Postscript Philological Association of the Carolinas Journal 28.2—Tania de Miguel Magro Unresolved Political Questions in Moreto’s La misma conciencia acusa Tania de Miguel Magro, West Virginia University Much has been written about the political valence of the comedia. Was it mere propaganda for the elites? Were authors criticizing the status quo? There is no simple answer to these questions because, although some generalizations are possible, there was not such a thing as a unified, univocal intention. The comedia was a genre that developed in a time of change, a time in which new political, economical, and social orders were developing across Europe. Plays reflect and embody those changes and the social and political instability created by the emergence of a new order. It is a genre that largely reaffirmed absolutism and the caste-based society, however the comedia also allows us to glimpse the contradictions and unresolved problems imbedded in the systems it wants to affirm. This essay analyzes the example of Augustin Moreto’s La misma conciencia acusa, a political play that, while siding with the traditional order over the emergent and ascendant commercial classes, offers a glimpse into the ideological and social contradictions inherent in the old order. Moreto’s piece is set in Parma at an unspecified time and portrays an usurpation of the throne by a tyrant, a breach of a royal testament, a popular uprising, and an attempted tyrannicide. La misma conciencia acusa was written during the reign of Philip IV, one of the most unstable moments of the Early Modern period in Spain. Baltasar the Zúñiga y Olivares and later his nephew the Count-Duke of Olivares dedicated their energies to transform the kingdom of Philip IV into a strong centralized absolutist monarchy. There was a conscious attempt on the part of the administration to create an image of a powerful—even infallible—monarch of divine origin. At the same time, Philip IV personally “cultivated this by creating a symbolic distance that emphasized his centrality and superiority” (Campbell 98). The reign of Philip IV, like that of his father, was a desperate attempt to deny the changes that were taking place in Spain and the rest of the Europe. The Habsburg dynasty was deteriorating, America was no longer a source of wealth, Spain had long ago stopped being the strongest nation in Europe, Protestantism had won the battle in half the continent, the caste system was giving way to a class- based society, and capitalism was there to stay. In such an environment, the comedia strived to portray an ideally functioning world alien to and at odds with the instability of the time. According to Anthony Cascardi: A genre like the comedia responded ideologically to the question of historical change, very often by perpetuating the hierarchies of caste at a time when the influence of capitalism, which tended to reorient social differences along class lines, was becoming widespread elsewhere in Europe. (3) There is a common, albeit mistaken, perception of the seventeenth century as a period of conservatism and statism, but, as Jodi Campbell estates, Spain and Europe more generally witnessed revolutionary changes in many aspects of life: Early modern society, and especially that of Spain, is frequently described as a society of orders, a clear hierarchy in which every person knew his or her position and corresponding obligations. Paradoxically, the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were also a period of great uncertainty; the Reformation and the subsequent religious wars, the shifting notions of power that accompanied the growth of absolutism, new intellectual views of the world drawn from science and exploration, and changing economic conditions all undermined what people perceived as the familiar foundations of their society. (8) In most countries, the seventeenth century saw a marked and definite shift from feudalism to capitalism and from a caste system to a class system. Even though many elements of capitalism and class could be found as far back as the fourteenth century, historians agree that it was in the seventeenth century when significant, long lasting changes actually took place. Changes were unavoidable, but Spaniards resisted the shift towards capitalism and the class system more than any of their European neighbors. From a financial point of view, it would appear as if Spain had the perfect environment for the development of capitalism, due to the continued influx of gold from America and the monopoly of the commerce with the colonies, but in reality the flood of capital from the Americas did not fuel any significant structural economic or social changes. While the rest of Europe was moving into modernity, Spain held to the old ways and, at least in part, it became ostracized. There have been many theories about why this happened and this is not the place to rehearse them, but, for our purposes, it is important to remember two key elements presented by Cascardi: Castilians’ traditional attitude towards money and the limited importance of feudalism in the Peninsula. First of all, nobility (the group that had controlled wealth for centuries) disdained investments, banking, and commerce because, in the local imaginary, these were Jewish affairs. Business was something for Jews and the rest of the occupations were only for commoners. By the seventeenth century, Spanish aristocrats still believed that noblemen should not work. Europe was changing, but in Spain the words of Jorge Manrique had not yet gone out of fashion: those who “con oficios no debidos / se mantienen” lost “la sangre de los godos / y el linaje y la nobleza / tan crecida.” (52). The long life of the caste system, particularly in Castile, was also a consequence of the fact that feudalism had never been as prominent in Castile as it was in the rest of Europe. During the Middle Ages, the base of the social, political, and economic structure in Castile was not feudalism per se, but the caste system. For centuries, one’s position in the society was not decided by his or her economic power but by one’s family name, thus there was no incentive for the entrepreneurial spirit, as increasing personal material wealth did not imply social advancement or power. The early modern period coincided with the birth of capitalism, but in Spain, many of those who started a successful enterprise did not consider reinvesting their profit into their business, instead they “invested” in buying a nobility title and, once they became part of the aristocracy, they had to stop working. The Spanish theater was not alien to the debates and transformations of the time. Pieces such as La misma conciencia acusa allegorically represented the clash of the old world and the new world through violent confrontation (often a war) from which the old order always emerged triumphant. At least that is how it appears on the surface, because as I will later demonstrate, the plays also call attention to the weaknesses and internal contradictions of the old ways that they want to champion. For the moment I will accept as a working theoretical framework Cascardi’s Ideologies of History in the Spanish Golden Age. His analysis and conclusions are valid and they have contributed to a better understanding of political and historical dramas. I take Cascardi’s work as a starting point for my study, applying his conclusions to the case of La misma conciencia acusa, but I then go a bit farther. I agree with Cascardi when he claims that the comedia is a genre that rejects change (capitalism and a class-based society), but I propose that the alleged defense of the old structures is not as solid as it might seem. According to Cascardi, political dramas of the seventeenth century were in fact portraying the ideological battle that was taking place between the old ways (a traditional aristocratic society) and the new ways (a capitalist class-based society). The confrontation of the old and the new is not presented as such in theater; but rather it is presented as the fight of good (the old) versus evil (the new), or justice versus tyranny. By taking this perspective, the victory of tradition does not appear merely biased and parochial, but rather as a victory of the righteous. Moreover, as we will see, there is not even a confrontation of opposing ideologies per se. In the comedia there is only one system (the old traditional way of doing things), which can only be jeopardized by dangerous individuals whose goals are selfish and destructive to the wellbeing of the community. In the political dramas, the antagonist characters threaten to destroy the system, but never propose an alternative political or social order. Thus, the legitimacy of the status quo (absolutism and caste division) is not brought into question, because the comedia limits itself to showing the dangers of attacking the current system. Cascardi proves that the technique or ignoring the existence of other possibilities reinforces absolutism and castes without recognizing any crisis or weakness in their principles, but a close reading of historical and political plays shows that there are some unresolved problems in the old order. In La misma conciencia acusa, the desired message is delivered through a typical plot of legitimacy, a favorite among playwrights of Calderón’s times, because as Cascardi explains, cases of legitimacy serve to strengthen monarchic absolute authority and the caste structure. this effort [to shore up sovereign authority] takes a specifically theatrical form, in which the preferred situation for investigating and “resolving” the crisis of authority involves the threat of the displacement of the sovereign from his position of power, either by jeopardizing his claim to the throne or by raising questions about who will rightfully inherit it. (6) The story of La misma conciencia acusa is set in an undetermined time in Parma. After the death of the César, former Duke of Parma, his nephew, the current Duke of Parma unlawfully takes power concealing a testament that declared Carlos, a natural son of César, as the only heir. The Duke is the very image of a tyrant. In fact, he is labeled as such the first time we hear about him. He is the opposite of what a nobleman should be: he is only preoccupied with power, money, and luxury. He also lacks courage and does not directly participate in any military endeavors (although does not hesitate to send his soldiers to fight for him). For the Duke, the path into power is money and lies. He is obviously the representative of the new dangerous ideas that were taking route in Europe, because he is an individualist, selfish leader, more concerned with his personal petty desires than with the duties of government. The Duke is someone who was able to destroy the natural order (blood linage) with money. In fact, his personal desire for money and power has corrupted him to the point of destroying his innate aristocratic virtues. Only at the end of the play, when his consciousness allows him to see his mistake, he shows characteristics fit for a nobleman: mercy and subjection to his rightful master. On the other side of the spectrum, Carlos appears as the perfect prince/nobleman. He rules over the small country town to which the Duque of Parma has exiled him. There he lives a happy and peaceful life, retired from the opulence and vanity of the court. Although his situation is modest, his natural aristocratic spirit is very alive: he enjoys hunting and excels at it, he disdains money and he rules over the townsfolk with justice, care and benevolence. Given his noble blood, exile has not eliminated his innate qualities as military leader, which are evident in his daily life. Carlos favorite past time is, as it could be expected, hunting, an entertainment that was considered as a way of training for war. Tirso, Carlos’ servant, refers to his master’s hunting habits in military terms: Caza por toda esta sierra, a todo bruto hace guerra. A la labranza va y viene; allá tal vez en las eras, viendo a los bolos jugar, a todos suele birlar, porque los mira en hilera como escuadrón. (357) He adds that Carlos also enjoys playing cards and tends to win the game with the card of the king of swords: “a los naipes, juega y tiene / azar con el rey de espadas” (358). Of course, Carlos’ luck with such a card is not random. Cards were used to play and to read the future, and Carlos perceives his fortune as a premonition: «que siempre aquesta figura me gane»,[i] suele decir, «algún día ha de venir sobre este azar mi ventura.» (358) To complete the image of the perfect nobleman, Tirso explains how his master has a peaceful nature, but is brave, strong and easily irritable. Carlos is the opposite of the Duke of Parma on every aspect, particularly when it comes to material possessions, because, unlike the Duke, Carlos expresses more interest in legacy and honor than in wealth (371). While Carlos lives happily in his retirement, the Duke is consumed by worries, always afraid that Carlos is going to rise up in arms to regain his lawful position as Duke of Parma. The Duke has taken all measures to protect his power, but he is aware of his wrongs and his conscience does not let him sleep. The Duke has not taken power to establish a new social order or government; he is just usurping the throne for his own selfish benefit and he knows it, thus often feels the pain of his crime. For years, the Duke had nightmares in which Carlos attacks him, but his fears are unfounded. Carlos respects the social order and is very aware of his place as a nobleman under the Duke, which he defines with the topical senctence: “No excede mi calidad, / del Duque abajo, ninguno” (353). To make sure that Carlos is not planning a revolt, the Duke sends his nephew Enrique to spy on Carlos. When Enrique gets to the mountains, he does not find a menacing insurgent, but a man who expresses content with his limited authority. Contrary to what the Duke thought, Carlos respects him. Nevertheless, the Duke remains suspicious and decides to bring Carlos to his palace in order to see his reaction when surrounded by riches. Carlos is taken through the most luxurious rooms of the palace where he finds the display of worldly goods to be excessive. Carlos is a just ruler by birth as his words reveal. ENRIQUE: Quería preguntaros: ¿qué os parece aquesta tapicería? CARLOS: Aún mejor me pareciera si cuando entrando venía no encontrara [a] algunos hombres rotos y en miseria esquiva. (378) The scene of the walk through the palace serves to point out the natural superiority of Carlos, the legitimate heir, over commoners like Tirso, whose comments about the tapestries prove him to be an ignorant glutton, and over other rulers, like the Duke, who accessed power with money and who then use that power to fulfill personal desires rather than taking care of their people. Carlos comes across as the only possible ruler who will take care of the needy. Carlos, the legitimate descendant, is also the best suited for the job. Jodi Campbell argues that in political plays ability to govern was viewed as more important than blood lineage: “Dynasty in these plays is virtually irrelevant, kings are judged by their capability more than their heredity, and a king who insists on the unqualified obedience of his subjects is one who borders on tyranny” (99). I believe that what we encounter in political plays such as La misma conciencia acusa is quite the opposite. The defense of the absolutist way of governing rests on the purported unavailability of any other option. There is never a choice between the just ruler and the legitimate sovereign, because, as happens with Carlos, the legitimate heir is also the best sovereign. Once we accept the Habsburg view, that God selects the monarch, there is no doubt that that person is always going to be the best; after all, by definition, any modification of the order created by God can never improve the world. Theater showed over and over the natural links between noble blood and noble virtues, but the actuality of Spain was very different. Regardless of what the comedia said, in the real world money could make a nobleman out of a commoner. The turbulent economic situation of Spain in the seventeenth century directly modified the long-established paths into aristocracy. A new door into a previously closed circle was opened. On the one hand, the Crown started to sell noble titles to defray expenses; on the other, many noble families that had gone down in the world were marrying their children to the new emerging wealthy bourgeoisie. The average nouveau riche was, after all, still a commoner with diminished rights, so he was no threat to the established order. In contrast, new nobles meant an immediate danger for the old aristocracy. In an attempt to preserve their superiority, the old aristocrats rested their claims of uniqueness on the ancestral lineage of medieval warriors (something that could not be bought). At the same time, they continued to scorn money, because it eroded the distinction between castes. In Moreto’s play, Carlos represents the type of nobility that cannot be purchased. Even though he had been disposed of his wealth and title, he still has the noble virtues. He is a true nobleman who cannot be corrupted by possessions, because he sees no value in them, while both the Duke (who literally bribed his way into the nobility) and his favorite, Enrique (who was probably perceived by the audience as valido), deem gold is the source of nobility and courage. ENRIQUE: ¿El oro no os da codicia, el oro que honra el valor y la nobleza acredita? CARLOS: ¿Cómo puede acreditar una cosa tan indigna que por medios viles puede de cualquier ser adquirida? (379) Despite their attitude towards money, Enrique and the Duke are members of the old aristocracy and thus they can be redeemed at the end of the play. Nevertheless, until that happens, they represent a view of the world that values capital over blood lineage and justice. The Duke cannot manage to entice Carlos with wealth to leave his calm existence. For a while, the Duke and the audience have the feeling that Carlos will never be interested in fighting for his legitimate rights. However, when the Duke mentions the topic of war, Carlos undergoes an immediate transformation. The previously tranquil man becomes passionately violent when the Duke suggests that he values “más la quietud que la guerra” (383). Carlos had no problem being relegated to a small town in the mountains, but his ancestral military instinct cannot put up with being called a coward. This ancestral instinct, passed down through generations of warriors, arouses in him a desire for battle and subsequently kindles his desire to recover the throne. The Duke realizes that Carlos is a brave man who has something he cannot fight against, the right to the throne by blood, and thus decides to imprison him. Carlos cannot understand why he is taken into prison and asks for an explanation. CARLOS: ¿Pues yo, qué ocasión he dado, gran señor, que así te irritas? ENRIQUE: No es poca, Carlos, pues cuando con la ventura os convida Su Alteza, vos, desatento, dais motivo a que se diga que de vuestros ascendientes ajáis la nobleza antigua obscureciendo entre peñas tanta estirpe esclarecida. Vase MARGARITA: Y con razón, pues quien nace como vos por sí se obliga a mayores vencimientos, pues supone cobardía quien no intenta empresas altas. (385) The words of Enrique and Margarita make Carlos realize that he is in fact betraying his lineage and being a coward for not reclaiming his rightful position in the world. Carlos immediately and in secret decides that this is the time to take action and plans to ask his cousin, the Duke of Milan, for military support. In Spain, the traditional aristocracy linked its claims of superiority to a lineage of medieval heroes who had obtained power and wealth on a holy war against Muslims. They were the ones who returned Spain to its rightful owners, the Christians. Thus, the caste system was conceived as a natural order sanctioned by God. In La misma conciencia acusa, Carlos is also fighting a tyrant to reinstate the natural order through war, which is why when he decides to start a campaign, he justifies his actions by showing that he is fulfilling the responsibility of his caste. He is not fighting because he has the desire to be powerful, but because fighting for justice is his duty, as it was the duty of his ancestors. ¿No soy yo dueño absoluto de Parma? ¿No lo publica mi razón? Pues, ¿cómo sufro de un tirano esta injusticia? ¿Así de mis ascendientes vengo la ilustre ceniza de tanto laurel augusto que el duro bronce eterniza? ¡Vuelva la lisonja verde a enlazar mi frente altiva! (387) Although the Spanish nobility had long ago stopped being a mostly military group and the king was not leading the army in the battlefield, in the political theater, noblemen and king-like figures were still warriors. Before his imprisonment, Carlos manages to send a letter to his cousin the Duke of Milan asking for military support. Soon after, the Duke of Milan starts marching towards Parma and the Duke of Parma realizes things are much more complicated that he thought because Carlos tiene sobrado valor para arrojarse al empeño de quitarme la corona; lo más de Parma blasona que es su legítimo dueño. Si sus parciales le ven, él es discreto, prudente, sagaz, osado y valiente, y si supiesen también que el de Milán, por mi estado, entra ahora en su favor, no fuera en vano el temor. (392) The Duke of Parma cannot stand the possibility of being confronted by the weapons of the lawful heir (bravery, justice, and war). The Duke of Parma sends his own daughter, Margarita, to interview Carlos in an attempt to get information about the army from Milan. Of course, as expected, Margarita had previously fallen in love with Carlos and she is more than willing to help him escape. She even proposes to her father a peaceful solution to the conflict: she can marry Carlos, but the tyrant has other plans. The Duke of Parma lacks any military instincts so, instead of leading his troops to defend Parma from an imminent invasion, the first idea he has is to resort to trickery. He promises Enrique the hand of Margarita, and thus the crown of Parma, in exchange for murdering Carlos. He also plans to appease the Duke of Milan by acceding to his request to liberate Carlos, but what the Duke of Milan does not know is that the Duke of Parma plans to kill Carlos before letting him out his cell. In La misma conciencia acusa there is a marked difference between the good governors, Carlos and the Duke of Milan, who personally fight for what is right, and the bad governor, the Duke of Parma, who delegates all actions to Enrique and does not participate in military endeavors. The Duke of Parma never acts himself, rather sends Enrique, his valido-like confidante, to resolve matters for him. This delegation of power is seen as a negative trait and responds to a general worry of its time. The Habsburgs, after the death of Philip II, had abandoned their ruling duties to the hands of validos, but, as Antonio Carreño Rodríguez explains: “Era el deseo general de la época el que los reyes ejercieran personalmente el gobierno, no delegando el poder en validos” (3). Writers lampooned the royal favorites and insisted that it was the king’s divine duty to exercise power. As the play advances, the Duke becomes more and more isolated while the rest of the characters help Carlos. Tirso, Carlos’ servant, is the first one to attempt to free his master. Tirso, who is elected mayor, becomes the voice of the faithful subjects of the crown who want to be governed by their legitimate lord. He tries to use his authority to make the Duke free Carlos, but without much success, for it will be the role of a nobleman, and not a peasant, to restore order. Tirso’s greatest threat is to kill a few of the Duke’s pigs. However, Enrique, Carlos, the Duke of Milan, and Margarita play a more crucial role in the restoration of the dynasty. Margarita, dressed up as a man, helps Carlos get out of prison and gives him a horse to escape. Carlos, to not raise any suspicions, leaves Tirso in his bed and heads to the military camp of the Duke of Milan. Enrique cannot bring himself to kill the rightful heir and, instead of poisoning Carlos’ food as ordered by the Duke of Parma, he just adds a somniferous substance. The scene takes place in the dark, so Enrique does not realize that it is Tirso, and not Enrique, who is eating the food. After Tirso falls asleep, Enrique wraps the body in a Santiago habit and sends him inside a coffin to the Duke of Milan. The third act of La misma conciencia acusa takes place in a military environment. Carlos arrives at the camp of his cousin the Duke of Milan and nighttime and, taking advantage of the fact that they have not seeing each other since childhood, he hides his identity. To the surprise of everyone in the camp, a group of people arrive bringing a coffin that supposedly carries the dead body of Carlos arrives. When the Duke of Milan learns that his cousin is dead, he conjectures that the Duke of Parma has assassinated Carlos. It is only then, after the murder of the rightful heir, that the Duke of Milan contemplates killing the Duke of Parma and destroying his duchy. Eventually, the Duke of Milan discovers that the person inside the coffin is not his cousin, but some rustic man. He believes that the Duke of Parma is making fun of him, and as a result he feels humiliated and wants revenge. The Duke of Milan, like Carlos, is an exemplary ruler of noble blood and, as such, he is the one to personally lead his troops into battle. Carlos joins his cousin’s army without revealing his identity and together they scale the walls of Parma. As soon as he enters the city, he challenges Enrique to a duel for the love of Margarita. As expected, the duel does not actually take place, because in the first movement Enrique trips, Carlos helps him, and Enrique refuses to fight with a man that has just saved his life by not taking advantage of his fall. Immediately after, Enrique assures Carlos that he does not want to marry Margarita but Estela, and that he is willing to help Carlos gain the throne and the right to Margarita’s hand. While the assault of Parma continues, the people of Parma rebel asking for Estela to take the power. They are now sure that the Duke of Parma is not the true heir and they believe he has killed Carlos. The Duke of Parma is in a very difficult position, but he neither fights nor listens to his people, instead he puts Estela in prison and accelerates the wedding of Enrique and Margarita. Enrique and Carlos confront the Duke of Parma, but they do not attempt to kill him or hurt him in anyway (after all, he is the king figure and regicide is not an option). On the contrary, Enrique urges the Duke to protect his life from the rage of the revels and the army of Milan. In the last scene of the play, the Duke of Milan arrives threatening to burn Parma, but the Duke of Parma kneels down in front of him accepting his defeat but not his sin, as he blames his vassals and not himself for the turmoil: Ya aquí no hay otro remedio, pues me miras a tus plantas por traición de mis vasallos, esto por triunfo te basta. (460-61) The Duke of Milan hurries to rectified that the only traitor there has been the Duke of Parma, an not the people: La traición ha sido tuya, que esta corona usurpabas a mi primo. (461) The play ends with the announcement of the marriages of Carlos with Margarita and Enrique with Estela, followed by the naming of Carlos as Duke of Parma. The ideology of La misma conciencia acusa belongs to the kind that the Marxists would label a “bad ideology.” First of all, it is the type of ideology that does not present itself as such, but as a natural state of things. Secondly it is an ideology that is accepted and supported by the people it oppresses. The lower castes (represented by Tirso, the soldiers of Milan, and the people of Parma) never question the absolute power of the monarch; in fact, they fight for the recognition of the right heir because they want to make sure that the caste system that relegates them to an infamous position is not disturbed by a Duke who is not the legitimate heir. As Cascardi explains: if the comedia can be seen to enact a conflict between tradition and modernity, old and new, caste and class, this is accomplished in such a way that the pressures of the modern are consistently masked; the fundamental conservatism of the genre acquires all the force of an ideology that is welcomed by the masses and willingly taken on by them isofar as they are able to imagine their desire for social recognition satisfied. (30) The political and social stands taken by La misma conciencia acusa are not dissimilar to those of the two most famous political plays of the Early Modern period: Fuenteovejuna and La vida es sueño. In all three cases, the supported ideology (strong monarchy and castes) is seen as natural. The characters representing what Cascardi calls the new order (the Comendador in Fuenteovejuna, Basilio in La vida es sueño, and the Duke of Parma in La misma conciencia acusa) are just tyrants who are abusing their power and damaging the only possible political form: a strong monarchy based on blood linage. They lack a specific ideology, because they are not promoting any different way of government or a new social structure. Playwrights eliminated from their plays the conflict that existed in their time by pretending new and different ideas about society and government did not exist: “Indeed, the role of some of the most powerful ‘ideologies of history’ at work in the Golden Age was to produce imaginary worlds in which historical conflict is itself eliminated” (Cascardi 2). The Comendador, Basilio, and the Duke of Parma do not have any new ideas or principles, they just have moral sins. They are not capitalist, individualist, and promoters of social equality, but avaricious, unable to control their passions, and a danger to social peace. Neither are they governors who prefer diplomatic negotiation to war, but cowards unfit for battle. In order to completely eliminate any impression of a historical movement from one system to the next, the representatives of the traditional order are always young characters (acted out by a galán, a the young leading actor), while the tyrants are old men (acted out by a barba, the mature actor that also played the parts of fathers). Going back to the examples provided before we can see that Carlos, Segismundo, and Rodrigo Téllez are younger than their antagonists the Duke, Basilio, and the Comendador. By negating the reality of an alternative ideology, playwrights assure that traditionalism cannot be conceived as an obstacle to progress. While authors try to mask the possibility of a different social or political system, sometimes the instability they attempt to hide nevertheless reveals itself between the cracks. Regardless of whether it was their original intention or not, plays do not always give a clear image of perfect government and society. Their defense of absolutism and caste system can be problematic because authors are unable (or unwilling) to eliminate the inherited contradictions of the ideology they promote. We can no longer sustain the idea that theater, as Maravall thought, was just a tool of propaganda in the service of absolutism and the aristocracy. Jodi Campbell provides two main reasons for why we cannot interpret the comedia as the unified voice for the defense of traditional aristocratic values. First of all, we do have objective historical data that proves authorities were worried about the negative political images portrayed by theater. As Campbell explains: “The fact that the public comedia was something that the government under Olivares and thereafter increasingly attempted to restrain rather than promote indicates that the monarchy did not expect theater’s voice to be particularly agreeable to its designs” (65). To this we should add that the strict control that censors exercised over the plays and the fact that some controversial plays, like Lopes El castigo sin venganza, were withdrawn from the stages after one single performance, prove the authorities saw danger in some plays. The second reason proposed by Campbell is that “[a]lthough virtually everyone, from peasants to political theorists, accepted monarchy as an appropriate and even unquestioned form of government in early modern Europe, the actual nature of Kingship was a much-debated topic in seventeenth-century Spain” (65). I am not implying that the comedia was a genre that openly challenged the status quo. Rather, what I mean to say is that certain plays find the space to dramatize the instability and problems of that status quo. Even if characters like Carlos and the order they represent are presented as the solution to all troubles, it is often obvious that they are not the panacea they are supposed to be. Often, the happy endings of the comedia leave many questions unresolved. Plays are a reflection and embodiment of the insecurities of the time in which they were produced. The early modern period was a time of conflicting ideologies about the role and the nature of the monarchy that stretched out from theories as diverse as those of Jean Bodin and Juan de Mariana. Some key questions were being debated and there were contradictory answers to these questions. Did the king’s power derive directly from god or from the subjects? Did the king have obligations towards the subjects? Could people held the king responsible for his acts? What was, if any, the right way of dealing with tyrants? Where was the limit between individual principals and social responsibility? What came first, morality or civil duty? The comedia found itself in the middle of all these controversies even if it was often unable to find answers. Therefore, many plays, particularly those that dealt with political and social tensions, such as La misma conciencia acusa, intentionally or unintentionally, reflected the weaknesses of the political and social ideologies that they expected to support. Pretending to interpret a play as having a uniform political agenda means underestimating its ability to include diverse and often contradicting messages. La misma conciencia acusa, while presenting a defense of the old order, includes several scenes that reveal the weaknesses of that order. The may have a play has a happy ending (Carlos is restored to the throne, everyone marries who they love and no one dies) but this ending is the result of good luck; things could have ended in a very different way. It becomes obvious that the political, economic and social structures have many weaknesses and lack the tools to resolve a crisis. Nevertheless, each time a flaw of the system is revealed, Moreto opts for ignoring the problem, not directly dealing with the conundrum. The first unresolved issue is how to deal with a tyrant. The play closes with the triumph of the legitimate heir over the tyrant. In the last scene of the drama the Duke of Parma voluntarily resigns, but what if he had not? Should have Carlos killed the Duke? Tyranny was a topic of debate all across Europe in political, philosophical, and moral treaties as well as in literature, but the case of Spain was somehow peculiar. Unlike in the rest of Europe, Spanish writers had a generalized agreement on the issue, they opposed to regicide based on the same moral grounds argued to reject Machiavelli’s theories. In addition to this, during the Early Modern period, Spain was the only European nation without completed (or even attempted) regicide. Thus, it is not surprising that in the comedia, the cases of consummated tyrannicide were extremely rare. What we encounter more generally are pieces in which the tyrant is overruled without direct violence. This is exactly what happens in La misma conciencia acusa because, although everyone wants to dethrone the Duke of Parma, no one attempts nor even plots a murder. It is true that once the Duke of Milan threatens to burn Parma and everyone inside, but that seams to be only momentary anger, when the time comes and he attacks Parma he does not set the city on fire nor he attempts to kill the Duke of Parma. There is a war, but no one confronts the Duke of Parma. In fact, Carlos is a suitable candidate for the throne particularly because he was not a violent insurgent against his master. Carlos never participates in the war against the Duke and none of his men become part of the army that attacks Parma. Carlos hides among the Milan’s army and he enters Parma taking advantage of the disorder of the siege, but he never holds a weapon against neither the Duke nor any of his men. The only time when he is ready to kill someone is in the duel with Enrique, a duel for love. Moreto treats the question of popular revolt in the same way he deals with regicide. In both cases, the actual violent attack does not take place, because the problem is resolved before violence becomes necessary. Nevertheless, once again it is noticeable that there is no feasible legal way of dealing with a tyrant and that having a king with absolute power that requires blind obedience creates room for abuse. During the third act there is an incipient popular revolt against the Duke that is ratified by the positive characters (Enrique, Carlos, Margarita) as legitimate. This revolt never crystallizes in real violence or a threat, but do its existence and the ratification of the three noblemen imply that it could be legitimate or necessary for the people to upraise against their master? The other controversial topic regarding the nature of monarchy that remains unresolved is the separation of the king’s public responsibilities and his private preferences. Can a king indulge in private affaires? Can someone hold a king accountable for not fulfilling his duties? Carlos is a potentially perfect king-like figure, but he places his love for Margarita before his duty as heir. For example, while in the camp of Duke of Milan, Carlos learns that his beloved Margarita is betrothed to Enrique and decides that securing the love of Margarita must take priority over the quest for throne: “que no quiero la corona / si esta ventura no alcanzo” (435). As in the other cases, at the end, nothing happens because the quandary disappears before any drastic decision needs to be made. Carlos is able to both marry his beloved and become duke, but it is obvious that there is room for trouble when a monarch is more interested in his personal life than his public duty. Had he been a negative character, his passion would have become an obstacle for his duty, but in this case his love actually helps him achieve the crown. It is only because he is the hero of the comedy that his personal interests and social obligations align, but the Spaniards of the time knew that in the real world that was not always the truth. For decades, the monarchs had spent more energy hunting animals and chasing women than governing their kingdom. In the case of Carlos, his love for Margarita happens to be a positive step towards the overruling of the tyrant, but his words seem to imply that, had he to choose, he would have been willing to decline his legitimate right to the crown to get the woman he loves. Once again, Moreto comes across an unresolved debate and he avoids taking any stands. What if Margarita had actually married Enrique? Would have Carlos avoided his responsibility? Is a king always expected to relegate his desires in favor of the state? What happens if he does not? These were hard questions in the historical environment of the seventeenth-century, when the Spanish monarchs were clearly more invested in hunting, going to parties, and having affairs than in governing the nation. These questions could not be answered without crossing the line of what is acceptable to say; accordingly, Moreto does not even ask them. The situation is ignored, but it is a clear sign of the instability of the traditionalist ideology that the plays otherwise want to champion. Even a play like this, that is openly supporting a traditional monarchy, reveals the potential tribulations derived from the human nature of the king. At the duel with Enrique, Carlos shows once again to be an impulsive young fellow who uses the attack of Parma for his own personal interest. While the soldiers of Milan are giving their lives for Carlos’ sake, he is challenging Enrique to a duel for jealousy. Later on, even after Carlos gets Enrique’s assurance that he does not want to marry Margarita, he goes in search of Margarita, trying to resolve his love life instead of participating in the fight that is taking place. Quite interestingly, at the end of the play, Carlos resolves his love life before becoming duke, in fact he does explicitly ask for the hand of Estela, but not for the crown of Parma. La misma conciencia acusa is a play that openly defends absolutism and the cast system, but it fails to hide (or maybe intentionally shows) their weaknesses. The story of Carlos’ happy recovery of the throne is not just a hypothetical fiction that happens in a far away land. It was a piece composed to be represented in the Palace and it praises all those values the courtesan audience would want to see praised, but at the turbulent time in which it was written (around 1648-52) the almost impossible happy resolution of the conflict must have appeared to many as mere wishful thinking.  Works Cited Campbell, Jodi. Monarchy, Political Culture, and Drama in Seventeenth-Century Madrid; Theater of Negotiation. Hampshire: Ashgate, 2006. Print. Carreño-Rodríguez, Antonio. Alegorías del poder; crisis imperial y comedia nueva (1598- 1659). Woodbridge: Tamesis, 2009. Print. Cascardi, Anthony. Ideologies of History in the Spanish Golden Age. University Park: Pennsylvania State UP, 1997. Print. Manrique, Jorge. Coplas a la muerte de su padre. Madrid: Castalia, 1983. Print. Moreto, Agustín. La misma conciencia acusa. Ed. Elena Di Pinto and Tania de Miguel Magro. Primera parte de comedias, II. Comp. Judith Farré Vidal. Kassel: Reichenberger, 2010. 331-502. Print. [i] “me gane” here does not have the sense of ‘defeats me’ but of ‘makes me win.’