Brianna Reilly
Barbera, Raymond E. “A
Harlot, A Heroine.” Hispania 48 (1965): 790-799.
The central focus of Raymond E. Barbera’s article, “A
Harlot, a Heroine,” is stated in the 2nd paragraph as follows:
“[Celestina] develops and
establishes a mode of treatment of characters and situations”, to be
elaborated upon further in this article, that is of great importance for its
influence upon subsequent literature in Spain as well as Europe.
First, Barbera talks about how other works, such as the Libro de buen
amor and the Poema del Cid paved
the way for Fernando de Rojas, author of Celestina, to put Celestina, the
woman in the center of his work, and around whom the other characters are in a
subordinate position, thus radically altering the reader’s concept of society
(790). Barbera then emphasizes that
Roja’s achievement lies in creating a powerful and yet ambiguous personality
out of what was then considered an ignoble character.
He goes on to describe how in the past, critics of Celestina have
refused to believe that she may be the literary heroine of the work; however,
Barbera presents ideas to the contrary. He
refutes the critics’ idea by insisting that although the characterization of
the characters in Celestina may have its flaws, those inconsistencies are
crucial so that dramatic requirements are met. Barbera proves that Celestina is
the chief protagonist by referring to
Barbera uses two different critical approaches in his article. Most often, he uses the deconstructionist approach, in which he describes Rojas’s use of language and writing style to criticize the work. For instance, he says, “…a character cannot merely be the circumstance of speech and action but has, so to speak, a bedrock foundation upon which a more-or-less recognizable structure is built in the speeches and action, the very fabric of drama, and that action may demand inconsistencies that dramatic requirements may be met.” He believes that Roja’s characterization is flawed, but necessary for the drama to move forward. He also uses the historical approach, implying that Rojas’s background and the political climate affects his writing. An example is the fact that he states, “Rojas’s perceptions were undoubtably sharpened immeasurably by his underdog status in a hostile and dangerous environment.” I think that Barbera defends his thesis fairly accurately, by not only stating his own arguments but arguing against the statements of opposing critics. However, he doesn’t really fully describe the subsequent literature that was affected by Celestina as well as his rising argument. I agree with Barbera’s arguments and statements that the treatment of characters and situations in Celestina truly set the stage for future works. The problem in reading Barbera’s article was that occasionally he would state a quote in Spanish, and not explain it or translate it into English. Otherwise, this article is a good resource on Celestina and its influence on Spanish literature.
Gerli, Michael. “Complictous
Laughter: Hilarity and Seduction in Celestina.” Hispanic Review
63.1 (1995): 19-38.
The thesis of Michael Gerli’s article is stated in the 2nd
paragraph: “The modes of laughter
recorded in Celestina are thus essential to its sense as they resound in
uncommon variety and capture feelings ranging from the jocular, to the scornful,
to the conspiratorial.” He
believes that Fernando de Rojas’s use of laughter in Celestina is key
to finding meaning in the work. He
first proves this by using an aside of Sempronio in which he laughs.
“His laughter, and his instant recisions of it, mark Sempronio's
derision and cautious contempt for his master, while it defines the true nature
of his private thoughts.” Gerli
argues that Rojas knew the power of laughter and used it frequently to give
insight into his characters. His
next example is Parmeno, who Celestina is unsuccessfully attempting to recruit
to her side, until she hears him laugh. “Through Parmeno's unanticipated laugh
his mere words are exposed to Celestina as scant defense against the onslaught
of desire.” She then is able to
use her new knowledge to persuade Parmeno to her side.
His last, and most important example, is that of Alisa, Melibea’s
mother. Gerli states that because of
her laughter before exiting the room, leaving her virginal daughter alone with
Celestina, she not only knew what was going on, but perhaps went through it
herself and was accepting. He goes
on to describe how her laughter brought him to that conclusion and his most
important point, “The sounds of laughter in Celestina, thus, constitute key
elements of dialogue and lead to the possibility of reformulating our
understanding of some of the more puzzling characters in the work.”
Gerli uses a deconstructionist approach to criticizing the
work. He focuses on how laughter is
used to add meaning to the character’s actions and to interpret their
intentions. He uses good examples,
delves deep into explanations and reinforces his arguments well.
He makes new analysis of the character’s actions understandable and
believable. I found that his
interpretation of each character made sense.
I think that the use of laughter does give better insight into characters
than words may. The only difficulty I found in the reading of this article was
his excessive use specialized vocabulary. He
also tended to repeat his same point in many different words that I found
unneccessary. I think this is a good
resource for providing a different point of view on Celestina
and good for further research into characterization.
Sanchez,
The central focus of Elizabeth Sanchez’s article is to
examine the possible functions of magic in Celestina,
to relate the previous theories that she found dissatisfactory and support her
thesis that Rojas “meant to include the element of magic in his implicit
condemnation of his social reality.” She
believes that his writing is a reflection of what he found wrong in his society.
She starts by examining the existing theories on the function of magic in
the work. The first theory affirms
that magic exists as a dramatic function. The
critics who hold the opposing view state that Celestina’s efforts to bewitch
Melibea are unnecessary, because they believe the drama happens as a result of
natural factors. Another theory is
that Rojas’s audience expected Celestina to conform to the type of witch-bawd
portrayed in the work. Sanchez then
makes a point about the fact that Renaissance witchcraft is different because
it’s more about an attempt to control Nature, as compared to medieval
witchcraft which was devil controlled. Celestina
is an example of the Renaissance type because the purpose of her magic is for
trade, to earn money. Sanchez sums
up her article with her thesis, stating that Celestina only calls on magic when
she’s not certain of her own ability, and that both magic and religion have
“degenerated to the category of mere instruments to assist the individual in
obtaining their goals.”
Elizabeth Sanchez uses a historical approach to criticism. She makes reference to Rojas’s society and its values and believes they deeply affected his work. She also thinks that the opinions of the original readers were influential. Sanchez fairly affectively defends her position, although she spends too much time discussing other theories rather than arguing her own. I’m not sure if I agree that Rojas used his work as a condemnation of things he found wrong in society, although I think he may have included a few points towards them in Celestina. I do agree that the magic in the novel used by Celestina is just for her trade. This work was easy to follow, but I found the thesis unclear. This article provides a good discussion of the theories of why Rojas used magic in his work, which would be useful in a follow-up to this topic.
Sears, Theresa Ann. “Love
and the Lure of Chaos: Difference and Disorder in Celestina.”
Romanic Review 83.1 (1992): 94-106
The thesis of Theresa Ann Sears’s work is that in
“tracing the negative effects of love’s annihilation of difference on the
textual world of Celestina, we will come to better understand the
work’s critical and purpose within the canon of love literature.”
Sears states that language’s purpose is to join and divide, as seen in
both love and desire. Desire
proposes to unite two who are on opposing sides that guarantees its failure, as
is witnessed in Celestina. The
first instance of the breaking down of walls is the walls society builds around
the virginal Melibea, which Calisto quickly brings down with the help of
Celestina. He also brings down the
wall of distance set up by courtly love, as Sears points out.
The first repurcussion of this is Calisto’s own collapse of gender
rules – in his lovesickness, he takes on feminine qualities and Sempronio has
to tell him to be a man. Which lead
to another broken wall of class distinction. We find that Calisto talks to and
treats his servants as on his level which causes them to go against him.
The servants likewise start to act as masters.
Soon, the broken down barriers lead to chaos, as the main characters die
tragically and the entire town is thrown into disorder.
Theresa Ann Sears uses a psychological critical approach, analyzing the actions of the characters and the meanings of love, chaos, and disorder to better understand the drama of the work. Sears provides interesting insight into the action of Celestina, and the effects of those emotions and actions. She makes her points fairly clear. Her argument convinced me to look at the consequences of Calisto and Melibea’s love and decide that it is important to the movement of the drama. There was only a minor difficulty in the organization, which didn’t follow the order of the play. This article really enriches my understanding of the novel because it presents new ideas that I hadn’t thought of and proved them well.
Valbuena, Olga Lucia. “Sorceresses,
Love Magic, and the Inquisition of Linguistic Sorcery in Celestina.”
PMLA: Publications of the Modern Language Association of
Olgo Lucia Valbuena’s thesis is, “Celestina's
"linguistic sorcery" overlaps and extends a particular type of popular
sorcery called love magic that has been practiced surreptitiously in
Valbuena uses a sociological approach to criticism, which looks at the artist’s society to better understand the work. Valbuena does well in drawing parallels between the atmosphere of Rojas’s time and the characters in the work. I agree that most of Celestina’s sorcery is in her words because she seems to be able to read people and tell them what they want her to hear in order to get her way. I found this article easy to understand and analyze. The author presents her information in a clear way that is well-organized. This article was very useful because it presented good points and reinforced them with historical facts.