Obviously I do not mean that their authors considered them infinitely flexible, nor, particularly in the case of Calderón, legitimately open to rewriting by any self-appointed dramatist, autor, or least of all, publisher. They did, however, freely appropriate each other's texts and rework them.

Téllez, Gabriel. Comedias de Tirso de Molina. ed. D. Emilio Cotarelo y Mori. 2 vols. Vols. 4 and 9 of the Nueva Biblioteca de Autores Españoles. Vol. II (Madrid, Bailly-Bailliere é Hijos, 1907), 227-332.

Ibid., xxxv.

Téllez, Gabriel. Tirso de Molina. Obras dramáticas completas. ed. Blanca de los Ríos. 3rd ed., (Madrid: Aguilar, 1969) Vol. I, 724-25.

Los manuscritos de Las Quinas de Portugal (Madrid, 1942); quoted without page number in Ríos, p. 725.

Gerald E. Wade, «Tirso de Molina: La Santa Juana. Primera Parte». Diss. Ohio State U., 1936.

Tirso wrote an average of 35 lines per folio (varying between 32 and 37, depending in part on placement of stage directions). Combining this fact with the numbers required to complete certain rhyme schemes, it is possible to estimate quite accurately the number of lines lost on the folios removed within an act, but since two were the last folio in the act, the number must remain a somewhat rough estimate.

One detail would seem to support in part Wade's supposition. There is a scene involving two characters, a returning indiano and his lacayo, whom in the manuscript Tirso calls Carlos and Claudio; in the Quinta Parte they are named Marco Antonio and Ludovico, yet Marco Antonio in one line refers to his companion not as Ludovico but as Claudio. Other textual evidence, such as Tirso's copying mistakes, precludes the possibility that he was expanding the manuscript text into the Parte version. Then how did Claudio get into that text? The simplest explanation is that in a third, lost, state of the text, the scene contained at least three characters, one of whom was named Claudio. This possibility is reinforced by the fact that two speeches in a row are attributed to Ludovico just before the line in which Marco Antonio addresses «Claudio»; Tirso appears to have eliminated Claudio from the speakers and stage directions, but overlooked his name within the line. Such a trio is not in line with the usual noble-lacayo pair of the Spanish comedia, but Tirso does have another scene in this play in which a parallel set of male characters is expanded to three, with the third being essentially non-functional.

Although both texts are presented without modernization here, modern capitalization, accentuation and punctuation will be added to the manuscript text in the edition, but spelling will not be modernized, as such alteration carries the most risk of obscuring alternative readings. Tirso and other dramatists expected publishers of their works to supply such accidentals when preparing their plays for a reading public, and a modern editor who does the same according to the standards of a contemporary public is therefore consistent with the life process of Golden Age drama. The treatment of accidentals for the Quinta Parte presents a different problem. Their preservation may make reading difficult for a twentieth-century reader, but their modernization alters the text encountered by a seventeenth-century reader. My own solution, admittedly a compromise, will be to make a bare minimum of alterations to punctuation where it is most contradictory to modern usage, preserving the Parte form in notes. Capitalization will also be modernized, as the Parte text uses it primarily to indicate new stanzas, regardless of sentence structure. First lines of stanzas will be indented.

Leocote, Leucothea, or Ino -driven mad by Hera for protecting the baby Dionysus, child of Zeus and her sister Semele.