versions written by the dramatist.[15] In other words, textual origins do not coincide with legal origins. The control of performed and printed materials could have experienced different contractual vicissitudes.[16] Despite that or precisely because of it,[17] the difficulty of identifying lawful or unlawful material is directly related to the existence of transactions between dramatists and stage directors and/or printers. If the text had been purchased, variations, suppression of characters and scenes could have been presumably lawful since the dramatist would have “lost all his rights to it”.[18] While bibliographers are more interested in the authenticity of texts and the establishment of “originals” from the dramatist's viewpoint, we prefer to look at privilege violations and what we can broadly define as “doubtful” legal publications.

In order to distinguish between legal and illegal publications, an important regulatory measure has to be taken into account. Not bemused by the proliferation of tender love stories instead of instructive and utilitarian works, in March 1625 the Junta de Reformación recommended that “no licenses be issued for the printing of novels and plays in Castile”.[19] At first glance, the recommendation was ineffective since printed material continued to circulate.[20] However, the main impact of the regulation was to encourage piracy.[21] This is evident in the imaginative ways in which some novels and plays found their way to the printing presses.[22] Not only did they tend to be printed in places far-away from Madrid such as Seville or Barcelona,[23] but novels and plays were deliberately made to look as if they were produced in other kingdoms.[24] In other words, some printers and bookselling entrepreneurs in Madrid decided to overcome their less ideal situation by amending books’ preliminaries.[25] Because the ban did not apply retrospectively and licenses and privileges already granted were considered valid, another imaginative strategy developed was to alter publishing dates. Even though printers risked contravening other regulations,[26] publishing plays with false imprints or dates and self-fabricated privileges frequently helped them to overcome the legislation.[27]

Dramatists or privilege applicants did not create unlicensed prints and reprints with false covers and preliminaries. However, very wisely, some of them submitted their manuscripts to the licensing authorities outside Castile, for instance, in Valencia,[28] Zaragoza, or Barcelona.[29] By obtaining a license from another kingdom, they attempted to disseminate their literary material throughout the peninsula. Nonetheless, their tactics also had some effects within the kingdom of Castile, for instance, there were cases of dramatists submitting plays and other “objectionable” works under more honourable names and etiquettes. These submissions can be defined as “hybrids which defied classification”.[30] Instead of plays or novels, the dramatists named them “actions in prose”; “dialogues in prose” or other inventive forms.[31] These constituted risky attempts to obtain official permission to print and approval from the Council of Castile (Consejo de Castilla). But the tactics were worth the effort because no privilege was granted without a license.[32]

Incidentally it may be worth noting here that unlawful or legally doubtful publication of plays seems to have been located in very specific areas of Spain. For instance, a large number of pirated editions came from Seville, a hotspot for surreptitious editions throughout the seventeenth century.[33] It is also interesting to highlight that these editions were facilitated by the popularity of a typical Spanish literary format: sueltas (literally “loose”, “not connected”). The term is used by literary scholars to refer to unbound sheets of papers. Although they were not unlawful per se, their low printing and distribution costs and the possibility of having them available rapidly made this format popular with pirates wishing to make quick profit.[34] For some time, these ephemeral materials were not treated as “real” books, and as a result, without the need for approval and license.[35]  It also allowed for bookbinders to produce furtive editions, that is, volumes and compilations of sueltas from scratch.[36] Despite regulatory attempts to control them, it appears that it was never clear whether ephemera had to be submitted to the authorities. The number of the lawful and unlawful copies of these sueltas that were published is unknown because sometimes the references to the plays were non-individualised,[37] mixed or without date or imprint.[38]

 5.        Calderón against the Pirates

Even after the lifting of the ban to grant printing licences in Castilein 1634, Calderón’s works were counterfeited and pirated. However it was this point at which the dramatist seemed to begin appreciating print as a way for his oeuvre to circulate. He applied for and obtained a ten-year printing privilege.[39]  In order to exploit it, his brother, José Calderón de la Barca (1602-1645) prepared an official edition of his plays, which was divided into different parts or volumes (partes). The dissemination of better texts was a common and smart way to try to defeat piracy and defective editions.[40] The first edition was advertised as “collected and taken from their true originals”.[41] Since the dramatist may have sold the plays outright to theatrical directors,[42] some literary scholars have speculated on the exact meaning of “true originals”. It is possible, even probable, that José and Pedro acquired several manuscripts from theatrical impresarios (autores).[43]  The modifications which may have been made to the manuscripts at the theatre company could explain why the official editions also contain errors and uncertainties.[44] When experts have looked at the publication, it appears clear to them that neither José nor Pedro corrected the texts thoroughly after receiving them and before sending them to the press.[45] 

Nevertheless, if we want to consider the dramatist’s view on piracy, we can examine a series of statements that appeared in the preliminaries of authorised collections. Through the dedications, Pedro and his brother José accused unscrupulous booksellers and printers of producing defective texts. Curiously enough, it seems that Calderón felt misrepresented and made allegations against illegal editions.[46] Among the various acts of piracy, the most famous one is the first item attached here: Quinta parte de las comedias de Calderón (Barcelona, Antonio La Cavalleria, 1677).[47] The dramatist himself is recorded as having complained about this particular edition.[48] His claims regarding the illegality of the item seem justified because factual and analytical inquiries reveal suspicious elements.[49] The edition appeared with the same title-page as the one used, seven decades before, by the publishers of Quixote.[50] Additionally the imprimatur was wrong and the text was presented without the usual reference to the bookseller in the cover. If that was not sufficient evidence to consider the volume a false imprint, the surname of the printer bore an obvious orthographical error.[51] However, the most convincing feature showing the illegality of the edition was not something missing or erroneously printed, but an awkward reference not supposed to be included. The edition from Barcelona surprisingly mentioned a tasa (retail price) from Madrid.[52]

When Calderón died, a close friend of his, Juan de Vera Tassis y Villarroel (1636-1701), undertook the task of publishing his plays.[53] He also complained about the proliferation of defective and pirated editions such as the one mentioned above, and attempted to defeat them by publishing what he entitled as the “true” fifth volume [Verdadera Quinta Parte (1682)].[54] While he continued as an editor of different volumes of Calderón’s works,[55] he was criticised for not sharing the literary property with Calderon’s heirs.[56] Moreover, his editorial interventions also emerged as h extremely controversial and unreliable texts from a bibliographical point of view.[57] Having been exposed as volumes full of errors by literary scholars, it is ironic that the opportunistic took advantage of the books' publication.[58] Vera’s nine-volumes were also subjected to piracy.[59] An example of this is a very particular edition attached also here, once described by Cruickshank and Wilson as a “fine specimen of a fake edition”.[60] Its peculiarity is derived from the fact that it is a complete set of Calderon’s plays which simulate the official and authorised volumes. It is a collection of sueltas bound together, with fake title pages, making a “pseudo” Vera Tassis, a delightful and imaginative act of piracy that embraces the whole set of volumes.[61]

6.                  False Attribution

However, piracy and fakes did not only affect Calderón’s publishing output before and after his death. Indeed, falsely attributed plays also caused distress to his repertoire. Misrepresentation had different effects on his work throughout his career.[62] When he was unknown and his plays began to be printed, it was often the case that his works were attributed to Lope de Vega (1562-1635), the most fashionable dramatist at the time.[63] Arguably, Lope’s name in the title-pages made them more attractive to buyers.[64] However, Calderón also experienced the flip side of the coin. At the peak of his career, as a result of his authorial “stardom”, many works he had not written were falsely attributed to him.[65]  It is thus not a surprise that he was requested on two different occasions to produce a list of his works.[66]

Debate and disputes surrounding the correct attribution of Calderón’s works may also unveil hidden practices of anonymity and collaborative writing in Spanish Golden-Age theatre. If collaboration functioned as a way of making easy money, it is possible to explain the difficulty in tracing the names and the precise input of those who participated and collaborated in the writing of his plays.[67] Whereas some dramatists would have been primarily concerned with gaining authorship credit, there might have been others who were not so preoccupied with getting such printed recognition.

7.         References

Bentley, B. “Del autor a los actores: el traslado de una comedia” in García Martin, M., Arellano, I, Blasco, J. and Vitse, M. (eds) Estado actual de los estudios sobre el Siglo de Oro. Actas del II Congreso Internacional de Hispanistas del Siglo de Oro. Vol. I (Salamanca, Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 1993) pp. 179-191.

Bently, L., Davis, J. and Ginsburg, J. (eds) Copyright and Piracy: An Interdisciplinary Critique, (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

Casa, F. P. & McGaha, M. D. (eds) Editing the Comedia (Ann Arbor, Mich : Michigan Romance Studies, 1985)

Casa, F. P & McGaha, M. D. (eds) Editing the Comedia II (Michigan, Arbor, Michigan Romance Studies 1991)

Cayuela, A. “La prosa de ficción entre 1625 y 1634: Balance de diez años sin licencias para imprimir novelas en los Reinos de Castilla” Mélanges de la Casa de Velázquez, 29-2, 1993. pp. 51-76

Cayuela, A. Le paratexte au siècle d’or (Genève, Librairie Droz, 1996)

Coenen, E.“Las atribuciones de Vera Tassis” Castilla. Estudios de Literatura, 0 (2009) pp. 111-133; 111; Cruickshank, D. W. Don Pedro Calderón (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009) p. 93; p. 179.

Coenen, E. “En los entresijos de una lista de comedias de Calderón” Revista de Filología Española, LXXXIX, 1.o, 2009, pp. 29-56

Coenen, E. “Sobre el texto de Darlo todo y no dar nada y la transmisión textual de las comedias de Calderón” Criticón, CII, 2008, pp. 203-209.

Cotarelo y Mori, E. Ensayo sobre la vida y obras de D. Pedro Calderón de la Barca (Madrid, Tip. de la Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas y Museos, 1924)

Cruickshank, D. W. “Some problems posed by suelta editions of plays” in Casa, F. P. &  McGaha, M. D. (eds) Editing the Comedia II (Ann Arbor, Mich : Michigan Romance Studies, 1991) pp. 97-123.

Cruickshank, D. W. (ed) Pedro Calderón de la Barca. Comedias. A facsimile edition prepared by D. W. Cruickshank and J. E Varey with textual and critical studies. vol. I (London, Gregg International Publishers Limited and Tamesis Books, 1973) pp. 1-35

Cruickshank, D. W. Don Pedro Calderón (Cambridge,CambridgeUniversity Press, 2009)

Cruickshank, D. W. “Some aspects of Spanish Book-Production in the Golden Age” The Library, series vol. 31, n. 1, March 1976, pp. 1–19

Cruickshank, D. W. “Some Notes on the Printing of Plays in Seventeenth-Century Seville” The Library, vol. 11, n. 3, 1989, pp. 231–252;

Cruickshank, D. W. “Los “hurtos de la prensa” en las obras dramáticas” in Rico Manrique, F. (ed) Imprenta y crítica textual en el siglo de Oro (Valladolid, Universidad de Valladolid, 2000) pp. 129-150 

Cruickshank, D. W. "Literature and the Book Trade in Golden-Age Spain", Modern Language Review, 1978, pp. 799-824

Cruickshank, D. W. “Don Juan de Vera Tassis y Villarroel” in Kôrner, K-H. & Briesemeister, D. (eds)  Aureum Saeculum Hispanum (Wiesbaden, F. Steiner 1980) pp. 43-57

Cruickshank, D. W. and Wilson, E. M. “A Calderón Collection in Dr. Steevens’ Hospital, Dublin” Long Room 9 (1974) 17-27

De Amezúa y Mayo, A. Cómo se hacía un libro en el Siglo de Oro (Madrid, Imprenta del Editorial Magisterio Español, 1946)

De Lara, G. A. Obelisco fúnebre, pirámide funesto a la inmortal memoria de D. Pedro Calderón de la Barca… (Madrid, Eugenio Rodríguez, 1684)

De los Reyes Gómez, F. El Libro en España y América. Legislación y Censura (siglos xv-xviii) vol I (Madrid, Arco, 2000)

Dexeus, M. “Las imprentas de la Corona de Aragón en la difusión de la literatura del siglo de Oro” Edad de Oro, 12, 1993, pp. 71-80

Edwards, G. “Los sueltas calderonianas y Vera Tassis: el caso de "las tres justicias en una" in Kôrner, K-H. & Briesemeister, D. (eds)  Aureum Saeculum Hispanum (Wiesbaden, F. Steiner 1980) pp. 59-68

García Cuadrado, A. “Aproximación a los criterios legales en materia de imprenta durante la Edad Moderna en España” Revista General de Información y Documentación, vol. 6, n.2, 1996, pp. 125-190

García Reidy, A. “From Stage to Page: Editorial History and Literary Promotion in Lope de Vega’s Partes de Comedias” in Samson, A. & Thacker, J. (eds) A Companion to Lope de Vega (Woodbridge:  Tamesis, 2008) pp. 51-60

González y Palencia, A. "Quevedo, Tirso y las comedias ante la Junta de Reformación" Boletín de la Real Academia Española, 1 17-1 18 (1946), 43-84;

Hesse, E. W. Essays on Spanish Letters of the Golden Age (Madrid: Studia Humanitas, Porrúa Turanzas,   1981)

Hesse, E. W. “The Publication of Calderon's Plays in the 17th Century” Philological Quarterly, 27 (1948) pp. 37-51

Leavitt, S. E. Golden Age Drama in Spain: General Consideration and Usual Features (University of North Carolina Press, 1972)

López, F. "Une édition fantôme de Calderón (Pour une histoire de la 'comedia suelta')" in Cerdan, F. (ed.), Hommage à Robert Jammes, vol. II (Toulouse, Presses Universitaires du Mirail, 1994) pp. 707-719

Moll, J. “Diez años sin licencias para imprimir comedias y novelas en los reinos de Castilla: 1625-1634” Boletín de la Real Academia Española, 54, 1974, pp. 97-103

Moll, J. “El problema bibliográfico de la “Primera parte de comedias” de Tirso de Molina” in Homenaje a Guillermo Guastavino (Madrid, Asociación Nacional de Archiveros, Bibliotecarios y Arqueólogos,  1974) pp. 85-94

Moll, J. “Las nueves partes de Calderón editadas en comedias sueltas (Barcelona, 1763-1767)” Boletín de la Real Academia Española, 51 (1971), pp. 259-304

Reichenberger A. G. “Editing Spanish Comedias of the XVIIth century: History and Present Day Practice” in Lancashire, A. (ed) Editing Renaissance Dramatic Texts English, Italian and Spanish (New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1976) pp.69-96;

Reichenberger, K and Reichenberger, R. (eds) Bibliographisches Handbuch der Calderón-Forschung, II (Kassel, Edition Reichenberger, 1981)

Shergold, N.D “Calderón and Vera Tassis” Hispanic Review, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Jul., 1955), pp. 212-218

Toro y Gisbert, M. " ¿Conocemos el texto verdadero de las comedias de Calderón?" Boletín de la Real Academia Española, Tomo V. 1918, pp. 401- 421; pp. 307-331

Wilson, E. W. “"An early list of Calderón´s Comedias", Modern Philology, LX, 2, 1962, pp. 95-102;

Wilson, E. M. “The comedia suelta: History of a Format” Wilson E. M. & Cruickshank, D. W. Samuel Pepys's Spanish Plays (London, 1980) pp. 85-120.

Whiteshell, D. “Fredson Bowers and the Editing of Spanish Golden Age Drama” in Greetham, D. C, Hill, W.S and Shillingsburg, P (eds) Text: Transactions of the Society for Textual Scholarship (Michigan, University of Michigan Press, 1996) pp. 67-84