Catherine O'Leary - The Theatre of Antonio Buero Vallejo - Ideology, Politics and Censorship (Monografias A) (2005)

Mono213_FM.
qxd 3/8/05 5:53 PM Page i
Colección Támesis
SERIE A: MONOGRAFÍAS, 213
THE THEATRE OF ANTONIO

BUERO VALLEJO
IDEOLOGY, POLITICS AND CENSORSHIP
This monograph examines the complex relationship between Antonio

Buero Vallejo (1916–2000) and the ideologies of Francoist and post-
Franco Spain. The central focus of the study is Buero’s political theatre
and his employment of myth and history to challenge the notion of an
España eterna. It also considers Buero’s creation of his own myths and
his revision of history in order to rationalize and justify his own stance.
Censorship, both official and environmental, was the principal point
of contact between writer and regime. The decisions made by Buero
Vallejo in his determination to write and stage committed drama in a
repressive society are evaluated here. Rejecting the more provocative
stance of some other committed dramatists, as well as the position of
those who resolved to ignore the political and social reality, Buero’s
choice, with its inherent contradictions and ambiguities, was posibil-
ismo. This book looks at his pragmatic employment of language and
silence, both in his art and in his dealings with the censors and with other
representatives of the hegemony and analyses how posibilismo both
aided and limited him.
The monograph also gives an account of Buero’s post-Franco theatre,
which to date has not received the attention that it merits. It examines the
reasons for its initial negative reception and its renewed importance in
today’s Spain. Buero’s post-Franco insistence on rejecting the pacto de
olvido is perhaps more relevant now than ever before.
CATHERINE O’LEARY lectures in Spanish at the National University
of Ireland, Maynooth.
Mono213_FM.qxd 3/8/05 5:53 PM Page ii
Mono213_FM.qxd 3/8/05 5:53 PM Page iii
THE THEATRE OF ANTONIO

BUERO VALLEJO
IDEOLOGY, POLITICS AND
CENSORSHIP
Catherine O’Leary
TAMESIS
Mono213_FM.qxd 3/8/05 5:53 PM Page iv
© Catherine O’Leary 2005
The right of Catherine O’Leary to be identified as

the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with
sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
All Rights Reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation

no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system,
published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast,
transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission of the copyright owner
First published 2005 by Tamesis, Woodbridge
ISBN 1 85566 111 X
Tamesis is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd

PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF, UK
and of Boydell & Brewer Inc.
668 Mt. Hope Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620, USA
website: www.boydellandbrewer.com
A CIP catalogue record for this book is available

from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
O’Leary, Catherine, 1971-

The theatre of Antonio Buero Vallejo : ideology, politics and censorship / Catherine O’Leary.
p. cm. – (Colección Támesis. Serie A, Monografías ; v. 213)
Summary: “This monograph examines the complex relationship between Antonio Buero
Vallejo (1916–2000) and the ideologies of Francoist and post-Franco Spain”–Provided by
publisher.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 1-85566-111-X (hardback : alk. paper)
1. Buero Vallejo, Antonio, 1916—Criticism and interpretation. 2. Buero Vallejo, Antonio,
1916—Political and social views. 3. Censorship–Spain–History–20th century. I. Title.
PQ6603.U4Z825 2005
862⬘.64–dc22
2005003446
This publication is printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Great Britain by

St Edmundsbury Press Limited, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
Mono213_FM.qxd 3/8/05 5:53 PM Page v
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements vii
Introduction 1
1 The Ideology of Francoism 5
2 Language and Silence 51
3 Buero Vallejo and Theatre Censorship 68
4 Posibilismo 112
5 History, Myth and Demythification 140
6 Ideology in Buero Vallejo’s Theatre 172
7 Theatre and the Transition to Democracy 200
8 The Post-Franco Theatre of Buero Vallejo 221
Conclusion 249
List of Plays 259

List of Appendices 261
Bibliography 299
Index 318
Mono213_FM.qxd 3/8/05 5:53 PM Page vi
Mono213_FM.qxd 3/8/05 5:53 PM Page vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am indebted to Dr Philip Johnston (University College, Dublin) and Prof.

Victor Dixon (Trinity College, Dublin) for their support, advice and encourage-
ment in the completion of this book. Thanks are also due to many other people
who helped me. In particular, I wish to thank Dr Catherine Leen and Mr Denis
O’Leary for reading drafts of the book, Ms Ana Vargas for proofreading the
Spanish language sections, and Ms Sinéad Conlan for her help in the preparation
of the manuscript.
I would like to thank the Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, Archivo
General de la Administración (Alcalá de Henares) for permission to reproduce
documents from the censorship archives, and the Archive staff for their efficiency
and help; D. Moisés Pérez Coterillo, Director of the Centro de Documentación
Teatral of INAEM, and Ms Maureen Fynn, Theatre Secretary at the Chester
Gateway Theatre, who were kind enough to send me information in response to
my queries. My thanks are also due to my colleagues at the National University
of Ireland, Maynooth.
I am grateful to the Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (with An
Roinn Oideachais) for the funding that enabled me to travel to Spain in 1998–99
to undertake the research on which this book is based. I would like to acknow-
ledge the financial assistance that I received from the Publications Committee of
the National University of Ireland and from the Department of Spanish, NUI
Maynooth. I would also like to thank Ms Ellie Ferguson of Tamesis Books for
her skilful guidance in the preparation of this book.
Finally, a special word of gratitude is due to my family and friends for their
generosity, understanding and unfailing encouragement.
Parts of Chapters 1 and 8 appeared in different versions in Teatro: Revista de
Estudios Teatrales, 19 (December 2003) and in Cultural Memory: Essays on
European Literature and History, ed. by Edric Caldicott and Anne Fuchs (Bern:
Peter Lang, 2003).
Mono213_FM.qxd 3/8/05 5:53 PM Page viii
Mono213_Intro.qxd 3/8/05 9:26 AM Page 1
Introduction
Ofendería, insultaría a los conocimientos y a la inteligencia de ustedes si

dijera que, para lograr grandes obras de creación, hay que trabajar en
libertad total. Pues todos sabemos que bajo las peores situaciones – antes me
lo he permitido recordar – también se han dado creaciones extraordinarias.
Y así sucedió también, sin libertad, en la anterior situación española.1
Antonio Buero Vallejo, who died on 28 April 2000, was the most important
Spanish dramatist of the post-Civil War period. In his long career as a play-
wright, Buero published thirty original plays. Only three of these have never
been performed.2 This book focuses on the committed dramas and therefore has
little to say about certain plays such as El terror inmóvil, La señal que se espera
(1952), Madrugada (1953), Hoy es fiesta (1955), Irene, o el tesoro (1954) and
Una extraña armonía, which do not deal with the themes of history, myth
and ideology and contain only very limited social comment. It concentrates
instead on an analysis of the more political dramas as the basis for an investi-
gation of Buero’s engagement with the ideologies of Francoism and of post-
Franco Spain.
Despite his Republican allegiances, Buero Vallejo was the most commercially
successful dramatist of the Franco era. In the 1950s, Buero was hailed as the
saviour of the Spanish theatre and praised for the social realism of his work and
for his exposé of the tragedy of a divided Spain. He was condemned by others,
however, particularly as his success and reputation grew, for what was seen as
his capitulation to the pressures of censorship and finally for coming to form a
part of the Francoist Establishment, lending his prestige to the regime by accept-
ing its honours. Thus his dedication to social drama and his opposition to the
regime were brought into question. Yet, while he was at times damned for his
silences by some of his contemporaries, so too was he denounced for his words
by Franco’s censors.
1 Antonio Buero Vallejo, Obra Completa, ed. by Luis Iglesias Feijoo and Mariano de Paco,
Clásicos Castellanos Nueva Serie, 2 vols (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1994), II, 497–8. Further
references to these volumes are given after quotations in the text.
2 El terror inmóvil (1949), Una extraña armonía (1956) and Mito (1967). Both Mito and
Un extraña armonía were authorized for staging by the censorship authorities but, according
to the Obra Completa, have never been staged. All of the dates given for the plays refer to the
date of composition.
2 CATHERINE O’LEARY
It is difficult to refute Alfonso Sastre’s assertion that Buero was operating from
within the Francoist system.3 Buero did choose to remain and work in Spain, and
to adopt an attitude of compromise and posibilismo in his work and in his dealings
with the regime. The question of whether this made Bueros a pluma prostituida,
as was suggested by some of his detractors, is addressed here. This book explores
the degree of compromise inherent in his stance, considers his social commitment
and investigates the contradictions evident in his relationship with Franco’s repres-
sive regime. Buero was neither radical nor evasionist, and his rebellion, in so far
as it existed, often appeared to be more a moral than a political one. This study
shows that, throughout his career, Buero used his theatre to defend his chosen
stance against his many critics. Furthermore, it argues that the portraits of artists
and intellectuals in his dramatic works are an attempt to justify and rationalize his
peculiar position as the occasionally acceptable face of criticism: the critic within
the system.
Buero’s relationship with Francoism and its ideology was dominated by words
and silences, which were carefully chosen. He is an important dramatist both for
what he said and for what he failed to say about the society in which he lived
and worked. For Buero, the choice was always one of silence or protest, yet he
was criticized for failing to speak out in support of others, for the limited nature
of his dissent, and, paradoxically, for daring to say too much.
The historical link between literature and ideology is evaluated, particularly
with regard to the theatre, and the perceived threat posed by literature is identi-
fied. This book agrees with Eagleton’s claim:
Language, that most innocent and spontaneous of common currencies, is in

reality a terrain scarred, fissured and divided by the cataclysms of political
history, strewn with the relics of imperialist, nationalist, regionalist and class
combat. [. . .] Literature is an agent as well as effect of such struggles.4
The regime’s concern with language, designed to convince others of its authority
and to rationalize its dominant position, was allied to a determination to control the
language used by others. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the regime legislated
for silence also, by introducing measures to censor critical commentaries and to
eliminate the voice of dissent. Censorship, of course, is the main point of contact
between the writer and the dominant societal ideology. Buero defined it as:
un arma del poder político que pretende manipular y restringir la información

pública, así como ahormar el derecho de expresión y las actividades culturales
3 In an article critical of Buero Vallejo, Sastre defined the former’s posture thus: ‘Es preciso
hacer un teatro posible en España, aunque para ello sea preciso realizar ciertos sacrificios que
se derivan de la necesidad de acomodarse de algún modo a la estructura de las dificultades
que se oponen a nuestro trabajo.’ ‘Teatro imposible y pacto social’, Primer Acto, no. 14 (1960),
1–2 (p. 1).
4 Terry Eagleton, Criticism and Ideology. A Study in Marxist Literary Theory (London:
Verso, 1998), pp. 54, 55.

INTRODUCTION 3
en los marcos ideológicos oficiales. Todo ello la define como un arma contra
la libertad del hombre.5
Buero recognized the power of language and its influence and sought to outwit
the censors and propagandists at language manipulation. His achievement was to
manipulate language in order to create a counter-mythology that directly contra-
dicted that of the administration. However, Buero’s employment of the device of
posibilismo to do this left him open to charges of collaboration with the system
or, at the very least, of self-censorship. This book thus explores the ambiguity of
his position as one who would be at once critical of and acceptable to the regime.
Buero Vallejo’s theatre, while mild in comparison to some other theatre of oppos-
ition, was calculated to be so and was successful as a result. Nonetheless, the
question then arises whether Buero was limited by his own values and beliefs
and by the parameters laid down by the regime, which he usually accepted. In
his dramatic works, Buero defined the role of the artist as both a moral and a
political one; this book compares his words with his actions. In addition, it asks
whether writers such as Buero Vallejo were engaged in a type of self-induced
bewilderment or self-deception, by their determination to believe that they were
really challenging the regime to the best of their ability by remaining in Spain.
While the censorship of Buero’s work and the silencing of his views in public
are evidence of the regime’s mistrust of him and of an awareness of the influence
of his words, his career as a dramatist under Franco was very successful. This
raises the question of why he was not censored more. After all, many of his
contemporaries and later dramatists, who were not as clearly identified with
Republicanism as Buero was, were more heavily censored.6 Hence this study
explores whether his successes were owing to the subtlety and intelligence of his
argument and method, the failings of the censors and the censorship legislation or
some other cause.
Also analysed are Buero’s attempts to subvert official history and to demystify
the regime’s presentation of itself and what Raymond Williams termed, ‘a sense of
predisposed continuity’.7 The analysis is extended to show how Buero’s historical
5 Quoted in Antonio Beneyto, Censura y política en los escritores españoles (Barcelona:
Plaza y Janes, 1979), p. 21. On p. 11 of the same book, Beneyto says of censorship: ‘No cabe
duda que la censura es el medio represivo de que disponen los gobiernos débiles de todo
el mundo para despersonalizar a la población y convertirla en una masa uniforme, compacta,
produciendo en ella una parálisis política, social, cultural, etc. [. . .] o sea, que el pueblo se
encuentra ante tal actitud en la obligación de pensar lo que el Gobierno le impone.’
6 Buero Vallejo was active on the Republican side in the Civil War. In an episode that
demonstrates both the brutality of the victors and their manipulation of language, Buero
was initially sentenced to death in the aftermath of the war for his ‘adhesión a la rebelión’.
Luciano García Lorenzo, ‘Reportaje biográfico’, Luciano García Lorenzo and others, Antonio
Buero Vallejo: Premio ‘Miguel de Cervantes’ 1986, Ámbitos literarios/Premios Cervantes, 12
(Barcelona: Anthropos-Ministerio de Cultura, 1987), pp. 13–35 (p. 18).
7 Raymond Williams, Marxism and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977),
p. 116.
and mythical dramas challenge the notion of fate and instead stress history as
progression. The study then moves on to question Buero’s own motivated use of
history and myth and his controversial portraits of certain historical figures.
The transition period is examined as a time of ideological crisis, and the dis-
mantling of the elements that had previously supported the dominant ideology is
reviewed. It was a period when old myths were deliberately forgotten and new
ones created. This led to a determination to forget the past and to embrace the
pacto de olvido, which was to be the focus of Buero’s post-Franco theatre.
Buero wrote some of his most important political work in the post-Franco
period and took a moralistic stance on accountability and remembering. However,
these works display a disillusionment and pessimism not in evidence in his earlier
dramas. Finally, the book explores the choices made by the dramatist when at last
free to speak clearly and assesses the claim that ‘contra Franco escribía mejor’.
In his depictions of past and present, Buero once again raised questions of a pluma
prostituida and the contradictory nature of his relationship both to the Francoist
ideology and to modern democratic Spain.
Mono213_Ch01.qxd 3/8/05 9:13 AM Page 5
1
The Ideology of Francoism
Truth and Distortion

There is no agreed definition of the Francoist ideology. It was more than simple
illusion or false consciousness, and it did not merely falsify reality to reflect the
values of the dominant group. It was more than symbol and myth; it contained
lived elements in the discourse between politics and society.1 It was also the
signs and values infused with certain motivated meanings in this discourse.
It necessarily comprised both truth and myth. The presence of myth was the
inevitable result of manipulating particular, often commonly held, values in an
attempt to legitimate or rationalize certain self-serving political actions; the
truth it contained was the reason many gave their consent to the preservation of
the status quo.
The essential distortion of the Francoist ideology was that it claimed to
reflect, rather than dictate, societal values. The regime did not merely impose
unwanted values by force, as this would have led to greater resistance; rather it
encompassed certain societal values, for example those of Roman Catholicism,
in a larger, ruling ideology, often falsifying them to suit its needs in the process.
It also traded on populist views of national identity. Under Franco, the dom-
inant ideology contained elements of many alternative and residual practices,
such as monarchism, theocracy and fascism. By amalgamating the Falange
and other factions into the Movimiento, Franco not only reduced the power
of each individual faction, but could also claim to reflect the values and iden-
tities of many differing groups in Spanish society. Moreover, Franco realized
that by controlling or influencing what Althusser termed the ‘ideological state
apparatuses’, the ruling elite could influence and shape the values, choices and
1 In this sense it is similar to Raymond Williams’s definition of hegemony: ‘It is a lived
system of meanings and values – constitutive and constituting – which as they are
experienced as practices appear as reciprocally confirming. It thus constitutes a sense of
reality for most people in the society, a sense of absolute because experienced reality beyond
which it is very difficult for most members of the society to move, in most areas of their lives.
[. . .] It is a realized complex of experiences, relationships, and activities, with specific and
changing pressures and limits. [. . .] It does not just passively exist as a form of dominance.
It has continually to be renewed, recreated, defended, and modified. It is also continually
resisted, limited, altered, challenged by pressures not at all its own.’ Marxism and Literature,
pp. 110, 112.
lived reality of the populace.2 The desire for longevity and the perpetuation
of the social order was a preoccupation of Franco’s, as is evident from his
determination to choose his successor and to inculcate in him the ideology of
the new regime.
In his essay on ideology and the state, Althusser stressed the crucial role of
state institutions in the maintenance of a dominant ideology. Through these
state institutions the populace is taught know-how compatible with the ruling
ideology. The different social groups or classes were educated to be contented
with their positions in the order of society and not to question their subjuga-
tion to the dominant ideology. In order for the ideology of the ruling class to
take hold, it is thus necessary for the state institutions to become infused with
it. Althusser divided these institutions into the repressive state apparatuses,
such as the army, and the ideological state apparatuses, such as the media,
culture, the education system and the Church. While the former are primarily
concerned with the use of force, sanctions and threats in their support of
the dominant ideology, the latter collude with the controlling group in the
dissemination of the ruling ideology and the instruction of the masses of their
place within it. The state apparatus, which functions as a repressive force in
society, incorporates the government, the judiciary, the prison services, the
police and the army. In Francoist Spain, the Civil Guard and the armed police
were both under military control and were used to repel external sources
of threat, whether real or mythical, and also to maintain order in society by
warding off internal sources of threat. Throughout his dictatorship, Franco
employed these repressive forces to back up the dominant ideology and to
quash any perceived threat, such as that posed by the miners and students in
the late 1950s and the 1960s.
In order to succeed, it is clear that those in possession of state power must also
control the state apparatuses. If they do not, they are unlikely to retain hegemony
for long. During the Second Republic in Spain, the rulers did not always control
the state apparatuses, and thus did not have a firm grip on the power they were
democratically elected to wield. When the Nationalists took control after the
Civil War, they purged all of the state agencies of any opposition, thus ensuring
the conservation of the state power that they had seized. The control of the
repressive state apparatuses, while necessary, was not sufficient to ensure the sub-
jection of the populace to the new social order: for this, the so-called ideological
state apparatuses also had to be employed. The Franco regime was fortunate
to have the co-operation of the Roman Catholic Church, which had seen its role
diminished in Republican Spain. The ideology of the Roman Catholic Church
coincided with the Francoist ideology in many respects, and both the Church and
the regime took full advantage of this fact.
2 Louis Althusser, ‘Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses: Notes towards an
Investigation’, in Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, trans. by Ben Brewster (London:
NLB, 1971), pp. 121–73.
THE IDEOLOGY OF FRANCOISM 7
The appeal of the ideological state apparatuses is, of course, their capacity
for social control; they can be used to affirm the ruling ideology through ritual,
anthems and ceremonies. By justifying the distribution of economic and political
power, they allow the ruling group to maintain its dominant position, and they also
aid in coercion and eliciting consent. They help the governing elite to define the
boundaries within which individuals may exercise free will. Recognizing this,
the nascent regime quickly set about securing the control, or the collaboration, of
the ideological apparatuses. The outlawing of political parties and representative
trade unions meant that, in addition, the only ideology that could be legally
communicated was the ruling one.
The ruling group recognized that it had to command both the repressive
and the ideological state apparatuses in order to control both the public and the
private domains. The army, the police and the courts, while primarily repressive
forces, were also infused with the dominant ideology, which they defended
by force in the public domain. The Church, the schools, the media and the arts
operate in the private sphere and, although primarily ideological, also used sanc-
tions such as excommunication, expulsion and censorship. All were united by,
and under, the ruling ideology. Once the ruling elite controlled both the public
and private domains, it could define the role of the individual within each and
quell any attempt at self-definition or self-determination. The co-operation of the
ideological apparatuses ensured that even the private realm was permeated with
a politically driven ideology.
The regime’s laws reflected the Francoist ideology in an attempt to legitimate
the New State in the name of an ill-defined common good. The regime’s will-
ingness to impose sanctions can be seen in its legislation. In 1938, the Fuero del
trabajo abolished normal trade unions and the right to strike in the name of the
integrity of the Patria. Falangist influence was also evident in its determination
to return to the Spanish people ‘la Patria, el Pan y la Justicia’.3 A 1940 law cre-
ated the Tribunal Especial para la Represión de la Masonería y el Comunismo,
which blamed the Freemasons and Communists for Spain’s ills and was used to
justify the harsh repression of Republicans in the aftermath of the Civil War.
The Código Penal, introduced in December 1944, specified the severe material
sanctions for behaviour that contradicted or challenged the dominant ideology,
including reprisals for the communication of illegal propaganda. The Fuero de
los españoles, introduced in July 1945, strengthened the Church–state alliance
by establishing Roman Catholicism as the official state religion. Article 12 of
the Fuero, in keeping with the ruling ideology, gave the impression of free will,
which was nevertheless contradicted by the presence of censorship and other
repressive legislation. It stated: ‘Todo español podrá expresar libremente sus
3 This was the slogan of the national-syndicalist group, the Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-
Sindicalista (JONS), whose mythology was important in the Francoist ideology. It was
included in the preamble to the Fuero del trabajo. Quoted in Manuel Vázquez Montalbán,
Los demonios familiares de Franco. (Los tics obsesivos que configuraron la ‘ideología’
franquista), Colección Documentos (Barcelona: Planeta, 1987), p. 132.
ideas mientras no atente a los principios fundamentales del Estado.’4 Article 22

outlawed collective lobbying and article 35 stipulated that, if circumstances
demanded it, many of the citizens’ rights guaranteed in the Fuero could be sus-
pended. Finally, article 36 was a reminder that the freedoms laid down in the
Fuero would be defended and upheld by the repressive state apparatuses. The
regime also recognized early on the need to legislate for censorship in order to
influence how the ideology was propagated, by stipulating what could be printed
or viewed in schools, in the press, in literature, in cinemas and in theatres.
The regime claimed that the state was subordinate to, and reflective of, society,
while in fact the opposite was true. It is a myth examined by Antonio Buero
Vallejo in his theatre. He looked at the ideology of dominant groups and what
they offer to those they seek to subjugate, their mythology and also the sanctions
and threats they employ to uphold their dominant position. Buero depicted a
clergy lacking in compassion and purity in Las Meninas (1960), Un soñador
para un pueblo (1958) and Las palabras en la arena (1948). Moreover, in
El sueño de la razón (1969) he noted how true, well-intentioned Catholicism,
embodied in the character of Duaso, is misappropriated by the regime both for
political purposes and to exact revenge for injured vanity. The supposed unity of
the nation is exposed as a distortion in plays such as En la ardiente oscuridad
(1946), in which a false unity is shown to be maintained by fear and coercion.
The process of demonization of political opponents is examined in the dramas
of Buero, particularly in La doble historia del doctor Valmy (1964) and La
Fundación (1973). Earlier, in Las Meninas and Un soñador para un pueblo,
Buero showed how the well-intentioned actions of an individual are not only
misunderstood by some but also cynically misrepresented by others. The pro-
tection offered by political and military leaders is exposed in many of the plays
as a falsification of the reality of self-preservation and the interpretation of the
common good as personal interest.
The Role of the Ideological State Apparatuses

It is difficult to overstate the importance of the Roman Catholic Church as an
ideological state apparatus of the Franco regime. Not only did it have a signifi-
cant influence on the private life of many Spanish citizens but it also influenced
the state. In fact, such was the Church–state alliance in the early Franco years
that Spain was reminiscent of earlier theocratic states. The Civil War was pre-
sented as a type of Holy War against the infidels who defended a secular state.
In September 1936, a pastoral letter from Enrique Pla y Deniel, Bishop of
Salamanca, praised and defended the Nationalist rising as a Crusade; an earlier
pastoral letter from the Bishops of Pamplona and Vitoria had defined the rising
4 Román Gubern, La censura: función política y ordenamiento jurídico bajo el franquismo
(1936–1975) (Barcelona: Península, 1981), p. 82.

as a ‘movimiento “cívico–militar” en defensa de la religión’.5 In 1937, the

Spanish Primate, Cardinal Gomá y Tomás, drafted a letter, which was signed by
many members of the Spanish hierarchy and circulated internationally, in which
both the rising and the Nationalist State were vindicated. In keeping with this,
Franco was hailed as a defender of the faith. He enjoyed the support of the major-
ity of the Spanish hierarchy, with the noteworthy exception of Francesc Vidal i
Barraquer, Cardinal-Archbishop of Tarragona, who protested to the Pope about
the political stance of the Church in Spain. Cooper records that, as a result, he
was unacceptable in post-war Spain and did not return to his See in 1939.6 When
Cardinal Gomá himself called for forgiveness and social justice in a pastoral
letter in 1939, it was not circulated internationally; according to Preston, the
censorship authorities did not allow it to be published outside the archdiocese
of Toledo.7
September 1938 had seen the issue of some censorship guidelines from the
Nationalist Delegación del Estado. The first of these referred to the maintenance
of the idea of unity, and another insisted on the preservation of the dogma and
morals of Catholic teaching, although it did state that tolerance must be extended
to the Protestant and Muslim religions. However, in June 1939, this tolerance of
other religions was deemed to have been forfeited because of Protestant support
for the Popular Front. Later, article 6 of the Fuero de los españoles established
religious tolerance, but not religious freedom, and stipulated: ‘No se permitirán
otras ceremonias ni manifestaciones externas que las de la religión Católica.’8
Within the Catholic-influenced state, orthodoxy was stressed and other religions
discriminated against. Harsh punishments were threatened for breaches of
Church–state rules. These included the Church’s own forms of censure, such
as excommunication or condemnation from the pulpit, as well as the material
punishment meted out by the judicial and military forces of the state. In contrast
to the nationalism found elsewhere in Europe, the nationalism of the Francoists
demanded the loyalty of the people to a Catholic, rather than a secular, state. By
allying itself so closely to the Roman Catholic Church, the Franco regime won
the loyalty of many of the Church faithful. Moreover, the Roman Catholic
Church lent to it the good will and moral authority it enjoyed among vast
numbers of people both nationally and internationally. This support allowed
Franco to claim that he was serving both God and country.
5 Quoted in Juan Pablo Fusi, Franco: autoritarismo y poder personal (Madrid: El País,
1985), p. 49.
6 Norman Cooper, ‘The Church: From Crusade to Christianity’, in Spain in Crisis: The
Evolution and Decline of the Franco Regime, ed. by Paul Preston (Sussex: Harvester Press,
1976), pp. 48–81 (p. 51).
7 Paul Preston, Franco: A Biography (London: Harper Collins, 1993), p. 342.
8 Gubern, La censura, p. 82. However, Vatican II did have an impact on the regime.
The Ley Orgánica del Estado, 10 January 1967, and later the Ley de 28 de junio de 1967
recognized religious freedom. José M. Cuenca Toribio, ‘Relaciones Iglesia y Estado en la
España del siglo XX (1931–1980)’, Hispania. Revista español de historia, 40 (no. 144, 1980),
153–76 (p. 171).
Franco could be classed as what Anthony D. Smith called a neo-traditionalist

and a self-conscious ideologue who used political means to revive religious her-
itage and thereby ‘to organize the faithful into a political movement’, though the
influence of his personal beliefs should not be overlooked.9 In order to achieve
this, Smith claimed, the history, the identity and the destiny of the faithful must
be defined, and their fall from past glory explained. It is clear that in his creation
of a mythical past for Spain and the identification of an essential Spanishness
that had been betrayed by the liberals and the secular Republicans, Franco did
indeed attempt this. The Catholic Nationalist thus became the embodiment of the
noble Spanish race, descended from the race of the Reyes Católicos and destined
to rise again after the recent fall, to recapture and relive its illustrious past. Of
course, the contradiction in the myth was evident from the outset. Ironically, the
rising and the eventual victory of the Nationalist forces might not have been
possible without the initial support of Franco’s African legionnaires. In 1937,
Franco declared:
Nosotros, todos los que combatimos, cristianos y musulmanes, somos soldados

de Dios y no luchamos contra hombres, sino contra el ateísmo y el materialismo,
contra todo lo que rebaja la dignidad humana, que nosotros queremos elevar,
purificar y ennoblecer.10
Although initially recognized by Franco, their role in the creation of the New
State was soon lost in the myth of a Nationalist, Catholic state. The emergence
of the myth of a crusade was already evident, and the Muslims were not to
feature in the mythical raza of Francoist Spain. In the aftermath of the Axis
defeat in WWII, Franco also played down the regime’s fascist tendencies in order
to gain wider support among Catholics internationally, particularly in his efforts
to win Vatican recognition.
The significance of the Roman Catholic Church in the legitimation of the New
State was critical. It provided the regime with support and legitimacy it might
otherwise have lacked, having overthrown a democratically elected government.
The regime adopted the Church’s common good argument to defend policies
that were developed to protect the regime. By arguing that the people were weak
and in need of protection, leadership and salvation, the regime defended its
paternalistic attitude and autocratic rule. Indeed, dependence on a patriarchal and
more knowledgeable authority was encouraged by both Francoist and Catholic
ideologies: both demanded the ceding of responsibility to a higher power. An
acceptance of submission was encouraged and rationalized by the argument that it
was destined or preordained, and protection was offered in exchange for freedom
and independence. Both promised suffering now for sins of the past and gave
9 Anthony D. Smith, ‘The Crisis of Dual Legitimation’, in Nationalism, ed. by J. Hutchinson
and A. D. Smith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), pp. 113–21 (p. 117).
10 Franco, in L’Echo (París), 16 November 1937. Quoted in Vázquez Montalbán, Los
demonios, p. 141.
assurances about future salvation. The Church’s values were critical in the
consolidation of the relationship between the dominant ideology and the subju-
gated in Francoist Spain.11 Ironically, Spain’s isolation in the post-Civil War years
may also have helped. Suffering and humility were praised by the Church–state
alliance as virtues of the Spanish people in the face of internal hardship and exter-
nal opposition; a myth of national martyrdom encouraged the Spanish people to
feel triumphant in their isolation and subjugation. Similarly, Franco’s single-party
organic democracy was portrayed as evidence of Spanish superiority, as is clear
from Franco’s pronunciations on the subject of democracy to the Mexican press
in 1947:
Ahora se habla de la democracia. Nosotros, los españoles, ya la hemos

conocido. Y no nos dio resultado. Cuando otros van hacia la democracia,
nosotros ya estamos de vuelta. Estamos dispuestos a sentarnos en la meta y
esperar a que los otros regresen también.12
The Franco regime claimed to be defending an essential Catholic Spain from a

Communist threat. With the collusion of the Roman Catholic Church, the regime
was able to introduce censorship and sanctions, which silenced the dissenter
in the name of the common good and of liberty. This can be seen clearly in the
introduction to the 1966 Ley de Prensa e Imprenta:
Se puede decir que el principio inspirador de esta Ley lo constituye la idea

de lograr el máximo desarrollo y el máximo despliegue posible de la libertad
de la persona para la expresión de su pensamiento, consagrada en el art. 12 del
Fuero de los Españoles conjugando adecuadamente el ejercicio de aquella
libertad con las exigencias inexcusables del bien común, de la paz social y de
un recto orden de convivencia para todos los españoles.13
Similar sentiments about the protection of the intellectually weak and the moral
and political education of the Spanish people are expressed in the Ley de Prensa
of 1938 and a Ministerial Order referring to censorship in 1939.14 Once some of
the traditions and rituals of the Church had been incorporated into the culture
of the regime, the dominant ideology could then claim to reflect the values of
11 The importance of religion in the control of the bewildered herd is explored in Nietzsche’s
analysis of slave morality. Jorge Larrain, Ideology and Cultural Identity: Modernity and the
Third World Presence (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994), pp. 42–4.
12 El Universal Gráfico (México), October 1947. Quoted in Vázquez Montalbán, Los
demonios, p. 116.
13 Ley 18 marzo 1966, Nº 14/66 (Jefatura del Estado). PRENSA. Ley de Prensa e Imprenta,
Boletín Oficial del Estado (hereafter BOE), no. 67 (ref. 519, 19 March 1966), pp. 479–86.
14 Ley 22 abril 1938 (Ministerio del Interior). PERIODICOS. Ley de Prensa. BOE, no. 549
(23 April 1938), pp. 6915–17 and Orden 15 julio 1939 (Mº. Gobernación). CENSURA. Crea
una Sección de Censura encargada de llevarla a cabo, BOE, no. 211 (ref. 916, 30 July 1939),
p. 553.
a Spain united in its Catholicism. This can be seen in the 1966 Ley de Prensa e
Imprenta, which stated that the legislation was intended to:
dar un nuevo paso en la labor constante y cotidiana de acometer la edificación del

orden que reclama la progresiva y perdurable convivencia de los españoles den-
tro de un marco de sentido universal y cristiano, tradicional en la historia patria.15
Franco defined Spain as a Catholic state, as opposed to the definition of the

Republican leader, Manuel Azaña, who had stated in 1931 that Spain was no longer
Catholic.16 Franco also used the Roman Catholic Church to counter accusations
that his rule was a totalitarian one.17
Roman Catholic doctrine was manipulated and employed by the Spanish
hierarchy and the Francoists to make Church and state seem inseparable and
mutually justifying and supportive. The Church’s influential role in society was
consolidated after the Concordat was signed in 1953. It no longer had to pay
taxes and was given grants to construct churches. It was judged to be above
the law as it applied to the ordinary citizens of the state and, while its clergy
were employed as censors on Government Boards, some of its own publications
were not subject to censorship. Nor could a priest be charged with a criminal
offence without the consent of his religious superiors. Catholic marriages were
the only ones recognized in the New State, and divorce, which had been legal
during the years of the Second Republic, was outlawed. In the 1950s, the Roman
Catholic Church dominated intellectual life in Spain, controlling such influential
papers as El Debate and Ya. Aside from the Church publications and influence
on censorship, some of the leading intellectuals of the day were members of
Opus Dei. Yet perhaps the most insidious form of ideology propagation was in
the schools: under the terms of the Concordat, Roman Catholic Church control
of primary education in Spain was guaranteed, and the regime was satisfied to
use the Church’s expertise.
The Catholic viewpoint on censorship is a version of the common good
argument. It allows for intervention by the Church to eliminate error and secure
the victory of truth. The Catholic Church maintains that societies are formed
naturally, as is the institution of authority, elected from and by the members of
a society to make decisions and resolve differences. This society is God-given,
Ley 18 marzo 1966, de Prensa e Imprenta, p. 480.

15
Fusi, Franco, p. 59. Church and state were officially separated in 1931: ‘Decretada ya
16
por el Estatuto jurídico del gobierno provisional la separación de la Iglesia y el Estado, el

Código de diciembre de 1931 ratificaba el laicismo del poder civil, al paso que su artículo 26
desmantelaba los principales centros de influencia y acción social de la Iglesia.’ Cuenca
Toribio, ‘Relaciones Iglesia y Estado’, p. 154.
17 ‘El Regimen español no es totalitario porque es católico, y así lo ha reconocido la
Iglesia. El totalitarismo ateo está condenado por Roma, y es, por tanto, incompatible con el
catolicismo.’ From El Español, nos 287–90 (1954). Quoted in Gabriel Arias Salgado, Política
española de la información: antología sistemática (Madrid: Ministerio de Información y
Turismo (hereafter MIT), 1958), II, p. 231.
as nature stems from God. In order for society to develop, man’s free will must
be harnessed to the greater good of the community:
Authority, therefore, is to be respected and loved, not only because it comes,

reductively, from God, but because in its legitimate exercise, it also leads to
God, because such exercise of authority leads to the common good which is
also willed by God.18
The argument even embraces the use of coercion for the common good, while
tacitly admitting that coercion may be abused by some. The state, it is claimed,
has the right and duty to exercise authority and coercion in the name of the
common good. The premise is that a good act generated by fear or coercion may
eventually lead to a belief in the virtue of this good act and the will to do this
good act voluntarily. Therefore, the argument goes, the initial application of
threat and coercion is justified.
When viewed in the context of changing a morally corrupt person into a
morally virtuous one, this argument may seem justifiable, if Panglossian in its
naïve optimism; when this thinking is applied by a dictatorial state using coercion
and fear to make people recognize the good that it represents, however, then it
becomes indefensible. It might be suggested that this would be an abuse of power
and in such a case the Catholic justification is not applicable. Yet a cursory glance
at the history of twentieth-century Spain will show that Franco’s totalitarian
regime applied these fear and coercion techniques to ensure the support, or at least
the apathy, of the people. Moreover, it did so with the full support and collusion
of the Catholic Church.
The presence of Roman Catholic clergy among the censors on the state boards
lent these bodies a certain degree of legitimacy. It allowed the regime to use the
Catholic argument that it was not protecting itself by silencing certain voices, but
rather that it was defending the interests of the citizens who were somehow
threatened by such material. Church influence can be clearly seen in the censor-
ship legislation of the Franco regime. In the 1938 Ley de Prensa, which despite
its title, covered all forms of censorship, there is a peculiar mix of Catholic
and Nationalist rhetoric in the description of the new breed of journalist as an
‘apóstol del pensamiento y de la fe de la Nación recobrada a sus destinos’.19
These censorship guidelines were deliberately ambiguous. The stated reason for
the lack of written rules for ecclesiastical censorship was, ‘por la sencilla razón
de que puede un libro, un artículo, una fotografía, etc., no atentar directamente
contra el Dogma o la Moral y, sin embargo, su publicación o difusión ser peli-
grosa y, por tanto, no prudente’.20 Church and state agreed that preventative
18 Harold C. Gardiner S. J., Catholic Viewpoint on Censorship (New York: Hanover House,
1958), p. 21.
19 Ley 22 abril 1938, de Prensa, p. 6915.
20 Arias Salgado, Política española, p. 187.
censorship was better than punitive censorship. Cardinal Dalla Costa ridiculed
the freedom of the press that sought to grant the same respect to all people and
to all faiths: ‘Supone que todos son capaces de doctrinar sobre cualquier cosa,
que todos son capaces de aprender cualquier cosa, lo que es el summum del
absurdo.’21 It is also worth noting that until 1966, the Roman Catholic Church
issued an Index of Forbidden Books, which listed books perceived by the clergy
to be dangerous to faith and morals. The Church claimed that it had a right and
duty to control literature, and each diocese was to have its own appointed cler-
ical censor. Canon 1395 of the Code of Canon Law gave the Church the right to
ban books as it saw fit. Care was taken that books classed as obscene, that is to
say, arousing the lower passions, should not ‘fall into the hands of those whose
minds are not prepared for mature reading’.22 All heretical, schismatic, materi-
alistic or atheist publications were outlawed by the Index, as were religious
books published without prior censorship. It was claimed that the Index did not
interfere with an individual’s liberty, as the Church, being an authority on such
matters, was acting in his best moral interests. Possession, trading, or reading of
works cited in the Index was punishable by excommunication, but, as always, the
moral elite could obtain permission to examine these texts for scholarly purposes
and survive with their souls unscathed.
The Church also played a significant role in the censorship of the theatre, and
the legislation is clearly influenced by Catholic teaching on morals. The Roman
Catholic Church retained its own watchdog body called the Oficina Nacional
Permanente de Vigilancia de Espectáculos, which employed a system of classi-
fication of dramas from one to four. The former were judged to be acceptable
to a wide audience and the latter a serious threat to its moral well-being. This
was seen as necessary, as the Church guidelines for censorship were more severe
in some respects than those of the regime, which were occasionally influenced
more by political expediency than by Catholic moral teaching.23 Certain authors,
who because of their political background were acceptable to the regime, were
censored by the Church because they did not comply with its strict moral code.
CALOMARDE He mandado cerrar todas las Universidades. No eran más que

focos de agitación liberal (O.C. I: 1531).
Another important ideological state apparatus was the educational system.

This played a very significant role in the legitimation of the regime and in the
Arias Salgado, Política española, pp. 190–1.

21
Redmond A. Burke, C.S.V., Ph.D., What is the Index? (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing
22
Co., 1952), p. 24.

23 A report from the MIT, dating from 1963, defends its actions against Church criticism.
The report is of further interest because of its insistence that the MIT is not guilty of apertura
and also for the distinction it makes between Church and state censorship. Informe sobre la
censura cinematográfica y teatral, Dirección General de Cinematografía y Teatro (Madrid:
MIT, 1963).
indoctrination of future generations. Its significance changed from the late

1950s, when the universities became the sites for an ideological battle against the
regime. Initially the situation was quite different, however, and the education
system proved a useful tool for social control.
The regime recognized early on that it had to control the educational institutions
and sought to secure its influence on them through legislation. The Ley de
Enseñanza Primaria (1945) handed over control of primary education to the
Roman Catholic clergy and made the school system subordinate to the new social
and political order. The education system, in line with both Catholic and Francoist
ideology, taught the importance of family, Church and regime to the stability and
peace of the nation. The Ley de Enseñanza Media, introduced in 1953, did for
secondary-level education what the 1945 law had done for primary level. In an
article critical of the regime’s motivated use of education, the historian Manuel
Tuñón de Lara highlighted the use of myth and revisionism in the history taught
at secondary-level. The Second Republic was condemned thus: ‘Los pseudoint-
electuales despechados, la masonería y los financieros judíos internacionales
hacen caer a la monarquía.’ Catholicism, imperialism and the hero-leader were
praised and the Enlightenment, liberalism, democracy and Freemasons were
attacked; fascism, on the other hand, was defended for ‘su sentido nacional, espir-
itual e histórico que reconstituye su dignidad a la persona humana’.24 Under such
a system, children were brought up with the official state version of their country
and history, without necessarily ever being exposed to the opposing viewpoints.
History books were rewritten to discredit Republicans and to laud the imperial trad-
ition followed by Franco. Revising history in an attempt to control the collective
memory, the regime sought to determine the future.
The Ley de Ordenación Universitaria (1943) placed the universities under state
control and decreed that they should be run along Catholic and Falangist lines.
The existing Falangist SEU (Sindicato Español Universitario) was recognized
officially and replaced the outlawed FUE (Federación Universitaria Escolar) in all
universities. The SEU was a pro-Francoist body and also had a role as campus
guard. The creation of the Milicia Universitaria fulfilled the requirements of an
ideological apparatus, as it allowed students to do their military service in an elite
group, where they were separate from the ordinary workers and taught different
know-how for their positions within the social order. When students reorganized
the FUE clandestinely in Madrid and Barcelona in the 1940s, they were soon
discovered and many arrests were made; some of those involved left Spain. Many
Republican university teachers, if they had not already fled or been killed or
imprisoned during the Civil War, were removed in the purges that followed the
Nationalist victory and replaced by others who toed the ideological line of the
24 Manuel Tuñón de Lara, ‘Historia’, in La cultura bajo el franquismo, ed. by José María
Castellet, Ediciones de Bolsillo (Barcelona: Anagrama, 1977), pp. 23–46 (pp. 28–9). While
no dates were given, the stress on fascism and imperialism would imply that these were from
relatively early school texts.
regime, often without regard to their experience or aptitude for the job. In an
article entitled ‘Power, Freedom and Social Change in the Spanish University,
1939–1975’, Salvador Giner refers to the removal of ‘those supposedly sinister
free-thinkers, members of an international Masonic conspiracy, whose sole aim
had allegedly been and still remained the destruction of an eternal Spain’.25
In 1965, the SEU was officially disbanded when the regime finally recognized
that it was no longer in control and had been replaced by other, more represen-
tative student organizations on campus. The increasing unrest among students
and their constant demands for a democratization of rule in Spain, combined
with their eventual co-operation with workers’ groups, represented a growing
threat to the regime. In 1968, University Police were introduced, and they
remained permanently on campus during the unrest. Speeches and declarations
made by the Ministro de Información y Turismo during this period emphasized
the representative nature of the government and its efforts to protect the stability
of Spanish society from the unwelcome actions of a minority. The repressive
measures taken against the students, and the declaration of a state of emergency,
were thus represented as a positive action for the common good:
La escalada del desorden universitario culminó en las últimas jornadas en

inadmisibles violaciones de la paz de todos y en un inconcebible ultraje a
la enseña nacional. [. . .] La voz del pueblo exigiendo medidas ha llegado al
Gobierno y el Gobierno, por unanimidad, ha pedido al Jefe de Estado un
decreto-ley que garantice el derecho de todos a la paz. Aunque lo parezca, no
es paradójico que el estado de excepción signifique la paz. El estado de excep-
ción es el instrumento de nuestra legalidad que va a garantizar ese derecho de
todos a seguir sin sobresaltos en nuestros quehaceres normales, en nuestro
trabajo y en el disfrute de nuestro ocio.26
The greatest problem for opponents of the regime was probably the lack of an
alternative, cohesive, unified group with sufficient strength to mount a serious
challenge to the dominant ideology and to gain state power. Giner points out
that by demonizing Communism, the Francoists had cited a cohesive and well-
developed alternative ideology, which many students and young liberals were
attracted to as the antithesis of Francoism. However, because of the success of
the regime’s propaganda and the effects of the Cold War, as well as their Civil
War activities, the Communist ideology did not appeal greatly to less hard-line
critics of the regime outside the universities, nor to many who had lived through
the Civil War. The fact that many opposition groups were based outside Spain
meant that they were often out of touch with the reality of the situation there.
25 Salvador Giner, ‘Power, Freedom and Social Change in the Spanish University,
1939–1975’, in Spain in Crisis, pp. 183–211 (p. 184).

26 Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, Archivo General de la Administración
(hereafter AGA) /IDD 104.04 Topogr. 82-68 Ca. 576 MIT/00.102. Declaraciones y Discursos
(25-1-69, Primera edición).
While alliances were formed between the various opposition groups on occasion,
they seemed incapable of working together for long enough to achieve anything.
Moreover, many of them did not trust the Communists, who in turn remained
naïvely optimistic about the possibility of a workers’ revolution.
The education system was only one of the apparatuses the regime sought to
control. The ideological role of the media was also recognized and acted upon
by the Nationalists. Legislation was introduced to control the press prior to
the end of the Civil War, and this was later built upon in the aftermath of the
Nationalist victory. Censorship guidelines from 1944, devised by the Provincial
Delegate in Huesca and reproduced in Manuel Abellán’s study of censorship in
Spain, demonstrate the determination of the ruling elite to disseminate and
defend its ideology in the media and in culture:
Es preciso difundir la cultura para el pueblo por medio de todos los medios de
difusión a nuestra alcance, orientándolo de esta forma en las buenas costumbres
en el sano concepto de nuestros ideales que inspiraron el Movimiento Nacional,
y propagando la sana y tradicional cultura española así como la Doctrina
Cristiana. Por otra parte nuestra labor había de ir encauzada a destruir todo
aquello que pudiera ser dañino y perjudicial para nuestra moral y para todos los
conceptos antes mencionados.27
The media were also used to great effect when Franco sought to distance himself
from the Axis powers after the Allied victory in WWII by disseminating the claim
that Spain had been neutral.
The state not only controlled the flow of information through the national news
agency CIFRA and the international agency EFE, but also actively involved itself
in the training of journalists who, like university teachers, were required to swear
a pledge of allegiance to the regime upon graduation.28 It is clear from the
Documentos inéditos that the agency EFE, established by the Interior Ministry, was
created in a calculated effort to propagate the regime’s version and justification of
the Civil War.29 The regime was conscious of the need to appear independent;
27 From the ‘Normas Generales confeccionadas por la Delegación Provincial de Huesca
para las Delegaciones Comarcales dependientes de la misma regulando sus actividades

de propaganda’. Reprinted in Manuel Abellán, Censura y creación literaria en España
(1939–1976) (Barcelona: Península, 1980), p. 249.
28 ‘Junto ante Dios, por España y su Caudillo, servir a la Unidad, a la Grandeza y a la
Libertad de la Patria con fidelidad íntegra y total a los principios del Estado Nacional
Sindicalista, sin permitir jamás que la falsedad, la insidia o la ambición tuerzan mi pluma en
la labor diaria.’ Quoted in Gubern, La censura, p. 30.
29 ‘España vuelve a tener un ideal y una verdad que presentar al mundo, ante el que
reivindica su derecho a ocupar un puesto preeminente. Pero necesita el órgano que difunda por
el extranjero la voz de su ideal y su verdad, que abra caminos exteriores a la vitalidad interna y
le concite voluntades y simpatías.’ ‘Largo estudio acerca de lo que debe ser la agencia EFE’,
Burgos, December 1938. Documentos inéditos para la historia del Generalísimo Franco,
Fundación Nacional Francisco Franco, Colección de Estudios Contemporáneos, 3 vols (Madrid:
Azor, 1992), I, p. 240.
it had learned a lesson from the problems of the Russian TASS agency, which,
because it was directly controlled by the Communist Party, was dismissed inter-
nationally as an unreliable source. The model on which EFE was based was the
Deutsche Nachrichtenbüro (DNB), which, although ostensibly run by a private
company, was controlled by people sympathetic to the German regime. Unlike
Fabra, the previous international agency in Spain, the regime ensured that EFE was
Spanish owned and thus protected from foreign interference.
In the early years, the few news publications that were permitted were
Nationalist. On 1 May 1941, a decree exempted the Falangist press from censor-
ship other than that imposed by the Delegación Nacional de Prensa y Propaganda
de FET y de las JONS. There was no forum for debate, and the official version of
events went unchallenged. The Delegación Nacional de Prensa, established by the
1938 Ley de Prensa, was an all-powerful body, which dictated not only what was
to be written but also the format to be used. Instructions were given on how many
articles were to be dedicated to the reportage of Franco’s latest speech and details
specified of what was to be included in the article. A victim of the censors himself,
Juan Goytisolo commented:
Frente a la media docena de revistillas independientes (y escasamente leídas)

como Ínsula, Papeles de Son Armadans, etc., el Ministerio de Información y
Turismo subvenciona generosamente varias publicaciones de alto nivel intelec-
tual como El Español, Poesía Española, La Estafeta Literaria (que pudiera
titularse también Estafeta filatélica, bursátil o militar sin necesidad de alterar su
contenido) que colaboran de modo eficaz en la patriótica labor de saneamiento
emprendida por la censura. La actividad de estas publicaciones, y de la prensa
cotidiana en general respecto a los escritores varía como es lógico según se trate
de autores adaptados a las exigencias morales y sociales del país o de individuos
románticos, descontentos y resentidos. Para estas últimas categorías la prensa ha
previsto una terapeútica muy sencilla: el silencio.30
By mid-July 1939, censorship had extended to theatre, cinema, public speaking,

art and music. Later, specific bodies were created to deal with each type of cen-
sorship. Allied to this, the NO-DO (Noticiarios y Documentales Cinematográficos),
the state-produced newsreel, which was started in November 1942, was obligatory
in cinema programmes until January 1976 and proved very useful for propaganda
purposes.
Manufacturing Consent: The Mythology of the Raza

It is clear that in order to be successful, the regime needed to justify and legitimate
its rule so as to win enough support or apathy to ensure its continuation. This it did
in a variety of ways. In recognition of the importance of manufacturing consent,
30 ‘Escribir en España’, in El furgón de cola (Paris: Ruedo Ibérico, 1967), pp. 21–7 (p. 24).
the regime attempted to create the impression of free will and a myth of represen-
tation. In addition, it engaged in a process of nationalization that stressed the unity
and stability of society, while simultaneously strengthening its own hold on the
state apparatuses. Furthermore, the regime offered benefits, both material and
psychological, to those who lent it support; it also purported to provide answers
and to define people’s role in society. By implementation of these methods and
by careful consideration of its image, the regime sought to naturalize the ruling
ideology and to make it people’s lived experience. Core values were presented as
fact or natural, and alternatives to them rendered unthinkable. Contradictory ideas
and values were discredited, and simultaneously myths were created to reconcile
the reality to ideological promise by offering imaginary solutions to real contra-
dictions. Like much of ideology, myth does not merely deny truths or reality
but rather uses language and signs to distort them: ‘Simplement, il les purifie, les
innocente, les fonde en nature et en éternité, il leur donne une clarté qui n’est pas
celle de l’explication, mais celle du constat.’31 Its motivation is ideological in that
it naturalizes history or historical concepts, and signifier and signified are given
the appearance of having a natural relationship. Nonetheless, in Franco’s Spain it
was implied that where consent could not be manufactured, it would be imposed.
By assimilating some members of the subjugated masses into the dominant
group, the latter not only can give the appearance of being representative, but
can also deprive the opposition of potential leaders. At various stages certain
Monarchists, aperturistas and Falangists were given government or administra-
tive positions in an effort to appease those groups in society, who, having some
degree of representation, were thus less likely to challenge the leadership. Those
upholding the ruling ideology were concerned with conditioning people to
believe and accept its values but were also willing to use sanctions to suppress
any opposition to them. Yet the ruling elite did not simply dupe people into
believing what was false by mystification; it also expended much energy in its
attempts to justify and legitimate the social order. One of the attractions of the
Francoist ideology was the appearance of a cohesive, unified and stable society.
Many people accepted the myth that they were represented as a nation by the
regime. Franco treated Spain as a nation-state, making appeals to the people in
the name of the Nuevo Estado; he called on those loyal to the nation, that is
Spain, to demonstrate this loyalty by fealty to the regime. The regime also justi-
fied its actions in the name of the common good, a term cleverly appropriated
by the regime to protect its interests. Furthermore, the regime was described as
an organic democracy, a term that implies representation, although in reality it
meant nothing of the sort.
The myth of representation was secured with events such as the vote on the Ley
Orgánica del Estado in 1966. The huge vote in support of the law was interpreted
31 Roland Barthes, Mythologies (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1957), p. 230. Put simply, it
purifies them, it makes them innocent and bases them in nature or eternity, it gives them a
clarity that is not that of an explanation, but rather of a certified fact.
by the regime’s propagandists and mythmakers as an overwhelming demonstration

of popular support for Franco and the ruling ideology. The victory was presented
by the media as a culmination of Franco’s 1938–39 development plan. The reality
of the dubious vote was not acknowledged: no opposition had been allowed and
the ballot was not secret.32 Fusi reports that when Eisenhower visited in December
1959, the number of people who turned out on the streets to celebrate the end of
Spain’s isolation was claimed by the regime as popular support.33 The regime’s
propagandists fed the myth of Franco’s huge popularity in the press and on national
days of celebration when, as Preston asserts, the poor and unwaged were often
bused in and given a day’s wage to cheer and support the dictator.34
Linked to the myth of representation is the illusion of free will. Another feature
of a successful ideology is that the subjects will believe their submission to the
system is freely chosen, at least to a degree. For many who might have doubts,
but who are fearful, it makes a disagreeable situation seem both tolerable and
reasonable. In a well-known study Therborn expanded on Althusser’s ideas to
show just how subjects are ideologically interpellated.35 The first objective is to
define what exists and what does not exist, so that identity, reality and truth are
all determined. Desires are manipulated and controlled by the specification of
what is good, what is right and what is attractive, as well as their opposites.
Finally, the ruling ideology also defines what is possible and what is impossible
in the social order, thereby controlling ambitions, hopes and fears. Some freedoms
are occasionally granted, and these seem to confirm the illusion of free will but
are in fact controlled by the rulers. An example of this is when, in 1963, Fraga as
Ministro de Información y Turismo, allowed the publication of a letter of protest,
which had been signed by many of the country’s most respected intellectuals
and artists.36 Despite allowing the letter to be published, Fraga responded by
dismissing the allegations and attempting to discredit the leaders of the protest.
When those involved tried to take the protest further, they were soon stopped and
the illusion of liberalization was shattered. Fraga was not loved by members of
the intellectual community in Spain, who were generally unimpressed by the sur-
face apertura he introduced. Francisco Candel, who had classed his predecessor,
Arias Salgado, as ‘la bestia negra de la censura española’, said that under Fraga,
32 Preston reports turnouts of over 100 percent of the electorate in some areas, an occurrence
explained by the regime as the result of ‘voters in transit’. Franco, p. 730.

33 Fusi, Franco, pp. 143–4.
34 Preston, Franco, pp. 625–7. Buero explored the myth of representation and of free will
in Un soñador para el pueblo. In the play, the apparently popular revolt against Esquilache
is revealed to have been orchestrated by members of the ruling elite whose privilege was
threatened by the former’s proposals for reform.
35 Göran Therborn, The Ideology of Power and the Power of Ideology (London: Verso and
NLB, 1980), pp. 18–19.

36 Files relating to this held in the Archivo General de la Administración are not accessible
until the year 2014. However, other letters of protest, some of which refer to the treatment
of miners, as well as issues of freedom of expression, are available for consultation. AGA/IDD
104.04 Topogr. 82-68 Ca. 653. Orden Público.
‘las cosas se pusieron más kafkianas’.37 The so-called apertura of Fraga’s day
seemed no more than an attempt to adjust the system in preparation for the con-
tinuation of Francoist ideology in the future.
Nationalism was another important feature in the myth of representation. The
nascent regime quickly set about nationalizing institutions in Spain, including
education and the press, and instilling the values of the regime in the practices
and rituals of these institutions. This allowed the rulers to claim that their
ideology reflected not merely the narrow views of the ruling elite, but also the
institutions of society, and therefore society itself. The introduction to the 1966
Ley de Prensa e Imprenta reiterated this assurance that the government was
reflecting the feelings and thinking of the people: ‘Al emprender decididamente
esta tarea, el Gobierno ha cumplido escrupulosamente su papel de fiel intérprete
del sentir y del pensar del país.’38
One of the regime’s achievements, then, was that it recognized the need to
manufacture consent. Its success in doing so depended to some extent on the
provision of material benefits for its supporters. The regime rationalized its
ideology, offering reasons for certain values contained therein. For example,
anti-Communism was presented as a positive value in opposition to those who
would seek to threaten the mythical peace, order and stability of the regime. It
helped that an anti-Communist ideology coincided with the self-interest of many
landowners and industrialists who welcomed this rationalization by the regime.
Similarly, the punishment of Republicans was justified by the regime for the
sake of society, peace and order. In reality, it also materially benefited many
Nationalists, as those who had fought for the peace and order of the nation could
hope to be treated more favourably than the Republicans. Of course, another
reason why ruling ideologies are successful is simply because they are defended
by the most powerful people in society in whose material interests it is to seek
to reproduce the social order. There were unquestionably some in the Franco
regime who were guilty of what Peter Sloterdijk termed ‘enlightened false
consciousness’.39 Certain members of the regime and of society, who did not
necessarily believe in the truth of the ideology, cynically chose to align them-
selves with it for personal gain.
Another reason that ideology is successful is, as John Breuilly highlights, that
it provides answers, albeit ones that falsify or distort reality to some degree.40 As
a result it may be perceived as legitimate and rational. It has also been suggested,
by Nietzsche among others, that people do not desire the truth of their reality and
37 Beneyto, Censura y política, p. 37.

38 Ley 18 marzo 1966, de Prensa e Imprenta, p. 479. Articles 16 to 18 stipulate that the
press is to be controlled by Spanish nationals, resident in Spain.
39 Terry Eagleton, Ideology: An Introduction (London: Verso, 1991), p. 27.
40 ‘Nationalist ideology is neither an expression of national identity [. . .] nor the arbitrary
invention of Nationalists for political purposes. It arises out of the need to make sense of
complex social and political arrangements.’ John Breuilly, ‘The Sources of Nationalist
Ideology’, in Nationalism, pp. 103–13 (p. 110).
prefer to live by an ideological system devised by others, which defines one’s

role and identity in an otherwise incomprehensible reality. Nonetheless, it is
unlikely that the Franco regime went unchallenged by the majority simply for
ease of life without responsibility; the regime ensured that citizens were also
aware of the negative consequences of any challenge to its hegemony.
The dominant ideology offered more than the views and values of the ruling
elite. It also defined the various roles and relations within society and between the
ruling elite and its subjects. As Eagleton argues, the task of a ruling ideology is ‘to
recreate, at an “imaginary” level, the unity of the entire social formation, not just
to lend coherence to the consciousness of its rulers’.41 When, as in Spain under
Franco, the ruling ideology pervades the apparatuses of the state, and is experi-
enced by people in their private as well as their public lives, it begins to appear
normal to many people. This in turn tends to preclude a revolutionary response.
Althusser suggested that once certain material practices are part of the institutions
of a society, they become normal and naturalized; people will experience and live
according to the ruling ideology without being aware that they are doing so. While
this is certainly plausible to a degree, it would seem to suggest that people neither
think for themselves nor question their political environment. It also ignores the
role of fear in the upholding of a ruling ideology. It is likely that, rather than being
completely ignorant of the aims and machinations of the ruling power, people
resigned themselves to the status quo and, for as long as they were not directly
adversely affected by its repressive forces, remained apathetic.42
The regime was also concerned with image as a persuasive tool in the fabrica-
tion of the myth of popular and unanimous consent. Breuilly claims that political
ideology can be popularized and made acceptable by simplification, repetition and
definition. Not surprisingly, there are many examples of this in Francoist Spain.
Simplifications included the creation of national stereotypes of the noble, loyal
raza, of the unnatural, unpatriotic opposition and of the hardworking, representative
leadership. These stereotypes coupled with messages about progress, the common
good and the enemy were repeated in the media, at rallies, and incorporated into
ceremonies, rituals and anthems. Such ceremonies, along with symbols such as the
flag, notes and coins, as well as the renaming of public spaces and the erection of
statues and monuments, gave the ideology concrete form and helped to legitimate
it in the eyes of the populace. The elevation of Manuel Fraga to the head of the MIT
also enhanced the regime’s hackneyed image. Under Fraga, the diatribes against the
Communists were replaced by positive economic messages.43
41Eagleton, Ideology, p. 122.

42In fact, apathy in the face of a dominant and unjust ruling ideology is one of the
reactions most criticized by Buero in his dramatic work. Yet it is interesting to note that the
dramatist himself was accused of apathy and worse in his own relationship with the regime.
43 Manuel Fraga was very aware of the need for the appearance of legitimacy, even if
it did not reflect the reality. This concern for image even extended to his own appearance.
In his autobiography he wrote: ‘El lunes fui al sastre; me encargué tres trajes severos y
ministeriales.’ Memoria breve de una vida política (Barcelona: Planeta, 1980), p. 32.
This is not to say, however, that popular consent was always freely forthcoming.
The regime could not convert the enemies of its ideology to consent or apathy;
instead it portrayed them as enemies of the people and sought to eliminate them
from the discourse. The omnipresence of repressive state apparatuses led to a
certain sense of fear in society and discouraged many people from challenging
the dominant ideology. Similarly, the indoctrination of the populace through the
ideological state apparatuses, which taught not only one’s place in the social order
but also the dangers inherent in any attempt to change it, led to widespread apathy.
The regime would at times acknowledge repression or state intervention in the
private lives of citizens, but either blamed an outside group or claimed that it was
a necessary short-term measure in the interests of national security and for the
benefit of the population. This can be seen in the wording of the Ministerial Order
of 15 July 1939:
En distintas ocasiones ha sido expuesta la necesidad de una intervención

celosa y constante del Estado en orden a la educación política y moral de
los españoles, como exigencia de éste que surge de nuestra guerra y de la
Revolución Nacional.44
It can be seen again in 1969, when the government, in order to guarantee peace and
in answer to a call from the people, declared a state of emergency (Appendix II).
CALOMARDE Aún hemos de ver restauradas en nuestra gloriosa España las

virtudes que la hicieron grande (O.C. I: 1513).
Psychological needs were also met in recognition of their importance in

securing the acquiescence of the population to the ruling ideology. Perhaps the
greatest attraction of a successful ruling ideology is that it offers people an
identity and a recognized role in society, and it claims to do so in the name of
freedom. As Tom Nairn points out, the myth of nationalism, which was such an
important feature of the Francoist ideology, ‘corresponds to certain internal
needs of the society in question, and to certain individual, psychological needs
as well. It supplies peoples and persons with an important commodity, identity.’45
In Francoist Spain, the raza was linked to a mythical, unified, Catholic Spanish
race and defined against the Reds, the Republicans and the anti-Spanish liberals
who were identified as the other. The Francoist ideology was successful because
it traded on many beliefs and values already held by people about their identity
and incorporated them into a new and distorted definition of Spanishness deter-
mined by the regime’s ideological needs.
The importance of myth in the naturalization of the Francoist ideology is
difficult to overstate. Labanyi highlights how autocrats incorporated myth into the
official culture, thus appropriating the symbolic truth it is presumed to contain,
44 Orden 15 julio 1939, Censura, p. 553.

45 Tom Nairn, ‘The Maladies of Development’, in Nationalism, pp. 70–6 (p. 71).
which in turn lends both universality and legitimacy to the ruling ideology. She
also stresses the use of myth in the creation of a national identity.46 In his 1882
article ‘Qu’est-ce qu’une nation?’, Ernest Renan wrote: ‘To have common glories
in the past, a common will in the present; to have accomplished great things
together, to wish to do so again, that is the essential condition for being a nation.’47
In Francoist Spain, the people were divided, so myth was employed to create
the illusion of fulfilling the conditions of nationhood. The regime’s propagandists
sought to convince the populace that they belonged to a noble Spanish nation,
which had been betrayed by the liberals and Republicans. By portraying the
regime as upholders and defenders of this essential Spain and connecting the
myth of nationalism to the myth of representation, the regime was able to draw
on people’s desire for identity and belonging. It also enabled the regime to portray
the opposition as a threat to this identity and nature. Underlying this, of course,
was the threat that those who disagreed with, or challenged, the dominant group
would also be dismissed as anti-Spanish. In myth the Nationalist victory was
inevitable, essential and the restoration of a natural order disturbed by the Second
Republic. Myth, like ideology, of which it is a part, may contain some truth, but
it is exaggerated or distorted, and this exaggeration is given the appearance of fact
or nature.
As John Breuilly contends, the plausibility of nationalist ideology arises from
the fact that at its core is an authentic intellectual response to the problematic one
of state–society relations. He goes on to explain its success:
By seeming to abolish the distinctions between culture and politics, society

and state, private and public, the nationalist has access to a whole range of
sentiments, idioms and practices which would hitherto have been regarded
as irrelevant to politics but are now turned into the values underlying political
action.48
In Spain, the established natural unity of the people and progression under
Franco was perceived to be undermined by the unnatural developments of the
Republicans, the Communists and others who did not fit in with the Francoist
definition of the natural state of Spain and the Spaniards.49 Unity, under Franco,
was enforced. All linguistic expression, religious practice and territorial claims that
threatened the unity of the Nationalist–Catholic state were outlawed. As early as
May 1937, the Ministerio de Interior issued an order in which article 1 prohibited
the use of languages other than Castilian in all dealings with the ministry.
Government was centralized and autocratic, and normal trade unions were replaced
46 Jo Labanyi, Myth and History in the Contemporary Spanish Novel (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 23, 36, 67.

47 Reproduced in Nationalism, pp. 17–18 (p. 17).
48 Breuilly, ‘The Sources of Nationalist Ideology’, p. 112.
49 As Breuilly put it: ‘Derivations from that natural state are, of course, unnatural, and what
is unnatural is bad.’ ‘The Sources of Nationalist Ideology’, p. 108.

by vertical syndicates, which sought to eradicate class-consciousness among

workers. Arias Salgado claimed the word and concept of unity as the regime’s own.
At the fifth Consejo Nacional de Prensa in Salamanca in 1959, he declared:
Es en Salamanca, donde Francisco Franco, Caudillo de España, forja, templa

y proclama con el decreto de Unificación la unidad religiosa (una sola fe), la
unidad nacional (no más separatismos), la unidad política (no más partidos
políticos) y la unidad social (no más lucha de clases entre españoles).50
He thus managed to use the positive concept of unity to defend religious intoler-
ance, centralism, dictatorship and elitism.
Myth stresses areas of common interest and creates or emphasizes common
enemies. The appeal to myth can be seen even in the wording of the 1938 Ley de
Prensa, which aspired to ‘devolver a España su rango de Nación unida, grande
y libre, de los daños que una libertad entendida al estilo democrático había
ocasionado a una masa de lectores diariamente envenenada por una Prensa
sectaria y antinacional’.51 This not only presupposes that Spain was once such a
united and free nation, but also that it was not one under democratic rule and that
the democratic press was both sectarian and disloyal to the nation. The law went
on to claim that the new press under the guidance of the new regime would
be based on truth and responsibility, again assuming that this nobility of purpose
was not present in the earlier press. It further states that the press was to be
returned its dignity and its prestige, an idea that not only was in keeping with the
mythology of the new regime, but also managed to damn the old. The New State,
it was claimed, would redeem the press and, by implication, the country, from
the contradictory ‘servidumbre capitalista de las clientelas reaccionarias o
marxistas’. Paradoxically, the freedom of the press was to be guaranteed by the
suppression of democracy, or democratic libertarianism, as it was termed in the
legislation. The latter, it was claimed, not only went against the Patria, but also
promoted lies and defamation in an attempt by unspecified ‘poderes ocultos’ to
destroy Spain. In short, then, the 1938 Ley de Prensa claims Spain, truth and
righteousness for the Nationalists while dismissing the other as anti-Spanish
and finally, and entirely without irony, it advocates censorship in the name of
freedom of the press.
Most ideologists have recognized the necessity of revising or falsifying
history in order to prove or support an official version of events. Ernest Gellner
asserted in his article ‘Nationalism and High Cultures’ that nationalism ‘is not
the awakening of an old, latent, dormant force, though that is how it does indeed
present itself’.52 He continued: ‘Nationalism uses the pre-existing, historically
inherited proliferation of cultures or cultural wealth, though it uses them very
50 Gabriel Arias Salgado, Textos de doctrina y política española de la información,
6th edn, 3 vols (Madrid: MIT, 1960), I, p. 137.

52 Gellner, ‘Nationalism and High Cultures’, in Nationalism, pp. 63–70 (pp. 63–4).
selectively, and it most often transforms them radically.’ Hobsbawm echoed this
and described it as the invention of tradition, which:
is taken to mean a set of practices, normally governed by overtly or tacitly

accepted rules and of a ritual or symbolic nature, which seek to inculcate
certain values and norms of behaviour by repetition, which automatically
implies continuity with the past. In fact, where possible, they normally attempt
to establish continuity with a suitable historic past.53
Evidence of this can be seen in the Francoist ideology. Franco transformed

history into myth, by revising and erasing facts for the purpose of gaining
support for his dictatorship. History thus rewritten or revised to fit in with the
present became propaganda, created to suit the regime’s political needs; it was
no longer an accurate account of what had occurred in the past, but rather a guide
to the regime’s political views and fears. By adapting the past to fit the needs of
the present, the regime sought to give the appearance of being a natural link in a
long chain of historical events and a solution to past errors. Events that might
have embarrassed the regime were written out of history in a bout of political
amnesia.
What mattered was not so much what was true or real, but people’s perceptions
of history and identity. Tuñón de Lara was highly critical of what he called the
pseudohistoria azul, which replaced historical research with myth and stereotypes.
He pointed out that in a speech in June 1950, Franco expressed a desire to remove
the nineteenth century from the history of Spain.54 Another example of this was
Franco’s efforts to reconstruct Spanish history after the Axis defeat in order to show
himself as a life-long friend of the Allies, just as after his death many of his own
Ministers reinvented themselves as life-long democrats. Given this, it is ironic that
one of the offences listed in the 1963 Normas de censura cinematográfica, which
were later applied to the theatre, was ‘el falseamiento tendencioso de los hechos,
personajes y ambientes históricos’.55 Writers of the opposition, particularly in the
1960s, often chose to demonstrate how Spain’s history was not so glorious, linking
her imperial past to decadence or reclaiming the nineteenth century as a time of
positive change as well as degeneration. By subverting these carefully constructed
myths, they challenged the ideology that the myths purported to legitimate.
Spanish Falangism was similar to the fascist ideologies in Italy and Germany.
It was, as Labanyi pointed out, ‘based on the mythical notion that the nation’s
history was an inauthentic deviation from origins’, but also drew heavily upon the
works of the Generation of ’98 who had stressed Spain’s decline and decadence.56
53 Eric Hobsbawm, ‘Introduction: Inventing Traditions’, in The Invention of Tradition, ed.
by Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, Canto (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1992), pp. 1–14 (p. 1).
54 Tuñón de Lara, ‘Historia’, pp. 23, 30.
55 Art. 14.3, Orden 9 febrero 1963 (MIT), por la que se aprueban las «Normas de censura
cinematográfica», BOE, no. 58 (8 March 1963), pp. 3929–30 (p. 3930).

56 Labanyi, Myth and History, pp. 35, 36.
However, unlike the writers of that generation, the Falange was optimistic and saw
the nation’s salvation in a purging of such decadence and a return to the essential
nature of Spain. It was prepared to lead the way. In 1953, the Ministro de
Información y Turismo, Gabriel Arias Salgado, declared: ‘La sociedad española
está convaleciente aún, después de sufrir durante más de cien años experimentos
extraños a su ser nacional.’57 Myth was employed to gloss over the years of racial
dilution to discover direct links to an earlier, though equally disputable, pure
Spanish race. The myth of nationalism, which was an important part of Falangism
later incorporated into Francoism, allowed the rulers to contend that the Spain
they claimed to represent was unified in its culture, its homeland and its essential
values. All this, despite being a state established in the aftermath of a bloody and
bitter fratricidal conflict and a state that institutionalized the divisions between the
victors and the vanquished for many years.
The idea of a pure Spanish raza was constantly stressed. This pure raza, with its
links to the Reyes Católicos, was portrayed as having suffered under the liberals
and weak monarchs in the nineteenth century, culminating in the loss of its colonies
in 1898 and, finally, humiliation at the hands of the modern Republican infidels. It
would, however, under the leadership of Franco, be restored to its destiny as a glori-
ous, noble and respected people. Yet the raza was not to be trusted with political
choices or democracy, but rather encouraged to believe that social change could
only come about through faith in the leadership. The paternalistic Franco regime
took it upon itself to define and legislate for the truth and ensured that its determin-
ation of contentment and well-being would take precedence over autonomy. It also
chose to assume that individual members of the raza did not understand what was
good for them, or that even if they did they did not understand how best to achieve
it. It was inferred that they required the help of the state to discover their best inter-
ests and to avoid irrational actions; thus, the ruling body justified the restrictions
it imposed on freedom and self-determination. Preston mentions Franco’s explan-
ation of his determination not to introduce democracy in Spain, which was that
because of the peculiarity of the Spanish temperament, it would inevitably lead to
violence.58 He, on the other hand, would protect them from themselves.
Festivals and rituals, which stressed the purity, Catholicism and noble simplicity
of the Spanish race, were encouraged under Franco. Labanyi argues that the cult of
folklore in Spain under Franco served as a form of social control, as it encouraged
faith in a myth and discouraged change and modernity. Even football played an
important role in the reinforcement of the nationalist myth, particularly with the
success of Real Madrid in the 1950s. The successes of the team became a source
of national pride and, in the minds of nationalists at least, an expression of
Spanish superiority. The reality of the situation, which was a team containing many
non-nationals, was not allowed to interfere with the myth of Spanish supremacy.
57 Declaraciones al primer Consejo Nacional de Prensa, Alicante, 16 December 1953. In
Textos de doctrina, p. 3.
58 Preston, Franco, pp. 519–20. This attitude of ‘todo para el pueblo, pero sin el pueblo’
was parodied by Buero in Un soñador para un pueblo (O.C. I: 774).

The use of myth also extended to literature and culture. The Franco regime encour-
aged escapist plays, films and literature that reflected Spain’s glorious imperial past
or that showed the contentment that came with the obedient acceptance of the new
social order. This had the twofold purpose of distracting people from their present
hardship and reinforcing the myth of a noble race set to recapture the glory of the
past by obeying present-day leaders. Romantic fiction and Hollywood fantasies
were also deemed acceptable, while more avant-garde and controversial authors
were censored.
The figure of the valiant and noble leader formed a meaningful part of the raza
myth. Preston gives some examples of Franco’s notions of grandeur and his
identification with the monarchs and heroic leaders of Spain’s glorious past: the
Royal March was played as his wife entered state functions; he nominated bishops
and named his own royal successor; he moved into the palace of El Pardo. Preston
also recounts an episode that again demonstrates a desire to highlight or invent
the noble origins of the natural leader. Before Franco’s family home in Ferrol was
opened as a museum, the dictator’s wife furnished it with antiques, thus revising
upwards her husband’s humble social origins.59 Franco was very interested in his
own image and sought to cultivate his own personal myth. To do this, he recon-
structed his own history, eliminating any embarrassing or unworthy incidents and
presenting himself as a selfless, reluctant hero upon whom power had been thrust
and who only obeyed the call of duty in his struggle for the greater good and
the dignity of the Patria. He claimed that he was not interested in power and that
he was motivated by patriotism alone. Therefore, he argued, the people should be
willing to support him in his patriotic efforts, as he was serving them and their
interests. At the time of the 1966 referendum he declared:
Nunca me movió la ambición de mando. Desde muy joven echaron sobre mis
hombros responsabilidades superiores a mi edad y a mi empleo. Hubiera deseado
disfrutar de la vida como tantos españoles: pero el servicio de la Patria embargó
mis horas y ocupó mi vida, llevo treinta años gobernando la nave del Estado,
librando a la Nación de los temporales del mundo actual: pero, pese a todos, aquí
permanezco, al pie del cañón, con el mismo espíritu de servicio de mis años
mozos, empleando lo que me quede de vida útil en vuestro servicio. ¿Es mucho
exigir el que yo os pida, a mi vez, vuestro respaldo a mis leyes que en vuestro
exclusivo beneficio y en el de la Nación van a someterse a referéndum? 60
Franco also insisted that Spain was not governed by a dictatorship, but rather
by a much maligned and misunderstood progressive regime.61 His personal myth
extended beyond himself to his family, which was portrayed as the model
Preston, Franco, p. 661.

59
Quoted in Vázquez Montalbán, Los demonios, p. 71.

60
61 Franco (1961): ‘En España no existe una dictadura. [. . .] El que nuestro sistema político
por haber vivido más de prisa, se encuentre más evolucionado y actual que los que en otras
partes todavía se llevan, no autoriza a esas campañas de descrédito que se organizan contra
nosotros.’ Quoted in Vázquez Montalbán, Los demonios, pp. 68–9.
Spanish family. Franco’s preoccupation with the cultivation of his personal myth
is evident from the semi-autobiographical screenplay for the film, Raza, written
by him under the pseudonym, Jaime de Andrade. It is an epic tale of a Galician
family from the time of the collapse of Spain’s empire in 1898 to the Civil War.
In fact, Raza can be read as a guide to Francoist ideology. It presents the values
he sought to propagate and the alternative ideology he despised. The film was,
as the name suggests, a return to origins and an attempt to define the true Spanish
race, while also making very clear that those responsible for the fiasco of 1898
could not be classed as part of this raza of proud, unified, noble and obedient
people. Similarly, Republicans and democrats were portrayed as obstacles on the
path to the national destiny of Spain. John Hopewell asserts that the hero of the
film is Franco’s fictional alter-ego. In accordance with his own idea of a natural
leader of the Spanish people, Franco gave the film’s hero, José Churraca, the
status of minor nobility. In the film the Nationalists fight the Civil War for the
salvation of Spain, not for political power, and the support they received from
the Roman Catholic Church is stressed. The film typified the regime’s mythical
take on Spanish history. Hopewell explains:
Raza opens with scenes from Spain’s imperial conquest of and commerce with
the Indies; and ends with a victory parade followed by a vignette of galleons
firing at sea. Success in war, the film’s syntax implies, is part of a longer and
glorious historical tradition.62
In her assessment of the film, Higgenbotham notes that the Republicans are
described as ‘puppets of Freemasonry’.63 Other films, such as Franco, ese hombre,
by José María Sánchez Silva, were also made to glorify the man and his regime,
but Franco preferred Raza. He rewrote history on many occasions, most obviously,
perhaps, with Raza, but also through his official biographer, Joaquín Arrarás and
in his diaries and speeches.
Censorship as an Ideological Weapon

Toda la libertad para la verdad; ninguna libertad para
el error.64
Censorship was an important feature of the regime’s ideology. The censorship

legislation stressed unity and nationalization and reinforced the ruling ideology
while denying the opposition spokespersons the opportunity to challenge it.
62 John Hopewell, Out of the Past: Spanish Cinema after Franco (London: British Film
Institute Books, 1986), p. 34.

63 Virginia Higgenbotham, Spanish Film under Franco (Austin: University of Texas Press,
1988), p. 19. The film was advertised as ‘cine patriótico’ and was dedicated to ‘las juventudes
de España . . . Que así es España y así es la raza’.
64 Arias Salgado, Textos de doctrina, p. 35.
At times, censorship seemed to represent an ideological battle over the possible

interpretations of words and ideas. This was an emotional rather than a logical
battle, concerned with the propagation of myth and the denial of history and reality.
Censorship was often justified on the grounds of the protection of internal and
external security, but when examined it is clear that the legislation in question was
formulated to defend the dominant ideology. Anything that might contradict or
seriously challenge it was forbidden. The regime was acutely aware of the fact that
words could be lent ideological meaning and so wished to control the language of
others. While its opponents argued that censorship interfered with their right to free-
dom of expression, the regime argued that censorship defended certain essential,
core values and protected the weak in society. It was used as a tool of intimidation,
aimed at isolating the dissenting voice, which in turn was seen as a threat to the
national or common good and was therefore to be suppressed. The problem is that
where prior censorship is concerned, the judgement is always based on a subjective
estimate of possible damage, and the danger is that a censor will not jeopardize his
own position by underestimating the impact of the work.
The myth of the raza sought to convince people that they needed protection
and leadership and that their leaders were acting in their best interests. The
nascent regime employed the media and culture both to negate oppositional
ideology and to establish its own. During the Civil War, all Marxist, socialist,
anarchist and separatist literary material had to be delivered to the Nationalist
authorities within four days of their arrival in Republican zones. Libraries,
both public and private, were destroyed, and book distributors and retailers were
required to submit their merchandise to the authorities for inspection. Prior
censorship was established on 18 July 1936. Governors were ordered to destroy
all Communist or socialist books found in libraries and schools. The only books
to be permitted in schools were those in line with the teaching of the Roman
Catholic Church. On 23 December 1936, the Junta Técnica, established a few
months previously to control the civil administration, issued an order that out-
lawed ‘la producción, el comercio y la circulación de libros, periódicos, folletos
y toda clase de impresos y grabados pornográficos o de carácter socialista,
comunista, libertario y, en general, disolvente’.65
A decree issued on 14 January 1937 created the Delegación del Estado para
Prensa y Propaganda, under the guidance of General Millán Astray. This dele-
gation was located in Salamanca, and part of its role was to establish censorship
guidelines. When the first government of the new regime was established in
Burgos on 30 January 1938, Román Serrano Suñer, Franco’s brother-in-law, was
named Ministro de Interior with responsibility for the Servicio Nacional de
Propaganda. On 22 April 1938, the Ley de Prensa, created by Giménez Arnau
with input and advice from Serrano Suñer, was issued by the Ministro de Interior.
Serrano Suñer later distanced himself from the 1938 Ley de Prensa, classifying
65 Juan Beneyto Pérez, ‘La censura literaria en los primeros años del franquismo. Las
normas y los hombres’, in Censura y literaturas peninsulares, ed. by Manuel L. Abellán,

Diálogos Hispánicos de Amsterdam, 5 (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1987), pp. 27–40 (p. 27).
it as war-time legislation. The law attempted to justify censorship by stating that

it offered protection from democratic licentiousness and created a press to serve
the national interest. Article 20 listed the sanctions the Minister could take
against an editor, journalist or newspaper. These ranged in severity from an
unspecified fine, to the removal of the editor with or without the simultaneous
removal of his name from the Register of Journalists, to seizure of the news-
paper in question. Authors and editors were responsible for ensuring the deposit
of works for pre-publication censorship. The Minister controlled paper quotas
also, so that a text could be held up indefinitely owing to paper shortage. Foreign
manuscripts were also to be strictly controlled.
In 1966, Manuel Fraga Iribarne introduced the Ley de Prensa e Imprenta, a
replacement for the 1938 Ley de Prensa. It was hailed by some as the beginning
of the apertura and the democratization of the press and publication laws. The
disappearance of prior censorship seemed to herald a new, more liberal era and a
freer press, but it did not fulfil the initial hopes that it inspired. The introduction
of voluntary censorship as a substitute for prior censorship, along with sanctions
to be imposed on erring editors and writers, created new problems for both. Not
only did they feel obliged to submit the work to voluntary censorship, but often
the work was also vetted by the editor prior to submission to the censor’s office,
as the former now stood to suffer the consequences of a negative verdict. Abellán
classed the new law as, ‘más un objeto de prestigio y una fachada tranquilizadora
hacia el mundo exterior que un marco de garantías para el ejercicio de la libertad
creadora’.66 Despite promises and assurances to the contrary, censorship methods
remained much the same. Miguel Delibes, when asked if he considered Fraga’s
law an improvement on what had gone before, replied: ‘Antes te obligaron a
escribir lo que no sentías, ahora se conforman con prohibirte que escribas lo que
sientes; algo hemos ganado.’67
An examination of article two of the new law gives a good indication of the
limited nature of this apertura:
Son limitaciones: el respeto a la verdad y a la moral; el acatamiento a la Ley

de Principios del Movimiento Nacional y demás leyes fundamentales; las
exigencias de la defensa nacional, de la Seguridad del Estado y del manten-
imiento del orden público interior y la paz exterior; el debido respeto a las
instituciones y a las personas en la crítica de la acción política y administra-
tiva; la independencia de los Tribunales, y la salvaguardia de la intimidad y del
honor personal y familiar.68
66 Abellán, Censura y creación, p. 152.

67 Miguel Delibes, La censura de prensa en los años 40 (y otros ensayos) (Valladolid:
Ambito, 1985), p. 6.
68 Ley 18 marzo 1966, de Prensa e Imprenta, p. 480. The MIT was still defending the law
in 1973: ‘Las limitaciones del artículo segundo de la Ley de Prensa no constituyen elementos
restrictivos del derecho a la libertad de expresión. [. . .] Tales limitaciones – dice el Ministro
de Información – se orientan a tutelar unos bienes integrantes del bien común.’ AGA/IDD
104.04 Topogr. 82-68 Ca. 587 MIT/01.020 Notas informativas sobre la Ley de Prensa.
Other articles stipulated nationalization of the press, registration procedures for

journalists and an outline of the punishment to be meted out for breaches of the
law. Despite Fraga’s stated intentions, the law was vague in its definition of the
new liberties and violations, and thus open to arbitrary and unfair application.
Moreover, the law could provide an excuse for reprisals based on the latent or
manifest political sympathies of the author, publisher or retailer.
In his analysis of the new legislation, Ramón Gubern finds that, despite the
introduction of more penalties, ‘permitió cierta liberalización de la información
y de la expresión pública en España, contribuyendo a agudizar las contradic-
ciones internas del sistema autoritario’, but qualifies this by saying that the
application of the law was not as liberal as the letter of the law.69 Buero, while
admitting that the law was a small step in the right direction, highlighted its
shortcomings:
La tan aireada ‘supresión’ de la censura previa se convertía en paternal gabinete

de consulta ‘voluntaria’ que, si algún escritor o editor - en uso de su derecho - se
abstenía de visitar, no era raro que se viera ante un tribunal y secuestrado su libro
o su revista.70
In January 1966, he was one of eighty-four intellectuals who signed a letter of

protest about the proposed Ley de Prensa e Imprenta. The letter, composed by the
SGAE (Sociedad General de Autores de España), and sent to the Presidente de la
Comisión de Información de las Cortes, expressed ‘un fundado temor a que la ley
no respondiera a unas mínimas exigencias democráticas’.71 In addition, not long
after the apertura of the new press law, freedom of information was delivered a
further blow with the introduction of further amendments to the Código Penal
and the creation of the Ley de Secretos Oficiales.
The MIT defended the Ley de Prensa e Imprenta in a report drawn up in January
1969. According to the report, the positive results of the legislation include
the ‘incremento del prestigio del Estado español en el mundo occidental’.72 It is
credited with educating the public and editors, giving the former more information
and instructing the latter on their responsibilities. The report also claims that the
rise in editorial output was a direct result of the law. Furthermore, it is alleged
that the voluntary submission of texts prior to publication led to the reduction
of ‘la probabilidad de sentencias absolutorias que supongan para el libro vetado
una fabulosa y gratuíta publicidad’. However, the law remained controversial.
In 1966, another report, classed as ‘muy reservado’, was written on the ‘influencia
Gubern, La censura, p. 186.

69
Antonio Buero Vallejo, quoted in Beneyto, Censura y política, p. 22.

70
71 AGA/IDD 104.04 Topogr. 82-68 Ca. 653 Orden Público (Armario 48. Hamaca 20.253)
Cartas de intelectuales colectivas, no. 12. The letter also criticizes the ambiguity of Article 2
of the new law, and comments: ‘Como dijo el procurador Sr Sánchez Agesta: “que no se quede
a merced del humor con que alguien se levante por la mañana”.’
72 Notas informativas sobre la Ley de Prensa.
y reacciones en la masa general de la población por la nueva Ley de Prensa’. Its

author clearly does not favour the new law:
El cambio brusco de la prensa diaria, informando a los lectores de hechos que,

con anterioridad a la aplicación de la nueva ley de Prensa, permanecían en
secreto, y únicamente solían difundirse disfigurados y aumentados en reduci-
dos núcleos ciudadanos de marcado carácter político, ha originado en la masa
general de la población, que no creía pudieran existir huelgas de obreros,
de estudiantes, juicios por asalto a una comisaría de Polícia, etc., etc., una
sensación preocupante de inseguridad, como síntoma primario del uso de esta
libertad, pero que comentaristas objetivos, consideran es preciso que la masa
de la población se imunice con estas noticias, y no considere cualquier actitud
de una minoría contraria al Régimen, como hecho de trascendental importan-
cia, sino como una actitud natural de una colectividad en la que la pluralidad
ideológica es una cosa normal. Según comentaristas, existe una excesiva y
exagerada preocupación por la sucesión del Régimen, lo que considera por
los mismos, consecuencia de este estado paradisíaco de paz y tranquilidad
ofrecido por la prensa en la anterior etapa de nuestra Patria.73
Censorship legislation specifically for the theatre was not introduced until
1964, and even then it simply called for the adaptation and implementation of
the existing rules for film censorship. An examination of this legislation demon-
strates how closely linked were Francoist and Catholic ideologies. In the name of
the common good, all justifications of suicide, mercy killings, revenge, duelling,
divorce, adultery, illicit sexual relations and prostitution were prohibited. Article
8 also declared that any attack on the family or marriage, institutions dear both
to Franco and to the Roman Catholic Church, was prohibited. The moral conse-
quences of evil were to be portrayed, and where the film or play was directed at
an audience of minors, the legislation stipulated that the wrongdoer must either
be punished or be repentant at the end. Brutality, sexual perversions, blasphemy,
pornography, subversion and attractive portrayals of alcoholism were taboo;
any language that might offend against good taste, and any images or suggestive
allusions that might provoke base passions, were prohibited, as were any detailed
accounts of offences that could be used as guides to committing them. As
O’Connor pointed out, Article 17 might serve as a summary of the spirit of the
law. It prohibited anything that attacked:
1º La Iglesia católica, su dogma, su moral y su culto.

2º Los principios fundamentales del Estado, la dignidad nacional y la seguri-
dad interior o exterior del país.
3º La persona del Jefe de Estado.74
73 Notas informativas sobre la Ley de Prensa.

74 Orden 9 febrero 1963, Normas de Censura Cinematográfica, p. 3930. Patricia W.
O’Connor, ‘Censorship in the Contemporary Spanish Theater and Antonio Buero Vallejo’, in
Estudios sobre Buero Vallejo, ed. by Mariano de Paco (Murcia: Murcia University Press,
1984), pp. 81–92 (pp. 82–3).
The Spanish regime claimed for itself the role of holder of the truth and
defender of the common good, which, in true dictatorial style, it identified with
its own personal good. Arias Salgado justified state censorship of the media by
claiming that:
Para el mal, para lo que pueda dañar la salud espiritual, moral, política o
material de los individuos, de las familias y de la comunidad, no puede ni debe
permitirse que sean utilizados los medios de difusión, y mucho menos medios
de tan largo alcance como la Prensa, que, una vez en la calle, no reconoce
límites de edades, ni fronteras de preparación, ni distingue entre niveles
culturales y religiosos.75
Only the state, it would appear, could do this. The people could not be trusted
to judge for themselves what was good or bad, right or wrong. The moral judgement
of officials such as Arias Salgado was the only acceptable one. Nevertheless, the
people and the media were free to express the correct public opinion, in line with
the teaching of the regime and the Roman Catholic Church. José María García
Escudero, a high-ranking censor in Spain during the 1950s and 1960s, stated in
1951: ‘Entre los derechos del Estado, Gran Gerente de la empresa social, no está
taparle la boca a la Sociedad.’76 He argued in favour of censorship, however, and
claimed that if the state abandoned its role as opinion leader, other forces would
step in to fill the gap and they would deform opinion to suit their own purposes.
Therefore, the state that sought to influence the opinions of the people was in fact
protecting them from a greater danger. He claimed that censorship, correctly
applied, did not interfere with the liberty of citizens, and believed that, ‘censura es
quitar el peligro’.77 The real problem, of course, is that such a regime seeks to be
not merely opinion leader, but the sole opinion former, and it will quash any public
opinion it disagrees with. In defence of government censorship in general, García
Escudero argued that official censorship often reflected social censorship and that
both forms should work in tandem, each keeping the other in check:
Debe el Estado, más que crear los dogmas, recoger los creados por la sociedad.
No es que no se discutan porque el Estado los prohiba; el Estado los prohibe
porque no se discuten o, al menos no se deben discutir en una sociedad que no
esté devorada por un morboso afán de suicidio [my italics].78
Social censorship should, in theory, make official censorship redundant. Yet what
is classed here as social censorship seems to include all that the regime would
like society to censor. He also argued in favour of prior censorship, claiming that
if breaches of the regime’s code or dogma were frequent, then it would be too
Arias Salgado, Política española, p. 180.

75
José María García Escudero, ‘Censura y libertad’, Arbor, 23 (no. 83, 1952), 177–97
76
(p. 178).
77 García Escudero, ‘Censura y libertad’, p. 189.
78 García Escudero, ‘Censura y libertad’, p. 179.
late to impose sanctions retrospectively, as the damage would already have been
done. However, he failed to question the validity of a system that invited such
a high number of transgressions.
Buero recognized the use of the common good argument to defend the ruling
ideology, where censorship:
se justifica invocando el bien general y la necesidad de defender la ley, el orden
y la moralidad pública o privada, pero defiende, de hecho, intereses o privilegios
de los clases dominantes y las estructuras sociales, políticas e ideológicas por
ellos mantenidas.79
Arias Salgado rejected the charge that censorship was interference with a person’s
individual rights and personal liberties. Censorship, he claimed, simply protected
information and avoided the propagation of lies. Rejecting Rousseau’s ‘authority
from the people’, the regime chose to support the Pauline theory of ‘authority from
God’, through the people or, in their version, exercised by a very select minority
of people who had no intention of yielding it to anybody else. Thus answerable
to God alone, it could do as it pleased. The civil liberties of the people were ultim-
ately subject to God’s authority and if at any stage it became necessary for these
liberties to be suspended for the common good, this was done by the regime with
the blessing of the Church. In a speech delivered at the first Consejo Nacional de
Prensa in Alicante in 1953, Arias Salgado defined the common good as:
un bien material y moral a la vez, y principalmente moral . . . Siendo el bien
común una comunidad de personas, familias y profesiones, no un todo sustan-
cial como un organismo viviente, debe respetar los derechos fundamentales que
la ley natural confiere a la persona humana singular y a la sociedad familiar. El
individuo, como parte de la nación, está ordenado al bien común de la sociedad.
Pero como persona, como portador de valores eternos, el hombre está ordenado
a la inmortalidad, al mismo Dios, y bajo este aspecto la sociedad es un medio
para él.80
In this scheme of things, he who offends against the common good offends
against God. The censor simply wishes to protect weak members of society from
the negative influence of others; censorship thus viewed becomes a positive
action for the common good.
In an article about theatre censorship in Spain, Nicolás González Ruiz, literary
critic for Ya, referred to the work of the censors as the ‘gran tarea de dignificación
del teatro’.81 He maintained that the object of censorship was to create, not to
destroy, and went on to congratulate the censors for raising the standards of the
productions in Spanish theatres. González Ruiz saw the censor’s job as twofold: to
guard against bad literature with a worthy message, as the message might be

80 Arias Salgado, Textos de doctrina, pp. 7–8.
81 Nicolás González Ruiz, ‘Una gran tarea de dignificación del teatro’, in Abellán, ed.,
Censura y literaturas, pp. 173–5 (p. 174).

despised for its association with work of poor quality, and to root out and destroy
well-written literature that is amoral or morally corrupt. A censor must always seek
to identify the moral lesson in a piece and judge it by this. As Manuel Abellán
pointed out: ‘Las convicciones morales, conceptos de catolicidad y tradición se
convirtieron en criterios estéticos.’82 Once again, the censor is viewed as doing a
service for the benefit of other people, whom the state has deemed unable to reach
their own conclusions about the suitability or otherwise of a drama.
DON HOMOBONO Yo sólo quiero servir a vuestra excelencia con mi mayor

celo . . ., por el bien de España (O.C. I: 1511).
The censor, often a writer or a journalist himself, was often not a particularly
powerful person in the administrative system. In an early article, which personi-
fied censorship in the form of the scrupulous and respectable Don Homobono,
Buero attacked the petty-minded censor. The character appeared again in Buero’s
post-Franco, anti-censorship play, La detonación (1977). However, unlike the
low-level censors, those who controlled the ministries in charge of propaganda
and censorship were very powerful indeed. The changes in the censorship per-
sonnel at the highest levels reflect the adjustments made to the ideology of the
regime in its efforts to ensure the stability and reproduction of the social order.
The Falangist Ramón Serrano Suñer acted as Ministro del Interior from
1938 and controlled censorship until 1941, when he was removed from that office
because Franco feared his rising power and popularity. After a very brief period
under the direction of Colonel Valentín Galarza Morante, control of censorship was
returned to Serrano Suñer, by then at the Vicesecretaria de Educación Popular. The
fact that he was the public face of Spain’s pro-Axis stance meant that when Franco
eventually switched allegiances, Serrano Suñer again lost his position, this time to
the more liberal Joaquín Ruíz Giménez. With the creation of the MIT in July 1951,
control of censorship was taken from Ruiz Giménez, who was not popular with the
conservative forces in Franco’s government, and handed to the more conservative
Gabriel Arias Salgado. The latter had trained as a Jesuit for fourteen years and was
greatly influenced by the Church’s teaching. He was nicknamed El arcángel San
Gabriel in reference to his stated belief that he was saving Spanish souls. He was
also fanatically anti-Communist and loath to discard Civil War rhetoric. Thus he
not only reflected Franco’s own prejudices and ideology, but he was also a fervent
Catholic at a time when the regime was seeking Vatican support for its ideology.
Arias Salgado, like Fraga after him, justified the nationalization of the Spanish
Press.83 He claimed that Spain had long been misunderstood and misrepresented
82 In ‘Problemas historiográficos en el estudio de la censura literaria del último medio
siglo’, Revista canadiense de estudios hispánicos, 13 (no. 3, 1989), 319–29 (p. 323).
83 ‘Es sencillamente, que la información es un patrimonio nacional, parte del bien común, y
este bien común nacional sólo puede ser administrado y asufructuado [sic(?)] por y en beneficio
de los españoles. Es, sencillamente, que el mercado de la noticia y del adjetivo es uno de los
grandes instrumentos de dominio que manejan los imperialismos extranjeros, las sociedades
secretas y, sobre todo, el comunismo internacional,’ Arias Salgado, Textos de doctrina, p. 122.
by the foreign media, and he declared that it was the duty of the Spanish press
to put this right by promulgating the official truth. Fraga, in his memoirs, seems
not to have been much impressed by his predecessor, whom he describes as ‘un
hombre de bien, pero limitado; creía de verdad en su concepto muy rigorista de
la moral pública. Más grave era su idea del monopolio cuasi teológico de la
verdad política.’84 Arias Salgado lost his position in the aftermath of the Munich
Congress when his handling of the situation led to a negative international reac-
tion and the anger of the Monarchists.
Manuel Fraga Iribarne took over at the MIT after the reshuffle in July 1962.
Compared to the ultra-conservative Arias Salgado, Fraga offered a more dynamic
and progressive image. His arrival heralded the beginning of the liberalization,
and a popular expression of the day was: ‘¡Con Salgado, todo tapado; con Fraga,
hasta la braga!’85 Through García Escudero, who had earlier controlled censor-
ship of the theatre and cinema, Fraga maintained contact with the intellectuals of
the opposition to whom he promised reform. Yet his perceived liberalizing stance
led to problems with the so-called inmovilistas of the Old Guard in Franco’s
government, particularly in relation to the 1966 Ley de Prensa e Imprenta.
Fraga lost his ministerial portfolio in 1969 in the aftermath of the Matesa
scandal, and Alfredo Sánchez Bella took over at the helm of the MIT. The
promotion of Sánchez Bella, a conservative who had served as Franco’s ambas-
sador to Rome from where he had criticized Fraga’s limited apertura, heralded
a swing back to the right. Despite his strong Catholicism, he intervened to
prevent the diffusion of the declaration of the Justitia et Pax Commission, which
was critical of the regime. He also concerned himself with the threat posed to his
control of information by the video cassette and introduced legislation to control
the production and circulation of any such audio-visual material that might come
on to the Spanish market and threaten the regime’s monopoly on information.
Fraga does not seem to have held a very high opinion of his successor and in his
memoirs portrays him as a barometer of trouble.86
According to Gubern, Sánchez Bella’s actions were so regressive that his
dismissal in June 1973 was progress in itself.87 Fernando de Liñán took over the
MIT for a brief period in 1973 after the failure of Carrero Blanco’s gabinete de
monocolor. Then, Pío Cabanillas was appointed as Minister by Arias Navarro in
early 1974. There was evidence of genuine, although limited, apertura under his
84 Fraga Iribarne, Memoria breve, p. 34.

85 Hopewell, Out of the Past, p. 64.
86 ‘El día 2 de noviembre 1961: Ceno con Alfredo Sánchez Bella; desde Roma, está lleno
de dudas y sospechas; presenta fantasías por informaciones; no le gusta la reforma’; (30 Sept.
1966): ‘Llega Sánchez Bella de Roma, al olor del posible lío’ (a reference to the Ley
Orgánica) and later (6 Oct. 1966): ‘Almuerzo con Sánchez Bella, que anda a la caza de
noticias y oportunidades’; (25 Oct. 1969): ‘Tengo una información segura que Sánchez Bella
estará en Madrid el lunes 27. Parece la primera noticia concreta de la crisis.’ Fraga Iribarne,
Memoria breve, pp. 52, 181, 254.
87 Gubern, La censura, p. 249.
ministership. The press began to report strikes and give the opinions of opposition
leaders. This made him unpopular with the more hard-line members of cabinet, and
they successfully conspired to have him removed from power. Ironically, a liber-
alization of the legislation dealing with cinema censorship was introduced by his
successor, Leon Herrera, in March 1975. Although some nudity was tolerated, it
was a reactive, rather than a proactive, move; in effect, ‘la orden del gobierno pone
tan solo el sello oficial en una situación de hecho’.88
Censorship of the theatre was controlled by various ministries throughout the
Franco regime. The regime sought to legitimate and normalize theatre censor-
ship by legislating for it and thus making it a naturalized part of staging a play.
Moreover, drama was subject to two forms of censorship, although there was
correspondence between the relevant departments; a play had to be censored
both as a stage production and as a book for publication. The files held in the
Archivo General de la Administración in Alcalá de Henares reveal the changes
that occurred in the laws and bodies governing theatre censorship in Spain from
the immediate post-Civil War period to the post-Franco period.
From 1939 to 1941, theatre censorship was regulated by the Ministerio de
la Gobernación, where it formed part of the portfolio of the Subsecretaría
de Prensa, Propaganda y Turismo. Within this body was the Departamento de
Teatro y Música, governed by the Sección de Censura de Representaciones. The
legislation governing theatre censorship had been set out in the Orden de 15
de julio de 1939 (Mº. Gobernación). Article 1 established a censorship section
reporting to the Servicio Nacional de Propaganda, and Article 2 outlined the
functions of the body, which included censorship of publications, theatre and
cinema. A reshuffle saw control of censorship moved to the Vicesecretaría de
Educación Popular de FET y de las JONS, where it remained from 1941 until
1945. Theatre censorship remained the concern of the MIT from its inception
in 1951 until 1977. However, this did not provide any corresponding stability in
the censorship process, as many changes were implemented within the MIT that
directly affected theatre censorship.
The Orden 30 noviembre 1954 (MIT) created a classification system to protect
minors by prohibiting their attendance at any performance judged unsuitable.
The following year, the Orden 16 febrero set out the proceedings for the author-
ization of revues and variety performances. One of the greatest changes was
ushered in by Minister Fraga in February 1963, when he introduced legislation
establishing the Junta de Censura de Obras Teatrales under the control of the
Director General de Cinematografía y Teatro. Article 3 of the new law detailed
the structure of the committee; article 4 stated that the committee must consist
of nine members to be named by the Minister, one of whom would be proposed
by the SGAE. Each member, according to article 5, could serve for up to three
years with the possibility of revocation or extension of this term at the discretion
of the Minister; article 11 stipulated who was to view the dress rehearsal before
88 AGA/IDD 104.04 Topogr. 82-68 Ca. 581 MIT/00.625.

a final verdict was given; article 12 stated that in exceptional circumstances

the Director General could suspend the ruling of the plenary session and request
the Minister to establish a special commission to review the verdict. The final
article, the thirteenth, stated that the MIT would produce censorship guidelines
within three months of the publication of the February 1963 legislation.
In fact, this legislation did not appear for another year. The Orden 6 febrero
1964 (MIT), por la que se aprueba el Reglamento de Régimen Interior de la
Junta de Censura de Obras Teatrales y las normas de censura expanded the
functions and procedures of the Junta de Censura de Obras Teatrales and set
down some censorship regulations. Article 11 of the Reglamento de Régimen
Interior stated that the deliberations of the Board were secret. There were two
different types of session which could be convened by the Board: the Delegate
Commission usually consisted of just three censors, although the President or
Vice-president and the Secretary or his substitute had to be present; a plenary
session was convoked if the smaller committee did not reach unanimous
agreement or if the Minister saw fit to call it to session. A simple majority would
suffice for the verdict to be valid and the President had the casting vote. The final
decision of either committee had to comprise the authorization or prohibition of
the work and the conditions of the authorization where applicable. The verdict
had to include the audience age and also stipulate whether or not it could be
broadcast on radio or television. It was to be delivered within fifteen days of the
day following receipt of the application, or seven days if the application was
deemed urgent. This regulation was often ignored, however, and the infamous
silencio administrativo could extend for months. The disadvantage to the theatre
company caused by this silence increased the pressure on an author to accept
any modifications or cuts recommended by the censor. The appeals procedure
was outlined in articles 19 and 20. However, there was no independent body with
which to lodge an appeal against a censor’s decision, and the appellant had to
address himself to the very people who had banned or cut the work, or, at best,
to another non-elected branch of the powerful state machine.
The second part of the legislation outlined the Normas de Censura Teatral.
Article 1 merely stated:
La Junta de Censura Teatral aplicará, en el ejercicio de su función, las normas

de censura cinematográfica aprobadas por Orden ministerial de 9 de febrero
de 1963, en cuanto lo permitan las características de los diversos géneros
teatrales y con las adaptaciones impuestas por las diferencias entre el teatro
y el cinematógrafo.89
The all-encompassing legislation referred to drew heavily upon Roman Catholic

ideology and was prudish in the extreme. The general and subjective terms
89 Orden 6 febrero 1964 (MIT), por la que se aprueba el Reglamento de Régimen Interior
de la Junta de Censura de Obras Teatrales y las Normas de Censura, BOE, no. 48 (25 February
1964), pp. 2504–6 (p. 2506).
employed in the legislation remained undefined, and thus their interpretation was
at the discretion of the censors. Another problem for the theatre companies was
the very nature of theatre censorship: the censor had to be given prior notifica-
tion of the dates and location of the run, along with details of the cast and theatre
in which the work was to be staged. To have all of this information, a production
had to be well under way. This entailed a very great risk for the producer who
had to invest a substantial amount of time and money in the play before seeking
authorization, and who stood to lose his investment if the work was prohibited.
This led to risk management on the part of some producers, who tended to
choose a safe option and avoid plays that could not be guaranteed a trouble-free
run and authors with a history of censorship troubles.
The process of submitting a work to the censor’s office and its subsequent
review by the censors was quite complicated, requiring an abundance of docu-
mentation and patience. The period 1939 to 1977 can be subdivided into three
distinct phases as far as the censorship documentation is concerned. From 1939
to 1964, the procedure to be followed was based on the stipulations of the Orden
15 julio 1939. Initially, a formal application had to be made to the censorship
office by the director of the company wishing to stage the play, requesting
permission to do so. The applicant gave details of the play, and the verdict of the
administration was added once the censor had passed judgement. This form was
altered in 1944 to allow for touring details.
The applicant also had to supply a number of typed copies of the work subject
to review, and, if the work was a revue or variety performance, the designs for
the sets and costumes had to be submitted for scrutiny. The censor’s report was
the document on which the final decision was based. This document gave a brief
plot outline and evaluated the literary, political, religious and theatrical merits of
the play (Appendix III). Recommendations for cuts and modifications were made,
and the censor decided whether audience age restrictions should be imposed or
not. Any correspondence entered into within the ministry or with the author or
theatre company was also analysed before the verdict was given. Finally, a copy
of the guía de censura was sent back to the applicant. On it was the verdict and
any specific conditions for performance of the work. The applicant was obliged
to show this document to the local authorities as proof that the censorship
procedure had been adhered to.
The Establishment of the Junta de Censura Teatral led to changes in the
procedure and the documentation required. Previously, the authorization or
prohibition of a play had been based on the verdict of just one censor, or two in
cases where it was judged wise to have a second opinion. Now the proceedings
involved the Censorship Committee. As before, the entire process was initiated by
the formal application by the theatre company for permission to stage a work. At
least three copies of the play had to be submitted to the censor. The committee’s
final verdict was delivered in a document drawn up after analysis of the censors’
individual reports. Any cuts or recommendations by the censors were also
recorded. On occasion, a report would be drawn up by the security forces regard-
ing the political aspirations and intentions of the work or of its author. As before,
any official correspondence regarding the work was viewed before the final
decision was made. The guía de censura often specified that final judgement was
reserved until the dress rehearsal and any specific conditions and cuts were listed
on the back of the document. There is no record of any formal procedure in the
third phase from 1974 to 1977. At this stage, the only documentation in evidence
in the censorship files is the text subject to censorship.
The procedure for publication of a play was slightly different from that for
application to stage it. Control of press and publications changed from the
Ministerio de Interior in 1938 to the Vicesecretaria de Educación Popular in 1941.
In 1945, it moved to the Ministerio de Educación. Under the Vicesecretaria de
Educación Popular, the Delegación Nacional de Propaganda had the authority to
publish or ban a work. An application form containing detailed information about
the book and publisher had to be sent to the censor along with two copies of
the text. If permission to publish was granted, application had to be made for
permission to distribute the text. The local delegates also monitored the number
of publications by any editorial company to ensure that they were not engaged in
black-market paper dealing. Later, censorship of publications came under the
control of the Ministerio de Educación Nacional, where it remained until 1951.
The Sección de Inspección de Libros, under the Subsecretaria de Educación
Popular, was in charge of the censorship of books. While still under the same min-
istry and subsecretariat in 1951, it was now the Dirección General de Propaganda
that reported to them. The Sección de Inspección de Libros became Censura de
Libros. The application now had to include the proposed retail price of the book
and the number of volumes to be published. It was also to be made clear if the
target reader was female or a minor. In 1951, with the creation of the MIT, cen-
sorship moved to the new ministry. By 1967, the Sección de Inspección de Libros
had been reborn as the Servicio de Orientación Bibliográfica, still reporting to the
Dirección General de Información of the MIT. By this stage, the 1966 Ley de
Prensa e Imprenta was in force and the consultations with the censor’s office were
officially voluntary.
Ideology and the Theatre

Cuando no hay libertad política, todo es política.90
Ultimately, any exploration of the relationship between writers and government in

Francoist Spain comes down to the issues of language and silence, both what was
imposed and what was freely chosen. Ideology, like language, is essentially about
signification. Hence, language is employed to rationalize, naturalize, universalize
and legitimate. As Eagleton puts it: ‘Language itself is a “relatively autonomous”
system, shared by worker and bourgeois, man and woman, idealist and materialist
alike; but precisely because it forms the common basis of all discursive formations,
90 Juan Goytisolo, ‘La literatura perseguida por la política’, in El furgón, pp. 37–44 (p. 41).
it becomes the medium of ideological conflict.’91 It is the appearance of unity that

language gives that is so important.
An analysis of the use and distortions of language by the Nationalist regime
in Spain demonstrates that the administration believed in the power of language
to influence people’s lives, or at least to give expression to the values and ideas
that could do so. Slogans, rhetoric and falsehoods were presented as fact, and so
discussion and interpretation of this language were discouraged. An attempt was
made to condition people to respond to these clichés and this rhetoric, rather than
to reality. It is apparent from the manner in which they sought to appropriate the
language of nationhood and righteousness that the forces of Francoism under-
stood the power of words. By identifying all things Nationalist and Catholic with
patriotism, Spain and the mythical Spanishness of the España eterna, the regime
was not only able to harness a certain amount of goodwill towards these positive
values but also to discredit all things Republican and secular as anti-Spanish.92
When such terminology, and the values it implies, becomes part of the political
parlance of a state, then, as Steiner points out, ‘political conduct is no longer
spontaneous or responsive to reality [. . .] language encloses politicians in the
blindness of certainty or the illusion of justice’.93
There is further evidence of this language manipulation in the censorship
legislation itself. In the 1938 Ley de Prensa, the language of nationhood is appro-
priated by the new ideology in the description of this new press as a national insti-
tution and the new journalist as ‘un digno trabajador al servicio de España’. Taking
the document as a whole, it can be seen that ‘España’, ‘la Patria’, ‘la Nación’, ‘el
destino’, ‘la unidad’, ‘la libertad’, ‘la verdad’, ‘la responsabilidad’, ‘el prestigio’
and so on are associated with the New State.94 In contrast, the language used to
describe the press of the Republic is calculated to inspire hatred and fear and to
highlight its non-Spanishness and its unnaturalness. It is obvious that the regime,
by adopting certain language, sought to harness the positive values it expressed.
Yet one of the most influential figures in the early days of the regime later high-
lighted just how absurd some of the language manipulation was: Serrano Suñer
claims to have pointed out to Franco the lack of logic in dismissing the Republicans
as rebels, when in fact the Nationalists were the ones who had rebelled.95 It was
91Eagleton, Ideology, p. 196.

92‘La guerra de España no es una cosa artificial: es la coronación de un proceso histórico,
es la lucha de la Patria con la antipatria, de la unidad con la secesión, de la moral con el
crimen, del espiritú contra el materialismo, y no tiene otra solución que el triunfo de los
principios puros y eternos sobre los bastardos y antiespañoles.’ Franco, 27 August 1938.
Quoted in Vázquez Montalbán, Los demonios, p. 91.
93 George Steiner, The Death of Tragedy (London: Faber & Faber, 1961), p. 57.
94 Ley 22 abril 1938, de Prensa, pp. 6915–17.
95 ‘Yo tan pronto como me puse al corriente de las cosas, le dije a Franco: “¿Cómo vamos
a llamarles rebeldes a ellos? Llamémosles enemigos, rojos, antiespañoles o lo que sea, pero,
vamos a llamarles rebeldes si aquí quien se ha rebelado hemos sido nosotros? Nuestra
legitimidad es otra.” ’ Quoted in Heleno Saña, El franquismo sin mitos. Conversaciones con
Serrano Suñer, prologue by Hugh Thomas, Colección 80 (Barcelona: Grijalbo, 1982), p. 101.
thus with considerable difficulty that the Republicans, denied the language of
rectitude and justice, defended themselves against the regime’s attacks.
It is hardly surprising that a regime so concerned with the language it employed
should also concern itself with controlling the language used by others. The
regime perceived a threat to its hegemony from the press and the arts, as the
censorship legislation clearly demonstrates. The regime recognized the press as a
powerful instrument; it is described in the introduction to the 1938 Ley de Prensa
as: ‘órgano decisivo en la formación de la cultura popular y, sobre todo, en la
creación de la conciencia colectiva’.96 A later piece of legislation, the Orden
30 noviembre 1954 (MIT) Espectáculos Públicos, again stresses the influence that
the theatre and cinema exercise on the ideas and education of the youth and the
resulting need to monitor them carefully.97 The same idea is emphasized in the
introduction to the 1966 Ley de Prensa e Imprenta. The regime clearly perceived
a threat in the ability of the arts and the media to influence public opinion, and
therefore sought to harness its influence to serve and to secure the survival of
its own ideology.98 It was logical, therefore, that the Franco regime should have
introduced censorship to impose silence by proscribing the voice of dissent.
Already it was apparent that the Nationalist regime recognized that language,
shrewdly employed, had the power to influence others. Furthermore, when
language is combined with performance, be it that of an orator at a political rally
or on a stage in the theatre, it can captivate people and perhaps move them.
Closeness to the speaker encourages the audience to feel itself a participant.
Perhaps because politicians harness so much of the theatrical in their own activ-
ities, they recognize its power in other spheres and may even overestimate it;
accordingly, they seek to control or to neutralize it. Moreover, they are very wary
of such devices when used by those gifted in the art of exposition. Language and
performance are used as a weapon by both politicians and politicized writers in
a battle for the hearts and minds of the masses. Consequently, it is necessary to
examine this discerned link between theatre and ideology that the regime
resolved to check. Of course, the issue of whether or not this ideological link in
fact posed any real threat to the Nationalist regime is also deserving of scrutiny.
Certainly, politicians were not alone in their perception that the theatre had an
ideological and political role in Spanish society. Drama reflects the society that

97 ‘La importancia que en el orden moral, cultural y político tienen los espectáculos
públicos en general y la decidida influencia que ejercen en las costumbres, ideas y formación
de la juventud, han inducido a su tutela y vigilancia, dictándose diversas disposiciones que
regulen la asistencia de los menores a los espectáculos públicos.’ Orden 30 noviembre 1954
(MIT). ESPECTÁCULOS PÚBLICOS. Clasificación a efectos de asistencia de los menores,
BOE, no. 348 (ref. 1842, 14 December 1954), pp. 1422–3 (p. 1422).
98 ‘la importancia, cada vez mayor, de los medios informativos poseen en relación con la
formación de la opinión pública, y, finalmente, la conveniencia indudable de proporcionar a

dicha opinion cauces idóneos a través de los cuales sea posible canalizar debidamente las
aspiraciones de todos los grupos sociales, alrededor de los cuales gira la conveniencia
nacional’. Ley 18 marzo 1966, de Prensa e Imprenta, p. 479.
produces it and is often used for social and political comment by the playwright.
As a consequence, attempts by governments or other powerful social organizations
to censor the theatre are not new: theatre has suffered censorship throughout the
ages and has been used as a form of protest and propaganda from the earliest days.
Reflecting upon the link between the theatre and ideology, Bentley wrote:
It is not hard to see what interested parties have to fear. If they have a bad
conscience, they have to fear the dies irae when the truth will suddenly out and
the malefactors will be punished. They have to fear the hard outline, which a
play can draw around the truth; they have to fear the power of conviction a play
can carry.99
As the dominant political group is aware, the enactment of a conflict on stage can
both clarify and simplify, just as it can also oversimplify and falsify. José Monleón
maintains that all theatre, even the most existential, is at base political, ‘porque la
atención a estas cuestiones se da dentro de un contexto concreto y, por tanto,
alcanza un determinado valor sociocultural’.100 Jean-Paul Sartre wrote, in ‘Mythe
et réalité du théâtre’, that ‘le but du théâtre est directement de provoquer une lame
de fond réelle dans l’âme de chaque spectateur’.101 This would, in essence, require
the dispelling of the myths, which often deliberately cloud reality. Martin Esslin
too noted the political nature of theatre, commenting that ‘it either reasserts or
undermines the code of conduct of a given society’.102 Theatre, in other words, has
an ideological role, and usually advocates either integration or dissent. Even Mario
Antolín, a Subdirector General de Teatro under Franco, acknowledged that the the-
atre could have a political role, although he was careful to grant himself the right
to distinguish between what was political and what was unlawful.103 According to
Buero, theatre should reflect and comment upon society by examining man’s place
in society and the conflicts of man with himself and with society:
Es una finalidad, en suma, emotiva y reflexiva, orientada a la transformación
positiva de la sociedad. Y todo ello lo es, siempre, a la par que un instrumento
99 Eric Bentley, The Theatre of Commitment (And Other Essays on Drama in Our Society)
(London: Methuen, 1968), p. 206.

100 José Monleón, ‘Llegada de los dioses de Antonio Buero Vallejo’, Primer Acto, no. 137
(1971), 57–9 (p. 57).

101 Jean-Paul Sartre, ‘Mythe et réalité du théâtre’, in Un théatre de situations, ed. by Michel
Contat and Michel Rybalka (Paris: Gallimard, 1973), pp. 169–94 (p. 178). The goal of theatre
is to provoke directly a real upheaval in the soul of every spectator.
102 Quoted in Hilde F. Cramsie, Teatro y censura en la España franquista: Sastre, Muñiz y
Ruibal, American University Studies Series II, Romance Languages and Literature, 9 (New York:
Peter Lang, 1984), p. 2.
103 ‘El ser humano es un ser político. Y el teatro político tiene su razón de ser. No creo que
el camino del teatro sea la política, pero creo que es uno de los muchos matices que el teatro
puede tener. Ahora bien, creo que habrá que distinguir entre un teatro político y un teatro
libelo, lo mismo que hay que distinguir entre un político de verdad y un político de mentira,
o entre un militar y un mercenario.’ ‘Con Mario Antolín, nuevo Subdirector General de
Teatro’, Yorick, nos 49–50 (1971), 63–5 (p. 65).
de conocimiento de lo real y no sólo de su transformación, como todo arte; algo

que yo suelo definir como una manera de contemplación activa. (O.C. II: 690)
To see why the theatre was perceived as a threat by the new regime, it is
convenient to go back to the period of the Second Republic and briefly to plot
the evolution of a new theatre, closely allied to recent ideological developments.
The two trends that emerge during this period are a nationalist theatre, with its
emphasis on tradition and folklore, which, although populist, was generally
escapist in nature, and a revolutionary theatre, most often linked to the socialists
and communists. The latter group sought to reform, not only the content of
dramas produced but also the structure of the theatre. Much of the new theatre
produced by the reformers, which was class-conscious, socialist and at times
revolutionary, could be interpreted as antagonistic to conservative ideology;
it represented all that Franco would later seek to eliminate. The Unión de
Escritores y Artistas Revolucionarios, formed in the early 1930s, published a
statement in Octubre in 1933 that goes some way to explaining the perceived
menace posed by these revolutionary artists. Obviously inspired by the socialist
ideology, their declaration read: ‘Queremos iniciar un teatro nuevo: el teatro
de los trabajadores, el teatro que exprese en sus múltiples formas todas las
modalidades de la vida, de las clases que luchan por redimirse de la miseria.’104
It was during this period of ideological and political change in Spain that a the-
atre of agitation propaganda emerged. This was a politicized theatre that presented
itself as allied to political and social change, and it was usually associated with a
particular ideology. The attraction of such theatre for the propagandist of a new
ideology is manifest: ‘Agitation propaganda, presented theatrically, participated
in raising its audiences’ consciousnesses to a point where social and political
problems took on shape and immediacy.’105
In his book, Teatro de agitación política 1933–1939, Bilbatúa explored the
development of small art-house theatres. Early attempts at change, such as Adriá
Grau’s Teatre Intim and Rivas Cherif’s El Caracol, rejected the stale bourgeois
theatre, but failed to create anything radically different to replace it. Other
dramatists sought to make a more radical departure from the theatre of the day.
From 1928 until 1935, Margarita Xirgu’s theatre company staged social and
political plays in the Teatro Español. At this time, others proposed a theatrical
revolution that would bring an end to the bourgeois domination of the stalls
and give the theatre to the proletariat. On 26 February 1931, shortly before the
declaration of the Republic, Rafael Alberti caused controversy with his play El
hombre deshabitado, staged in the Teatro de la Zarzuela in Madrid. The play
criticizes the wilful amnesia and apathy of the Spaniards. However, the author
also took the opportunity afforded by its production to denounce the bourgeois
104 Robert Marrast, ‘El teatro durante la guerra civil española’, Cuadernos el Público,
no. 15 (1986), 19–31 (p. 20).

105 George H. Szanto, Theater and Propaganda (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1978),
p. 73.
theatre and to make political statements. When the audience applauded the play,
Alberti rose and shouted: ‘¡Viva el exterminio! ¡Muera la podredumbre de la
actual escena española!’106 There was a riot after the final show. Other writers,
among them Federico García Lorca and Alejandro Casona, inspired hope for the
future of Spanish drama, but this was dashed by the Civil War, in the case of these
two dramatists by death and exile. Lorca too was outspoken in his criticism of
the bourgeois theatre and the need for progress on the Spanish stage. He believed
in a committed social theatre as a means of influencing people and saw in the
theatre a reflection of society at large. In his Charla sobre teatro, he wrote: ‘El
teatro se debe imponer al público, y no el público al teatro.’107 Other writers,
some of whom suggested means of advancement, criticized the escapist nature
of much of what was on offer. Indeed, Valle-Inclán wryly commented that ‘toda
reforma en el teatro (había de comenzar) por el fusilamiento de los Quintero’.108
Bilbatúa’s book documented the growth of two associated movements within
the theatre in the 1930s. These were teatro para el pueblo and teatro del pueblo.
The former included such groups as Teatro de Misiones Pedagógicas, La Barraca
and El Buho. The Patronato de Misiones Pedagógicas was established in 1931
under Marcelino Domingo at the Ministerio de Instrucción Pública y Bellas Artes,
and Alejandro Casona, winner of the 1934 Premio Lope de Vega, was one of its
most successful dramatists. La Barraca and El Buho, both affiliated to university
theatre groups, were formed under the protection of Fernando de los Ríos at the
Ministerio de Educación and survived from their initiation in 1932 until the end of
the Civil War. The teatro del pueblo movement perhaps came closer to a proletar-
ian theatre than any previous organization; influenced by Erwin Piscator among
others, it staged plays, many of which were political, in factories and in Casas del
Pueblo. Reacting against the prevailing theatrical climate, these dramatists were
not well received outside the ranks of their fellow reformers. Those who attempted
innovation, if they managed to avoid trouble with the censors, were often ignored
or rejected by the public. Obviously, this was what Max Aub was referring to when
he stated: ‘Hay que creer en el pueblo aunque éste no quiera que se crea en él.’109
At this time, as the censorship documents held in the Archivo General de la
Administración reveal, plays were assessed by the Dirección General de
Seguridad for ‘frases o expresiones que supongan alusiones intolerables a
Instituciones oficiales, idearios o personas determinadas’.110 However, the type
106 Rafael Alberti, ‘El autor recuerda el estreno’, in Seis dramaturgos españoles del siglo
XX, 2 vols (Madrid: Edición Primer Acto-Girol Books, 1988), I, pp. 47–50 (p. 48).
107 Federico García Lorca, ‘Textos y palabras de Federico: charla sobre teatro (1935)’, in
Seis dramaturgos, pp. 139–42 (p. 141).

108 Quoted in Carlos Jerez-Farrán, ‘Decadencia y revitalización en el teatro español de los
años 20’, Estreno, 17 (no. 2, 1991), 25–33 (p. 25).

109 Max Aub 1946, quoted in Juan Antonio Hormigón, ‘Índice de problemas de
infraestructura teatral: repertorio y nuevo público’, Yorick, no. 48 (1971), 67–74 (p. 69).
110 AGA/IDD 36 Topogr. 21-47 Dirección General de Seguridad. Censura de teatro de la
II República. 1931–36. All further references to censorship documents from this period are
from the same section and will be given after quotations in the text.
of detailed censorship reports, common under Franco, are absent in the files
from this period. What is clear from the documents relating to plays from
the Second Republic, excepting the bienio negro, is that there was a clear
official bias towards left-wing theatre, and a certain anti-clericalism and an
anti-conservative bent. Notwithstanding such partiality, the escapist theatre
of dramatists such as Torrado and Navarro was perfectly acceptable to the
Republican authorities, as were folkloric dramas and zarzuelas, such as Talavera
and Vals’ Alma charra from 1933. Yet the political bias can be seen in the
authorization in January 1933 of Carlota O’Neill’s agitation propaganda play,
Al rojo. This play, despite the censor’s view that it was ‘de lo peor que se ha
escrito’ of proletarian theatre, in which, ‘la mujer se prostituye en la clase baja
por necesidad, y en la clase alta por vicio’, was approved, as it was considered
that government prohibitions could make the situation worse (Ca. 5797). There
had been no such beneficence in evidence one month previously, when Manuel
de Jesús Moreno’s play, De muy buen barro, was prohibited. Criticism of ‘la
escuela laíca’ and the following line from Act II were cited as reasons for the
prohibition: ‘Al pobre cura le van a quitar la paga y tendrá que pedir limosna’
(Ca. 5797 Exp. 6077).
Villapecellin’s R. I. (República inmoral), whose title clearly signals the content,
was also prohibited that year (Ca. 5797 Exp. 6078). In March 1933, Antonio
Paso’s Los mártires de Alcalá, while generally considered apolitical and morally
acceptable, offered some cause for concern with the line: ‘es más difícil buscar al
tío que echar a Azaña’ and for its use of firearms on stage (Ca. 5800 Exp. 6124).
Yet the Communist propaganda play, La peste fascista, by Irene de Falcón (César
Garfias) of the Nosotros theatre group was authorized by the Director General de
Seguridad, who stated: ‘no se observa ataque violento alguno contra el régimen
establecido ni concepto de ninguna clase que pueda considerarse punible’ (Ca.
5800 Exp. 6123). It ended with the annihilation of the fascists and ‘vivas al
proletariado’. In such a climate it comes as no great surprise that plays such as
Unamuno’s El otro, Valle-Inclán’s Divinas palabras and García Lorca’s Bodas de
sangre were judged to be both politically and morally innocuous.111
In the altered political climate of December 1934, Pemán’s Cisneros was
approved. A letter from El Comisario Jefe to the Jefe Superior de la Policia
Gubernativa notes that after the show, Pemán spoke about the need for more
men like Cisneros, and the public greeted his words with ‘grandes ovaciones’
(Ca. 5843 Exp. 6279). Yet Guerra a la guerra, a Communist play from 1935,
was prohibited in early December of that year. The judicial report noted:
A pretexto de combatir la guerra, idea respetable en el aspecto puramente

especulativo y aun admisible desde el punto de vista legal, se ataca en reali-
dad, en términos de gran crudeza, la idea de la patria y el sentimiento patrio.
La obra es de un marcado y declarado sabor comunista, incompatible con las
111 Ca. 5793 Exp. 6061; Ca. 5795 Exp. 6125; Ca. 5800 Exp. 6117.
actuales instituciones, considerada en su aspecto de pública representación.

(Ca. 8502 Exp. 6467)
In May 1936, under the Popular Front Government, ¡Comunista!, a play for
the Casa del Pueblo in Madrid, was not authorized owing to its attacks on the
police, the prison services and its ‘constante excitación a la rebelión’, which it
was believed might lead to public disorder (Ca. 5831 Exp. 6633). A couple of
months later, in early July, another Communist play, La herencia proletaria,
which contained references to a corrupt governor in an imaginary province, who
is effectively in the pay of the clergy and the bourgeoisie, was also condemned
in a judicial report. However, the Director General saw fit to approve the
play without suppressions, but his reasons for ignoring the report are unclear
(Ca. 5842 Exp. 6656).
Yet, despite the best efforts of the reformers and the propagandistic offerings
of others, the theatre world was still dominated by more conservative works by
dramatists such as Pemán, Torrado, Benavente and Muñoz Seca. The Teatro
Nacional de la Falange, under the direction of Luis Escobar, concentrated on
staging dramas from Spain’s Golden Age or those that emulated such theatre, in
keeping with the nationalist ideology it reflected. Of the serious dramatists
and reformers, Max Aub was perhaps the man who came closest to achieving
real change in the structures and forms of the Spanish theatre. He proposed
the Establishment of a National Theatre and the creation of opportunities for
experimental and youth theatre, and called on the Popular Front government to
support the arts; if his work had not been frustrated by the Civil War, he might
have succeeded. The ill-starred Consejo Central del Teatro was born in 1937 with
Aub as secretary. It seemed for a while that a theatrical revolution had begun,
but the war meant that the activities of the committee were limited to Madrid;
unfortunately, the dénouement of the Civil War ensured that the council never
fulfilled its potential.
During the Civil War, those who were involved in the revolutionary theatri-
cal movement were themselves divided into dramatists who insisted on artis-
tic integrity and those who were willing to sacrifice this for a political point,
but both groups produced motivated drama that was very much allied to the
Republican ideology. Marrast describes how, at this time, the unions took over
and collectivized the theatres. However, in order to guarantee work for all union
members, the revolutionaries had to compromise or abandon some of their polit-
ical aspirations. In his analysis, Marrast divides Civil War theatre into four types:
escapist theatre (both old and new), new political and agitation propaganda plays
(some too political for their audience and others not sufficiently so), adaptations
of classics to reflect the new situation and social theatre from the pre-Civil War
period.
Both sides in the struggle produced political and propagandistic dramas.
Focusing specifically on the Republican theatre illustrates again the clear connec-
tion between drama and politics at this time. The teatro de agitación, which
embraced many politicized theatre groups, was organized in Madrid by the Alianza
de los Intelectuales Antifascistas. Their stated aim was to write and stage drama
based on the current political situation, and their mouthpiece was El mono azul.112
Nueva Escena was a theatrical co-operative led by Rafael Dieste, which in 1936
began to stage political dramas, including short works by Alberti, Sender and by
Dieste himself. Apart from these, there were other groups such as the Teatro de arte
y propaganda, based in the Teatro de la Zarzuela in Madrid, and an organization
calling itself Teatro en la calle, which staged Alberti’s adaptation of Cervantes’s El
cerco de Numancia in 1937. Alberti also wrote Radio Sevilla, Cuadro flamenco
(1937), which was published with the works of some other authors in a collection
called Teatro de urgencia. Later, in 1938, he wrote Cantata de los héroes y la
fraternidad de los pueblos, which he dedicated to the International Brigades. The
Guerrillas del teatro and Teatro para el frente brought this political theatre to those
fighting for the Republican cause. The authors of this movement included Max
Aub with his political teatro de circunstancias, José Herrera Petrere, Germán
Bleiberg and Pablo de la Fuente. Other writers who involved themselves in the
dramatic process, such as Manuel Altolaguirre, César M. Arconada and José
Bergamín, had not been associated with the theatre previously. Miguel Hernández
was also very involved in Republican theatre during the Civil War, and his Pastor
de la Muerte (1937–38) is based on the siege of Madrid. Furthermore, in 1937 he
published four plays under the collective title Teatro en la guerra, in which he
stated his belief that the theatre can serve as a powerful weapon in wartime.113
The Popular Front government’s concerns about the propaganda plays
were initially few. Dramas such as Viva la República (o, el último traidor) were
authorized without problems. However, in the early stages of the conflict, the
government became concerned by the negative portrayal of the army in some
agitation propaganda plays. This was the case with Aurelio González Rendón’s
Ya están de pie los esclavos sin pan and Luis Mussot’s ¡No pasarán!, both of
which date from September 1936. In a report by the Attorney General about the
former, there is an objection to the line: ‘Todas las lumias, compañeras de una
noche, eran hijas de militares.’ He advocated its suppression, arguing that it was
an insult to army personnel:
cuyo prestigio debe velar siempre la Autoridad aun en las circunstancias
actuales, porque ha de tenerse en cuenta que aunque hay un gran número de
112 Occasionally they allowed themselves to be carried away by their revolutionary
fervour, such as when they secured García Lorca’s signature for a manifesto a month and a
half after his death. José Monleón, ‘El mono azul’: Teatro de urgencia y romancero de la
guerra civil, Endymión (Madrid: Ayuso, 1979), pp. 35–6.
113 ‘Una de las maneras mías de luchar es haber comenzado a cultivar un teatro hiriente y
breve: un teatro de guerra. [. . .] Creo que el teatro es un arma magnífica de guerra contra el
enemigo de enfrente y contra el enemigo de casa. Entiendo que todo teatro, toda poesía, todo arte,
ha de ser, hoy más que nunca, un arma de guerra. [. . .] Yo me digo: hay que sepultar las ruinas
del obsceno y mentiroso teatro de la burguesía, de todas las burguesías y comodidades del alma,
que todavía andan moviendo polvo y ruina en nuestro pueblo.’ Miguel Hernández, Foreword to
Teatro en la guerra. Quoted in Carlos Blanco Aguinaga, Julio Rodríguez Puértolas and Iris M.
Zavola, Historia social de la literatura española, 3 vols (Madrid: Castalia, 1983), III, pp. 43–4.
Oficiales y Jefes del Ejército sublevados que han hecho traición a su palabra
y a su deber, hay otros también que luchan heróicamente en defensa del
Gobierno legítimo de la República y de la Libertad. (Ca. 5805 Exp. 6613)114
Other examples of theatre of agitation by writers of some merit include Rafael

Dieste’s Al amanecer and Ramón J. Sender’s La llave, both of which were approved
without cuts in October 1936. However, the Attorney General had misgivings about
Rafael Alberti’s Los salvadores de España.115 He urged prohibition of the play,
unless certain changes were made. These were the removal of the allusions to
foreign Heads of State ‘con cuyas Naciones no ha roto oficialmente sus relaciones
diplomáticas España’, and the elimination of the two anthems to be sung at the end
of the play, ‘por las posibles alteraciones de orden público’ that might result from
their performance.
The role of the theatre in society, which is often simultaneously exaggerated
and underestimated, must be determined, to some degree at least, by the attitude
of the artists and of those in power towards it. Drama in certain circumstances,
then, can become politicized. Obviously, the governments of the Republic and
the Civil War period were conscious of the highly politicized nature of the theatre
of the time and sought to encourage it where it was to their advantage. Doubtless,
this circumstance, allied to the need of the nascent regime to impose its own
culture, persuaded the victorious Nationalists of the need to control and censor
the theatre in order to protect their own ideology. Thus, in the theatre, the language
of nationalism was imposed and that of others was excluded.
114 Similarly, in the report on the latter play, it was stated: ‘En los actuales momentos, en
que es indispensable para el triunfo de la República y del Gobierno legítimo mantener muy
elevada la moral y la disciplina del Ejército, un quebramiento de estos resortes y un escarnio
de la organización de los defensores de la República, que, de representarse en un escenario,
produciría una excitación a la indisciplina de los soldados y las milicias contra sus jefes, con
el grave quebranto para los intereses de la República democrática y del porvenir de la Patria
que de esto habría que derivar.’ Ca. 5805 Exp. 6678.
115 The three plays appear in the file Ca. 5804 Exp. 6681.
2
Language and Silence
Post-Civil War Theatre

Unsurprisingly, theatre of agitation propaganda does not exist to any great extent
in the post-war Francoist period. The successful establishment of the New State,
and its longevity, ensured that the audience for agit-prop theatre was reduced, if
not entirely eliminated. Many of those who had been at the forefront of the the-
atre of agitation movement were dead, imprisoned or exiled in the aftermath of
the Nationalist victory. Those who remained were unwilling or unable to mount
a similar challenge to the new regime. Not only that, but in the immediate after-
math of the Civil War, as London notes, the theatre played a role in the legiti-
mation of the regime:
In April and May 1939 theatrical performances sometimes ended with the
singing of the national anthem and a large portrait of the Caudillo displayed
onstage. Audiences listened, their arms raised in the fascist salute. Set design
did, on occasion, incorporate nationalist insignia.1
Forging a New State included the task of creating a new culture to reflect and
reinforce the dominant ideology. In fact, it was with considerable zeal that the
regime set about imposing its own ideology and eliminating alternatives. Both
Carlos Rodríguez Sanz and José María de Quinto assert that the Spanish culture
promoted by the Nationalist regime was noteworthy for what it chose to ignore
or censor, as much as for what it promoted.2 Thus, initially, the censors con-
cerned themselves more with the revivals of certain dramas from the pre-war
period than with anything new and revolutionary. They did so effectively, and
the works of Republican writers were eliminated from the Spanish stage.3
1 John London, Reception and Renewal in Modern Spanish Theatre: 1939–1963, MHRA
Texts and Studies, 45 (London: W. S. Maney & Son, 1997), p. 151.

2 Carlos Rodríguez Sanz, ‘Teatro y subvención’, Cuadernos para el diálogo, Monograph
no. 3 (June 1966), 23–5 (p. 23). José María de Quinto, ‘Radiografía breve de los últimos 30
años de teatro’, Cuadernos para el diálogo, Monograph no. 3, 26–7 (p. 26).
3 ‘En los primeros años de la posguerra, como se ve, las dificultades de la censura no
estribaban en la presentación de piezas escritas por nuevos dramaturgos sino en la revisión de

obras ya existentes, escritas con anterioridad a la Guerra Civil y faltas de las podas deseables.
Por lo que se refiere al teatro “convencional” – el último Benavente, Miguel Mihura, José
Reflecting upon the creation of a new culture for a New State, José María de
Quinto remarked:
En España se había producido una honda conmoción y se intentaba construir,

a mi modo de ver ingenuamente, un mundo distinto. Sobre tales supuestos,
hubo quienes llegaron a creer en la viabilidad de una cultura nueva, imperial,
que entroncara con un pasado glorioso. [. . .] El noventayochismo era exami-
nado con lupa, y, en todo caso, tachado de movimiento antipatriótico. Todo lo
que no fuera exaltador y optimista, aunque estuviera enraizado con la realidad,
cobraba el aire sospechoso de maridar con la Leyenda Negra.4
Later the link between drama and ideology in the New State was more insid-
ious; agitation propaganda of the left had disappeared, and there remained what
Szanto termed integration propaganda. This formed part of the cultural ideo-
logical state apparatus, and it played a role in the normalization and naturaliza-
tion of the new dominant ideology, reinforcing the notion that the government
was working for the common good, by stressing the stability and benefits of the
present order. It encouraged passive participation in the New State structures and
dissuaded opposition and change. Like the Church, the education system and
other ideological state apparatuses, theatre of integration propaganda creates a
false sense of unity. Echoing Althusser, Szanto wrote:
Integration propaganda is long-term in nature, and most importantly, it is pro-

duced in far greater quantity by the social hegemony, those who passively
accept the ideology of a society and function actively within it – teachers,
preachers, newsmen, filmmakers, social workers, playwrights, psychologists:
any who are in the business of affecting the general consciousness – than it is
by those relatively few bureaucrats who are actively paid by their governments
to make, in the traditional sense, a society’s propaganda.5
In the 1940s, while the rest of Europe examined the new reality in the after-
math of the horrors of the world war, Spain retreated to a culture of escapism to
distract from an unpleasant reality that was fast becoming naturalized. Direct
comment on the current situation was limited by censorship. José Monleón dis-
tinguishes two trends in theatre of this time: the comic and risqué revue, and the
cliché-dominated folkloric theatre. He described the theatre of the time as
immoral, and it is this immorality that Buero would later challenge in his the-
atre. Since the work of the reformers was only beginning prior to the outbreak
María Pemán, Joaquín Calvo Sotelo cum suis – las condiciones en las que escribieron y los
presupuestos políticos o sociales de los que partían no supusieron jamás – al contrario –
actitud disidente alguna.’ Manuel Abellán, ‘La censura teatral durante el franquismo’, Estreno,
15 (no. 2, 1989), 20–3 (p. 21).
4 De Quinto, ‘Radiografía breve’, p. 26.
5 Szanto, Theater and Propaganda, p. 74.
LANGUAGE AND SILENCE 53
of the Civil War, it is logical that the theatre should have returned so quickly to
its earlier form. José Sanchis Sinisterra, concurring with Monleón, commented
in 1966 that the theatrical offerings in the provinces consisted mainly of the
comic revue and folkloric theatre; this too was integration propaganda, subtly
reinforcing the nationalistic ideology of the regime.6 Many of the promising
dramatists of the pre-Civil War era were Republicans, and therefore their work
was excluded from the new culture. Demonstrating the ideological nature of the-
atre at the time, Monleón suggested that the post-war popularity and elevation in
status of Muñoz Seca had not a little to do with his death at the hands of the
Republicans during the Civil War.7 He further illustrated how, in the works
La muralla (Calvo Sotelo), Murió hace quince años (Giménez Arnau) and El
Vicario de Dios (Laiglesia), dramatists resolved the moral dilemmas posed by
the new regime, thereby soothing the consciences of the bourgeois spectators.
They were absolved of their crimes and misdemeanours and awarded the status
of the righteous.8 José María de Quinto, similarly critical of what was on offer,
described the theatre of the 1940s thus:
Literalmente hablando, era el tiempo de los lacrimosos melodramas de Adolfo

Torrado, en los que una burguesía adocenada e inculta, encontraba consuelo
para adormecer su conciencia. Literariamente hablando, también, José María
Pemán, Juan Ignacio Luca de Tena, Joaquín Calvo Sotelo, y algún que otro dis-
cípulo de Benavente, escribían, primero lo que para entendernos podríamos
denominar ‘teatro de la victoria’, en donde los elementos heroicos trataban de
sustituir a la realidad, y, luego, los consiguientes dramas preburgueses, que,
andando el tiempo, iban a cristalizar en La muralla, máximo exponente de la
dramática de este signo. Era, quiérase o no, un teatro de circunstancias, car-
ente de rigor, no sólo a niveles estéticos, sino también ideológicos, aunque, en
cualquier caso, muy significativo.9
Many of the pre-war dramatists proved just as popular as before. Those enjoy-
ing continued or renewed success included Benavente, the Quintero brothers,
Pemán, Marquina, Arniches and Muñoz Seca. Calvo Sotelo, among the later
playwrights of this genre, included some social comment in some of his dramas,
but he was more concerned with moral values and dilemmas than with social
change. This theatre, some of it superbly crafted, was nevertheless lacking in
6 ‘El teatro en provincias’, Cuadernos para el diálogo, Monograph no. 3, 20–2 (p. 20).
José María de Quinto makes a similar observation: ‘En realidad, eran los tiempos del
melodrama, del juguete cómico, de la comedia montada en el vacío, de los espectáculos
flamencos o folklóricos y de las revistas musicales. [. . .] Se entronizaba oficialmente la
tragedia y el optimismo.’ ‘Radiografía breve’, p. 26.
7 José Monleón, Treinta años de teatro de la derecha (Barcelona: Tusquets, 1971), p. 21.
8 Monleón, Treinta años, pp. 93–110. E. Morales de Acevedo, one of the censors who read
Giménez Arnau’s play, wrote in his report: ‘Por su fondo y por su forma, la comedia es
merecedora de aplauso.’ AGA/IDD 52.22 Topogr. 83-51 Ca. 71.678 Exp. 132-58.
9 De Quinto, ‘Radiografía breve’, p. 26.
originality. Benavente, a primary exponent of such drama, defended the theatre

of evasion with the same argument that others used to damn it:
Hui de lo dramático, porque bastantes angustias sufre ya el mundo para entene-

brecerle con tragedias de invención, a las que da ciento y raya la realidad. Por
eso prefiero divertir y distraer al público con comedias ligeras y comedietas, que,
como me reprochan mis detractores, son deliberadamente frívolas y triviales.10
Newer dramatists such as Ruiz Iriarte, López Rubio and Edgar Neville kept the
tradition alive. Besides the old and new traditionalists, there was also a post-war
attraction to Golden Age drama. Dramatists such as Pemán, Paso, Calvo Sotelo
and later even Mihura and Casona held that the theatre was primarily for enter-
tainment purposes and tended to ignore social or political themes. This theatre,
therefore, did not challenge the status quo.
While some translations of European dramas were quite popular, many of the
great world or European plays did not come to Spain at all, or came late, and
then only to a limited audience. Very little of European avant-garde theatre was
staged commercially in Spain, and that which was, was often adapted or modi-
fied, occasionally beyond recognition. One such drama, which suffered radical
deviations from the original meaning, was Ionesco’s Rhinocéros, which was
staged as an anti-Communist play in Spain.11 On the whole then, the stage was
dominated by conservative, unchallenging, escapist drama; realism was avoided.
Doménech asserted that the audience’s desire was to be served, ‘una imagen
irreal y halagadora de sí mismo’, the more unrealistic and flattering the better.12
The entire dramatic production of this era was based on a narrow selection of
themes and scenarios, with similar resolutions. It was the era of the pieza bien
hecha, a theatre that was well constructed and often stylistically highly accom-
plished, but essentially meek.
The Arrival of Buero Vallejo

No wonder then, that in 1949, Antonio Buero Vallejo’s Historia de una escalera
(1948) caused a stir in the Spanish theatre, given its critical and Realist nature.
The play was considered bitter by some critics long used to the sainete and the
frivolous drama set among the bourgeoisie or the aristocracy. For Buero, however,
the realism it represented provided a necessary break with what had gone before:
Al presentarnos personajes cuya mayoría no posee cuentas corrientes

saneadas; al sustituir en ellos la equitativa distribución de la ingeniosidad por
Quoted in Monleón, Treinta años, p. 14.

10
London, Reception and Renewal, pp. 127, 143.

11
12 Ricardo Doménech, ‘Reflexiones sobre la situación del teatro’, Primer Acto, no. 42
(1963), 4–8 (p. 7).

diferencias reales de ingenio, torpeza o educación; al cambiar los salones cua-

jados de enredos por los tugurios, salitas, oficinas o tenduchos cuyo argumento
es la vida misma sin afeites, consigue por lo menos la recuperación del con-
tacto con los hombres. (O.C. II: 575)
Perhaps surprisingly, given its negative social commentary and uncertain ending,
Historia de una escalera was a huge success. It ran for 187 consecutive perform-
ances, causing the cancellation of the annual staging of Zorilla’s Don Juan
Tenorio. Yet perhaps the most surprising feature of the success was not the play
itself, but its author. An art student when the war broke out, Buero was a com-
mitted socialist who had gone against the wishes of his family to join the
Republican war effort. By the time he was awarded the Lope de Vega prize for
Historia de una escalera in 1949, he was a former Republican prisoner, who had
served over six years for his political crimes.13 His years in prison had a profound
effect on Buero. Perhaps in part owing to the influence of the extraordinary range
of people he met while in prison as well as the oft-stated reason that his painting
skills had become very rusty, Buero began to etch out a literary career for himself
upon his release. He claimed that his experiences also confirmed his commitment
to socialism, and he stated that ‘el mundo será socialista o no será’.14 Nevertheless,
while Buero’s Historia de una escalera signalled a new direction in the post-Civil
War theatre, he was not a reformer when it came to the organization and structure
of the theatre; in fact he was able to work within the commercial theatre. He is
acknowledged as the inspiration for what has been termed the Realist Generation
of Spanish dramatists, whose dramas marked a move away from conservative
escapism and back towards a social theatre. For the regime’s censors, they repre-
sented a threat to the dominant ideology, a threat to be restrained or, where pos-
sible, eliminated. Indeed, Buero’s own account stressed his conviction that his
work posed a challenge to the ruling ideology of Francoism:
Yo asomé en el teatro español y he durado en él con el propósito de hacer trage-

dias y de enfrentar a la gente con aspectos displacientes o problemáticos de la
vida humana. Y esto, sobre todo cuando yo empecé, estaba mal visto porque
la ideología oficial se obstinaba en afirmar que éste era el mejor de los países,
que aquí todo era formidable y que no pasaba nada digno de ser llorado ni
siquiera discutido; de forma que, cuando un señor aparecía con algo que podía
hacer llorar o discutir, se decía que a ese señor ‘le dolía el estómago’ y que no
tenía ningún sentido de humor.15
13 ‘No cometí ningún delito importante. Falsificaba avales – documentos oficiales o
particulares de persona significada que garantiza que Fulano de Tal es una persona honesta y
honrada y que no ha cometido delitos.’ Patricia W. O’Connor, Antonio Buero Vallejo en sus
espejos, Colección Espiral Hispano-Americana, no. 31 (Madrid: Fundamentos, 1996), p. 283.
14 Mariano de Paco, ‘Buero Vallejo y el teatro’, in Antonio Buero Vallejo: Premio ‘Miguel
de Cervantes’ 1986, p. 72.

15 ‘Coloquio’, in Buero Vallejo: cuarenta años de teatro, ed. by Mariano de Paco (Murcia:
CajaMurcia, 1988), pp. 121–30 (pp. 129–30).

It is undeniable that Buero emphasized change and advancement rather than

acceptance of the status quo, but he did this from within a stagnant system, or as
some of his many detractors alleged, from a position within the theatrical
Establishment. There is certainly a case for arguing that his integrationist posi-
tion within the commercial theatre, a structure sanctioned by the regime, may
have lent certain a legitimacy to a government that claimed not to be repressive,
but simply to be a protector of the common good. Yet, because his characters
constantly strive for action and acknowledge the importance of history and his-
torical progress, Buero’s work cannot be dismissed as integration propaganda,
nor can it be correctly classified as agitation propaganda: it fits more easily into
Szanto’s third category of dialectical propaganda. In comparison to the social
critics of the previous period and some of those who followed him into the
Francoist theatre, the threat posed by Buero’s dramas, concentrating as they did
on the moral issues posed by ideology in a corrupt society, appeared mild. Buero
was certainly less overtly political than others, such as Sastre or Arrabal. Unlike
them, Buero based his revolution on the individual, whom he hoped would then
inspire, or be inspired to, work for social change. Nevertheless, his work, echo-
ing Camus’s political moralism, posed the first genuine theatrical challenge to
the dominant ideology, and perhaps opened the way for other more revolution-
ary dramatists to follow.16
The Drama of Commitment

¿Poema, o problema? Poema y problema a un tiempo
(O.C. II: 487).
While Historia de una escalera may have been an innovation in the post-Civil
War theatre, Sastre’s play Escuadra hacia la muerte (1953), which draws heav-
ily on the existentialism of Sartre, took this innovation further. London observes:
‘The extreme violence of Sastre’s play and the suicide it contains were [. . .] a
torrent in a desert of blandness.’17 Alfonso Sastre had emerged as the other dom-
inant figure among the post-war dramatists. With a group of like-minded fellow
university students, he had set about revolutionizing the theatre in the 1940s.
This ambitious, if ingenuous, plan was destined to fail, as the authorities were
not in favour of this manifestation of revolutionary nationalism. His Nationalist
16 Lauro Olmo credits Buero with preparing the stage for others: ‘Buero Vallejo es una
figura clave, sobre todo por su importancia en la creación de un clima determinado. Sus
estrenos, polémicos o no, han constituído siempre una convocatoria socio-política lanzada
desde una amplia base cívico-moral.’ Patricia W. O’Connor and Anthony M. Pasquariello,
‘Conversaciones con la Generación Realista’, Estreno, 2 (no. 2, 1976), 8–28 (p. 25). He also
praises Alfonso Sastre: ‘Todos le debemos aquel clima de agitación que, con sus escaramuzas
polémicas, supo remover la mediocridad ambiente’ (p. 25).
17 London, Reception and Renewal, p. 189.
reform thus thwarted by the regime, the disillusioned Sastre moved ideologically
to the left and to a different type of social theatre. Sastre, in essence, moved
from revolutionary nationalism to revolutionary Marxism. His work certainly
challenged the taboos of the dominant ideology more directly than Buero’s plays
did, yet this same provocation also ensured that his dramas were less widely
produced.
The committed dramatists were by no means the dominant group in the Spanish
theatre world. It was apparent that many of the theatre professionals working in
Francoist Spain did not consider that the theatre had a socio-political role.
However, leaving aside the other drama produced or not produced at the time, and
focusing specifically on the so-called Realists, it becomes clear that they consid-
ered their work to have been more than entertainment and to have a social dimen-
sion.18 They included such writers as Sastre, Martín Recuerda, Rodríguez Méndez,
Muñiz and Olmo, and theirs was, as the name suggests, a theatre of social real-
ism.19 Carlos Muñiz, describing the group, said: ‘Se trata de autores de variada
tendencia, tanto ideológica como estética, cuyo único elemento común es la adop-
ción de una actitud abiertamente crítica ante la realidad sociopolítica española.’20
Despite Mangini’s assertion that writers of the opposition were viewed as minor
delinquents and, in general, not taken very seriously, it is clear from the regime’s
efforts to silence them that they were carefully monitored, and, where possible,
restrained.21 It appears that the regime considered the work of these dramatists to
be a challenge to its ideological dominance, for, as Abellán points out, the emer-
gence of this new group of dramatists gave rise to a new situation:
Las obras de la nueva hornada, presentadas a censura para publicación o rep-

resentación estaban escritas siguiendo procedimientos que ninguna normativa
podía fácilmente configurar: la sutileza de los recursos dramáticos o literarios
servía para burlar la censura ideológica, moral o estética y permitía que el
público interpretara como primeras lo que, acaso, sólo podría ser inferido
como segundas intenciones.22
18 Ángel Berenguer wrote of European realism: ‘Es mucho más que un estilo literario. Es,
sobre todo, un modo de entender la vida, un modo de acercarse a la realidad, un proyecto que,
de alguna manera, pretende controlar la relación del individuo con su entorno y con la historia
política que se está desarrollando en la Europa del momento.’ ‘Lauro Olmo’, in Teatro breve
contemporáneo, I, Primer Acto, Separata del no. 239 [1991 (?)], 25–8 (p. 26). The Spanish
variety was a more insular, but just as serious, project.
19 The term itself is disputed by many of those deemed by the critics to be a part of the
group. Buero is often viewed by other playwrights associated with the generation as being
independent of it or perhaps a precursor to it.
20 O’Connor and Pasquariello, ‘Conversaciones’, p. 14.
21 Shirley Mangini, Rojos y rebeldes: la cultura de la disidencia durante el franquismo
(Barcelona: Anthropos, 1987), p. 59. Barry Jordan also made the point that some of the
committed writers were the offspring of Nationalists, and not as harshly treated as those whose
background was Republican. Writing and Politics in Franco’s Spain (London: Routledge,
1990), p. 53.
22 Abellán, ‘La censura teatral’, p. 22.
Perhaps one of the only elements to unite the so-called Realists and other
committed dramatists was their belief that their work constituted an attack on the
ruling ideology. After all, stylistically, their work differed substantially, and they
claimed different influences, although all considered themselves social critics. All
believed that art, and specifically drama, had a role to play in an autocracy, and
some of them wrote about the obligations facing a writer in such circumstances.
Nonetheless, there is some doubt about the success of their venture, and indeed
questions have also been raised about the artistic integrity of those involved, not
least, of Buero.
Writing about the situation in Nazi Germany, Steiner commented that while
writers who chose to leave the country could thus protect their own integrity, they
were no longer able to communicate properly with those who did remain.23
London, also writing about theatre under the Nazis, noted: ‘Much of the overt
criticism emerged from a much more comfortable position: exile.’24 The same
could be said about the Spanish situation. A resident in France, Arrabal viewed
himself as untainted by the regime. However, those who had remained in Spain
did not consider him qualified to comment on Spain’s problems. Of course, the
dramatists who remained in Spain, while they understood the effects of the
regime on the populace, were to sacrifice a part of their integrity. As in Nazi
Germany, there was a range of responses from artists and writers. Some came to
represent the culture of the regime, others remained silent, while some, includ-
ing Buero, compromised, writing what criticisms they could but within parame-
ters largely defined by the regime. To examine the success or otherwise of their
commitment, it is first necessary to analyse the form it took and to find the goals
they set for their social and political theatre.
Buero was consistent in his statements on the subject of art and freedom.
While lamenting the presence of censorship, citing historical examples, he stated
his belief that good literature can be produced under a repressive regime. In
1976, he said of censorship: ‘Mortal lo es circunstancialmente para ciertas obras
o para algún autor incluso, pero no es mortal en general, ni para todas las obras
ni para todos los autores, por muy críticos y comprometidos que éstos sean.’25
Yet he also disagreed with those authors who ‘desde el purismo literario o
poético’ say: ‘ya está bien de hablar tanto de problemática. No hay tal prob-
lemática. La literatura es otra cosa’ (O.C. II: 486–7). The question for Buero
and other committed dramatists was not one of either artistic integrity or
23 George Steiner, Language and Silence: Essays 1958–1966 (London: Faber & Faber,
1985), p. 127.
24 John London, ‘Introduction’, in Theatre under the Nazis, ed. by John London
(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000), pp. 1–53 (p. 34).

25 O’Connor and Pasquariello, ‘Conversaciones’, p. 11. He reiterated this sentiment in an
interview with Amell: ‘No es que yo no crea en la libertad como un factor muy valioso para la
labor creadora, pero lo que sostenía y sigo sosteniendo es que no es imprescindible para crear
grandes obras e incluso obras maestras, y me atengo a los hechos.’ Samuel Amell, ‘Conversación
con Antonio Buero Vallejo’, España Contemporánea, 1 (no. 1, 1988), 119–41 (p. 127).
commitment, but both. Asked about the role of theatre in society, Buero stated:
Debe reflejarse y comentarla. Desde sus diversos géneros, plantear crítica

y dramáticamente los conflictos del hombre y de la sociedad en que vive;
despertar las conciencias frente a ellos; enfocarlos con autenticidad y verdad;
combatir los errores y los males; abrir los ojos; denunciar las injusticias;
mostrar lo que el hombre tiene de humano y de inhumano; y lo que tiene de
ser histórico; y siempre, lograr arte auténtico.26
It is an ambitious statement and, as was often the case with Buero, one that
stressed the importance of history. Others, such as Carlos Llopis and Miguel
Mihura, when asked the same question, stressed the entertainment value of the
theatre, rather than any social or political role. Sastre, like Buero, held that liter-
ature of necessity had a social role. However, they did not have the same expec-
tations for literature and what it could achieve. Buero obviously believed in the
power of art to influence societal change, but, unlike Sastre and Brecht, he did
not believe that the influence would necessarily be direct:
Entiendo que las actividades de la cultura en sus planos superiores son muy
importantes, pero que su influjo no es resolutivo ni directo; va por vías más
subterráneas, que requieren más tiempo, y sus resultados son a veces mayores
que los de otras actividades más directas.27
Taking a cue from figures such as Brecht, Weiss, Piscator, Sartre and Camus,
these Spanish dramatists sought to use the theatre as a force in a socio-political
battle to change social and economic conditions. Whether or not this was a real-
istic aspiration is debatable. Indeed, both Buero and Sastre adapted foreign plays
for the Spanish stage and a comparison of their adaptations reveals much about
both their theatrical and political interests. Buero adapted works by Ibsen,
Shakespeare and Brecht, while Sastre adapted the works of Sartre, Weiss and
O’Casey, among others. With the exception of Brecht, the plays Buero adapted
would have been considered classical and relatively safe works at the time;
Sastre was interested in the more overtly political works of polemical dramatists,
and in the politics of the dramatists themselves. In the programme notes for his
adaptation of O’Casey’s Red Roses for Me, for example, Sastre stresses
O’Casey’s politics, calling him ‘el gran ejemplo de un escritor combatiente’.28
Sastre was particularly drawn to the works of Sartre and, between the years
1967 and 1970, was responsible for eight adaptations of the French dramatist’s
plays. London maintains that in Spain, Camus was more acceptable than Sartre
because his views were considered less extreme, despite the fact that Camus was
hostile to the Spanish regime. Sartre, he claims, did not rise to prominence in
26 ‘Encuesta (sobre el teatro)’, Primer Acto, nos 29–30 (1961–62), 5–15 (pp. 5–6).
27 Álvaro del Amo and Miguel Bilbatúa, ‘El teatro español visto por sus protagonistas’,
Cuadernos para el diálogo, Monograph no. 3, 43–67 (p. 46).
28 AGA/IDD 52.22 Topogr. 83-55 Ca. 85.254 Exp. 258-69.
Spain until the late 1960s, although his name was certainly known before then.
It is interesting that Buero on occasion publicly identified with Camus, while
Sastre favoured Sartre. The Spanish dramatists, like their French counterparts,
engaged in a very public quarrel, yet, like the latter, probably had more to unite
than to divide them in terms of their literary and political aspirations.
Camus’s commitment, while doubted by some, was perhaps similar to Buero’s,
and, like the Spaniard, he was often contradictory. Where his commitment
exceeded that of Buero was in his non-literary political writings. Buero’s rela-
tionship with the Franco regime was similar in some respects to Camus’s ambigu-
ous relationship with Algeria. They were also similar in their deliberate style, and
a certain moral tone permeates the work of both writers. Buero stressed a moral
awakening of man and advocated self-empowerment of the individual in a repres-
sive and unethical society. In this way he was similar to Camus, who, as Said com-
ments, ‘prizes self-recognition, disillusioned maturity, and moral steadfastness in
the midst of a bad situation’.29 Buero was at times ideologically unacceptable to
both sides of the Spanish divide because he was not ideologically committed to
either and, while he wrote political theatre, he was always a moral dramatist.
Perhaps one of the most interesting points of convergence between Camus and
Buero is with regard to the justification of violence. Both disliked violence but
were loath to discard it as an option in certain circumstances. Each stressed, how-
ever, that violence should never be easily undertaken. For both, violence was the
source of moral as well as political dilemmas, and the moral took precedence over
the latter. Accepting that violence might occasionally be the best option for the
common good led them to perceive that morally that brought them closer to their
enemies, who also claimed that violence was at times necessary for the greater
good of society. The tortured must always remember that he is a potential torturer
and seek to avoid this; the rebel must avoid the conversion of revolution into total-
itarianism. Both writers recognized man’s desire for definition of values and roles
in a society that often seemed absurd, and both acknowledged the difficulty of
defining absolute values in such an irrational world. Camus’s rejection of revo-
lutionary Marxism and his demand for a more moral approach were what set him
apart from Sartre’s revolutionary stance, again a difference paralleled in the
works of Buero and Sastre. When Camus criticized revolution, some claimed that
he was defending the status quo, just as when Buero denounced provocation and
imposibilismo, some considered him less than committed. Camus was also wary
of the Marxist ideology that promised future satisfaction if present suffering is
endured: an ideology similar in many ways to that espoused by the churches and
many Nationalist creeds. He was reluctant to sanction the sacrifice of men to an
ideology, and, like Buero, having abandoned the Communist Party, was not pre-
pared to adopt any ideology other than his personal and moral one.
Overall, then, Buero and others of the so-called Realist Generation believed
that the role of art, and in particular that of drama, was to reflect and react to their
29 Edward Said, Culture and Imperialism (London: Vintage, 1994), p. 211.

society and hopefully to inspire social change. Some, like Sastre, maintained that
revolutionary drama could inspire revolution in society, while others believed in
less radical transformation. One thing that emerges is their determination to bear
testament to the problem of Spain and expose the distortions and falsifications of
the Nationalist ideology. The presence of censorship meant that their choices were
quite limited. Those who, like the Realists, believed that they had to reach an audi-
ence in order to effect social change had to find ways to avoid censorship of their
message. They attempted to do this in a variety of ways.
The Language of Commitment

Allusion, humour and innuendo were common evasive tactics, as was the
recourse to history. The committed dramatists wrote serious non-conformist
drama in which they highlighted the social and economic problems of contem-
porary Spain. The message that these problems arose from the political situation
was obvious. They also employed historical characters or situations that were
analogous to the contemporary situation to accuse and damn the corrupt regime;
political statements were disguised as comments on another time or place. When
they ventured on to historical ground, they avoided the glorification of Spain’s
imperial past and instead sought to extract from past errors a lesson for the future.
Theirs was an attempt at a committed social and political theatre, which presented
the problems of modern Spanish society and offered no simple remedy but rather
posed a question for the spectator to answer himself. The spectator was chal-
lenged to stir himself from his apathy and commit himself to the betterment of
society. Later, in the 1960s, these dramas of commitment became more acute in
their criticism of the regime, but the threat of administrative repercussions was
ever-present. At times, such as with Buero’s La doble historia del doctor Valmy,
this criticism was taken too far, and the resulting censorship was total.
Szanto’s third category of propagandistic theatre is appropriate to describe at
least some of the works of the Realists, and in particular, perhaps, some of
Buero’s more committed plays. He defined the theatre of dialectical propaganda
as ‘a theater of cognitive clarification’ and ‘a theater which attempts to demys-
tify, by depicting separately, interactively, and always clearly, the basic elements
which comprise a confused social or historical situation’. Its aim is to:
demystify relationships between individuals and institutions, individuals and

individuals, institutions and institutions, so as to show, first, the nature of pas-
sions and of economic and social laws, and second demonstrate methods by
which human beings can control both themselves and their institutions.30
This theatre is an attack on the falsifications and distortions of an imposed and

widely accepted ideology, and thus is the ideal means to attempt to raise social
30 Szanto, Theater and Propaganda, pp. 75, 76.

and political awareness in a society such as Spain under Franco. This, in essence,
is what Buero attempted to do, particularly in his historical dramas, which are
also among his most political plays. As a theatre of demystification, it is centred
on exposing the manipulation of language by the regime and the constant pres-
sure to conform.
In order to demystify, Buero engaged the ideological discourse of the regime
and exposed the distortion of reality that it contained. It was thus often on the
questions of language and silence that he and other committed writers of the
period attacked the regime. Certainly Buero attempted to subvert and expose
the regime’s idiom in his dramatic works, while also condemning the silence of
the apathetic. He presented the official ideology in action and showed its effects
on others. He parodied the language of the Francoists to show how it was moti-
vated. While the king in Las Meninas refers to ‘los fundamentos inconmovibles
del poder’, such absolutism is rejected by the character Velázquez, as it was by
the dramatist (O.C. I: 932). Characters in Las palabras en la arena employ reli-
gious terminology to justify their bigoted actions, and Buero seemed to criticize
all of those who sought to grant exclusive righteousness to a particular Church
and then use this to exculpate wrongs. La tejedora de sueños (1950) delivers an
analysis of the idiom of Nationalist ideology and mythology. In many of his
works, Buero employed the language of the clergy, of artists, of writers, of doc-
tors, and gave an interpretation of Spain’s reality that was at odds with the offi-
cial version. He showed how language was used as a tool and manipulated to
present a certain attitude as natural or evident. Thus, he highlighted the import-
ance of the interpretation of language, and in plays such as Las cartas boca
abajo (1957) and El sueño de la razón warned against the flatterers and pre-
varicators who tell people what they want to hear rather than what is true. In
addition, in La doble historia del doctor Valmy and El sueño de la razón, the
language of medicine is used to offer a diagnosis of a sick society. This same
language was employed by Franco, when he referred to the communists as
‘el virus bolchevique’, and indeed in the Nationalist emphasis on ‘limpieza de
sangre’.31 In Las Meninas and Las palabras en la arena, Buero illustrated how
the language of patriotism and moral rectitude can be appropriated and given a
new meaning by a ruling power in a way that contradicts the original or
accepted meaning. Drawing on the Generation of ’98, he employed the notion
of criticismo como patriotismo auténtico, but warned in his plays that this type
of patriotism might be branded treasonous, while pernicious ruling ideolo-
gies, expressed in the language of patriotism and loyalty, might be rewarded.
Again in Las palabras en la arena, Las Meninas and Diálogo secreto (1983),
Buero demonstrated how the language of the expert could be used to confuse,
rather than to clarify, an issue.
The committed dramatists believed that they could inspire social change and
the regime acted to prevent this. Nonetheless, the doubt remains as to whether
31 Vázquez Montalbán, Los demonios, p. 94.

they were realistic in their aspirations. They certainly did not constitute the
serious danger to the Francoist hegemony that they had hoped to be. David Ladra
wrote of the committed dramatists: ‘Su obra sería como el grito airado, desgar-
rador, contra la injusticia. Pero también sería el grito perdido en el desierto.’32
But then as Bentley stresses: ‘Art is nearly always represented, in print, as hav-
ing far more importance than it really possesses.’33 Szanto’s analysis of the pur-
pose and possibilities of a socially and politically committed theatre is similarly
more unsentimental than that of many other theorists. Recognizing that art can-
not change society directly, he regards its role in society as, at most, to be that
of demystifier:
In the end only an understanding of the direct connection between material

social circumstances and material social oppression will bring about change.
Art can act, at best, as the indicator that makes oppression recognizable as a
condition socially temporally imposed, that makes acceptance of oppression
visible as a product of integration propaganda. Artworks can keep an oppres-
sive condition from remaining accepted and acceptable as the natural state of
the oppressed population. Time-bound art is often successful because it speaks
to, attacks, agitates against specific (hence momentary) negative social cir-
cumstances which stand between immediate social reality and potentially
recognizable historical reality.34
Ideology and Integrity

In a repressive society, where the normal news media are heavily censored, writ-
ers often use their skills to give testament to a reality that is falsified elsewhere.
Clearly, the committed writers in Spain believed that they had a duty to address
the events in Spanish society that were not addressed elsewhere. The question
remains, however, as to whether art thus allied to a political-testimonial role is
good art, or if it becomes debased for the sake of politics.
Another feature of art and literature in a repressive society is the censorship
of the art itself. Doubts are raised about the possibility of producing quality art
in a society that protects its dominant ideology using censorship. For some, lit-
erature produced in a repressive society is essentially compromised, as it is not
written in perfect freedom. Others, such as Buero, insisted that there was no such
thing as complete freedom for the artist, only degrees of compromise, and his
entire body of work was based on this premise. The issue was further compli-
cated in Spain by the opinion that some people were using censorship as an
32 David Ladra, ‘Reflexión, aquí y ahora, sobre el teatro comprometido’, Primer Acto,
no. 51 (1964), 18–24 (p. 21).

33 Bentley, The Theatre of Commitment, p. 119.
excuse for their failure to produce good drama, or that they were using the unfor-
tunate circumstances at home to further their careers abroad.35
The question of art and ideology is a complicated one and the crux of any
examination of the relationship between an artist and a repressive regime.
Buero’s commitment must be judged in relation to his artistic integrity. Was one
achieved at the expense of the other? Is there a correct role for the artist to adopt
in such circumstances? Accepting that the artist may have a political or social
obligation, how far must he take it? At what point does the political threaten the
artistic? What are the alternatives? It is surely the case that those who ally their
art too closely to their politics or their ideological beliefs are in danger of sub-
jecting their art to another form of censorship, one with different parameters on
style, content and politics, but nevertheless not unlike that censorship applied by
the dominant ideology they oppose.
El papel social del arte es innegable; pero el exceso de racionalización en los

contenidos de ese papel convierte al arte en algo sin entidad propia: en un mero
glosador o servidor de ideologías u opiniones extraartísticas. Por ese camino,
el panfleto nos acecha. Yo diría que el papel social del arte y su influencia son
artísticos. (O.C. II: 625–6)
In an argument echoed in Buero’s defence of his own position under the

Nationalist autocracy in Spain, Steiner wrote: ‘History instructs us that auto-
cracy, whether in Augustan Rome, in renaissance Florence, or at the court of
Louis XIV, can engender great art and literature.’36 However, he then asked:
How far can absolutism go before art falls servile or silent? Where do we cross
the line between the artist as conveyor of the ideals of his society and the artist
as maker of mere propaganda? Just where is the difference between Andrew
Marvel’s ode to Cromwell and Becher’s rhapsodies to Stalin and Ulbricht?
Literature written specifically for the purpose of reflecting or upholding a cer-

tain ideology is rarely considered worthy.37 The politicized dramas of the theatre
of agitation from the Republican and Civil War periods, even those written by
the likes of Alberti and Hernández, cannot be considered great art, although they
might be deemed outstanding propaganda. The question of how committed lit-
erature can be before it becomes servile to a particular ideology is also the
35 Jaime Campmany asked: ‘¿Cuántas veces hemos cargado a la cuenta de la censura
nuestra incapacidad de expresión justa y serena, nuestras propias cobardías, incluso nuestro
extreñimiento literario?’ Quoted in ‘Al margen del teatro: la noticia y su eco. A vueltas con la
crisis’, Yorick, no. 21 (1967), 2. Buero’s comments on the imposibilismo employed by certain
dramatists in order to make a name for themselves outside Spain led to the polemic with
Sastre in the 1960s (O.C. II: 627).
36 Steiner, Language and Silence, p. 395.
37 Steiner makes an exception for Brecht. Language and Silence, p. 339. However, as Buero
pointed out, Brecht’s plays are much more than political propaganda (O.C. II: 693–701).
essence of the posibilismo debate, which engaged Buero and Sastre and later
Arrabal.
For Sartre, and for the Spanish dramatists, the aim of the social theatre was to
expose the gap between myth and reality and to demonstrate to the audience how
society can be changed. Yet Jordan also notes Sartre’s insistence that:
The writer should be careful not to alienate the reader by telling him what to
think or involving him in an enforced participation. This not only put the
reader’s freedom in jeopardy but also threatened the artistic integrity of the
work and its effectiveness as a communication.38
Sastre understood that ‘hacer teatro a nivel político no significa, para un autor,
convertir absolutamente su obra en una herramienta de protesta, denuncia o inter-
vención inmediatas en el medio’.39 Nevertheless, while drawing heavily on the
theories of Sartre, Sastre did not always respect them and would at times put
ideology before art, both in his own work and in his comments on the work of
others. His reaction to Buero’s Historia de una escalera is a case in point.40
Admitting much later that he did not care for the play when it came out, Sastre
owned to having written a positive review of it for La Hora, based simply on
what he knew of the politics of its author and an assumption that Buero would
have been more explicit about the Civil War had this been possible. When Buero
told him that he would have written it in the same way had there been no cen-
sorship, Sastre informed him that he therefore did not like the play.
In the TAS (Teatro de Agitación Social) manifesto, and later in Anatomía del
realismo, Sastre proclaimed that the social was superior to the artistic, yet he
clearly believed that he could produce plays that were primarily social while
maintaining artistic integrity. However, Haro Tecglen wrote of Sastre: ‘Se declara
contrario al teatro de tesis y al teatro ideológico.’41 Mangini noted Sastre’s uncom-
promising attitude in his dealings with the regime and of his determination not
to judge other writers for their political ideology, but rather for their work.42
Nonetheless, with Sastre, it is difficult to separate the politics from the work, and
indeed on many occasions he has been quick to criticize other writers, not least
Buero in the infamous posibilismo polemic, which was about politics and art.
Cramsie was probably more accurate when she said that Sastre, like Lukács,
refused to accept that there was more than one correct way to deal artistically with
the social. She went on to say that Sastre was not justified in his criticism of
38 Jordan, Writing and Politics, p. 87.

39 Alfonso Sastre, ‘Nivel político, pureza estética’, Cuadernos para el diálogo,
Monograph no. 3, 37.
40 José Luis Vicente Mosquete, ‘Alfonso Sastre: un largo viaje desde Madrid a Euskadi’,
Cuadernos el Público, no. 38 (1988), 5–27 (p. 14).

41 Eduardo Haro Tecglen, ‘Introducción a Alfonso Sastre’, Primer Acto, no. 6 (1958), 16–18
(p. 17).
42 Mangini, Rojos y rebeldes, p. 125.
Buero. Although he was harsh and perhaps unfairly personal in his attack on
Buero’s posibilismo, it must be admitted that Sastre raised some interesting and
valid points about Buero’s commitment. Buero defended no particular political
ideology, and while some may have gone too far in allying their art to an opposi-
tional ideology, thus sacrificing their artistic integrity, the question remains as to
whether Buero went far enough.
Steiner asks:
Should the poet cease? In a time when men are made to pipe or squeak their
sufferings like beetles and mice, is literate speech, of all things the most
human, still possible? Kafka knew that in the beginning was the word; he asks
us: what of the end? 43
Apart from the problem of silence imposed by the censors and the repressive
state apparatuses, it is worth considering the issue of silence as a response to
repression. When words become the vehicle of lies, falsity, distortion and ter-
ror, is silence the answer? Does silence then become the strongest form of
protest? Instead of allying himself to an oppositional ideology or employing
euphemism and allusion to insinuate the truth, should the poet cease? For surely
to remain and write in Spain was to work within the linguistic confines set by
the regime, to accept them even, and thus to aid in their normalization. For those
who wished to portray the reality, a culture of symbolism and allusion became
a normalized feature of Spanish writing. Language is used to name, define and
claim. It is often about ownership and control. Thus, a deliberately calculated
silence might be a refusal to acknowledge such control. Unless, of course, it is
interpreted as a sign of apathy, an unwillingness to challenge what is clearly
wrong.
It is worth noting, then, that besides Buero’s deliberate choice of language
in the plays, there is also a deliberate portrayal of silence. This is the silence of
the apathetic and the cowardly in El tragaluz (1966) and La doble historia del
doctor Valmy; it is the silence of the posibilista in La detonación, and the silence
of the ideologically inculcated in En la ardiente oscuridad; it is also the silence
of the victim in Las cartas boca abajo, and of the provocative imposibilista in La
detonación. Added to this is the silence of the victims whose voices have been
taken from them by the censor, the torturer and the defender of state or faith.
These silences, whether self-imposed or imposed by others, are of great signifi-
cance in the works of Buero. Silence was as much a part of his dramatic idiom as
the language he employed. Inevitably, this use of language and silence also offers
problems to the reader or spectator. At times, silence was praised as the correct
response in a difficult situation, yet at other times it was viewed by the dramatist
as evidence of cowardice or apathy. Some have contended that Buero’s own use
of silence was similarly erratic. It has been suggested that his use of symbolism,
43 Steiner, Language and Silence, p. 146.

allusion and euphemism often confused rather than clarified and that by using
such devices he allowed others to be silent. His work does not demand a response;
it merely hopes for one. Arrabal for one suggested that Buero’s posibilismo was
a negative silence when the dramatist could have used his not inconsiderable rep-
utation to speak out for others. Nonetheless, regardless of the posibilismo
employed and the care taken to fool or evade the censors, for the writer working
in Francoist Spain, silence was primarily an imposition, not an option.
3
Buero Vallejo and Theatre Censorship
Buero Vallejo and the Ideology of Francoism

Spanish drama was seriously affected by the ideological cultural state apparatus
of censorship. While censorship under Franco was not wholly effective, it did
cause great difficulties, particularly for the committed dramatist who wished to
give testament to a reality other than that prop agated by the officials of the
regime. The use of censorship as a protector of ideology is evident from the ques-
tions posed on an early censor’s report on publications:
1. ¿Ataca al dogma?
2. ¿A la moral?
3. ¿A la Iglesia o a sus ministros?
4. ¿Al Régimen y a sus instituciones?
5. ¿A las personas que colaboran o han colaborado con el Régimen?
6. Los pasajes censurables, ¿califican el contenido total de la obra?
7. Informe y otras observaciones.
The concern is clearly the preservation of the dominant ideology of the regime
through the protection of the state apparatuses. The early report on theatre shows
similar concerns, which were later incorporated in the 1964 legislation. The
problem was the interpretation of such vague questions, and the censorship of a
work of literature tended to depend upon who the censor was. This difficulty was
addressed by Buero Vallejo in Las Meninas, a play highly critical of censorship
and its arbitrary application. Interestingly, the censor Padre A. Avelino Esteban
y Romero, who read the play, drew a parallel between his own actions and those
of Velázquez’s detractors in Las Meninas.
Reconozco que ‘ver’ las intenciones en una obra teatral se presta a fáciles
defensas por parte del autor, que se convierte en acusador, como en la trama
VELÁZQUEZ contra las interpretaciones de sus cuadros por parte de
NIETO . . . De aquí el que sea muy delicado pronunciarse contra la obra por
los motivos reales, disimulados en el parlamento fictício de los personajes
teatrales. Decir que no son ellos los que hablan . . . sino el autor puede
prestarse a que se diga que son los espectadores, y no el autor, los que
‘oyen’.1

BUERO VALLEJO AND THEATRE CENSORSHIP 69
So, just as Velázquez suggests in the play that lasciviousness is in the eye of the
beholder of a beautiful nude, Buero also suggested that any negative commen-
tary the censor detected in the play was read into it by the censor and not neces-
sarily meant by the author.
It is interesting to note that in a survey of forty theatre professionals carried
out for Primer Acto, only twenty-four of them considered that censorship should
be or could be completely eliminated. Miguel Bilbatua’s response was perhaps
the most enlightened: ‘Debe suprimirse. Física y moralmente, la censura y, sobre
todo, la estructura social que la sustenta y necesita.’2 None of the other respond-
ents recognized or commented on the need to examine not only censorship but
the ideological and social structures that allow it to exist. Many of the commit-
ted dramatists worked or attempted to work within the commercial theatre with-
out any attempt to find or create a new audience, perhaps evidence in itself of
the success and prevalence of the new ideology. Buero, while not supporting
censorship, maintained that it did not completely impede the work of the artist.
Others too, like Antonio Gala, chose to view censorship as a minor obstacle,
which could be overcome, or at least accommodated, by the determined writer.
La censura no puede matar nada, nunca ha matado nada . . . Entonces, ¿cómo

es posible que pensemos que la censura nos ha martirizado? Si no lo hemos
hecho mejor, no habrá sido por la censura, habrá sido por nosotros. Un autor
debe saber engañar a la censura por medio de su conocimiento de esta lengua
especial que comparte con su pueblo.3
This view is perhaps more than a little ingenuous. While Buero and Gala, for vari-
ous reasons, may have had success despite the regime, the same cannot be said of
all authors of the time, some of whom suffered greatly at the hands of the censors.
That such censorship should have been accepted with relatively little complaint
from Buero did little to dampen criticism of his stance. Some, such as Arrabal, sug-
gested that Buero, as a prominent member of the theatre world, could have done
more to help other dramatists. Buero however, contended that he did all he could:
Diré que yo milité en la oposición ideológica a la censura y de una manera

explícita, firmando documentos contra ella, quejándome de ella en declara-
ciones (dentro o fuera), porque consideraba que era lo adecuado y porque creía
que la censura debía desaparecer.4
With Buero, the question was always one of degree of commitment. It is evident
that his success was greater than that of most of his contemporaries, yet the
regime’s censors were clearly aware of the political content of his works and
2 Manuel Gómez García, ‘1971: así piensan 40 profesionales de nuestra escena sobre
censura, teatro social y teatro político en España’, Primer Acto, no. 131 (1971), 8–24 (p. 20).
3 Robert Louis Sheehan, ‘Tres generaciones miran la época postfranquista: Buero, Gala,
Cabal’, Estreno, 13 (no. 1, 1987), 26–35 (p. 33).

4 Amell, ‘Conversación’, p. 129.
sought to protect their ideology from his criticisms. It is thus expedient to exam-
ine what Buero said that others could not or did not say and also to examine
which parts of his work were considered by the censors to be a serious threat and
therefore worthy of censorship.
What Was Possible and What Was Not

VELÁZQUEZ Mi mirada está limpia; la vuestra todo lo ensucia (O.C. I: 918).
Moral questions, questions of taste and political comments were all on occasion
interpretable as allusions to modern Spain. Censorship operated most obviously
at the level of language, although costumes and sets were also at times censored.
References to bad taste, immorality, sexual conduct for purposes other than
reproduction, and political and social ills were often eliminated in an attempt to
reinforce the myth that these did not have a place in the society the regime
claimed to represent. By denying them in works of art, the regime attempted to
deny their existence. The hope was that they could be similarly silenced or
ignored in society.
Buero, as a committed dramatist, suffered at the hands of the regime’s censors
and at times had to do battle with them in order to get his message across. Yet,
although like others he was a victim of the Francoist hegemony, Buero was a
relatively successful commercial dramatist during the years of the dictatorship.
In essence, he proposed to discuss censorship, language and silence within the
context of, and constraints imposed by, the dominant ideology. In Buero’s own
view, not to do so would have been to join the ranks of the apathetic or the
silenced. His contemporary, Alfonso Sastre, wanted to revolutionize the stage but
failed. Buero set his sights lower and thus achieved more of what he set out to
accomplish. Yet at times he too was silenced. Many of his plays were censored,
and three plays, one of which was an adaptation, suffered lengthy prohibitions,
while others were prohibited at certain times, but not at others.
Another factor in Buero’s success relative to dramatists such as Sastre and
Arrabal was his less controversial and confrontational attitude. This is clear from
some of the documents held in the Archive. The correspondence from Buero
seems to be much milder and more conciliatory in tone than that of Sastre, for
example. He was both willing and able to negotiate modifications and thus from
time to time managed to avoid serious cuts. Nevertheless, sometimes the censor
did insist on the deletion of some element of the text judged to be morally, polit-
ically or socially unacceptable.
Buero’s willingness to compromise is evidenced by an examination of some
of the texts held in the Archive. Of the three cuts in Historia de una escalera
agreed by the censors, two were salvaged by the dramatist.5 In Act II, Urbano,

who sees the trade union movement as his salvation and who is critical of his
erstwhile friend and co-dreamer, Fernando, is in conversation with Carmina,
whom he hopes to marry. He states, in a criticism aimed at Fernando but with
wider implications: ‘Más vale ser un triste obrero que un señorito inútil.’ The
word señorito, with its critical connotations, was changed to soñador by Buero
in consultation with the censors. Later, in Act III, Fernando and Urbano are dis-
cussing their once-cherished but now long-abandoned, dreams for a better future
and escape from their miserable existence. Fernando mocks Urbano’s vision of
progress through his links with the trade unions, reminding him of his claim
that the unions were going to improve life for everyone, including Fernando. The
reference to trade unions was crossed out in the censor’s copy, as was Urbano’s
response, which was deemed unacceptable by the censors.
FERNANDO Sí; como tú. También tú ibas a llegar muy lejos con el
sindicato y la solidaridad. (irónico) Ibais a arreglar las
cosas para todos . . . hasta para mí.
URBANO ¡Sí! ¡Hasta para vosotros, los cobardes que nos habéis
fallado!
The italicized phrase is a bitter reference to those people like Fernando who
opted out of the struggle in the Civil War but who would have been quite happy
to reap the benefits of a Republican victory. Urbano represented the ideology of
the socialists and trade unionists. Fernando, on the other hand, is one of those
characters most despised by the dramatist, who in failing to commit themselves
to, or criticize, any particular ideology, allow the unjust Nationalist ideology to
endure. Over the course of the play the spectator witnesses the fate of those who,
like Urbano, had placed their faith in the defeated ideology, and it is clear that
they do not form part of the development that is witnessed at the end of the
play. Here, Buero negotiated a change to the more acceptable: ¡Sí! ¡Hasta
para los zánganos y cobardes como tú! (O.C. I: 47). Unsurprisingly, Fernando’s
negative reference to the failure of the sindicato was left unaltered by the
censors. There were many other marks on the censor’s copy of the text and in
some of the censors’ reports, yet these proposed cuts were not made. Some were
probably rejected because of lack of unanimity among the censors, but other
phrases were adapted or rescued by Buero in his dealings with the censors. Most
of them referred to the work and aspirations of the unions, although at least one
of the censors had also objected to the use of bad language and a threat of
violence.
Later, Buero agreed to two cuts in Un soñador para un pueblo, saying
that, ‘me había excedido’ and believing that they did not sufficiently alter the
meaning of the play and were therefore not worth risking prohibition for.6
6 Buero Vallejo, quoted in O’Connor, ‘Censorship in the Contemporary Spanish Theatre’,
p. 87.
The first was in a speech by the king in which he equated politicians with
villains:
REY ¿Sabes por qué eres mi predilecto, Leopoldo? Porque eres un soñador.
Los demás son políticos; o sea malvados.7
Buero agreed to cut the slur on politicians and replaced the italicized phrase with
the more acceptable: Los demás se llenan la boca de las grandes palabras y, en
el fondo, sólo esconden mezquindad y egoísmo (O.C. I: 800). However, this did
not alter the fact that the king was referring to politicians, so Buero had made his
point, albeit more indirectly. He also complied with the censor’s demand to drop
a reference to the Pardo, one of Carlos III’s palaces, which was now Franco’s
official residence, for, as O’Connor suggests, it might have led to a comparison
of the two, unflattering to Franco. Buero simply replaced the reference to the
Pardo with aquí, rejecting, as historically inaccurate, the censor’s suggestion that
he employ the word palacio.
His readiness to compromise is again evident in his comments on his version
of Brecht’s Mother Courage and her Children (Madre Coraje y sus hijos)(1962).
He tolerado la supresión de ocho o diez frases no imprescindibles porque todo

lo fundamental del texto resultó permitido. [. . .] En fin: que he sido posibilista,
ni más ni menos que lo es todo el que estrena algo y acepta, por un lado, los
cortes que el montaje revela inevitables, y, por otro lado, aquellas mutilaciones
de censura que encuentre leves, porque no hubo otras o porque logró rescatar
las más graves. He hecho lo que hacemos todos cuantos queremos ayudar a la
evolución positiva de nuestra escena y nuestro público, aunque, a diferencia de
otros, yo lo reconozco y le aplico su verdadero nombre. (O.C. II: 718)
Most of the censorship of Buero’s work was political in nature, although his
occasional negative depiction of religious figures also gave cause for concern, as
did his sporadic, at times intentional, lapses in taste. The regime did, in general,
recognize the dramatist’s attacks on its ruling ideology and institutions contained
in the plays. These included attacks on the Roman Catholic ideology of the
regime, attacks on the repressive and the ideological state apparatuses and a con-
demnation of the apathetic masses who by their inaction allow one ideology to
dominate.
Censorship of Morals and Language

While all forms of censorship, moral, political and social were linked by the
conservative, Catholic-inspired ideology of the regime, there were often times
when each element was judged separately by an expert in the field. After the
Establishment of the Junta de censura (1963), it was more common for a member
7 O’Connor, ‘Censorship in the Contemporary Spanish Theatre’, p. 87.
of the clergy to give a verdict that reflected the Roman Catholic perspective.
However, prior to its Establishment, plays were read by between one and three
censors, none of whom was necessarily a member of the clergy. Yet even after
the Establishment of the Junta de censura, the first three censors to read a text
might not have included a priest among their ranks, although a plenary session
of the Junta always did. En la ardiente oscuridad was read by a single censor
in 1950. Gumersindo Montes Agudo, a lay censor, felt competent to declare that,
while the open ending and the ambiguity of the play amounted to a dramatic
defect, ‘le resta toda posible peligrosidad moral’.8 However, certain ordinary
censors, not believing themselves qualified to give a moral judgement on a play,
suggested that it should be read by a priest also. Furthermore, on occasion, a
priest was called upon to write a moral report, as opposed to a simple censorship
report. Thus, in 1958, Las palabras en la arena was the subject of a moral report,
even though the play had previously been authorized (Appendix IV). Other plays
that attracted such reports include his versions of Hamlet (1960) and Mother
Courage and her Children. Similarly, on occasion a priest remarked in his report
that, while he could give a moral judgement on the play in question, he was not
the competent authority to deliver a political assessment. It also happened some-
times, such as with Sastre’s El pan de todos (1953), that the censorship board
felt the need to consult a different branch of the state apparatus to gain a purely
political reading of a play.
In the case of Buero’s first staged play, Historia de una escalera, which was
submitted to the censorship offices in October 1949, censorship was both political
and moral. Yet even then the censors evidently saw themselves as not merely
guardians of morals and political correctness, but also, judging from their com-
ments, as literary critics. Indeed, they were required to comment on the literary
merit of the play under scrutiny. One of the censors of Historia de una escalera,
Gumersindo Montes Agudo, while acknowledging that the play was good, went
on to say that it was ‘servido por pluma sin nervio o pasión de artista’. Among its
literary defects were listed monotony, narrowness of theme, slowness of pace and
artificiality, but the play’s ‘perfecta ambientación’ was praised. Overall, the censor
found the play to be morally sound and politically uncontroversial, yet predicted
a poor reception for it owing to the slow pace and ‘porque es demasiado cerebral’.9
Another of the censors, Emilio Morales de Acevedo, found the literary worth
of Historia de una escalera to be commendable, yet decided that it could only
benefit from the suppressions he went on to suggest. Padre Mauricio de Begoña,
while granting that the play was free of immorality, was nonetheless clearly
unimpressed by it and said of it, ‘carece de ideal, de aliento y de toda inspiración
espiritual’ and was therefore depressing. While not attacking the Roman Catholic
ideology, neither did the play support it. He suggested that with a few specified
cuts it might be made suitable for adult viewing. In the end, thanks to Buero’s
willingness to deal with the censors, solutions were found for the politically

motivated cuts, and the only cut made was on the grounds of morality and bad
taste. The cut made was an extract from a conversation between two characters,
Paca and Generosa, who stand in the hallway as the man from the Gas Company
comes around to collect the dues. The two women are discussing financial hard-
ship, and Paca makes a joke of their poverty, saying that her husband and herself
now go to bed in the dark, but that at their age, there is nothing to see anyhow.
Generosa is shocked by the blue tinge of the comment and the ensuing dialogue
caused offence.
PACA Ni que fueramos frailes.

GENEROSA Querrá decir monjas.
PACA Lo mismo da. Todos se visten por arriba.
This lack of respect for the clergy, despite the fact that Generosa is just as
shocked and disapproving as the censors were, was enough to have the dialogue
suppressed.
Shortly afterwards, in September 1949, Las palabras en la arena, a one-act
play, based on the biblical story in John 8: 1–11, was submitted to the
Dirección General de Cinematografía y Teatro by the Amigos de los Quintero
theatre company. The censor described it as ‘bellísima por su entonación
dramática, brío poético y juego de imágenes’.10 It was authorized for publica-
tion by Editorial Alfil in December 1951. However, when Ramiro Bascompte
Cirici, director of the Teatro Candilejas in Barcelona, applied for approval to
stage the play during Holy Week 1958, it was denied. When the application
was received, the play was made the subject of an informe moral by Padre
Avelino Esteban y Romero. Although the work contained no errors and was
undeniably biblical in theme, the censor objected to the subject of adultery. The
emphasis on the adulteress in the piece merely reflects the theme of the para-
ble. It would appear to have been a no-win situation for the author, whose
Gospel-based work was found morally reprehensible by the over-zealous cen-
sorship authorities. The Director General communicated to the theatre com-
pany that the play could not be authorized for staging during Holy Week
(Appendix V). Ironically, a possible political reading of the play with its
implicit criticism of a corrupt and hypocritical dominant elite, ‘pervertida hasta
el tuétano de los huesos’, reminiscent of the pillars of respectable Spanish soci-
ety in Franco’s time, was not identified (O.C. II: 351).
Padre Villares, one of the censors who read Las Meninas, could not fault the
play on a moral, historical or religious basis because the Inquisition’s investigation
of the artist’s painting of a nude Venus is historical fact.11 However, Padre A. Avelino
Esteban y Romero expressed some reservations, having come across some
passages, ‘que me ofrecen sugerencias tendenciosas’. He went on to cite nine pages
from Part I and a further five pages from Part II, particularly Velázquez’s dialogue

with Nieto in the presence of the king. He also read into the negative portrait of the
unlikable Dominican priest mischievous intent on the dramatist’s part.
Buero’s first adaptation of the work of another playwright was his version of
Carlos Gorostiza’s El puente (1952). While the censors seem to have liked the play,
they objected to the emphasis on social class. There are also some passages marked
in the censor’s copy of the text, including an argument between the character,
Elena, and her mother about the former’s determination not to have children.
Perhaps it was this and other examples of filial ingratitude and of hardship that led
to the prohibition of the play.12 While it obviously contains some social commen-
tary and clearly goes against the Roman Catholic ideology of the regime, the play
does not seem to be sufficiently radical to warrant the treatment it received.
Nonetheless, it is the first of the plays associated with Buero to have been banned.
Also linked to the idea of moral censorship was the censorship of bad lan-
guage and bad taste in general.13 Certain plays were censored because of the
language employed by the dramatist, which was judged to be in bad taste. Buero
described the artist’s relationship with censorship as a war: ‘Es posible dar la
batalla: a veces se pierde, pero a veces se gana’ (O.C. II: 791). In his battle he
occasionally inserted barbaridades in the text as a decoy to divert the censor’s
attention from a more subtly expressed political or social point he wished to
make. He claimed that it was a very successful device, and that almost always
what was censored was what he had inserted for that purpose. José Osuna gave
the example of El tragaluz:
En el caso de El tragaluz, por ejemplo, la frase más ‘prohibible’ de la obra era

la de uno de los experimentadores que decía: ‘la acción ocurrió en un país ya
desaparecido llamado España’; esto lo dejaron pasar y en aquel momento, con
la gran tendencia nacionalista de la España una grande y libre, eterna . . ., nos
quedamos absolutamente sorprendidos pero pasó porque habíamos puesto
otras cosas para que las quitaran.14
If, on the other hand, as did happen on rare occasions, a particularly lenient, or
incompetent, censor left the bait untouched, Buero himself removed it from the
text. Buero admitted that: ‘los censores no eran tan brutos como luego se han
dicho. Había de todo, pero, por lo general, se trataba de gente que jugaba su
propio juego y que, cuando había que ser implacables, lo eran.’15 At times, the

13 Article 13 of the Orden 9 febrero 1963, Normas de censura cinematográfica, states: ‘Se
prohibirán las expresiones coloquiales y las escenas o planos de carácter íntimo que atenten
contra las más elecentales [sic] normas del buen gusto.’ p. 3930. These norms were adopted
for the theatre in 1964.
14 José Osuna, ‘Mi colaboración con Buero’, in Buero Vallejo: cuarenta años, pp. 55–9
(pp. 55–6).
15 José Luis Vicente Mosquete, ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo, sonrisas y lágrimas: entrevista’,
Cuadernos el Público, no. 13, Monograph: ‘Regreso a Buero Vallejo’ (1986), 6–21 (p. 17).
The use of bait is also mentioned in Tina Sainz, ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo: un intelectual que
nunca dio la espalda al compromiso’, Mundo obrero, 20–26 February 1981, pp. 26–8 (p. 27).
censors could also be indulgent. Some were perfectly aware of the game but, ever
mindful of Spain’s image abroad, they at times chose to ignore it.
One of his early plays, Una extraña armonía, which has never been staged and
was only recently published in the Obra Completa, was the subject of an appli-
cation for staging in December 1956. The censor who read the play in January
1957 deemed it to be ‘descarnada y amarga’ and recommended a cut on page 31
of Act II.16 The phrase ‘¡Sucia perra salida!’ was an example of unacceptable
language and bad taste contrary to the regime’s image of the language of a trad-
itional, respectful citizen of the New State. Yet the censors’ efforts to guard
against bad language were not always successful, or even reasonable. Such was
the case with Historia de una escalera, which opened at the Teatro Español in
Madrid on 14 October 1949. At the dress rehearsal, the censors objected to the
use of the term zorra in Acts II and III but, irrationally, authorized the use of the
word golfa in its place.17 Historia de una escalera was published with the same
alterations, but without further difficulty, in 1950.
Even when in 1961 Buero translated the canon of classical drama, Hamlet, it
was cut.18 However, it was finally authorized and staged by José Tamayo in the
Teatro Español. The cuts made by the censors (as opposed to those imposed by
time limits) were presumptuously described by the censor Bartolomé Mostaza as
the ‘suavización de algunos pasajes de diálogo crudo’. In the case of La doble
historia del doctor Valmy, the censor, Padre González Fierro, found the torture
scenes acceptable as, ‘ya está muy visto en cine y teatro y no creo moleste a nadie
que vea la obra con recta intención’, yet expressed a desire to rid the play, as far
as possible, of references to impotence, which he seemed to consider a much
more sensitive issue.19 Suppressions recommended included such offensive
material as Mary’s statement on page 77 of Act II, that ‘Danielín está empapado’,
references to the first case history and Daniel’s conversations with the doctor
about sex and impotence. Later, more applications were made to stage the same
play, and many more censors betrayed similar concerns about the language
employed and expressions of bad taste including references to the sexual act,
impotence and, bizarrely, the word ‘hormonas’. Other censors, less concerned
with matters of taste, reserved their criticism for the political aspects of the play.
Even as late as the 1970s, the censors sought to protect the public from
exposed flesh and other demonstrations of bad taste. Objections made by a cen-
sor of Llegada de los dioses (1971), mostly descriptions of women and girls in
beachwear, were ignored in the published version, with the exception of the
semidesnudez of Inés and Faby mentioned in the stage directions on page 37 of
the censor’s copy, which does not appear in the published play (O.C. I: 1359).20
While most of the problems offered by El sueño de la razón were political

20 AGA/IDD 52.22 Topogr. 83-57 Ca. 87.612.
in nature, the priest and some of the other censors demonstrated concern about
the inclusion of a scene in which the character Leocadia is raped.21 Of course, it
is difficult in this case to separate the moral from the political, as the perpetrator
of the crime is a representative of law and order, a member of the Crown forces.
A much later example of offensive language is to be found in La Fundación.
Almost all of the censors objected to the crude reference to masturbation on
page 95.22 This, and the stage directions suggesting a sexual encounter between
Tomás and his imagined girlfriend, Berta, went against the traditional values
propagated by the regime. Interestingly, some of the censors were more concerned
by this than by the very political nature of the play, which suggests that Buero’s
ideas about distracting the censor may have worked on occasion.
Political Censorship
While different censors had different priorities, their work formed a unified
whole that sought to protect the various apparatuses of the dominant ideology.
Aventura en lo gris (1949) was one of the plays prohibited by the regime. Buero
termed the play ‘un modestísimo drama insobornado e insobornable, tal vez
mediocre, pero sincero; de un grito más, débil como mío, en favor del hombre y
de su dolorida humanidad, siempre en peligro y tantas veces pisoteada’ (O.C. II:
374). In 1951, the Consejo Nacional de Teatro seemed set to stage it at the María
Guerrero theatre in Madrid, but this attempt fell through. The following year
it was the subject of another application. In his report in December 1952,
Bartolomé Mostaza was quite positive and concluded: ‘Carece de sentido reli-
gioso. No ofrece pelígro político.’23 In January 1953, it was read by Gumersindo
Montes Agudo who, while acknowledging its merits, found the play to be con-
fused, yet he saw no reason to prohibit it. It was also read by Padre Mauricio de
Begoña, although his report is missing from the file. At this stage, there is no evid-
ence that the play was staged, or even authorized, despite the censors’ lack of
objections. In November 1953, Huberto Pérez de la Ossa, the director of the
Infanta Beatriz theatre company, made an application to stage the play. This time
it was read by new censors, although the previous censors were called on again
to give their verdict. Francisco Ortiz Muñoz found the play to be both confusing
and pessimistic, and predicted little interest on the part of the public. He too
believed that it could be authorized, although he suggested some cuts on five
pages of Act I and on one page of Act III. Sr Morales de Acevedo, who also read
the play, commented that it suffered from the influence of foreign theatre, and
classed it as ‘obra insincera, muy trabajada y pretenciosa, escrita al modo de la
nueva e incoherente literatura mundial’. Despite this, he did not object to its
authorization.

22 AGA/IDD 52.22 Topogr. 83-56 Ca. 85.495 Exp. 145-73. Lino’s phrase Vamos que se la
meneaba, was cut, undoubtedly for reasons of vulgarity, and does not appear in the published
version (O.C. I: 1468).
On his second reading of the play Sr Mostaza agreed with the cuts suggested
by the other censors. Sr Montes Agudo advocated its authorization, although he
wrote: ‘Nos hemos detenido especialmente en la consideración de posibles ref-
erencias políticas, que existen, evidentemente – por clima, situación y dialáctica
se supieran las horas postreras de Mussolini.’ The regime, in post-war Europe
shaped and dominated by those who had defeated the Axis powers, was still
engaged in an effort to purge itself of links to, and reminders of, its former allies.
Padre Mauricio de Begoña concluded that ‘religiosa y moralmente no ofrece
dificultad’, but recognized that he was not the competent authority to judge it on
any other criteria; this did not prevent him from adding: ‘juzgo que se exponen
principios correctos’ and recommending its authorization. Despite these positive
reports and the fact that no censor advocated prohibition, Aventura en lo gris was
banned on 5 January 1954. However, it was authorized for publication in the the-
atre journal Teatro the same year. Buero claims that he never knew for certain
the reasons for the prohibition and can only surmise that it might have been the
criticism of war and Civil War that can be inferred from the play.24 However, the
censorship documents seem to suggest that the censors’ initial concerns were on
the grounds of bad taste rather than political deviance. The censors also saw fit
to authorize publication of the play by Ediciones Puerta del Sol in 1955, despite
the continued prohibition of the work in commercial theatres. In a communiqué
from José María Ortiz, Jefe de la Sección de Teatro to J. Ubeda, Jefe de la
Sección de Inspección de Libros, dated 21 July 1955, Ortiz stated that the regime
might tolerate the authorization of the play in non-commercial theatres. There is
no suggestion that this information was passed on to the author. By now Buero
had abandoned his plans to find another company to stage the play, as a French
play, La maison de la nuit by Thierry Maulnier, which was similar in theme and
plot, had been staged recently in Madrid.
However, Buero continued to value the play, and he revised it and resubmit-
ted it to the censor’s office in 1963. In the newer version some names were
changed, but the criticism of war and tyranny was as harsh as ever. Certainly
Sebastián Bautista de la Torre seems to have given it a more political reading,
although he noted Buero’s caution in dealing with the theme of dictatorship and
believed that the play suffers for it. He concluded ‘Puede autorizarse sin ningún
reparo’, but suggested that those viewing the rehearsal should carefully monitor
the dream sequence. Interestingly, in such a political play, the concern would
seem to have been more a moral than a political one. Arcadio Baquero, without
a trace of irony, found nothing to warrant the prohibition of the play, which he
classed as ‘una crítica de las guerras, a la política fanática’. Victor Aúz Castro
similarly found no problems and the play was authorized without cuts for over
18s, although it was judged unsuitable for broadcast. The mood in Spain had
changed, and the Civil War and Franco’s dalliance with the Axis powers seemed
distant; the MIT was promoting a progressive image of apertura and Buero’s
24 Amador Rivera and Santiago de las Heras, ‘Encuesta sobre la censura. 25 autores
cuentan sus experiencias con la censura’, Primer Acto, no. 166 (1974), 4–11 (p. 9).
play benefited from the mood swing. Once again, the treatment of this play
seems to highlight what was not spotted: the censors seem not to have seen any
parallels between the political situation in Surelia and that in Spain.
Forbidden by the Provincial Delegates in two cities, Un soñador para un
pueblo was nevertheless authorized elsewhere.25 This was the first of Buero’s
so-called historical dramas, and it deals with Spain in the time of Carlos III and
more specifically, with the Italian-born Minister, Esquilache, whose attempts at
reform were rejected in a popular rising in Madrid in Easter Week 1776. In the
play, the revolt was orchestrated by manipulative traditionalists whose privileged
position in society was threatened by this social reform. As with most censorship
of Buero’s work, the offensive passages were political in nature and could be
interpreted as slanderous attacks on the Franco regime and not just a criticism of
historical figures. Originally the censors suggested cuts, some of which Buero
accepted and some of which he rejected. The censors objected to an Act I scene
in which the king declares in a dialogue with Esquilache that the Spanish people
are like children who fail to recognize something done for their own good and
seem to prefer tyranny to reform (O.C. I: 799). Buero refused to allow the scene
to be cut, and the censors eventually authorized it. According to Härtinger,
Un soñador para un pueblo was authorized with cuts on 9 December 1958.
Based on his reading of the files, he claims that O’Connor’s assertion that Buero
agreed to certain modifications with the censors may be true. However, he does
not rule out the possibility that the passages missing from the published text may
have been removed by the author independently of the censors: ‘Ob der Autor
diese Textstellen aus eigener Motivation oder auf Druck der Zensoren gestrichen
hat, läßt sich aus den Unterlagen nicht rekonstruieren.’26 When the play was sub-
mitted to the censor by the Escelicer publishing company in November 1959, it
was authorized.
José Tamayo Rivas, representing the Teatro Español, sought permission in
November 1960 to stage Las Meninas in the 1960–61 season.27 The play fea-
tures Velázquez as protagonist and deals with art censorship, corruption in the
court and the exploitation of the Spanish people by their political masters.
The censor José María Cano considered it ‘una obra muy digna por su densidad
psicológica y su profunda densidad dramática’, and for its ‘excelente calidad
literaria’, yet he did pick out ‘posibles alusiones a problemas actuales’, includ-
ing the portrait of a corrupt court and particularly the opportunistic marquis.
25 Unfortunately, the documents in the Archive relating to this play are unavailable for
consultation, owing to their poor condition. Therefore, secondary sources must be relied upon,
such as the information provided by P. W. O’Connor, who viewed the documents in 1966, and
Heribert Härtinger, who viewed them in 1996.
26 Heribert Härtinger, Oppositionstheater in der Diktatur. Spanienkritik im Werk des
Dramatikers Antonio Buero Vallejo vor dem Hintergrund der franquistischen Zensur, Studia
Litteraria, Band 8 (Wilhelmsfeld: Gottfried Egert, 1997), pp. 156–7. Whether the author of
these passages deleted them for his own motives, or as the result of pressure from the censors,
cannot be determined from the documents.
He noted the criticism of Inquisitional censorship and took it as a reference to

state censorship with the suggestion that ‘la mirada “sucia” del censor’ is respon-
sible for much of what is censored. He found criticism of the Church in the
portrait of a Dominican friar unwilling to condemn hypocrisy and lies.
Moreover, he noted that the symbol of the people, Pedro Briones, dies at the
hands of the regime’s minions and, finally, that the hero of the piece, the pure,
honourable, gifted painter, Velázquez, rebels and denounces the hypocrisy and
corruption that surrounds him. However, after listing all of these possible par-
allels with Franco’s time and the implicit criticism of the corruption of the
regime, the silent and despicable collusion of the Church and the suffering of
the people at their hands, this censor decided that ‘sería mucha complicación
tomar a pecho esas posibles analogías’, and recommended authorization of the
play without cuts for over 16s. He also believed, unlike many other censors, that
it was fit for broadcast. Cano believed that it was all too easy to find analogies,
symbols and similarities in works that would link them to modern-day Spain
and, surprisingly, stated his belief that ‘los juicios deben ser más objetivos’. The
final censor, Gumersindo Montes Agudo, also noted the possibly controversial
references to the Inquisition and to the Crown, but overall, found it worthy of
authorization.
Las Meninas was finally authorized on 15 November 1960 for over 18s and
with cuts on five pages, but it was prohibited for broadcast. Criticisms of the
regime and discussion of social problems were deemed acceptable once they
were made universal rather than specific to Spain. Given that the censors were
so aware of the parallels drawn by Buero between the corrupt court of Felipe IV
and the corrupt regime of Franco, and his criticisms of the Church and censor-
ship, it is perhaps surprising that so little was cut; the mere deletion of the word
España did little to lessen the impact of the overall message, and it was still
perfectly obvious that Spain, both past and present, was the subject of the piece.
O’Connor noted that the play was very successful in Madrid and seemed des-
tined for an extended tour of the provinces with the state-sponsored Festivales
de España. However, its production was prohibited on the grounds of its failure
to represent ‘difusión popular de la cultura’.28 It was authorized for publication
with cuts in 1961.
In 1962, Buero completed an adaptation of Brecht’s Mother Courage and her
Children. It was perhaps an unexpected choice for the usually cautious drama-
tist. However, the file does not contain information about the authorization or
otherwise of the play at this stage.29 Nor does it contain any censors’ reports from
this year, apart from a moral report. This would suggest that either the applica-
tion was later withdrawn, or that the play was the subject of a silencio adminis-
trativo. Included in the file is a two-page report on Bertolt Brecht, dated
15 March 1958. The report notes Brecht’s attacks on bourgeois capitalism and his
revolutionary Marxism; his theatre is condemned as ‘absolutamente racionalista,

frío, despiadado’. The report also notes that, of the dramatist’s opus, Mother
Courage and her Children was the least political play; yet, according to the
author of the report, this fact simply highlights the dramatist’s ideas about ‘la
malignidad de la despreciable sociedad actual’. Moreover, the report observes
that, ‘desde el punto de vista moral, la obra es realmente terrible.’Another applica-
tion to stage Buero’s version of the play was made in 1964, and the director was
the influential José Tamayo. Madre Coraje y sus hijos (Mother Courage and her
Children), because of its author and, given the circumstances because of the
adaptor also, was the subject of intense censorial scrutiny. It was subjected to a
plenary session of the Junta de censura at which, of the sixteen censors, fifteen
recommended its authorization and only one advocated prohibition. Cuts sug-
gested by many censors included the elimination of derogatory references to
God, soldiers, Catholicism and the clergy. Marcelo Arroita Jáuregui Alonso, who
recommended the prohibition of the play, noted in his report that if it were
merely an anti-war play, he would not object to it, but as it was ‘anti-militarista’
and ‘anti-religiosa’ as well as ‘rotundamente marxista’, pessimistic and divisive,
he found it unacceptable. Yet despite this, he concluded: ‘Todo ello no supone
un juicio adverso sobre sus calidades dramáticas y literarias, que son extraordi-
narias, y que tienen adecuado reflejo en esta versión española.’
The moral report penned by Padre A. Avelino Esteban y Romero is remark-
able for the lack of offence taken. Having highlighted the protagonist’s lax
morals and political opportunism, he concluded: ‘Tal vez si hubiese de señalar
tesis en la obra, destacaría el posible sentido pacifista que encierra su trama, al
presentar la inutilidad de las guerras, el negocio que suponen para muchos de los
que las provocan.’ He pointed out that the priest’s attempts to seduce the protag-
onist might be suppressed, ‘teniendo en cuenta la sensibilidad del público
español ante escenas de este índole, en referencia a los sacerdotes’. He himself,
however, seemed unshocked, demonstrating an attitude quite typical of the cen-
sors who, in the name of the common good, protected the people from harm. As
in Buero’s Un soñador para un pueblo, the populace are viewed as intellectually
weak, a bewildered herd in need of strong leadership. The play was authorized
with nine cuts in April 1964. However, a letter from Tamayo in October 1966,
the month of its estreno in Madrid, suggests that it had not been staged in the
interim. Moreover, the play, like his version of Hamlet, had to be further cut to
accommodate the Spanish theatre timetable.
La doble historia del doctor Valmy is a direct attack on one of the repressive
ideological apparatuses used by the Spanish dictatorship. The structure of the
play demands that the spectator recognize it as such and elect to believe or dis-
believe Buero’s exposé of this ideology. The play is critical of torture as a
weapon but also of the ideological concept of patriotism, exposed here, as in Las
Meninas, as falsified. Buero wrote La doble historia del Doctor Varga (later
renamed La doble historia del doctor Valmy) in 1964, and a theatre company
expressed an interest in staging it. However, the censors who read the play were
not forthcoming with a verdict. La doble historia del doctor Valmy focuses on
two separate, but related, case studies, which are enacted on stage from the case
notes of the doctor. The second of these is the centre of most of the dramatic
action. It is the story of Daniel and Mary Barnes, who live with their child and
Daniel’s mother in a city in the fictional land of Surelia. Daniel, a member of the
security police, is involved in the detention and torture of political prisoners.
While ‘just doing his job’, he tortured and castrated a prisoner called Aníbal
Marty, who died as a result. Daniel’s psychosomatic impotence is a consequence
of this incident. His wife Mary who, like his mother, has lived in comfortable
and wilful ignorance of his actions, is enlightened by Lucila, the dead man’s
widow, and is repulsed and outraged by her husband’s actions, demanding that
he act positively and leave his job. When Daniel eventually sees past the propa-
ganda and attempts to leave his job, he is threatened by Paulus who considers his
behaviour to be treasonous. Paulus, ostensibly a family friend and father figure
for Daniel, is a former beau of Daniel’s mother who may be taking revenge on
Daniel for his mother’s rejection of him. Daniel’s failure to leave his job leads
Mary to kill him in a negative action that will lead to her own demise and pos-
sibly ruin her son’s life, as he will be left in the care of his grandmother whose
decision to ignore the truth of the situation already damaged her son. In the end,
both Mary and Lucila are arrested by her husband’s former colleagues and are
destined to become two more victims of a brutal regime. The cycle of terror can
be halted only by those willing to open their eyes, recognize the problem and
then fight to change it. Mary took the first step and will suffer for it.
However, the fate of the other Marys and the next generation is determined by
the characters of the first case history, the ‘normal’ couple, dressed like other
theatre-goers, who refuse to accept the truth of the Barnes’s story, preferring the
official rose-tinted version of events, that everything is fine and that the police
and their political superiors always act in the best interests of the populace. The
play is a direct challenge to members of the audience to open their eyes and
accept responsibility for their actions or inaction. It emerges that the ‘normal’
couple were neighbours of the Barnes family, whose denial of the reality of the
events described in the second case history is diagnosed by Doctor Valmy as
delusional behaviour. Buero, through Doctor Valmy, thus commented on the
sanity, or otherwise, of a society that is prepared to tolerate torture in the name
of the common good and suggests that torture damages, not only its victims but
the torturer and society at large. Mary’s action, which could be seen as a type of
madness, is a further comment on sanity in a world gone mad. It is thus an attack
on the collusion of the public, which is a necessary element in the upholding of
any ideology, and particularly in the extraordinary success of the Francoist ideol-
ogy in Spain; it is also a frank condemnation of police brutality and torture, at a
time when this was a topical issue in Spain. In all, then, it is hardly surprising
that the play did not make it past the censors.
In July 1964, the resident company at the Teatro de la Comedia applied to the
MIT for permission to stage La doble historia del doctor Varga, as it was then
called. The play was read by three censors, Padre Luis González Fierro,
Bartólome Mostaza and José Luis Vázquez Dodero. Bartolomé Mostaza, like
Padre González Fierro, deemed the play suitable for over 18s, once the many cuts
were made. Neither considered it suitable for broadcast. The third censor, José
Luis Vázquez Dodero, made similar recommendations. The verdict of the cen-
sorship board, which met on 28 July 1964, was that the play could be authorized
with cuts for over 18s but not for broadcast. The suggested suppressions dealt
mostly with matters sexual. Another prerequisite for authorization was the
‘extranjerización de los nombres de los personajes’ and the date proposed for the
staging would also be taken into consideration.30 However, the theatre company,
not having received a definitive answer, withdrew its proposal to stage the play.
Later that same year, Alfonso Paso wrote to the Director General de
Cinematografía y Teatro, on behalf of the Ramón Clemente theatre company,
seeking permission to stage La doble historia del doctor Valmy in Madrid’s
Reina Victoria theatre in early 1965. He had written to Manuel Fraga two months
previously, in August, to announce his plans to stage the play, still referred to as
La doble historia del doctor Varga, in Barcelona in October 1964 and in Madrid
in early 1965. Unofficially, he had been told that the play would be authorized
once some minor cuts had been made. One of these changes was the renaming
of the play so that it now referred to Dr Valmy and not Dr Varga. The newly
named play was then sent to the censors once again for a verdict. The first meet-
ing of the Junta de Censura on 3 October 1964 involved the same three censors
who had read it in July. Padre Fierro referred the Board back to his earlier ver-
dict and added that the first case study should be eliminated. Sr Mostaza also
proposed the elimination of the two characters of the first case history and the
references to sex and impotence on pages 23 and 25 of Act I. Sr Vázquez Dodero
agreed with the other censors and added to their verdicts a recommendation that
further examples of bad taste be censored. This time it was decided to submit the
play to the rigours of a full censorship board, and the play was dispatched to a
further seven censors before a meeting of the Junta was convened on 27 October
1964. Once again, the censors found rather a lot to occupy them.
Sebastián Bautista de la Torre disapproved of the name of the imaginary coun-
try, Surelia, for it contained the word sur, and therefore could be taken to imply
that such police abuses did not take place in the North or in the Centre (of
Europe?): ‘Aunque creemos que en Nortelia o Centralia se dan más estos casos
sería mejor que no se jugase con ningún punto cardinal y se diere un nombre
totalmente neutro.’ In short, by now the number of recommended cuts had
increased and the entire first case history had been blackballed. The characters’
names were to be changed to foreign names and the name Surelia changed. In
an uncharacteristic expression of imposibilismo, Buero refused to accept the cuts
and, as a result, the play was not authorized. In their reports on the play, not one
of the censors refers to the censorship norms on which they based their verdicts.
30 ‘No se expidera guía de censura hasta conocer la fecha de su estreno para decidir una
vez en posesión de este dato sobre la conveniencia o no de otorgar la documentación dada las
características de la obra en relación con su posible negativa interpretación en el caso de
coincidir su estreno con detenciones y condenas de extremistas o autores de atentados.’
AGA/IDD 52.22 Topogr. 83-51 Ca. 71.779 Exp. 147-64.
Later, in February 1966, Armando Moreno Gómez, representing the Nuria

Espert Theatre company, sought permission to stage the play in September of
that year. This prompted the Director General de Cinematografía y Teatro to
write to the Minister, Manuel Fraga, on 15 March 1966. In his letter, the Director
General referred to the earlier failure to authorize the play:
Esta obra fue presentada a la censura hace ya años. La Junta entendió que se
podía autorizar con los cortes que figuran en el texto, impuestos tanto por lo
delicado del tema, como por sus posibles implicaciones políticas. En atención
a estas, entendió, además, que no debía dar dictamen definitivo sobre la obra
hasta conocer la fecha en que fuera a estrenarse, teniendo en cuenta la posi-
bilidad de que, circunstancias determinadas la hicieran peligrosa en ese
momento. Por consiguiente, no hubo dictamen oficial de censura.31
He noted that Buero had alluded to the play in the press and had reiterated his
intention not to accept any cuts. It is likely that this act of defiance on the drama-
tist’s part influenced the ensuing decision to ban the play. It was prohibited by
the Minister on 15 March 1966, in accordance with Article 22 of the Reglamento
de Régimen Interior (Appendix VI).32 One year later, in February 1967, Juan
Calet Pérez, representing the Ismael Merlo theatre company, sent an application
to the MIT requesting authorization to stage La doble historia del doctor Valmy.
Permission was refused in a letter dated 13 March 1967.
La doble historia del doctor Valmy was first published in the United States in
1967 in both Spanish and English in the September issue of Artes Hispánicos.
An English version, by Farris Anderson, was premiered at the inauguration of
the Gateway Theatre, Chester (England), on 22 November 1968. In Chester the
play received mixed reviews, mostly good, in the press, although some people
walked out of the Gala premiere in disgust, leading one to conclude that perhaps
Buero was right and voluntary blindness is a universal rather than a merely
Spanish failing. The play was not staged in Spain until after the death of Franco,
and even then only after much deliberation by the censors.
El tragaluz is a social drama with futuristic, science fiction-inspired elements.
The action of the play is introduced by two researchers from the future as a type
of virtual reality trip back through time to late twentieth-century Madrid. There
are references to the immediate aftermath of the Civil War and the hardships
endured by one particular family as a result of their post-war experiences. It is
Letter dated 15 March 1966. AGA/IDD 52.22 Topogr. 83-51 Ca. 71.779 Exp. 147-64.
31
Artículo 22 – Excepcionalmente, el Presidente podrá dejar en suspenso el acuerdo del

32
Pleno y solicitar del Ministro de Información y Turismo su revisión por una Comisión especial
constituída al efecto para cada caso por las personas que el Ministro designe. Éste, por propia
iniciativa, podrá ordenar dicha revisión e incluso, en casos extraordinarios, acordar por sí
mismo, en el momento en que especiales circunstancias lo aconsejen, la decisión que
considere oportuna en orden a la autorización o prohibición de las obras o a las medidas
excepcionales a que se condicionen la autorización. Orden 6 febrero 1964, de la Junta de
Censura de Obras Teatrales y las Normas de Censura, p. 2506.
a tale of persecution, abuse and exploitation and questions not only the exploiter,
but the victims, some of whom exempt themselves from action. The Archive
contains copies of the text, with four cuts recommended by the censors in Part I
(pages 31–2, 33, 35, 41) and two in Part II (pages 13, 45), with other minor marks
on a further eight pages. The latter seem to have been ignored. The cuts high-
lighted on pages 31–2 and 45 are amended in the censors’ copy of the text, pre-
sumably salvaged by Buero himself. They are published in the agreed amended
form in the Obra Completa. In the censored dialogue on pages 31 and 32 of Part I,
the character Encarna talks of her family’s move to Madrid from the country in
search of a better life:
ENCARNA Yo . . . soy de pueblo. Me quedé sin madre de muy niña. Teníamos

una tierruca muy pequeña; mi padre se alquilaba de bracero
cuando podía. Pero ya no había trabajo para nadie, y cogimos
cuatro cuartos por la tierra y nos vinimos hace seis años, como
tantos otros.
MARIO Sí . . . El desarrollo.33
Encarna’s statement about the hardship suffered by her father in the aftermath of
the Civil War was not cut. Such a cut might have been expected, given that this
hardship, suffered by many Spaniards who migrated to Madrid and the larger
cities, was denied by government propaganda, which attempted to create the illu-
sion that the post-war years were years of sufficiency, if not of plenty. However,
Mario’s sarcastic equation of this sorry state of affairs with progress, in a direct
jibe at the regime’s propaganda, was too much for the censor to accept. The
censor crossed out the end of Encarna’s speech and moved ‘como tantos otros’
to where Mario’s reply had been (O.C. I: 1129). Buero, perhaps feeling that the
point had been made in Encarna’s speech, accepted the suppression and replace-
ment proposed. On page 45 of Part II, Mario confronts Vicente about his past
action, when, in the immediate aftermath of the war, Vicente had boarded the
train to safety, thus saving himself. However, by taking the family’s food supplies
with him, he condemned his young sister to death by starvation. Nonetheless,
Mario’s reproach is more for his continued victim-making in adulthood, rather
than for one selfish and terrible action when a boy:
MARIO La guerra había sido atroz para todos, el futuro era incierto y, de
pronto, comprendiste que el saco era tu primer botín. No te culpo
del todo: sólo eras un muchacho hambriento y asustado. Nos tocó
crecer en un tiempo de asesinos y nos hemos hecho hombres en un
tiempo de ladrones.
This last sentence was bowdlerized and replaced with Nos tocó crecer en años
difíciles, a much less harsh version of events, more in keeping with the official
33 AGA/IDD 52.22 Topogr. 83-57 Ca. 87.599.

myth (O.C. I: 1176). This still leaves four recommended cuts, on pages 33, 35 and
41 of Part I, and on page 13 of Part II. However, there is some confusion about the
cuts made. O’Connor suggests that a further two of the original six proposed cuts
were avoided, but claims that the cuts finally made were those on pages 13 and 45
of Part II.34 A report on the publication of the play by a censor in the Sección de
Lectorado seems to support O’Connor’s claim that two cuts were made. However,
the cuts referred to here correspond to those on pages 35 and 41 of Part I.
En cuanto a las alusiones a nuestra guerra tachadas en las páginas 37 y 41, no

parecen – salvando todos los respetos al preopinante – excesivas en una
situación hondamente aflictiva ocasionada en la guerra. Son peripecias insep-
arables de tales conmociones y su negación sistemática representa una preten-
sión de impecabilidad casi pueril.35
A comparison of the suggested cuts with the version of the text published in the
Obra Completa leads one to conclude that all but the cut on page 13 of Part II
were avoided. On page 13, Vicente tries to persuade his brother to come to work
at the publishing company where he works. Mario refuses, for he equates that
world with his brother’s exploitation of others. He has chosen poverty and
inaction over his brother’s comfortable, but destructive, lifestyle. In answer to his
brother’s offer, he states:
MARIO Mucha gente no puede elegir, o no se atreve. Se encuentra de pronto,

convertida en un asalariado, en un cura, en una fregona, en un golfo,
en una prostituida, en un guardia.
The idea of people being forced, because of hardship, into jobs to which they are
not suited or in which they are unhappy, is bad enough, but to suggest that there
are policemen without love of country and priests without vocations, and more-
over to associate them with prostitutes and rogues, was tantamount to a direct
attack on the pillars of Francoist society. The italicized phrase does not appear
in the published version (O.C. I: 1158). In contrast, the cuts recommended on
pages 33, 35 and 41 of Part I appear uncut in the published version.
The cut indicated on page 35 was a direct mention of the Civil War:
MARIO Hundido desde el final de nuestra guerra, en aquel pozo de mi casa

(O.C. I: 1131).
The cut recommended on page 41 refers to Mario’s explanation of his younger

sister’s death. O’Connor’s assertion that both of these were salvaged by Buero
34 O’Connor, ‘Censorship in the Contemporary Spanish Theatre’, pp. 90–1. Härtinger is
less sure about which cuts were made. Oppositionstheater, pp. 142–3.
would appear to be supported by the fact that both appear in the published
version:
MARIO Murió al cuarto día. De hambre. [. . .] Años después le he oído comentar

que fue fácil: que entonces fue fácil enterrar (O.C. I: 1134).
A reference to Mario’s father’s former employment in a Ministry, on page 33 of

the original text, was the other cut indicated (O.C. I: 1129–30). However, as the
reports of the censors on the staging of the play could not be located, there is no
way to verify any of these claims. It is quite likely that in their final report, the
Sección de Teatro did indeed allow Buero to save some of the phrases they had
proposed to cut. It is also possible that the cut on page 13 was inserted as a decoy
by the dramatist and later removed by him, rather than by the censor. This might
explain both why it is absent from the published version and why it is not men-
tioned by the censor from the Sección de Lectorado. In any event, the text that
was cut contained references to criticisms of the new Spanish society that was
the product of a new ideology. Considering that the play criticizes and denies the
attractive myths propagated by this ideology, it is quite surprising that so much
of it escaped censorship, especially as in places the criticism is quite strident.
Mito, the libretto for an opera based around the myth of Don Quijote with
elements of science fiction and socio-political comment, was conceived as a
project with the musician Cristóbal Halffter, but he failed to produce the music
and it was never staged. Nevertheless, Buero decided to publish it, and Escelicer
sent the manuscript to the Servicio de Orientación Bibliográfica of the MIT for
consulta voluntaria in 1968. One of the censors who read the text recommended
cuts, as the play contains expressions of anti-military sentiment, criticisms of the
Head of State and of police corruption which, despite the imaginary setting for
the play, ‘puede provocar falsas interpretaciones entre los lectores maliciosos’.36
Another censor discovered nothing objectionable and in the end the play was
authorized for publication without cuts. An application to stage Mito in a school
was submitted by the Federación Española T.V. in March 1969. The play was
read by three censors who unanimously approved it for teatros de cámara but
stipulated that it was not suitable for broadcast. One censor considered that the
futuristic nature of the play distanced it sufficiently from the ‘circunstancia
española’, and thus saw no danger. Sr Bautista de la Torre considered that ‘la
obra es delicada’, because of its sexual and political content. He highlighted such
examples as ‘la alusión a las condecoraciones’, ‘la acción despótica de la policía’
and ‘la prohibición de las huelgas’, as well as the ‘estallido orgiástico que
aprovecha la simulación del episodio Clavileño para dar suelto al eroticismo más
desenfrenado’. He suggested that the dress rehearsal be carefully monitored.37
El sueño de la razón was retained by the censors for almost six months before
they returned a verdict. Their main problem with the play seems to have been the

criticism of an oppressive regime comparable to the one they served and the usual
objections to any suggestion of sexual impropriety on the part of some characters.
The parallels between the circumstances of the artist Goya during the reign of the
tyrannical King Fernando VII and the circumstances of the modern artist or writer
struggling to work in Franco’s Spain did not pass unnoticed by the censors. In July
1969, José Osuna applied to the MIT for permission to stage El sueño de la razón
in the Reina Victoria theatre in Madrid in the January 1970 season. The play was
read by three censors, Padre Artola, Sebastián Bautista de la Torre and Srta María
Nieves Sunyer, before the Junta de Censura met on 22 July 1969. Padre Artola’s
main concern was the scene in Act II where Leocadia is raped by the Royal
Volunteers, but overall he considered the play suitable for adults. Sr Bautista de
la Torre agreed with Padre Artola that the rape scene could not be tolerated. He
also accused Buero of propaganda, stating ‘se le ha ido la mano con el chafarrinón
folletinesco y subversivo’ and recommended that the play be viewed by more
censors and possibly their superiors.38 Srta Sunyer also expressed her disquiet
about the rape scene and recommended that other censors read the play.
Following the first meeting of the censorship board a nota informativa about
the play was sent from the Jefe de la Sección de Teatro to the Subdirector General
de Espectáculos, with a summary of the verdict and comments of the censors and
highlighting the ‘tendenciosa intención’ of Buero Vallejo in his condemnation of
absolutism and his sympathy for ‘los liberales oprimidos’ (Appendix VII). The
prologue was also highlighted as in it Buero explained that although he was not
a Monarchist, the play was not anti-Monarchist, but rather anti-absolutist. There
was also mention of the ‘inoportunidad del tema en los presentes momentos
políticos del país’, a concern earlier displayed at the time of the proposed staging
of La doble historia del doctor Valmy.
No more was heard about the play until November when José Osuna, having
been promised a verdict by September, wrote to the Subdirector General de
Espectáculos, Sr Francisco Sanabria, to enquire about the delay; he had prom-
ised to provide the theatre in question with the necessary documentation by
October, but he received no satisfaction from the censors. In late November
the play was sent to a further thirteen censors for review. Eleven of these had
returned a verdict by the meeting of the Junta on 2 December 1969, and a fur-
ther two censors were consulted on that date and asked to return a verdict by the
ninth, when the Junta was to meet again. Most censors agreed that Fernando VII
was deserving of the criticism meted out in the play, and one censor noted:
‘Fernando VII es el único monarca de esa familia que no tiene calle en Madrid.
Por algo será.’ The overall consensus was that the play should be authorized for
adults, but not for broadcast, and that special attention should be given to the
final scenes depicting the assault on Goya and Leocadia, strangely considered by
one of the censors to be erotic. Another expressed his concern that the end of the
play might degenerate into pornography. Furthermore, a note was sent to the Jefe
de la Asesoria Jurídica del Departamento, requesting clarification on the issue

of the legality of Buero’s proclamations about the monarchy in the prologue

that was to be included in the programme.39 The Junta’s verdict, agreed on 9
December 1969, reflected the consensus, but the definitive verdict was withheld
until the censors had seen the rehearsal (Appendix VIII). Another interesting
note, dated 10 December 1969, suggests that a further delay in the announce-
ment of a verdict could lead to a political interpretation of the play. El sueño de
la razón was finally staged in Madrid in February 1970 and was authorized for
publication by Escelicer in June of the same year.
The only documentation about Llegada de los dioses relating to its staging
during the Franco years was the original text with marks made by the censor. The
play was written, staged and published in 1971. This version differs from that
published in many respects, which suggests that cuts were made, with or with-
out the co-operation of Buero. In the listing of titles of plays by Buero, Llegada
de los dioses is documented as authorized with cuts in June 1971 (AGA/IDD 46).40
The first cut, on page 58 of the censor’s copy of the text, is a criticism of bad
government and military power. However, the most likely reason for the cut is
the direct reference to Fraga’s dip in the sea.
JULIO Pero hay locos . . . y el temor los multiplica . . . Y una legión de gen-
eralotes en todos los países, convencidos de que el estado perfecto del
hombre es el de combatiente . . . Y también hay accidentes. Cerca
de aquí ya hubo uno. Hasta un ministro se bañó en el mar para
demostrar que la irradiación no afectó al agua . . . Los irradiados de
tierra no pudieron bañarse con él: estaban hospitalizados. Habrá más,
lo mismo que, de vez en cuando, estalla un polvorín. Y la tierra es hoy
un polvorín gigantesco.41
The published version reads as follows:
JULIO Pero hay locos . . . Y el temor los multiplica . . . Y también hay acci-
dentes. De vez en cuando, estalla un polvorín. Y la tierra es hoy un
polvorín gigantesco (O.C. I: 1370).
Another political point made by one of the characters was also removed. Julio
and Nuria are discussing their parents’ wealth:
NURIA Los pobres ya no son tan pobres.
JULIO No digas tonterías.
39 In the censor’s copy of the text the Nota al programa is crossed out, although it seems
to have been accepted later. AGA/IDD 52.22 Topogr. 83-57 Ca. 87.583.
40 In 1975, Llegada de los dioses was authorized for over 14s under the recently introduced
classification system. AGA/IDD 52.22 Topogr. 83-57 Ca. 87.612. However, the censors used
an old copy of the text, which had cuts indicated by an earlier censor. Of his seven recommended
cuts, only that on p. 37 seems to have made it to the final report.
41 Llegada de los dioses, Censors’ copy of text. AGA/IDD 52.22 Topogr. 83-57 Ca. 87.612.
NURIA Papá sabe mucho de economía y lo dice.

JULIO Porque quiere engañarse. O engañar. La participación obrera . . . los
mil dólares ‘per capita’ . . . Toda esa farsa.
NURIA Ya sé que hay pobres. Pero cada día están mejor atendidos . . .
The italicized phrase appears on page 42 of the censor’s copy, but is not in the
published copy (O.C. I: 1361).
La Fundación was the last play to be written and staged by Buero Vallejo
before the death of Franco. It was premiered in 1974. After initial difficulties
with the company that was going to stage the play, it was taken on by another
company, which applied to the MIT for authorization in February 1973. The play
was referred to a Comisión especial, which had the power to overrule the deci-
sion of the plenary, and the prognosis seemed bad; it was lost in silencio admin-
istrativo for months. Its eventual authorization with some cuts of a political
nature coincided with a ministerial reshuffle.42
The play, which is set in a prison, deals with a group of political prisoners and
in particular Tomás, the prisoner whose inability to withstand torture had led to
the arrest and imprisonment of the others who share his cell. Since his incarcer-
ation he has retreated into a fantasy world where the prison cell has become a
room in a luxurious research foundation, the warders are the foundation’s help-
ful staff, eager to satisfy his every whim, and the men he helped to condemn are
his friends and fellow researchers. The play is not only a call to Tomás and oth-
ers beyond the stage to ‘abrir los ojos’, to face reality and responsibility and thus
move on, but also a denunciation of sadistic, cruel violence and torture and the
political masters who use it to eliminate the voice of the opposition; it is also one
of Buero’s more developed explorations of ideology and society, in which he
acknowledges, through the character of Asel, the similarities of all dominant
ideologies, or at least of the methodology employed to uphold and defend them.
In this play, as in La doble historia del doctor Valmy before, he examines the ideo-
logical similarity of torturer to the tortured.
The play was the subject of an ordinary and later, on 30 March 1973, a plen-
ary session of the censorship board. Sr Mampaso summarized the argument of
the play thus:
El mundo ‘civilizado’ en que vivimos es una constante injusticia y los que

luchan contra él se ven torturados, encarcelados, ejecutados . . . Pero no por
ello hay que cesar la lucha pues aunque parezca un sueño, una ilusión el paisaje
de un mundo ejemplar existe.43
42 Buero also commented: ‘De otras dificultades en cuanto a reparto, hallazgo de decorador,
etc., no merece la pena hablar, pero también fueron angustiosas.’ In ‘Cinco preguntas a los autores
que estrenaron’, Primer Acto, nos 170–1 (1974), 13–23 (p. 14).
He noted Buero’s intention and indeed seemed to recognize the point about the
nature of ideology and struggle, and the concept of freedom in society:
Es otra vez el Buero Vallejo de los buenos oprimidos y los malos en el poder,
de los vencidos y los verdugos, el de los recuerdos de sus años de carcel,
aunque en esta ocasión, la obra está menos localizada y no tiene alusión a la
Guerra Civil, ni a España y además en algún pasaje se insinúa la duda fatalista
de si el triunfo será siempre así, si los mismos revolucionarios encarcelados,
no llegarían a ser también verdugos en su hipotético triunfo.
He appeared to attribute Buero’s criticisms to bitterness, referring to the dramatist

as ‘permanente pesimista del acontecer político del Régimen, que le encarceló’.
He advocated a cut on page 95. Sr Albizu viewed it as an existential, rather than
a political play, which it certainly is to a degree; he commented without irony
that the methods of torture referred to in the play ‘son desgraciadamente
patrimonio general de la humanidad’. He too, recommended a cut on page 95
and, presumably for fear of seeing something too closely resembling Spanish
style, suggested that the costumes be checked before any performance.
Sr Barceló, like Buero himself, emphasized the imaginary setting and the
descriptive title of ‘fábula’ given to the play by the author; he also wished to
eliminate the crudeness on page 95 and recommended a cut on page 111.
Sr Tejedor described La Fundación as a social rather than a political, play deal-
ing with modern consumer society; he nevertheless recommended cuts on pages
95, 100 and 101. Sr Zubiaurre, like Sr Martínez Ruiz and Padre Artola, noted the
universality of the theme; he observed, however, that the prisoners were political
prisoners and recommended a plenary session to judge the play. Some censors,
like Jesús Vasallo, were exclusively concerned by the crudeness in the play.
Sr García Cernuda certainly noted the political theme, but wrote: ‘El tema está
tratado con indudable prudencia y notable habilidad, que lo hace representable
ante personas formadas.’ Who exactly these people were, or who decided, was
not mentioned. He warned against excess in the bed scene with Tomás and the
imaginary Berta. Sr Vázquez Dodero, while adding to suggested cuts, believed
that the play, pessimistic though it is, could be authorized. The only censor to
cite the relevant legislation in his report was Sr Aragonés, who claimed that the
play breached norms 13, 14.2 and 17.2, and suggested cuts on pages 95 and 100.
Even though the application was made on 20 March, it was not authorized
until 28 June 1973. Not all of the suggested cuts were made – only those that a
majority agreed upon. The cuts made were both political and moral and included
the references to political injustice and comparisons to other countries and
references to masturbation and Tomás’s sexual relations with Berta (Appendix
IX). In the end, nobody recommended prohibition at the plenary. A report on the
verdict reached by the Junta de Censura, noted that this play could be politicized
by interested parties, and therefore stipulated the following:
Es condición fundamental que la puesta en escena (montaje, vestuario, etc.),

mantenga una absoluta inconcreción acorde con la universalidad deseable para
el tema propuesto, y la generalidad de su planteamiento. El propio autor cali-

fica su obra como una fábula en un país imaginario, o desconocido, y ésto es
fundamental, por lo que la realización juega aquí un papel importante y ha de
atemperarse a los condicionamientos que expresamente señalo. En consecuen-
cia, el ensayo general deberá tener carácter vinculante.
Also included among the documents in the file is an urgent note from the Jefe
de la Sección de Promoción Teatral to the Subdirector General de Teatro,
informing him of the censors’ reports, ‘tanto por la importancia del texto como
por la personalidad del autor’. While Buero was not a banned author, the cen-
sors’ emphasis on his ‘personality’ here, as in the report on Madre Coraje y sus
hijos (Mother Courage and her Children), suggests that the dramatist was con-
sidered, by the regime at least, to be opposed to its rule. Despite the care taken
at the rehearsal, it must be acknowledged that, given the circumstances and the
country in which it was being staged, it seemed unlikely that the audience
would be unaware of the similarities to their own country and political
situation.
Of course, in any examination of censorship as an ideological tool, that which
escapes censorship is also of note. Many of Buero’s attacks on ideology and
society in Francoist Spain escaped the attention of the censors. Certainly, the
censors who read La tejedora de sueños, like those who read En la ardiente
oscuridad and Las palabras en la arena, seem not to have been aware of any
political analogy contained in the drama. Emilio Morales de Acevedo wrote of
La tejedora de sueños: ‘Sin ofensar a la ortodoxia,’ yet clearly there exists a pos-
sible anti-regime reading of this play, which can be interpreted as Buero’s sub-
version of the Nationalist redemption myth.44 However, if those whose job it is
to find such readings failed to do so, one must ask if the audience and indeed the
actors, picked up the criticism of the dominant ideology contained in the portrait
of the returning hero. If not, then Buero’s effort was in vain. La tejedora de
sueños was authorized without cuts on 9 October 1950. Likewise, in Las pal-
abras en la arena, Buero turned traditional Catholic mythology into an argument
against the Catholic-supported regime.
Similarly, Hoy es fiesta, an early play containing some mild criticism of
poverty and social conditions, was judged to present neither political nor moral
problems for the regime and was authorized without cuts. Las cartas boca abajo,
while initially authorized without cuts for over 16s in 1957, was thereafter
staged mostly in teatros de cámara. Sr Morales de Acevedo did not rate highly
its literary worth but found it suitable for a ‘público selecto y bondadoso’.45
El concierto de San Ovidio (1962) is a historical play critical of the negative
influence of state and social institutions, such as the Church and the police;
it also condemns opportunistic and exploitative businesses, which abuse the
weakest members of society for personal gain, while at the same time making

philanthropic statements about the common good. It is set in Paris in 1771,

giving it a historical distance that undoubtedly aided its passage through the cen-
sorship system. The José Osuna theatre company applied for permission to stage
the play in October 1962. The file contains the badly scarred text, but only two
reports. The report by José María Cano suggests only one cut, on the grounds of
bad taste; Gumersindo Montes Agudo’s report recommends one other cut. In the
end, by negotiation or agreement, the play was authorized without cuts for over
18s in November 1962.46 Nevertheless, it was deemed unsuitable for broadcast.
In further confirmation of the erratic nature of censorship, in 1966 the play was
authorized for over 14s for an evidently mature audience in Lérida, while back
in Madrid in 1973, it reverted to an over 18s certificate. When published by
Escélicer in 1963, it was authorized without cuts.
These examples clearly show a failure on the part of the censors to recognize
veiled denunciations of modern Spanish society and the dominant ideology in
Francoist Spain. These criticisms and others will be examined in more detail
later. Nonetheless, it must also be acknowledged that censorship is a complex
issue, and it served as a sword of Damocles, inspiring fear of retribution, which
led to self-censorship and the creation of a new literary language containing
indirect allusions to a falsified reality.
Buero’s Contemporaries
Many other dramatists besides Buero suffered at the hands of the censors. The
most interesting of these is probably Alfonso Sastre. More than most other
dramatists of the period, Sastre demonstrated a real interest in reforming the the-
atre structure and attracting a new audience, with groups such as Arte Nuevo,
TAS and the Grupo de Teatro Realista (GTR). In contrast to the pre-Civil War
reformers, his ideological motivation was, initially at least, Nationalist. However,
contrary to common opinion, most of the works of Alfonso Sastre that were the
subject of applications were authorized by the censors. Of the 57 applications
listed in the Archive (47 under Franco), only 5 are listed as prohibited (AGA/IDD
46). It must be granted however, that Escuadra hacia la muerte, listed as author-
ized, was later withdrawn and was refused authorization for almost a decade.
Other plays were approved for teatros de cámara only, or were later prohibited.
A further 10 were listed as authorized with cuts. This was variable, however, and
a play authorized without cuts at one time could be cut later.
Since he is generally viewed as the most radical of the committed dramatists,
it is interesting to note that initially Sastre’s plays seem to have been authorized
because of what was correctly perceived to be the dramatist’s Nationalist ideo-
logy. Even though Buero’s works were less overtly politicized, they were cer-
tainly never interpreted by the censors as pro-regime or anti-Communist, as the
works of Sastre occasionally were. Yet on the whole, Sastre’s dealings with the

censors would seem to have been more difficult than Buero’s. Sastre has stated
that the overall effect of censorship on his work was devastating: ‘No existo. He
sido borrado de todas las listas . . . Salvo de las listas negras, por supuesto: por
lo que se refiere a éstas, estoy en todas.’47 While the censorship of his work was
certainly harsh, he may have been overstating his case. Alfonso Sastre was cer-
tainly more heavily censored than Buero Vallejo, but not as much as some of his
statements might induce one to believe. His less than conciliatory attitude
towards the censors did little to help in his struggles to have his work staged.
Like the works of Buero, most of Sastre’s plays suffered some cuts.
The initial confusion among the censors regarding Sastre’s ideology is exem-
plified in the documents relating to Escuadra hacia la muerte, which was viewed
by the censors in 1953. The application to stage the play came from a branch of
the SEU.48 Sastre termed the play:
un grito de protesta ante la perspectiva amenazante de una nueva guerra

mundial; una negación de las grandes palabras con que en las guerras se camu-
fla el horror; una negación, en este sentido del heroísmo y de toda mística de
la muerte.49
The censor Bartolomé Mostaza considered the play to be pessimistic but morally
sound. Sastre’s connections with the SEU and his Nationalist leanings at the time
seem to have helped him. The report of the Sección de Teatro stipulated that the
play was only suitable for teatros de cámara y ensayo, and ‘siempre que su
puesta en escena se lleve a cabo por organizaciones u organismos de signifi-
cación política perfectamente definida y encuadrada en la línea doctrinal de nue-
stro Estado’. Thus the fact that the application came from the SEU allowed for
a non-threatening interpretation of the play, which in other hands might have
been given an anti-regime slant. Another censor, Gumersindo Montes Agudo,
also recognizing the possible danger, wrote: ‘No debe darse ante públicos prop-
uestos a dudas y extrañas ideologías.’ In March 1953, the play was staged by the
Teatro Popular Universitario in the María Guerrero theatre in Madrid; it was to
move to the normal programme of the María Guerrero but was withdrawn after
the third show, owing to pressure on the censorship body from the military,
which correctly interpreted its anti-militarism.
A la tercera representación había asistido el general Moscardó, el héroe del

Alcázar, que había montado en cólera porque en un teatro nacional se ofreciese
una obra antimilitarista y antipatriótica, y la prohibieron. Nunca pudo volver a
hacerse legalmente, aunque ilegalmente se haría en mil parroquías, barrios y
colegios.50
Rivera and de las Heras, ‘Encuesta sobre la censura: 25 autores’, no. 165, 4–14 (p. 5).
47
AGA/IDD 52.22 Topogr. 83-51 Ca. 71.680 Exp. 94-53.

48
49 Quoted in Blanco Aguinaga and others, Historia social, p. 232.
50 Vicente Mosquete, ‘Alfonso Sastre: un largo viaje’, p. 10. This last claim is untrue. In
fact, in 1954, the staging of the final scene was authorized by the Ministry, for one
Nonetheless, in typically arbitrary fashion, the censors saw fit to authorize

publication of the play by Escélicer the same year.
When asked to read the play again five months later, in August 1953, upon an
application from the Salvador Soler-Mari theatre company, Montes Agudo seems
to have considered it a Nationalist text; nonetheless, he noted that, while it could
be interpreted as a play about the beauty of a soldier’s destiny, it could also be
interpreted as a Marxist play. Because of this dangerous ambiguity, he recom-
mended that the play be authorized only for teatros de cámara. However, it was
later prohibited. Staging of the play remained officially banned until 1962, when
the Comandante Asesor Técnico del Alto Estado Mayor gave it a positive report,
but with certain stipulations regarding the uniforms to be used in any production.
Despite the prohibition, the play had been staged a few times without authorizat-
ion in the intervening years, a fact cited by Sastre in his correspondence with the
Ministry in his vain attempts to have the prohibition lifted.
Three other plays by Sastre were considered by the censors in 1953. These
were Cargamento de sueños, El pan de todos and Prólogo patético.51 The first
of these was authorized without cuts for teatros de cámara. There was no applica-
tion made for a commercial staging of the play. The other two plays met with
more difficulty. On the question of the dramatist’s ideology, there was again
some confusion. Montes Agudo read El pan de todos as ‘una diatriba del régi-
men comunista con sus crueles métodos policiacos’ and thus commented,
‘políticamente considerado, es una obra perfectamente tolerable’. Bartolomé
Mostaza was a little less certain of the author’s intention, but stated: ‘No ofrece
pelígros de tipo político.’ However, despite the fact that both censors recom-
mended authorization, the play was prohibited by the Director General on 14
January 1954. No explanation is given, although the files contain a list of
recommended cuts and modifications, which were probably the basis of his
judgement. Also held in the files is a letter from Sastre, dated 30 April 1955,
requesting a revision of the verdict. He made the point that the play was
published in its entirety in the officially sanctioned journal, Ateneo. The play
was subjected to review, and a report recommended the lifting of the ban, as it
was judged to be a drama critical of Communism. A moral report, signed by
Padre Mauricio de Begoña, makes similar comments about the play’s criticism
of Communism and thus an implicit support for ‘los principios de nuestra
religión y de nuestra moral’. The censors, obviously not considering themselves
qualified to make such a decision, also sought a purely political reading of the
play from the Ministro Secretario General del Movimiento. After much lengthy
deliberation, the play was authorized without cuts from 1956 onwards.
performance only, in a homage to the author on the occasion of the staging of La mordaza. As
the documents in the Archive demonstrate, by 1962, this play was being authorized again,
albeit with certain restrictions on the style of uniforms to be used.
51 AGA/IDD 52.22 Topogr. 83-51 Ca. 71.681 Exp. 377-53; Ca. 71.678 Exp. 401-53;
Ca. 71.678 Exp. 438-53.

Prólogo patético was deemed by Emilio Morales de Acevedo to be an ‘obra

peligrosísima’, as the terrorist protagonist is not sufficiently repentant, and
because of the representation of police brutality on stage. Montes Agudo, on the
other hand, again found an anti-Communist flavour to the play that in no way
offended against the Nationalist orthodoxy. Padre Mauricio de Begoña was more
cautious. While he found the play acceptable from the perspective of Catholic
ideology and morals, he recognized that he was not the competent authority to
judge the play politically. Sr Diez Crespo considered it a dangerous play for its
justification of terrorism and its portrayal of police brutality and advocated its
prohibition. He alone saw in it no possible support for the Nationalist Falangist
revolution. After consideration by censors in March 1952 and again in December
1953, Prólogo patético was prohibited. This ban was upheld after a further
review in July 1971. The play was to have been performed in the Festival de
Teatro de Sitges, but the censors considered that the play’s justification of vio-
lence and terrorism and its denial of an afterlife could lead to public disturb-
ances. By then, of course, there was no ambiguity about the author’s ideological
leanings.
The files also show evidence of further confusion among the censors with
regard to La mordaza (1954), Guillermo Tell tiene los ojos tristes (1955) and En
la red (1960). The last of these is interesting for, among other things, what might
be interpreted as its posibilismo. That the play was set in Algeria seems to have
aided its initial authorization. A note from the Jefe de la Sección de Teatro to the
Jefe de Sección de Libros, dated 15 November 1961, throws some light on the
difficulties encountered by Sastre with this play:
La comedia En la red de Alfonso Sastre, ha sido autorizada por la Dirección

General de Cinematografía y Teatro, considerando incluso para ello el informe
del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores, a causa del tema, insurrección argelina,
que dicha obra desarrolla. No obstante después de su estreno en el Teatro
Recoletos de Madrid, surgieron dificultades determinadas por la equívoca
interpretación de evidente y negativo significado político con que la comedia
fue acogida. Por esta causa se ha optado a posteriori medidas restrictivas en
cuanto a su reposición.52
Once again, and rather naïvely at this stage, it appears that the censors consid-
ered Sastre’s intention to have been other than malicious, and instead blamed
audience misinterpretation of the play.
Yet Sastre was not always a posibilista, and the correspondence between the
dramatist and the censors betrays an at times confrontational attitude on the part
of Sastre in his dealings with the censors. In 1958, Tierra roja was prohibited.53
The provocative nota previa written by the author and included in the text exam-
ined by the censors cannot have helped. In it Sastre pointed out that the play,

about a popular revolt in a mining community, did not refer to a particular event
in Spanish history; yet he then went on to state: ‘Los hechos a que asistimos en
el drama han sucedido, de un modo o de otro, en una tierra de España, y en uno
o en otro momento de su historia reciente.’
Clearly chosen for their ideological as well as their artistic worth, the plays
adapted by Sastre also had difficulties with the censors, although to a lesser
degree than the author’s own work. This seems to support the complaint of many
Spanish dramatists that home-produced drama of protest was less acceptable in
Spain than that written by foreign authors. In June 1958 his adaptation of
Euripides’ Medea was authorized without cuts, and in 1960, his version of
Strindberg’s Los acreedores (Creditors) was also authorized.54 The problems
arose with Sastre’s more political choices, such as his adaptations of the plays of
Jean-Paul Sartre, an author unloved by the Franco regime. Sastre’s version of
Huis clos, called El infierno, was the subject of a plenary session of the Junta de
Censura.55 It was finally authorized, but with certain modifications, including the
changing of the title from El infierno to A puerta cerrada. Certain censors also
found fault with the references to lesbianism and to God, and the atheism of the
author; the inclusion of an introduction by Simone de Beauvoir, explaining the
political commitment of Sartre, was struck out. Sastre’s version of Morts sans
sepulture (Muertos sin sepultura) was authorized in December 1967 for teatros
de cámara.56 Objections were made to the inclusion in the set design of a por-
trait of Pétain. A definitive version, approved by Sartre himself, was subjected to
censorship in February 1968. It was read by sixteen censors, six of whom rec-
ommended its prohibition; it was finally authorized with cuts on thirteen pages.
The violent language and the representation of torture seem to have been the
cause of concern for the censors. Some also mention the need to stress the
historical nature of the play, or the fact that it is an attack on a French regime,
taking care not to link it in any way to recent events in Spain. Interesting too is
the censors’ defence of Pétain, who is portrayed less than favourably in the play.
María Luz Morales wrote in her report that ‘el retrato de Pétain y la escena de la
página 56 [que] ofende a una figura gloriosa a quien no podemos ni debemos
juzgar’. Sr Romero also refers in his report to the unjust treatment, both in the
play and in French society, of ‘el glorioso mariscal Pétain’. Finally, Srta Sunyer
wrote that ‘en la puesta en escena en España trataría de salvar la figura de este
gran francés y tan amigo de España’.
Many other Spanish dramatists also saw their work modified, mutilated or pro-
hibited. Of the twenty-four plays by Carlos Muñiz listed as the subject of applica-
tions under Franco, two were prohibited (AGA/IDD 46). They were Lola, espejo
oscuro, based on the novel by Fernández Flórez, which was prohibited in 1964,
and his Tragicomedia del serenísimo príncipe Don Carlos, which was prohibited
54 AGA/IDD 52.22 Topogr. 83-51 Ca. 71.706 Exp. 150-58; Ca. 71.715 Exp. 305-60.
56 AGA/IDD 52.22 Topogr. 72-38 Ca. 87.547 Exp. 363-67; Topogr. 83-56 Ca. 85.814
Exp. 76-68.
in 1972. A further two are listed without a verdict, perhaps the subject of silencio
administrativo, and another seven plays were cut. One of these, El tintero, was
finally authorized in 1961 for staging in Madrid only.57 The application to stage
the play had been made in November 1960. The censors reacted negatively to the
play, and one of them, Sr Villares, wrote: ‘Fomenta la amargura y el resen-
timiento y muchos que llevan una vida estrecha podrían encontrarse en el mismo
caso.’ For Sr Montes Agudo, El tintero was highly politicized, a ‘panfleto lleno
de violencia discursiva y pretenciones demogógicas’. The most interesting
comments however, were contained in the patronizing moral report submitted by
Padre Avelino Esteban y Romero, who wrote: ‘No creo se deba prohibir. Se debe
castigar al autor autorizándole esta comedia, y que se enfrente con el público.’
Like Buero and Sastre, Muñiz protested against the regime’s treatment of the
Asturian miners, and his action earned his dismissal from his job at the state
broadcasting service. He stated in an interview: ‘En la mayoría de mis obras han
sido prohibidas frases o palabras sueltas. Casi ninguna salió de censura sin
mutilación.’58
The first Spanish play to deal specifically with the Civil War was written by
another committed dramatist, José Martín Recuerda, in 1953. Not surprisingly,
La llanura was heavily censored. Another of his plays, titled Las arrecogias del
Beatario de Sta. María Egipciaca, based on the life of Mariana Pineda, was pro-
hibited in 1971 and remained unstaged until 1980. In Martín Recuerda’s El
engañao, foul language and criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church were
removed.59 Of the eighteen of his plays listed as subjected to Francoist censor-
ship, one was prohibited and eight suffered cuts (AGA/IDD 46). Another of the
so-called Realists, José María Rodríguez Méndez, wrote Bodas que fueron
famosas del Pingajo y la Fandanga, which was set among the poor in Madrid
in 1898 and was decidedly anti-military in sentiment. Its inclusion in a theatre
collection was prohibited in 1968. On the list held in the Archive, it is included
four times (AGA/IDD 46). There is no verdict listed in 1967 or 1970. In 1974
it was authorized, and in the post-Franco period it was given a 14s rating.
Another play, Los quinquis de Madriz was prohibited in 1970. Other works
were prohibited or cut, yet there seems to have been little continuity in the appli-
cation of the legislation. Vagones de Madera, first listed in 1960, was sometimes
authorized, sometimes not. Occasionally, a play would be judged suitable for
staging, yet not for broadcast. Other plays, such as his El milagro del pan y de
los peces, even after pruning, were considered suitable only for teatros de
cámara. His version of The Caucasian Chalk Circle was prohibited in May 1962
but authorized later that same year. A play titled El Ghetto, o la irresistible
ascención de Manuel Contreras was prohibited in 1972, and Flor de otoño: una
historia del barrio chino was prohibited in 1974 before finally being authorized
in 1982.

58 Rivera and de las Heras, ‘Encuesta sobre la censura: 25 autores’, no. 166, p. 5.
59 AGA/IDD 52.22 Topogr. 83-57 Ca. 87.603.
Of the twenty-six plays by Lauro Olmo listed as subject to Francoist censor-

ship, eight were prohibited and sixteen authorized with cuts (AGA/IDD 46).
However, included on the list was his adaptation of Yo, Bertolt Brecht, which was
prohibited in January 1970 but authorized just over a month later. In 1961, La
camisa, which told a tale of emigration to Germany because of poverty and lack
of prospects in Spain, won the Valle-Inclán prize; this guaranteed automatic stag-
ing in a teatro de cámera, but the play was initially banned by the censors.60
Other plays listed as prohibited were Magdalena in 1959, La niña, el raterillo y
la cajita de música in 1960, El milagro in 1963, La condecoración in 1965, Junio
siete stop in 1967, Mare Nostrum S.A. in 1970 and El retablo de las maravillas
y ole in 1972.
The case of the outspoken avant-garde dramatist Fernando Arrabal is an inter-
esting one. He was perhaps the most heavily censored dramatist of the Franco
period, although not all of his work was strictly political. However, Arrabal had
an undeniably politicized following. Even his non-political plays offended
against the ruling ideology of the day because of their emphasis on matters sex-
ual and their blasphemous attacks on the Church and traditional values. Prior to
1966, all of Arrabal’s work is listed as authorized but, thereafter, every play until
1976 was prohibited (AGA/IDD 46). Arrabal eventually went into exile in
France, where he enjoyed great success. He was prosecuted in Spain in 1967 for
a blasphemous and anti-regime piece he had written; he recanted, was found not
guilty, and thereafter remained in France. An attempt to stage his play, Los dos
verdugos, in Madrid in 1969 was prevented, despite the prior authorization of the
text. Buero attributed its prohibition to ‘ciertas provocantes características del
montaje y, al parecer, de los programas’ (O.C. II: 821). Nonetheless, the police
not only destroyed the programmes and advertising posters but also the printing
plates. His works were never produced in Spanish commercial theatres, despite
his success abroad.
Between 1968 and October 1976, Arrabal was classified as a banned author.
It is clear from the documentation that even when the play itself was regarded as
relatively inoffensive, the very name of the author was enough to ensure its pro-
hibition. While there is nothing in the documentation to indicate the reason for
the prohibition of Arrabal, it may be assumed from the censors’ reports that it
had to do with his political stance, blasphemy and irreverence and, of course, his
outspokenness. While some censors seem to have recognized Arrabal’s merits as
an author, or at least his international fame, the majority seem to have been
appalled by his dramatic style; in his report on El cementerio de automóviles in
1968, Padre Cea wrote: ‘Más que de una mente humana parece el engendro de
una mente diabólica.’61
60 This is according to Patricia W. O’Connor, ‘Torquemada in the Theatre: A Glance at
Government Censorship’, Theatre Survey, 14 (no. 2, 1973), 33– 45 (pp. 42–3). The play is
listed as authorized in AGA/IDD 46. It must be acknowledged that this list is not always
reliable.
Even the considerable weight of an application from the director of the Nuria
Espert Company, with its stress on the worldwide fame and acceptance of the
play, was insufficient to sway the censors from their prohibition of El gran cer-
emonial, which the censor Florentino Soria termed a ‘cúmulo de atrocidades’.62
Regarding the works of Arrabal, the censors were conscious that the innocent
tone adopted usually disguised something objectionable. The censor Bautista de
la Torre condemned the play Ciugrena (an anagram of Guernica) for its title
alone, as he believed that the content was sufficiently obscured by Arrabal’s
style:
Lo malo es que la intención queda demasiado manifesta en el juego del

arbolito, cuya alusión inocente viene a ser la constante de toda la obra.
Descubierto el propósito, maliciosa o estúpidamente enmarcado en el título, no
creo pueda dársele paso por razones elementales de oportunidad.63
Another censor summed up his verdict in one word: ‘peligroso’. Needless to

say, the play was banned. The censors’ reports for La Juventud Ilustrada are
interesting for what they say about censorship as part of the ideological state
apparatus.64 An unsigned note asks: ‘¿Puede autorizar esta obra de Arrabal?
La pieza no tiene problemas, ¿pero el autor?’ The response given was: ‘No.’ The
report by Sr Bautista de la Torre again stressed that the work itself offered no
problems, but that the mere connection with the author added another dimension
to the issue:
Sin embargo me previenen para un informe favorable las muy especiales cir-
cunstancias del dramaturgo. Aunque yo no advierto en la obra ningún sentido
oculto de supuesta simbología, ¿quién nos asegura, siguiendo las últimas sali-
das de Arrabal, que la amante torturada no sea la España vencida y que el
amante que la somete a las dulces caricias de los latigazos y las ortigas no sea
el actual Regimen? . . . Y aunque así no fuera, ¿quién nos garantiza que su
estreno no le brindaría la oportunidad de nuevas arremetidas contra España
como ya lo hizo recientemente?
The other two censors, while also noting the significance of the author, recom-
mended its authorization for teatros de cámara. However, the Minister was con-
sulted and the play was banned, like Buero’s La doble historia del doctor Valmy,
in accordance with article 22 of the Reglamento de Regimen Interior de la Junta
de Censura Teatral (1964).
Unlike Buero, Arrabal made few concessions to the sensibilities of the censors
or a bourgeois audience. He has said: ‘Yo ignoro la censura: jamás he escrito una

63 AGA/IDD 52.22 Topogr. 83-55 Ca. 85.225 Exp. 393-68. The tree referred to was the
sacred tree of the Basques that grew in the town of Guernica and was destroyed in the
bombing of that town in the Blitzkrieg that Franco invited Hitler to carry out there.
línea preocupado por ella. Soy optimista: lo que hoy se nos prohibe mañana verá
la luz.’65 His work could not be described as posibilista. Rather, it was imposi-
bilista, but as defined by Sastre, not Buero. His success abroad and his self-
imposed exile in France meant that he did not rely upon success in Spain for his
livelihood. Yet even in France, his work was polemical.
While it often seemed that it was easier to stage foreign committed drama
than the domestic variety, works by European committed dramatists, such as
Camus, Sartre and Brecht also faced censorship difficulties in Spain. The cen-
sors generally, and often correctly, suspected the ideological motivation behind
an application to stage such plays. In the case of Brecht’s Antigone, for example,
Padre Cea wrote: ‘Se supone mala intención el ponerla ahora en escena.’66
Sr Bautista de la Torre mentioned the ‘marcada intención política’ of the play
and noted the risk involved in staging it at this time (1969). Sr Martínez Ruiz
considered it dangerous, both for the background and intention of the author and
the version being considered. In the second reading of the play, Sr Mampaso
found it to be not very tendentious, but nonetheless warned of those who ‘con
el pretexto de representar una obra clásica, hacen una puesta en escena de sig-
nificación política contra el Régimen y las instituciones españolas’. Sr Soria
noted: ‘Hay una evidente intención de acercar la obra a las coordenadas políti-
cas de hoy’, but nevertheless recommended its authorization. Another play by
Brecht, The Caucasian Chalk Circle, was authorized for the Teatro Nacional
Universitario in February 1965, once particular negative references to clergy
and soldiers had been eliminated.67
Environmental Censorship
The successful establishment of a New State and the development and inculca-
tion of a supporting ideology meant that censorship was not a labour confined to
those who worked in the ministries in charge of culture and information,
although this was the most direct form of cultural ideological control. Censorship
was in fact much more widespread and insidious. In the state system established
by the Civil War victors, other apparatuses were also used to threaten or punish
the author who failed to toe the official ideological line. State influence reached
the commercial theatres and publishing companies, which in turn established
limits and demanded certain compromises from authors:
Una entidad editora – periódico, revista, editorial o emisora – escoge y difunde

el producto o el mensaje que más le interesa comercial e ideológicamente,
65 Rivera and de las Heras, ‘Encuesta sobre la censura: 25 autores’, no. 166, p. 6. This
is generally true, with the possible exception of Ciugrena. However, as the censor noted, the
title of the play so obviously refers to Guernica as to give rise to doubt about Arrabal’s
employment of the anagram as an attempt to fool the censors.
a un mismo tiempo, de acuerdo con su propia visión de las cosas, siguiendo su

interpretación del pasado y su prospectiva del futuro.68
Dramatists also had to contend with the theatres themselves. According to

Mangini: ‘En general, el teatro seguía muy controlado por el régimen, y fuera de
los Teatros Nacionales, hubo escasos espectáculos.’69 The commercial theatre,
both under Franco and before, was a business, run by and for businessmen. It is
logical, therefore, that the owners should target as their ideal market the largest
group in society with the time and the disposable income to make their theatri-
cal enterprise a viable one. The audience for the commercial theatre was, logic-
ally, the bourgeoisie. Theatre was expensive to produce and the commercially
minded managers were loath to stage anything other than the safest productions;
this resulted in a reluctance to produce the works of new authors or those whose
work had previously been censored and a continuation of the whimsical,
bourgeois-orientated drama that had been so popular in the pre-war period. As
profit was the main motivator, theatre producers were unlikely to gamble on any
production that could not be guaranteed a substantial run. The number of foreign
productions rose in the 1960s, but, according to the Spanish dramatists, this was
often at the cost of Spanish productions, as the censorship regulations seemed to
be less rigourously applied to foreign works. Referring to Sastre, Abellán wrote:
‘Aproximadamente, desde finales de 1968 hasta 1977 las empresas teatrales
renunciaron por completo a representar sus obras.’70 Documents from the
Archive in Alcalá show that from 1968 to 1976, only one of Sastre’s plays was
authorized; this reflects the lack of applications to stage his work, rather than
new prohibitions. It must be noted that this statement also fails to take into
account his adaptations of the works of other dramatists, many of which were
successfully staged during this period.
The state also used its media influence to exclude or damn certain arguments,
or to punish those who went against it. This was the case with the letter written to
Manuel Fraga, then Ministro de Información y Turismo, in 1963. Along with other
writers, artists and intellectuals, Buero signed various protests and petitions against
censorship and against the regime’s treatment of its opponents.71 In 1963, with 101
others, he signed a letter that protested against the brutal maltreatment of the
68 Manuel Abellán, ‘Literatura, censura y moral en el primer franquismo’, Papers: Revista
de Sociología, no. 21 (1984), 153–72 (p. 154). Abellán has written about the form of
censorship employed by publishing companies in Censura y creación, pp. 97–104.
70 Abellán, ‘La censura teatral’, p. 22.
71 Over the years, Buero signed quite a few documents and manifestos calling for
increased liberty in the arts and fair treatment of certain groups in society. In March 1965, he
signed a document that called for freedom of expression in Spain and later wrote in defence
of Arrabal when he was on trial. He did the same when Alfonso Sastre was a political prisoner
of the regime in 1975. Some of these are contained in the Archive in Alcalá de Henares.
AGA/IDD 104.04 Topogr. 82-68 Ca. 653 Orden público. Armario 48. Hamaca 20.252. Cartas
de intelectuales colectivas.
striking Asturian miners. Another letter, dated 31 October 1963, was signed by 188
intellectuals. Fraga had written to José Bergamín offering to speak to him on foot
of the first letter. This second letter was the response from the intellectuals.
Durante las pasadas semanas algunos de los firmantes de la carta que se dirigió
a V.E. con motivo de los presuntos malos tratos y sevicias infligidos por miem-
bros de la fuerza pública a mineros y mujeres de la cuenca asturiana, en ocasión
de las recientes huelgas, han tenido comunicación oficial de su respuesta a don
José Bergamín. Ulteriormente, parte de la prensa española ha reproducido
ambas cartas. [. . .] Entendemos que la misión del intelectual en toda sociedad
libre, máxime si dice inspirarse en los principios cristianos, es promover el
esclarecimiento de la verdad y contribuir a la formación de una conciencia
pública. En consecuencia, nuestra actuación se ha guiado y se guía por un
estricto concepto de la responsabilidad; y, de acuerdo con éste, juzgamos que
ninguna autoridad gubernativa en un Estado libre y de derecho se halla titulada
para fijar las normas que han de regir los deberes del intelectual con respecto
a la conciencia pública, deberes de carácter eminentemente privativo y moral.72
They also call for ‘una comisión de juristas, integrada por abogados del Ilustre
Colegio de Madrid’ to examine the events.
As a result of this action, all mention of the names and works of Buero and
the other signatories was excluded from the media, and their work was banned
from the boards of the National Theatres. In fact, it was not until José Osuna used
his considerable influence to stage El tragaluz in 1967 that Buero’s work became
acceptable again. This environmental censorship was not limited to a silence in
relation to those protesters, but also included a media campaign against them.73
Buero commented in an interview with José Luis Vicente Mosquete:
El país entero, el país oficial, se echó sobre nosotros de una forma muy dura
e incluso llegamos a estar procesados. Sólo que con el tiempo decidieron
no seguir adelante: pasaron el caso y lo sobreseyeron, aunque a mí no me ha
llegado aún notificación de tal sobreseimiento. Después de esto, en teoría,
no pasaba nada, pero en la práctica la mayor parte de los firmantes quedamos
muy congelados en los medios de comunicación y yo, concretamente, me pasé
cuatro años sin estrenar.74
72 Cartas de intelectuales colectivas, no. 5.

73 Buero writes that, as a direct consquence of the protest, ‘Un juez nos citó a declarar –,
pero no llegaron a realizar el proceso. No faltó, sin embargo, el aluvión de improperios,
amenazas, iras, etc., orquestadas en la prensa y hasta en televisión. Ni el desvío de editoriales
o empresas. Ni el silencio prolongado de nuestros nombres o actividades en los medios de
comunicación. En definitiva, para mí pasaron cuatro años sin estrenar, hasta que Tamayo
[sic(?)–José Osuna was surely the director in question.] tuvo el arrojo de montar El tragaluz
en 1967.’ Mariano de Paco, ‘Buero Vallejo y el teatro’, pp. 60, 63. See also Isasi Ángulo, ‘El
teatro de Antonio Buero Vallejo: entrevista’, Papeles de Son Armadans, 67 (no. 201, 1972),
281–320 (p. 305).
74 Vicente Mosquete, ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo, sonrisas’, p. 17.
There were hints of this extra-literary censorship on other occasions also.

Enrique Pajón Mecloy gives the example of when Televisión Española con-
tacted him to talk about the launch of Sirio magazine: ‘Al comprobar que en él
se anunciaba que el segundo número estaría dedicado a comentar En la ardiente
oscuridad, me advirtieron que debía abstenerme de nombrar a Buero. [. . .] Se
trataba de callarse o hablar sembrando la desconfianza.’75 Joelyn Ruple has sug-
gested that the relative failure of the play Aventura en lo gris in 1963 was the
result of intense criticism of the play in the state-controlled press and that this
criticism contrasted with the play’s initial warm reception in the theatre; simi-
larly, Las Meninas, which had a successful run in the Teatro Español from
December 1960 to April 1961, seemed set to play until the end of the season,
but it was cancelled by the administration. Buero stated that Las Meninas suf-
fered strong environmental censorship: ‘La obra tuvo, eso sí, fuerte censura
ambiental y significativos artículos en contra; en favor, al parecer no se podía
escribir sobre ella; yo no lo pretendí, pero otros sí y no lo consiguieron.’76
Härtinger notes that Un soñador para un pueblo too was subjected to a vitriolic
press campaign and claims that, with his historical dramas, Buero touched a
nerve.77
Buero attributed much of the negative reaction to La doble historia del doctor
Valmy to environmental factors: ‘No siendo yo autor siempre rechazado me
inclino a creer que en este desvío de algunas empresas hacia la obra han podido
obrar causas extrañar [sic] al teatro más que una falta de fe en mi drama.’78 Yet
such environmental censorship did not always have the desired effect:
El tragaluz fue y es el primer gran éxito que yo tuve con Buero. El concierto
de San Ovidio había sido un éxito de apreciación pero no duró en cartel lo que
todos deseabamos, mientras que El tragaluz estuvo toda la temporada gracias
a un hecho fortuito y quizá malintencionado. Alguien publicó un artículo en
un periódico en el que desvelaba exactamente las claves de la obra. Este
desvelamiento fue lo que hizo que el público acudiera masivamente a
presenciarla.79
In 1958, the Nouveau Théâtre de Poche in Paris staged L’ardente obscurité

but Buero was refused permission to leave Spain to attend the première; in fact
he was not permitted to leave Spain until 1963. Alfonso Sastre suffered similar
treatment. In 1957 his passport was confiscated by the regime, although it was
later returned and he was permitted to travel. However, in 1965 he was unable to
get a visa to travel to the United States. Sastre was politically active and was
75 Enrique Pajón Mecloy, El teatro de A. Buero Vallejo: marginalidad e infinito, Colección
Espiral Hispano-Americana (Madrid: Editorial Fundamentos, 1991), p. 69.

76 Quoted in Beneyto, Censura y política, pp. 24–5.
77 Härtinger, Oppositionstheater, p. 154.
78 C. Alonso de los Ríos, quoted in Ricard Salvat, ‘El lenguaje escénico de Buero Vallejo’,
in Buero Vallejo: cuarenta años, pp. 19–42 (p. 41).

79 Osuna, ‘Mi colaboración’, p. 58.
imprisoned in 1956, and again briefly in 1961 and in the early 1970s for his
extra-theatrical activities and for those of his wife, Eva Forest.
The culture files also contain information about a Colloquium on Theatre
and Society, organised by the Fulbright Commission, the Asociación Cultural
Hispano-Norteamericana and the American Embassy in Spain. Buero was one of
those invited to participate. However, the conference was not authorized by the
regime, and there is evidence that those in power were unhappy at not being con-
sulted prior to the invitations being sent. A note included in the file suggests
another reason why the event was prohibited:
Se observa el predominio de personas de conocida significación política marx-

ista u hostil al Régimen, como José Monleón Bennacer, Pedro Laín Entralgo,
Miguel Bilbatúa Pérez, Aurora Bautista, Berta Riaza, Julieta Serrano, Julia
Pena Nalda (en la actualidad procesada como cómplice en actividades subver-
sivas), Antonio Buero Vallejo, Lauro Olmo, Alfredo Mañas, Alfonso Sastre
Salvador. [. . .] Es de prever, dadas estas circunstancias, que en las reuniones
predomine una acusada tendencia política izquierdista o marxista.80
Yet another form of environmental censorship was the ideologically motivated

use of literary prizes to reward certain authors. Writing about Carlos Muñiz, and
in particular about the awarding of a prize to El grillo, Lorenzo López Sancho
commented:
Sobre la cuestión de los premios en la época, hay que decir que con ellos se
practicaba un ‘bonito’ juego. A un autor lo prohibían pero lo premiaban. Y pre-
miarlo suponía asimilarle, una suerte de tráfico de influencias de la época: te
daban un premio, te influían, te pasaban a su bando y luego te mostraban.
Incluso algún gran autor de ese tiempo fue mostrado como el gran monstruo
de la oposición, de la rojez, asimilado y lleno de honores, lo cual permitía al
poder proclamar: ‘¿Ven ustedes lo buenos que somos?’81
This sounds remarkably like the case of Buero Vallejo, and it fits in with what
he said and with what has been said about him. He claimed not to have sub-
mitted work to competition after the Lope de Vega in 1949, yet he was
awarded many prizes by the theatre Establishment, a fact that led some others
to criticize the dramatist for his collaboration with the regime. The awarding
of the Lope de Vega prize to Buero Vallejo is interesting for another reason.
It caused some controversy, particularly as those in charge of the ceremony
seemed unaware of Buero’s politics until part way through the event.82
80 AGA/IDD 104.04 Topogr. 82-68 Ca. 582 MIT/ 00.725. Notas informativas en general.
81 Lorenzo López Sancho, ‘Carlos Muñiz’, in Teatro breve contemporáneo, pp. 11–13 (p. 12).
82 José Monleón, ‘El Lope de Vega: las subvenciones y la política teatral’, Primer Acto, 3
(no. 259, 1995), 23–5 (p. 24). Ramón de Garciasol remembered the awarding of the
prize to Buero: ‘El alcalde de Madrid le recibió en el Ayuntamiento. Antonio subió por las
escaleras con el monterilla, quien amable y confianzudo le halagaba: “Hombre, ¡qué
O’Connor quotes Buero:
No se puede imaginar el escándalo. Al día siguiente de la concesión del premio

salía la noticia y mi foto, y a las 48 horas supongo que empezaron a funcionar
los teléfonos: ‘¡Pero a quién habéis premiado!’ De modo que la obra estuvo a
punto de no estrenarse. Ni siquiera me habían dado turno de estreno en el
Teatro Español, pero la obra que empezaron a representar, un reestreno, tuvo
tal fracaso de público que se vieron obligados a sustituirla por unos días, en
tanto llegaba el turno de la representación del Tenorio. Y alguien pensó en que
podía estrenarse mi obra y de paso daban carpetazo al asunto; nadie podía decir
que me torpedeaban: la tenían unos días en cartel y se quitaban de encima el
problema. 83
He was not even informed that the rehearsals had begun. Anthony Pasquariello
claims that, in the aftermath of Buero’s victory, stricter controls were introduced
to avoid a repetition of such an error. He further claims that an examination of
those who received the award in the 1950s and 1960s bears this out.84
Pasquariello maintains that the Lope de Vega prize was later used as a tool of
ideological affirmation, to promote certain dramatists. These were the dramatists
who wrote theatre of integration propaganda and who, therefore, served the
regime well. Those promoted by the regime included Ignacio Luca de Tena,
whose work, Pasquariello suggests, did not merit the awards it received or the
elevation of the dramatist to the Real Academia in 1946; he suggests that the
honours bestowed upon him were rather the result of the dramatist’s political
allegiance to the Franco regime. Others who, according to Pasquariello, deserved
neither the praise nor the status awarded to them, included José María Pemán,
Joaquín Calvo Sotelo and José Antonio Giménez Arnau. He logically argues that
when these authors won the Lope de Vega and other prizes, they did so at the
expense of better works by less favoured dramatists. Furthermore, the presence
of a government official and a clergyman on the judging panels for the Lope
de Vega and the Calderón de la Barca awards ensured that the panel would
choose an author who respected the ideological line of the regime. He cites the
example of Calvo Sotelo, who sought advice from Church authorities about
maravilla! Es preciso que haya hombres como usted para que España suba, porque España,
y entre todos . . .”, y toda la mala retórica del régimen. Antonio, como buen dramaturgo,
escuchaba. Y el munícipe quería ser simpático: “Bueno, ya que somos un poco amigos, le voy
a decir a usted una cosa que circula por ahí.” Buero callaba, respetando el papel del alcalde
que proseguía: “Hablando en confianza y con un poco de sinceridad, me han informado que
tienes un hermano . . . ¿cómo diría yo?, un poco así, vamos . . . de la cáscara amarga.”
Antonio, sonriente: “que es rojo”. Y el buen señor: “Hombre, no iba a decir eso . . .”. Antonio
cambió la escena: “Señor alcalde, mi hermano soy yo.” ’ O’Connor, Antonio Buero Vallejo en
sus espejos, p. 233.
83 Quoted in O’Connor, Antonio Buero Vallejo en sus espejos, p. 255.
84 Anthony Pasquariello, ‘Government Promotion, Honours and Awards: A Corollary to
Franco Era Censorship in Theater’, Cuadernos de Aldeeu, Monograph on Twentieth Century

Spanish Theatre (no. 1, 1983), pp. 67–81 (p. 71).
a suitable ending to the dilemma of the protagonist of La muralla, to demonstrate

how eager such dramatists were to maintain the ideological status quo.
Diego Salvador, one of the so-called underground dramatists, was awarded the
Lope de Vega theatre prize in 1969 for his play Los niños, and the staging was
scheduled for January 1970. However, bureaucratic and administrative machina-
tions guaranteed that the play was postponed three times at short notice before
finally opening on 19 June, a date that ensured a short run as it was near the end
of the season. The play was initially passed without suppressions, but the cen-
sors who viewed the dress rehearsal insisted that the photographic images used
in the play be made specific to other countries. In the end, Salvador disassoci-
ated himself completely from the production.85
Abellán, like Pasquariello, cites prizes and awards as an example of a more
insidious form of censorship. Furthermore, he claimed:
En determinados momentos, el mero nombre de un escritor ha sido motivo

suficiente para justificar el rechazo de un manuscrito incluso en el caso de que
su contenido objetivo fuera interpretable como neutral o políticamente irrele-
vante. Semejantes rechazos han afectado tanto a autores en oposición notoria
al régimen como a aquellos que le eran favorables.86
The truth of this statement is borne out in the treatment of Arrabal, for one. He
further insinuated that the actions of certain critics were ideologically motivated.
Further evidence of this type of environmental censorship is to be found in the
culture files in the Archive at Alcalá. A file on literary prizes contains a note
dated 7 March 1974, which seems to support the theory that the awarding of
literary prizes under Franco was ideologically motivated. The note, signed by
Ricardo de la Cierva, and sent to the Ministro de Información y Cultura, deals
with the Premio Larra dedicated to ‘la memoria sobre la guerra civil española’.
He cites as the three most important works the books by Largo Caballero, the
Marqués de Valdeiglesias and a book titled Chantaje a un pueblo, by Justo
Martínez Amutio. He goes on to state:
Voy a ejercitar toda mi influencia en el Jurado para lograr adjudicar el Premio

a Justo Martínez Amutio. Primero porque me parece históricamente trascen-
dental, y segundo porque se trata del alegato anti-comunista más documentado
que he leído en mi vida. Lo de ‘chantaje a un pueblo’, el título se refiere al
chantaje comunista, el libro es publicable cien por cien, y si fuera nuestro se
nos motejaría de propaganda. Conozco personalmente a Justo Martínez
Amutio, próximo a los 80 años. Conozco todos sus antecedentes. Fue
Gobernador de Albacete en la zona roja, y aún así, fue puesto en libertad tras
leve condena por nuestro Tribunal Militar. El Señor Gobernador de Valencia
85 O’Connor, ‘Torquemada’, pp. 40–1.

86 Manuel L. Abellán, ‘Censura y autocensura en la producción literaria española’, Nuevo
Hispanismo, 1 (no. 1, 1982), 169– 80 (p. 171).
dando pruebas de su acreditada clarividencia política ha intentado que no salga

premiado este libro. Saldrá premiado.87
It was awarded the prize.
Effects of Censorship
Censorship, both official and environmental, exists not only as a reality imposed
by a regime, but also as a threat, a reminder of the dominance of a certain ideology
in society. For the population at large, it might mean being fed only the official
line on any story and being unable to express adequately its opposition to the
government. For the author, the threat of censorship permeates his working envi-
ronment. The artist or writer must suffer the mutilation or suspension of his work,
and he may react by attempting to protest more, by resigning himself to produce
an acceptable work or by choosing to abandon his vocation or his country.
The vagueness and ambiguity of its rules and its resultant arbitrary application
compounded the problem of censorship in Spain under Franco. Even after the
long-awaited apertura introduced by Manuel Fraga Iribarne at the MIT, the
censorship norms remained vague and open to subjective interpretation by
the censors. It did not help the situation that prior consultation was now voluntary
(but the work was liable to confiscation if not submitted), or that the publishing
company could now also be prosecuted if the work of an author was deemed,
after publication, to be censurable. So-called liberalization may have led to an
increase in other forms of censorship, because now the work was carefully scru-
tinized and edited by the publisher before even being submitted to the official
censor for voluntary prior consultation. Although it is difficult to estimate the
effect this double censorship had and the degree to which the editorial houses
engaged in censorship, the boom in foreign and classic titles published at this
time would suggest a high incidence of risk reduction by publishers. Yet cinema
and theatre were still subject to prior censorship. The fact that neither the
publishers nor, it would seem, the official censors, knew how to interpret the
vague guidelines, meant that the authorization or rejection of a work was largely
a matter of luck, dependent upon who read it. A work banned in one province or
in one city might be permitted in another or deemed suitable for a particular type
of venue only; a play that was authorized for staging one year might be refused
the next. The influence of the Church in matters of censorship merely added to
the confusion. The propagation of certain values, judged to be contrary to Roman
Catholic teaching, was to be censored. However, as these values were not always
clearly declared by the author, it was left to the censor to interpret the moral
content of a book or play and to estimate the possible level of corruption and
damage this could cause. Once again, it came down to interpretation of the work.
87 AGA/IDD 104.04 Topogr. 82-68 Ca. 581 MIT/ 00.590 Premios de literatura.
It is interesting, particularly in the case of Alfonso Sastre, to see the contradict-

ory reports written on the same play by different censors.
When Manuel Abellán conducted a survey of Spanish authors affected by
censorship under Franco, he found that almost 85 percent of those surveyed
believed political opinion to be the reason for which they were most censored,
followed by their portrayal of religion and sexual morality.88 The fourth criterion,
the author’s use of language, was not considered to be the cause of much
censorship, compared with the other three criteria. The authors surveyed also
believed that censorship was not uniformly applied to all writers, but rather
depended on one’s past notoriety or political stance. An examination of the
works of Sastre, Buero and Arrabal supports this claim, as Arrabal’s name alone
was sufficient to have his work prohibited.
While in the early days what could be classed as obscene or politically
mischievous was heavily censored as the nascent regime attempted to secure
itself, in later years this varied with the political climate, with periods of relatively
light censorship followed by severe clampdowns and suspension of civil liberties.
In fact Arrabal was not censored very heavily until the mid-1960s, when he was
placed on the list of authors banned by the regime. One of the reasons for which
Antonio Buero Vallejo’s play La doble historia del doctor Valmy was not author-
ized was the timing of its submission to the censor’s office, which coincided with
a rise in civil unrest. The theme of the play deals with police brutality, a charge
laid at the door of the Guardia Civil in their dealings with the striking miners.
Another effect of the censorship applied during the Franco regime was the
stunting of artistic growth. The capacity of the writer to fulfil his potential and
develop his craft to the full was severely curtailed by the limitations imposed by
the censor and the punishment for breach of these. Some authors, refusing to
accept cuts and modifications made or suggested by the censor were thus unable
to stage their plays; others gave up trying. Another effect that might be attributed
to censorship is the overall lack of theatrical innovation and experimentation by
the group known as the Realist Generation. They tended to concentrate on the
message, which was often a veiled one, so that the plot worked on more than one
level. However, their emphasis on realism, itself a reaction against the bourgeois
fare of farce and folly, was often at the expense of technical innovation.
In the longer term, censorship gradually came to be naturalized and accepted
by many, and this acceptance of both official and self-imposed censorship cul-
minated in a cultural apathy in some quarters, where people no longer questioned
its benefits or its existence, making it more difficult for those who saw it as an
affront and sought to challenge it. As Rushdie wrote:
The worst, most insidious effect of censorship is that, in the end, it can deaden
the imagination of the people. Where there is no debate, it is hard to go on
remembering, every day, that there is a suppressed side to every argument.
88 Abellán, Censura y creación, p. 89.

It becomes almost impossible to conceive of what the suppressed things might

be. It becomes easy to think that what has been suppressed was valueless, any-
way, or so dangerous that it needed to be suppressed. And then the victory of
the censor is total.89
Those who chose to accept the official myth of censorship for the common good
were in a sense colluding with the regime by refusing to see the injustice of the
situation. In an interview with Beneyto, José Luis Cano, author and secretary of
Ínsula magazine, condemned the damaging links between culture and politics
in Spain under Franco: ‘Desde 1936, la cultura española ha vivido sometida a
un control y represión permanentes. Ha sido, pues, una cultura minusválida,
temerosa, consciente de su debilidad y su frustración.’90 Many writers of the time
engaged in self-censorship, intimidated not only by the regime, but in the post-
apertura period, by the publishing company also. In 1974, Manuel Abellán
conducted a survey of ninety-five Spanish writers: thirty said that they had never
engaged in self-censorship, while sixty-four readily admitted that they had.91
Self-censorship is impossible to quantify as it often means not writing some-
thing, as opposed to cutting something that has been written, yet few, if any,
authors writing in such circumstances could hope to avoid it; the result is the
growth of a particular mode of writing, peculiar to those in this situation and
perhaps understood only by them. In essence then, self-censorship is a series of
self-imposed limitations in response to the fear created and maintained by the
regime’s use of official censorship and sanctions. The supporters of official
censorship prefer to view self-censorship as a form of self-discipline. It is not
necessarily consciously imposed, but even those authors who refuse to rewrite a
piece once it is written may nevertheless limit themselves before they commit
words to paper, so conditioned have they become to what is and is not accept-
able to the regime.
Self-censorship gradually became normalized in Spain, which meant that even
though a play may not have reflected the dominant ideology, it did not necessary
challenge it. It became an automatic action, rather than a last resort. Concha Alos
remarked that ‘lo dramático (la autocensura) se ha hecho normal y ha dejado de
ser dramático’.92 Abellán cogently argues that self-censorship can be divided into
explicit and implicit varieties.93 Explicit self-censorship is censorship carried out
by the author in order to satisfy the demands of the censor and in order to salvage
something of the text. Implicit self-censorship can be conscious or unconscious.
Conscious implicit self-censorship is that carried out by the author while writing
89 Salman Rushdie, ‘Censorship’, in Imaginary Homelands, Essays and Criticism
1981–1991 (London: Granta, 1991), pp. 37–40 (p. 39).

91 Manuel Abellán, ‘Fenómeno censorio y represión literaria’, in Abellán, ed., Censura y
literaturas penínsulares, pp. 5–25 (p. 20).

92 Abellán, ‘Censura y autocensura’, p. 180.
93 Abellán, ‘Fenómeno censorio’, p. 18.
or proofing the manuscript before submission to the censor: the author decides
to eliminate that which he feels might hinder its progress through the censor’s
office. Unconscious implicit self-censorship is that which the author engages in
without direct or conscious knowledge: it might be some habit in his writing
style picked up through education or conditioning or past experience of the
censor’s demands.
Some of Buero’s comments tended to underplay the significance of censorship
in Spanish literature, perhaps in an unconscious effort to justify his own actions.
Buero himself believed that self-censorship was inevitable, although he admit-
ted that this assertion might be a form of self-defence. He tended towards the
view that absolute personal and political freedoms may not be possible in any
organized society and that one must therefore always strive to maximize what
one can achieve rather than hold out for the ideal. His comments could even be
interpreted as a justification of self-censorship:
La autocensura no afecta al valor intrínsico de la obra literaria. Esto no quiere

decir que la censura sea una institución o instrumento aceptable. Al contrario,
deteriora y avasalla. Pero no por ello afecta al alcance artístico o crítico que la
obra tiene. Las estructuras de la obra artística son necesariamente ‘oblicuas’.
Es más, aunque parezca contradictorio, la censura ha dado un aspecto crítico
que no hubiera tenido sin ella.94
In so far as official censorship was successful, it was when the work was
prohibited and its message silenced. When it was a case of editing and modifying
the tone of a work, however, the underlying criticism often remained unchanged,
and the attack on the ideology endured. Where censorship was really effective
was in the atmosphere it created and the effects it had on both author and
editorial or theatre company. Buero exemplifies, with his posibilismo, the author
who was affected by the ideological apparatus of censorship, and who carefully
considered what he wanted to say before committing it to the scrutiny of the
censors.
94 Abellán, ‘Censura y autocensura’, p. 179.

4
Posibilismo
Compromise
Tenga razón o no Buero, consta que ha llegado a hacerse el
primer dramaturgo de España. Ha sabido dorar la píldora.1
One of the principal reasons for Buero’s enduring success under Franco was his
willingness to compromise. Whether this compromise was admirable or not has
long been cause for debate, and the fact remains that the essence of Buero’s well-
known posibilismo is concession. His posibilismo encompassed not only the
style and themes of his theatre, but also his dealings with the censors, the theatre
directors and the media. Hence posibilismo was what enabled him to deal effect-
ively with the state apparatuses of Francoism.
It can be argued that all, or almost all, of the authors who chose to remain and
work in Spain during the dictatorship were compromised. The few exceptions
were those who wrote for posterity without the objective of publication or success
in the lifetime of the regime. Buero himself acknowledged, to some degree, the
compromise he engaged in, although he chose to portray his actions as fighting the
dictatorship from the front line. There is no denying that his situation was some-
times an uncomfortable one. His position within the commercial theatre world at
times alienated him from those outside it, many of whom saw the state-controlled
commercial theatre as part of the ideological apparatus of the state. Nonetheless,
as official censorship documents confirm, the regime did not trust Buero.
He tenido un poco más de suerte, es probable. Pero algunos han dicho que he
tenido suerte porque me he adaptado más; eso a mi me parece incierto y desleal
por parte de quien lo dice. Lo que sucede es que, aunque cada vez se hayan
podido ir diciendo más cosas, también es cierto que la suspicacia de la censura
ha sido cada vez más creciente en la medida misma en que iban viendo cómo
estas plataformas críticas del teatro, o de otros géneros, se iban ampliando y
consolidando. Entonces, claro, para un autor como yo, que ya estaba bastante
instalado, se crea una especie de inercia relativa en la cual, sin faltar momen-
tos de prohibición, congelación y de grave dificultad, se van obteniendo algo
menos difícilmente autorizaciones de algunas obras. Si otros autores menos
consolidados las hubieran escrito, exactamente iguales a como las escribí yo,
1 William Giuliano, Buero Vallejo, Sastre y el teatro de su tiempo (New York: Las
Americas, 1971), p. 81.

POSIBILISMO 113
hubieran tenido más dificultad porque la censura habría podido frenarlos con
mayor impunidad. Posiblemente, el secreto de la cuestión está un poco ahí
y no en la aserción esgrimida por algunos de que mi teatro sea algo más
acomodaticio ante la sociedad española que el de otros.2
Buero was probably correct in his assertion that his position, once established,
helped him to stage and publish works that might otherwise have been pro-
hibited. However, the question of how he reached that powerful position still
remains. His initial success was unexpected and, from the regime’s perspective,
seemingly unwelcome. Yet Historia de una escalera offered something new to
the theatre-going public at the time. By the time it was staged, moreover, the
news of the author’s political allegiance had spread, giving the play a further nov-
elty value that undoubtedly contributed to its popularity. This meant that Buero
moved from professional obscurity to fame and notoriety very quickly. Once
established, it was easier for Buero to have his work staged and perhaps more
difficult for the censors to cut or prohibit his later work.
A feature of Buero’s posibilismo was his willingness to trade on both his repu-
tation and that of the administration. On occasion the regime’s concern to pro-
tect its name abroad worked to the dramatist’s advantage. A report from October
1964, penned by Federico Carlos Sainz de Robles, proposed the authorization
of La doble historia del doctor Valmy for non-commercial theatres. The reason
was Buero’s fame: to prohibit a play by such a well-known author might cause
a scandal abroad:
Mi crítica es radical: o se prohibe totalmente, o totalmente se permite. Yo voto

por el segundo. Se trata de uno de nuestros mejores dramaturgos, con fama
mundial. Hay que guardarle consideración; y evitar en lo posible el escándalo
fuera de España.
Not only did the censor object to the suggested cuts, which he considered ‘un
poco inocentes’ and which ‘mutilan gravemente la intención del autor’, but he
went on to complain that it was unfair to treat Spanish authors differently from
foreign authors, as it not only prejudiced the author but damaged the Spanish
theatre.3 Unfortunately, in this case the theme and timing of the play were the
overriding factors in the regime’s decision, and the play was prohibited.
Buero was aware of the regime’s concern about international opinion; he was
also cognizant that his own reputation afforded him certain advantages when

3 ‘No debe olvidarse que hace bien poco hemos asistido a las representaciones de obras
como La buena sopa y El huevo de Felicien Marceau, El deseo bajo los olmos de O’Neill,
Dulce pájaro de juventud y Noche de Iguana de Tennessee Williams. ¿Por qué tener distinta
medida con los autores españoles, y más cuando se trata de uno de los mejores dramaturgos
que tenemos para presumir por el mundo? Es indispensable una gran comprensión para no
esterilizar nuestro teatro, que siempre fue de los más importantes del mundo.’AGA/IDD 52.22
Topogr. 83-51 Ca. 71.779 Exp. 147-64.
dealing with the administration. In 1968, when he learned that the number of
suppressions was to be increased in a production of Historia de una escalera,
he wrote to Carlos Robles Picquer, Director General de Cultura Popular y el
Espectáculo at the MIT. In his carefully worded correspondence, he suggested
that the additional cuts might be an error, and then asked for permission to
ignore them and proceed with the production. In the letter Buero stressed the
fame of the play, both in Spain and abroad, and hinted at the damage to the
regime’s carefully fostered new image that could be caused by harsh censorship
of a famous play by such a well-known author. His letter received the desired
response from Robles Picquer, affirming that a mistake had been made; the play
was authorized as before (Appendix X). There were echoes of this in Buero’s
theatre also. In El sueño de la razón, Calomarde suggests that Goya should be
executed, but the image-conscious king is reluctant to follow that path as ‘su
prestigio es grande’ (O.C. I: 1269).
Also working in the dramatist’s favour was the fact that the theatre directors
in the commercial theatres were often Nationalists. Therefore, their endorsement
of Buero aided his career in the commercial theatres. Directors such as Cayetano
Luca de Tena, Luis Escobar, Hugo Pérez de la Ossa, José Osuna and José
Tamayo were powerful in theatre circles. They worked with officially sanctioned
theatre companies in the national theatres and were often involved in classical,
non-threatening and integration drama. For them, the works of a dramatist such
as Buero must have offered a challenge, yet one that was unlikely to involve too
great a risk. Buero usually dealt with the censors indirectly through such direct-
ors. He was not afraid to utilize both their prestige and his own to salvage some
of the cuts demanded:
Yo alguna vez he hablado con algunos censores – con uno o dos llegué a tener
una relación correcta, primariamente afectuosa –, pero normalmente mi
relación con la censura la planteaba a través de la empresa. Mi táctica era
doble: por un lado ese truco que recordaba Tamayo; la otra, la más peligrosa,
era decir seriamente al empresario que advirtiese a los censores que arregla-
ban el asunto o me negaba a estrenar. Y en casos como este ha habido cesiones
sucesivas, mediante las cuales conseguíamos dejar la obra prácticamente
limpia de cortes.4
The first reference is to his insertion of a decoy in the text to distract the atten-
tion of the censors from a more political point. The second is the strategy he
used in his attempts to get Las Meninas past the censors. A look at the censor’s
copy of the play shows that whole pages were to be cut, in what amounted to
complete destruction of the text. Buero refused to accept many of these cuts
and, were it not for the persistence of the director in his dealings with the cen-
sors and Buero’s willingness to compromise on some cuts, the play could not
have been produced.

POSIBILISMO 115
Tamayo’s influence can also been seen in documents relating to the staging in
1966 of Buero’s adaptation of Mother Courage and her Children (Madre Coraje
y sus hijos). The director wrote to the Director General de Teatro, García
Escudero, requesting that one of the cuts made by the censors be reconsidered.
The excised text explained the daughter’s muteness: ‘Se asustó de pequeñina
porque un soldado le metió algo en la boca.’ Tamayo argued his case well, using
all the influence and flattery he could, and citing the support of Buero. He rea-
soned that if the sentence was removed, audiences might conclude that the text
was severely mutilated; furthermore, he stressed the prestige of Brecht, and
referred to Buero’s mild translation of the phrase and his refusal to invent a sub-
stitute (Appendix XI). Unfortunately, the documents in the Archive do not show
if he was successful on this occasion. The support of José Osuna was also cru-
cial later in the redemption of Buero Vallejo after his exclusion from the stage
and the media in the aftermath of the letter of protest to Fraga.
Although by then his reputation was secure, Buero’s elevation to membership
of the Real Academia Española in January 1971 further reduced the chances that
he would be heavily censored. However, it also made him very much a part of
the literary Establishment of Franco’s Spain, a fact that Buero underplayed when
talking about his position in the Academy:
La Academia Española es un organismo bastante independiente. Su carácter de

oficialidad, que por supuesto lo tiene, es un carácter muy «suidissant» [sic] y
que hay que entender y no tomarlo en el sentido superficial de la palabra.
Cuando la Academia me hace el favor de admitirme en su seno yo entiendo
que se reconoce con ello una trayectoria y una labor y que se reconoce con una
objetividad y un desapasionamiento.5
There were other reasons for accepting the position. The Academy offered
protection from the actions of other state institutions. Buero admitted that ‘le
hace a uno más intocable’.6 In an interview with Isasi Angulo in 1972, Buero
confessed his reason for accepting a seat in the Academy:
La Academia ampara. En un país como el nuestro el título de Académico es

muy considerado. Uno vive – como escritor – a la intemperie; pasa el tiempo
5 Gonzalo Pérez de Olaguer, ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo, nuevo Académico de la Lengua’,
Yorick, no. 46 (1971), 5–10 (p. 9).

6 Pérez de Olaguer, ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo, nuevo Académico’, p. 10. Contradictorily,
in 1963 Buero refused José María García Escudero’s offer to form part of the Consejo
Superior de Teatro, and implied that he had also refused advances made about taking up
a seat in the Real Academia in 1957. He continued to refuse offers to join the Academy
until 1971, when, ‘me pillaron en el momento de la debilidad y entré. Privaba la idea
equivocadísima de que la Academia era un órgano oficial que actuaba, o actúa, a toque de
campanilla del poder, y esto no es así y ni siquiera lo era entonces.’ Sainz, ‘Antonio Buero
Vallejo: un intelectual’, p. 28.
y a pesar del prestigio ganado uno está siempre a punto de la bofetada ajena o
del percance con la censura. La Academia cubre en gran parte.7
In the same interview he suggested that Llegada de los dioses might not have
received such favourable treatment from the censors had the dramatist not been
thus protected by his position. However, while his membership may have aided
Buero to continue to exercise his posibilismo, the injustice of the need for pro-
tection is obvious. Other dramatists, less tolerated than Buero, had no such
defence against the ideological apparatus of censorship. Buero’s acceptance of
the honour was consistent with his posibilismo, although it left him open to criti-
cism for once again lending the weight of his prestige to an institution supported
by the regime he opposed.
Buero’s Philosophy and Style: Posibilismo

In 1969 the writer and academic Guillermo Díaz Plaja commented on the tech-
niques employed by writers to get their works past the censor. He cited as an
example the theatre of Buero, which he claimed, ‘si lo separamos del contexto
político y social de sus primeros años de producción, no puede entenderse. La
gente aprendió a leer y a escuchar entre líneas, y los escritores a expresarse con
símbolos y alegorías.’8 The use of symbol, metaphor and allegory is, of course,
an essential part of any literature, and not solely a response to censorship: ‘Si
una obra de teatro no sugiere mucho más de lo que explícitamente expresa, está
muerta. Lo implícito no es un error por defecto, sino una virtud por exceso’ (O.C.
II: 692). Nevertheless, in Spain the political situation meant that, in order to
express an opinion contrary to that held by the regime, the use of symbolic or
euphemistic language was the only option. True freedom of expression did not
exist for the author. The choice was to write or not to write, and if the author
chose to write, then this inevitably resulted in a compromise in order to deliver
the message:
En realidad, todo escritor y todo artista se siente frenado, pero la posibilidad

de todo buen escritor está justamente en convertir ese inconveniente en una
virtud. Es decir, apoyarse en las limitaciones con las que se enfrenta y, a pesar
de ellas, sacar adelante una verdad creadora. (O.C. II: 735)
7 Isasi Angulo, ‘El teatro’, p. 318. Nonetheless, Buero stressed that he did not seek the
position: ‘Yo nunca busqué entrar en la Academia; incluso lo eludí ante alguna autorizada
insinuación. Pero no tenía, ni tengo, ese prejuicio antiacadémico tan frecuente entre personas
que luego se perecen por entrar en ella.’ Mariano de Paco, ‘Buero Vallejo y el teatro’, p. 63.
In an interview in 1982, Buero insisted that he had not compromised by joining the Academy.
Rafael Brines, ‘Buero Vallejo: “Para estar en la Academia no he tenido que renunciar a nada” ’,
Hoja del lunes (Valencia), 22 March 1982, p. 41.
8 Salvador Paniker, Conversaciones en Madrid (Barcelona: Kairós, 1969), pp. 209–10.
POSIBILISMO 117
Buero chose to write in these circumstances, not because he agreed with or sup-
ported the circumstances in which he wrote, but rather because he considered the
alternative, silence, to be an ally of censorship and a victory for the regime. He
reasoned that the literature of the period would only be judged on what was
produced and not on what might have been produced given more favourable cir-
cumstances. Clearly, Buero determined to be a posibilista in his dealings with
the regime and to write a theatre that not only reflected his social, political and
ethical interests, but would be staged. His posibilismo included his choice of
theme and setting and his use of symbolism, history, mythology and language.
During the Franco years, Buero stated that he did not think that his style
would change radically should censorship cease: ‘Me inclino a creer que
aunque cambiaran las circunstancias yo las seguiría tocando de esa misma
forma indirecta.’9 This was borne out in the post-Franco years, which might lead
one to conclude that his oblique style was not exclusively an answer to the threat
of censorship; alternatively, it can be reasoned that censorship caused his style
to evolve in that way and that he developed it no further, even when he had the
opportunity. Buero maintained that he would have written the same material and
in the same manner even without the constraints of censorship: ‘No creo que
hubiera habido, aunque no hubiéramos tenido censura en aquel tiempo, por mi
parte una diferencia grande entre lo que escribí y lo que pudiera haber escrito.’10
However, he then admitted that without censorship he might have written on
another theme and, interestingly, he added that he might not have written some
of his dramas. Unfortunately, he did not say which ones.
Buero defended posibilismo as capable of being political and social, albeit
within certain limits, and his own case seems to prove this. He was, of course,
criticized for his stance, most notably by Alfonso Sastre and Fernando Arrabal.
Criticisms of posibilismo emanated not only from the left, however; Eloy
Herrera Santos, one of the most successful reactionary dramatists to emerge
in the post-Franco period, claimed that ‘los mediocres se aprovecharon del
simbolismo’.11 Gabriel Celaya was another critic of Buero’s use of symbolism,
which he considered a dishonest means of eluding ‘la dificultad y la respons-
abilidad que exige lo concreto’.12 Interestingly, he claimed that the true drama
was contained in the dramatic ambiguities of the author, a point that is certainly
true to some extent. Miguel Luis Rodríguez also disapproved of Buero’s style
of symbolism: ‘No son el testimonio más expresivo de nuestro tiempo.’ The dif-
ficulty was, he contended, that if the spectator did not recognize the symbol,
‘el propósito se ha frustrado’.13
9 Pérez de Olaguer, ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo, nuevo Académico’, p. 8.

11 Phyllis Zatlin Boring, ‘Encuesta sobre el teatro madrileño de los años 70’, Estreno, 6
(no. 1, 1980), 11–22 (p. 15).

12 ‘Penúltimas noticias del Madrid teatral: Las cartas boca abajo de Buero Vallejo’,
Primer Acto, no. 6 (1958), 52.

13 ‘Las cartas boca abajo de Antonio Buero Vallejo’, Índice, 12 (no. 111, 1958), 10.
The reasons for Buero’s choice of stance are controversial. Unlike many other
writers of the previous and subsequent generations, for whom the decision to
oppose Franco’s Nationalist state and to glorify the Second Republic was a sim-
ple one, Buero took a more conciliatory approach. The explanation may be that
his own family had suffered at the hands of the Republicans. Terry Eagleton’s
discourse in authorial ideology (AuI) and its relationship to general ideology
(GI) has implications for Buero’s contradictory relationship with Francoism:
Between the two formations of GI and AuI, relations of effective homology,

partial disjunction and severe contradiction are possible. The producer’s bio-
graphical (as opposed to ‘aesthetic’ or ‘textual’) ideology may be effectively
homologous with the dominant ideology of his or her historical moment, but
not necessarily because the producer lives the social conditions of class most
appropriate for such harmonious insertion into it. The producer may in terms
of (say) class-position inhabit an ideological sub-ensemble with conflictual
relations to the dominant ideology, but by an overdetermination of other biog-
raphical factors (sex, religion, region) may be rendered homologous with it.
The converse situation is equally possible. The degree of conjuncture or dis-
juncture between AuI and GI may also be ‘diachronically’ determined: an
author may relate to his or her contemporary GI by virtue of ‘belonging’ to an
historically previous GI, or (as with the case of the revolutionary author) to a
putatively future one. As GI mutates, an AuI which was at one point homolo-
gous with it may enter into conflict with it, and vice versa.14
Buero’s heroic protagonists belong to a future general ideology, whereas his own
case is less clear. Biographically, at least to some degree, Buero can be inserted
into the dominant ideology. However, his chosen ideological position conflicts
with the ruling ideology. Consistent with Eagleton’s theory would be the notion
that Buero in effect, produced ‘progressive texts using outmoded forms within
an obsolescent or partly obsolescent LMP (literary mode of production)’.15 This
is consistent with Buero’s claim that the most radical use of language did not
necessarily imply the most radical social or political perspective.16 For, as
Eagleton also points out, an author ‘may produce ideologically conservative
texts within an historically progressive LMP’. It is undeniable that, although his
aesthetic was quite, though not entirely, conservative and traditional, Buero
produced works critical of the society in which he lived. Moreover, Buero’s own
Republican credentials cannot be doubted.
14 Eagleton, Criticism and Ideology, p. 59.

16 In what could be interpreted as a further defence of his posibilismo and use of carefully
chosen symbolism to say through art what cannot be said elsewhere, Buero stated: ‘No soy
contrario a un teatro militante, pero si “milita” ostensiblemente, creo que será de alcance más
limitado y circunstancial que aquel otro teatro que, junto a la racionalización de problemas,
no rehúya el enigma. [. . .] Pues sucede que no siempre lo más explícito y directo es lo más
revulsivo y formativo, cuando de arte se trata.’ Ricard Salvat, ‘Entrevista a Buero Vallejo’,
Estreno, 4 (no. 1, 1978), 15–18 (p. 18).
POSIBILISMO 119
Buero’s drama, as a result of his personal experiences, was more ethical than
ideological. He criticized the methods of ideological domination by politicians
of all hues and the collusion and silence of the masses that are necessary to
make it work. He was critical of cruelty and cautious about the use of violence.
Buero stressed the possibility of the tortured becoming the torturer, and warned
against the charm of believing in easy answers in any struggle. The idea of one
side in a conflict possessing total rectitude is exposed as false in his elaboration
of characters inspired by the myth of Cain and Abel.
Buero’s dramatic style was also part of his posibilismo. It allowed him to deal
with forbidden themes such as suicide, torture and the Civil War, and enabled
him to criticize the Francoist ideology and the state apparatuses. Many of his
plays contain condemnations of the ruling elite and of their methods of incul-
cating their values and legitimating their rule. Yet, while the dramatist criticized
the Franco regime for its brutality and censorship, the problem of Spain is not
resolved on stage and he did not call for revolution. Brustein insists that social
drama, which portrays reality in order to criticize it, is essentially negative.17 In
contrast, Buero saw this criticism as a form of patriotism. He did not pretend to
have a solution; he merely implied that change was needed. Perhaps because his
plays focus so much on ethics and morality, they were perceived as less threat-
ening than the flagrantly political works of others. Moreover, by building on the
tradition of the sainete and on classical theatre, Buero managed not to alienate
the bourgeois public necessary for a successful commercial theatre career. In
addition, because Buero always emphasized the Aristotelian tradition he fol-
lowed, his work might have been perceived as less threatening by the censors
who would doubtless have been more concerned about a dramatist who stressed
more provocative Brechtian influences. Highlighting the classical, traditional
style of his works, while at the same time pointing to some minor innovations,
fitted in with the regime’s contradictory aim of a progressive trajectory towards
the recapture of a glorious past.
Tragedy was Buero’s chosen form of theatrical expression. He agreed with
Camus, who said that literature without hope was a contradiction in terms (O.C.
II: 514). For Buero, tragedy was man’s best hope of knowing himself. He rejected
the notion that tragedy is essentially fatalistic and interpreted it as a fight between
liberty and necessity, expressed as a battle between free will and social pressures
and expectations. In his view, liberty could, and often did, emerge victorious.18
The outcome is based on man’s free will: if he chooses to err, he suffers, but in
suffering he may discover an essential truth about himself or society. For Buero,
clearly drawing on Aristotle’s Poetics, all tragedy, even that which seems hope-
less and without solution or the possibility of reconciliation, contained within it
17 Robert Brustein, The Theatre of Revolt: Studies in Modern Drama from Ibsen to Genet
(Chicago: Elephant Paperbacks, 1991), p. 22.

18 However, Luciano García Lorenzo notes a change in Buero’s work from La Fundación
on, when ‘esa puerta final a la esperanza ha terminado por convertirse en un túnel un tanto
oscuro’. ‘Buero Vallejo’, in Teatro breve contemporáneo, pp. 5–9 (p. 6).
the hopes and desires of man. Catharsis, which Buero defined as ‘una reacción
positiva, fortalecedora, esperanzada’, was important in the dramatist’s social and
political dramas, as it can awaken in man a desire to fight to achieve change (O.C.
II: 555).
Si nos impulsa a actuar, lo hace después de llevarnos a una plataforma, ética o

filosófica, más consistente; si bien – no lo olvidemos – no por explícitas con-
sideraciones ni moralejas, aunque también pueda haberlas en la obra, sino por
la fuerza ejemplar del argumento y sus pasiones. Dicho de otro modo: por
directa impresión estética y no discursiva, pues la belleza estética es un hallazgo
supremo del hombre que, con su sola presencia, puede expresarlo todo sin decir
nada. (O.C. II: 637)
He also considered it a process of interior perfection, from which great or hope-

ful future actions might be inspired. Buero’s stated purpose in writing tragedies
was ‘de enfrentar a la gente con aspectos displacientes o problemáticos de la vida
humana’ (O.C. II: 547). His examination of an individual’s dilemma often
reflected the dilemma facing a particular society, or the common man. In
Aristotelian fashion, the universal is represented in the particular. His dramas are
open-ended, to suggest to the public that the resolution of the conflict enacted in
the play is its responsibility, which might seem a little naïve, given the public
who viewed his plays. Despite the obvious influence of classic Greek tragedy
on the work of Buero, some significant differences remain. One of these is
Buero’s use of ‘el hombre de carne y hueso’. His moralistic tone and social
tragedy were also reminiscent of Ibsen, and Buero himself cited many different
authors and artists as influences on his work. His theatrical innovation, the
so-called immersion-effect, can also be linked to his Aristotelian outlook. The
essence of this immersion is connection with the character, an emotional
involvement leading to catharsis.19
In keeping with the spirit of posibilismo, Buero’s espousal of Aristotelian
drama and rejection of Brecht’s epic theatre was not total. Certainly, there is
some evidence of epic elements and alienation techniques in the Spanish play-
wright’s works, particularly the distancing effect of recourse to history in plays
such as Un soñador para un pueblo and Las Meninas; the use of narrators in Las
Meninas, El concierto de San Ovidio, El tragaluz, Caimán (1980), Misión al
pueblo desierto (1999); and even the blind newspaper vendor in Un soñador
para un pueblo, as well as in his use of multimedia techniques. Nonetheless,
even when Buero did employ narrators, the audience was not the real theatre
19 Victor Dixon defined immersion-effect as: ‘When the spectator is made to share a
peculiar sensory perception (or lack of it), not with all the characters of a play but (normally)
with only one, with whom he therefore feels a stronger sense of empathy or identification.’ He
went on to say: ‘It is apparent that his dominant concern has always been to involve the
spectator, to induce his imaginative participation in the play, to persuade him towards
emotional identification with the main characters.’ ‘The “immersion-effect” in the Plays of
Antonio Buero Vallejo’, in Estudios sobre Buero Vallejo, pp. 159–83 (pp. 160, 162).
POSIBILISMO 121
audience but rather that from another time or place, which it was encouraged to
identify with. Hence, the possibility of catharsis still remained.20
Buero also experimented with language in his plays. However, his text-based
dramas did not usually employ overtly politicized language that would be inter-
preted as an attack on the regime. Buero’s attacks on the language of the regime
were subtler, the words themselves often being contradicted in action or spirit by
the person who uttered them, rather than directly attacked by an opponent with
a conflicting political argument. Yet, even his use of language, particularly med-
ical and painterly terminology, can also be viewed as part of his posibilismo,
a way of making indirect criticisms.21 This can be seen particularly in El sueño
de la razón and La doble historia del doctor Valmy.
García Lorenzo praised not only the dialogue but also the related paralinguis-
tic elements of Buero’s dramas:
Un ejemplo de precisa descripción de elementos paraverbales a partir del

vestido de los personajes, lo tenemos en el caso de En la ardiente oscuridad.
La definición de Carlos y de Ignacio, por sus propios trajes, nos está anti-
cipando la función que esos personajes van a cumplir a lo largo de la obra.
[. . .] Buero, así, se une a una tradición del teatro español que en el siglo de
oro está perfectamente estratificada, codificada.22
Ashworth too, observed:
The visual image exists and flourishes in the silence that censorship seeks to
create. It is a little outside the censor’s normally verbal realm, and, as long as
it avoids the obvious, seems to maintain an elusiveness vis-à-vis officialdom
while retaining its power to evoke, suggest and delight even as it testifies and
attacks.23
Perhaps the most striking evidence of posibilismo in Buero’s dramatic style is

his use of such visual imagery and symbolism, particularly in his physically and
mentally impaired characters. In Buero’s plays, physical ailments are generally
symptomatic of social, ethical, moral and emotional ills. Also, Buero knew that
20 More obviously Brechtian are the well-dressed couple in La doble historia del doctor
Valmy, although as Dixon points out, even they were addressing their fellow inmates in a
psychiatric hospital. ‘ “Pero todo partió de allí”: El concierto de San Ovidio a través del
prisma de su epílogo’, in El teatro de Buero Vallejo: homenaje del hispanismo británico e
irlandés, ed. by Victor Dixon and David Johnston, Hispanic Studies TRAC, 9 (Liverpool:
Liverpool University Press, 1996), pp. 29–56 (p. 32).
21 Robert Louis Sheehan wrote about Buero’s use of medical terminology in his work in
an effort to diagnose and discuss Spain’s ills. ‘Buero Vallejo as “El médico de su obra” ’,
Estreno, 1 (no. 2, 1975), 18–22.
22 García Lorenzo, ‘Buero Vallejo’, p. 7.
23 Peter P. Ashworth, ‘Silence and Self-Portraits: The Artist as Young Girl, Old Man and
Scapegoat in El Espíritu de la Colmena and El sueño de la razón’, Estreno, 12 (no. 2, 1986),

66–71 (p. 66).
‘voir quelqu’un ne pas voir, c’est la meilleure façon de voir intensément ce qu’il
ne voit pas’.24 The dramatist at times included the spectator in the group of those
who do not see, as in La Fundación. Sometimes, as in the historical dramas, the
spectator knows the outcome, and thus sees what the character does not see.
Often the characters who suffer a physical handicap, such as blindness or deaf-
ness, or who are reputedly mad, are in fact those who see most clearly the prob-
lems of their society. Like artists and writers, Buero’s madmen and blind people
are outsiders with a non-traditional, non-conformist vision of the world and from
this comes their insight into it.
Así como en la lejana En la ardiente oscuridad, algún ciego era capaz de

«ver», precisamente por la limitación de su ceguera; así como en el reciente
drama El tragaluz algún demente lograba, justamente por su locura, intuir hon-
dos aspectos de lo real mirando tan sólo las piernas que pasaban por la acera
y escuchando fugaces palabras de los transeúntes, así en esta obra intermedia,
una sorda intuye verdades que, de oír, acaso la cháchara humana le hubiera
impedido captar. (O.C. II: 449–50)
Similarly, it is those members of society who best conform and who are contented
whom Buero suggested might be lacking in insight, either unconsciously or vol-
untarily, in order to protect themselves and their comfortable positions in society.
TEIRESIAS You have your sight and yet you cannot see
where, nor with whom, you live, nor in
what horror.25
Unlike the physically handicapped characters, those who choose to shut their
eyes, ears and minds to reality are responsible for their own impairment and
therefore have the moral duty to cure themselves. So, when momentarily blinded
in En la ardiente oscuridad and El concierto de San Ovidio, or when made to
experience the deafness of the protagonist in El sueño de la razón, or when
immersed in the madness of Tomás in La Fundación or that of the well-dressed
couple in La doble historia del doctor Valmy, the spectator is forcefully reminded
of his choice of whether or not to be wilfully blind to the reality of his society.
Buero questioned the perceived madness of his characters. Their apparent
insanity or irrationality is shown to be healthier in some respects than the appar-
ent sanity of other characters. The madness of the father in El tragaluz is matched
by the determined self-delusion of the mother and Vicente. Clearly, in a sick soci-
ety, the truly mad are those who ignore or strive to maintain the malady. Julio in
Llegada de los dioses knows that in modern corrupt society ‘estar sano es haber
24 Barthes, Mythologies, p. 41. Seeing a person who does not see is the best way to see
with intensity the thing that he does not see.

25 Sophocles, Oedipus the King (Antigone, Electra), trans. by H. D. F. Kitto, ed. by Edith
Hall, The World’s Classics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 62, lines 413–15.
POSIBILISMO 123
torturado y pintar’ (O.C. I: 1373). Those who insist on recognizing the ills of
society are easily dismissed as mad. Julio knows beforehand that his truthful
allegations will be dismissed and that he will be branded a madman for saying
what respectable society does not wish to hear: ‘Locuras mías, dirían todos. Y tú
no los desmentirías. Todos se pondrían, y tú el primero, gafas oscuras y algo-
dones en los oídos’ (O.C. I: 1395).
In Buero’s theatre, the characters diagnosed as insane by a sick society gen-
erally suffer from a quixotic madness, which betrays a humanity and lucidity
absent in the most respectable members of society. Buero defined such quijo-
tismo as: ‘locura que parece estéril frente a una sociedad que parece imposible
cambiar. Pero no es estéril. El quijotismo es una gran fuerza porque el quijotismo
es la ética, la insobornabilidad.’26 Goya demonstrates in his painting, which is
the product of his disturbed mind and his isolation, that it is society beyond the
walls of the Quinta del sordo that is seriously troubled and that Spain is living
out his sueño de la razón. Only when the pueblo chooses to awaken and act will
the monsters disappear. Perhaps the most obvious example is in La doble histo-
ria del doctor Valmy, where Doctor Valmy diagnoses the respectable well-
dressed couple as mad for their failure to acknowledge the truth of their reality.
The real madness in the society he described is wilful self-deception, a refusal
to abrir los ojos, which culminates in a denial of injustice and thus collusion with
the ruling power in the legitimization and naturalization of the ruling ideology.
El doctor, frustrado, reconoce que el mundo está loco y él no puede curar al

mundo. De esta manera, la tragedia privada de Mary adquiere proporciones
universales ya que cuando todos optan por ignorar la sin razón en que viven se
produce una locura colectiva y un tremendo trastrueque de valores, donde lo
anormal constituye la norma, y así se prolonga el estado de atrocidades y bien
sabemos que el sueño de la razón produce monstruos.27
There is a more sympathetic portrayal of self-delusion in La Fundación, how-

ever, where Tomás has created a fantastical myth to disguise the painful reality
of sharing a prison cell with the men he helped to put there. The difference is
that Tomás, like Asel, but unlike the couple from La doble historia del doctor
Valmy, eventually acknowledges the truth and sees his prison for what it is.
Blindness and lack of vision are frequent features of Buero’s plays. The phys-
ically blind characters in his works often represent the wilful spiritual and intel-
lectual blindness of those who prefer not to see anything that might disturb their
own comfortable reality, or who refuse to be masters of their own fate by taking
responsibility for the wider consequences of their actions or inaction. Buero
26 Quoted in David Johnston, ‘Posibles paralelos entre la obra de Unamuno y el teatro
histórico de Buero Vallejo’, Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos, no. 386 (1982), 340–64 (p. 362).
27 Willy O. Muñoz, ‘La búsqueda de la verdad en la doble historia del Doctor Valmy
de Buero Vallejo’, Cuadernos de Aldeeu, Monograph on Twentieth Century Spanish Theatre

(no. 1, 1993), 45–55 (p. 53).
chose to use blindness as a symbol because it was a recognizable limitation to

man’s freedom. Therefore it was a useful device with which to present on stage
other limitations facing man, including the limitations imposed by a dictatorial
regime upon its citizens and those self-imposed by a broken or fearful populace:
La ceguera física de mis personajes sólo es motivo o pretexto para presentar, a

través de ella, «cegueras» de las que todos participamos. En ese sentido, la obra
procura ser una glosa escénica de dos cuestiones fundamentales, entre otras
secundarias: la de las relaciones – a veces, trágicas – que se pueden crear entre
la individualidad fuerte, con su razón y su insatisfacción, y las razones y
pasiones de la colectividad en que vive, por un lado. Por el otro, la tensión clar-
ividente, el anhelo de «luz» y la creencia en ella, que distingue a algunos,
frente a las limitadas materialidades de los más. (O.C. II: 347)
His blind characters, such as Ignacio and David, struggle against their blind-
ness in an attempt to acquire a vision of truth and to achieve freedom. Julio’s
blindness in Llegada de los dioses allows him to see through the falsities of
respectable society, although he fails to see his own faults. He tells Verónica:
‘Veo mejor desde que he cegado’ (O.C. I: 1355). Yet, if on a symbolic level the
blind are visionaries who seek to overcome their limitations, then the sighted are
often blind to the truth that is easily hidden by mystification from those who are
too indifferent to seek it out. The main preoccupation of the heroes of Buero’s
dramas, like his own preoccupation in writing them, is a search for a censored
truth. Buero suggested that truth and the quest for truth are what will set man
free of his oppressors. The tragedy of man may be that he does not even realize
that he is not free, so convinced is he by an ideology that stresses no possible
alternatives. This acceptance of an unalterable fate, inculcated by the ruling ideol-
ogy, is articulated by Nazario in El concierto de San Ovidio, who complains:
‘Valindin nos ha atrapado. Pero si no lo hace él, lo habría hecho otro. Estamos
para eso’ (O.C. I: 1002).
In Buero’s theatre, apathy is linked to the idea of madness and self-delusion;
wilful amnesia, voluntary blindness and indifference are the greatest sins of the
pueblo. In a state where criticism of the ruling body is an offence punishable by
law, the result is a population which, too fearful or apathetic to initiate political
debate, engages in self-deception, thereby allowing the regime to justify and
legitimate its rule. Buero obviously considered those who choose to ignore the
truth to be guilty of collusion with the oppressive regime, or else, like the well-
dressed couple in La doble historia del doctor Valmy, truly mad.
The Polemic
An analysis of the posibilismo polemic is useful for the light it sheds on the
alternatives to Buero’s stance and the relative success of these options. The prot-
agonists of this polemic, which had its roots in differing attitudes towards
POSIBILISMO 125
censorship, were Buero and Alfonso Sastre. Also involved were Alfonso Paso
and Fernando Arrabal. Thus, posibilismo, imposibilismo, pacto social and exile
were all raised as possible options for the author in a repressive state. García
Lorenzo has neatly summed up the consequences of the first debate and the
positions adopted by its protagonists: ‘El posibilismo se ha cumplido, con cier-
tas limitaciones, en Buero; Sastre hace años que no estrena y Paso, que habló
de hacer una revolución desde dentro, acabó por estar dentro sin hacer ninguna
revolución.’28
Rejecting the self-imposed exile of Arrabal, which he claimed was an inef-
fective response to censorship, Buero believed that the best option was to remain
in Spain and write what he could. The idea that his posibilismo involved work-
ing within the system he opposed was not acknowledged by Buero. Nonetheless,
his ideas about how to deal with the regime and censorship were consistent. In
1958, he wrote about the need to write a theatre that could be staged in Spain,
and he criticized those authors who wrote plays that were a provocation to the
censors.
Pero, usted lo sabe bien, las «limitaciones» mayores se las impone uno mismo.
¿Es un error? . . . Hay escritores que juegan, al parecer, la papeleta del
«imposibilismo», unas veces de buena fe y otras acaso para conseguir patente
de mártir en el extranjero. Mas yo no creo que se deba mantener esa actitud,
sino la posibilista, la de escribir para aquí, que es donde estamos y debemos
laborar. (O.C. II: 627)
He defined his own attitude as posibilista, and criticized deliberate imposibil-

ismo. Buero unwaveringly defended this approach, in both the press and his dra-
matic works. It led to a public and very bitter exchange with Alfonso Sastre. Both
dramatists agreed that the Spanish theatre was dominated by commercial inter-
ests that cared little about artistic or social merit and concentrated instead on sat-
isfying the entertainment needs of bourgeois audiences; both insisted on their
desire to change this situation. The entire debacle seems to have arisen from
Sastre’s belief that Buero was failing to address directly social and political
issues in his dramas. The polemic was initiated by Sastre with the publication of
his article, ‘Teatro imposible y pacto social’ in the May–June 1960 issue of
Primer Acto. In the article, Sastre criticized both Buero Vallejo and Alfonso Paso
for their compromised attitudes and the erroneous methods by which they sought
to achieve theatrical and social reform.
Sastre, citing the arbitrary nature of censorship in Spain, contended that
Buero’s idea of imposibilismo was false, as was, by extension, the notion of posi-
bilismo. He maintained that imposibilismo could never be the intention of the
author, because all works are essentially possible until made impossible by some
28 Luciano García Lorenzo, ‘El teatro español actual’, in Antología de la literatura
española del siglo XX, ed. by Arturo Ramoneda (Madrid: Sociedad General Española de
Librería, 1988), pp. 645–9 (p. 645).
outside force such as censorship. A conscious posibilismo on the part of the

dramatist, however, might lead to certain accommodations and compromises with
the very Establishment he is seeking to overthrow. He concluded that theatrical
and social progress is achieved only through confrontation, not compromise, and
thereby insinuated that Buero and Paso were not only betraying their stated social
objectives, but also conforming to the wishes of the Establishment. For Sastre,
Paso’s stance was even more damnable than that of Buero, as it implied that the
only way to achieve change was to enter the Establishment and to attempt change
from within it. Sastre suggested that Buero’s posibilismo would naturally lead to
Paso’s compromise, although he did acknowledge that Buero was not himself
comparable to the discredited Paso.29 Sastre contended that it was possible and
desirable to work outside the theatrical Establishment in order to change it. In
what could be interpreted as a further charge against Buero, a criticism many have
directed at him over the years, Sastre declared that an author could not work
comfortably within the system and still profess to be rejecting the pact.
Yet there is something naïve or disingenuous about Sastre’s refusal to see that
Buero, in his criticism of imposibilismo, was not criticizing all unpublished
authors, but rather those opportunists who sought to trade on oppression at home
as a tool to market their work abroad. In short, Buero and Sastre seem to be dis-
cussing two different types of imposibilismo, and both of them made valid state-
ments that did not necessarily oppose each other. Nonetheless, Sastre made an
important point about Buero and his relationship with the regime when he wrote
of imposibilismo: ‘Contar con él significa aceptarlo, normalizar su existencia.’30
Buero’s acceptance of posibilismo demonstrated that he worked within the dom-
inant ideology, making his work acceptable to the officials who had the power
to make it impossible.
Buero’s response to Sastre’s article, published in the following issue of Primer
Acto, was a hostile essay of recrimination, in which Buero not only attempted to
defend his work, but also reproached Sastre and, like him, somewhat disingenu-
ously failed to see the virtue in the other’s argument or perspective. In an article
entitled ‘Obligada precisión acerca del imposibilismo’, Buero objected to the
personal nature of Sastre’s criticism of him. He alleged that, given his frequent
publications in the media, if not as a dramatist, Sastre was as much a part of the
Establishment as he was. Buero further sought to demonstrate how Sastre’s work
failed to stand up to close scrutiny, and that much of it could also be classed as
posibilista. He rejected Sastre’s notion of writing ‘con absoluta libertad interior’,
29 Monleón said of Alfonso Paso, who had begun his career with Sastre in the radical Arte
Nuevo group, that he represented ‘la mayor victoria del moderno teatro español de la derecha’.
Treinta años, p. 130. Paso himself asserted that publication was easy, given the number of
theatres, studios and competitions, and implied that those who remained unpublished were
deserving of their fate, and usually not sufficiently skilled. He further claimed that talk of
difficult or dangerous themes was no more than an excuse for their failure, and suggested that
authors would be better off attempting to stage their works before committing themselves to
social or political commentary. ‘Autores inéditos’, Primer Acto, no. 6 (1958), 45–6 (p. 46).
30 Sastre, ‘Teatro imposible’, p. 2.
POSIBILISMO 127
claiming that it was abstract and anti-dialectical (O.C. II: 672–3). All writers are
writers en situación and therefore are never completely free. While this may be
true, surely Buero should have admitted that there are varying degrees of free-
dom and that the concept of writing en situación should not be used as an excuse
for collusion or pure escapism. Buero stressed that he was not recommending
‘acomodaciones’ as suggested by Sastre, but rather ‘un teatro difícil y resuelto a
expresarse con la mayor holgura, pero que no sólo debe escribirse, sino estre-
narse. Un teatro, pues, «en situación»; lo más arriesgado posible, pero no temer-
ario’ (O.C. II: 674). His aim therefore, was to make possible what might be
considered impossible theatre. Imposibilismo, for Buero, was the attitude that is
‘fuera de situación’ and which seeks to make ever more impossible an already
challenging or difficult work by the choice of provocative themes or dialogue. In
contrast, by adopting a posibilista stance, that is by saying less than one wants
to say but as much as one can get away with and hinting at more, one could
deceive the censor and communicate a political message.
In the following issue of Primer Acto, Alfonso Sastre wrote ‘A modo de
respuesta’, in which he clarified his position. While now stressing that Buero was
not among them, Sastre insisted that for some dramatists posibilismo was just an
acceptable name for conformity. Later, in Anatomía del realismo (1965), Sastre
went over the polemic again and reminded the reader that what is impossible now
might not be so in the future. He still regarded as nonsense the idea that some-
one might cultivate imposibilismo and revealed that he believed a determined
posibilismo might result in self-censorship, and was to be avoided.
What is evident is that Buero and Sastre, in their discussion of imposibilismo,
differed on the basic definition, which for the former was the author’s oppor-
tunism and for the latter the censor’s imposition. Sastre praised Buero’s Historia
de una escalera as an impossible drama, suggesting that an impossible work was
a censurable work from the regime’s perspective. Buero came across in his rebut-
tal as not a little sensitive to criticism, particularly in the way he considered
Sastre’s praise for Historia de una escalera an implicit condemnation of all that
followed it.31 On the subject of posibilismo they seemed to agree on the funda-
mentals, while disagreeing on its validity. Buero asserted that his posibilismo
was not a compromise; Sastre saw all posibilismo as compromise, but at this
point failed to acknowledge that he engaged in it himself.
The polemic, while it eventually disappeared from the pages of theatre jour-
nals, was not resolved. In an interview with Buero Vallejo in 1984, Gabriel de
los Reyes made a reference to an article published in Hispania the previous year
in which Alfonso Sastre again accused Buero of being a posibilista. Buero’s
response to de los Reyes was:
Lo que ya no me parece bien es que nos acusara como si él fuera el hombre

que no tenía en cuenta para nada la censura y que hacía un teatro imposible,
31 It should be noted that Sastre later retracted his praise for the play.
cuando en sus primeras obras hay aspectos de evidente carácter posibilista,

como son: la situación de la acción en un país que no sea el nuestro, situación
de la acción en una etapa histórica distinta, utilización de problemas humanos
metafísicos. [. . .] Lo que sí parece cierto es que en este proceso, digamos
dialéctico, entre una y otra posición él llegó, ha llegado finalmente, a una
especie de relativa autoimposibilitación.32
Buero cited the example of Sastre’s En la red, set in Algeria, which when staged
in the Soviet Union, was called Madrid no duerme de noche: ‘Posibilismo es
situar una obra en el siglo XVII, sí, pero igualmente lo es situarla en Argel, o en
Francia, o sin localización concreta, en vez de ponerla en España.’33
Interestingly, Sastre, speaking about the same incident, employed the story to
prove that he was a posibilista all along:
La estrenamos al año siguiente (1962) con el GTR y en el 63 se hizo en Moscú,

dirigida por Ángel Gutiérrez, con el título de Madrid no duerme de noche. Me
pidieron permiso para trasladar la acción a Madrid y yo se lo di muy gustoso,
porque en el fondo esa era mi intención, aunque con vistas a su viabilidad en
España, yo había utilizado la coartada de situar la historia en algo como
Argelia, en tiempos de la represión francesa. Y es que, como ves, uno no era
tan imposibilista, como pensaba Buero.34
The interviewer challenged Sastre on this, and suggested that Buero had accused
him of being a posibilista, not an imposibilista. In response, Sastre claimed that
in Buero’s declarations on imposibilismo, ‘me di por aludido’. Sastre went on to
reproach Buero’s response to his polemical tract in Primer Acto, and claimed that
Buero had misunderstood his clearly posibilista position. Sastre insisted that he
believed that censorship must be taken into consideration when writing, but in
order to avoid self-censorship rather than to engage in it. It is difficult to con-
clude from an analysis of the Primer Acto articles that Sastre considered himself
a posibilista. Nonetheless, in 1988 he wrote:
Este artículo Buero lo leyó con mucha hostilidad y me contestó con otro muy
largo, en el que mantenía lo contrario a lo que había dicho antes: que yo era
un posibilista también, que muchas de mis obras estaban escritas teniendo en
cuenta la censura. Lo cual era cierto, desde luego.35
32 Gabriel de los Reyes, ‘Comentarios de Buero Vallejo sobre su teatro’, Estreno, 10 (no. 1,
1984), 21–4 (p. 22). Interestingly, Sastre seems to concur with this in an interview dating from
1981: ‘No diría tanto que yo sigo marginado como que yo mismo he adoptado una posición
automarginante.’ Nancy Vogeley, ‘Alfonso Sastre on Alfonso Sastre: Interview’, Hispania, 64
(no. 3, 1981), 459–65 (p. 461).
34 Vicente Mosquete, ‘Alfonso Sastre: un largo viaje’, p. 13.
35 Vicente Mosquete, ‘Alfonso Sastre: un largo viaje’, p. 14.
POSIBILISMO 129
Thus it would appear that Sastre thought that Buero was calling him an imposi-
bilista and, in Buero’s definition of the term, this meant an opportunist. In fact it
is doubtful that Buero was referring to Sastre, who was writing and attempting to
stage plays in Spain. Instead, he reiterated his belief that Sastre was, in fact, a posi-
bilista, despite the latter’s protestations to the contrary. Buero, in turn, believed
that Sastre considered him to be compromised because of his posibilismo, which
Sastre interpreted as a betrayal of social theatre. Sastre, however, went from a posi-
tion critical of posibilismo to one that embraced it. At times he was anti-posibilista:
‘Una obra no «actúa» ni deja de «actuar» positivamente sobre su medio por el
hecho de que se represente o deje de representarse hoy. La impaciencia –
demogógica o posibilista – es un (explicable) fallo poético y político.’36 However,
in an interview with Alberto Miralles in Yorick in the same year, Sastre lent some
weight to Buero’s argument by stating: ‘He escrito todo lo que he querido-
podido.’37 The two dramatists never reached an accord about a definition of
imposibilismo and thus continued their dispute based more on a misunderstanding
than a disagreement, for in reality they had more to unite than to divide them.
Buero consistently rejected the argument that everything written under cen-
sorship is necessarily compromised or bad literature, while recognizing that free-
dom from censorship was infinitely preferable. He believed that the writer must
work within the limitations imposed and overcome them without belittling his
art and that this was the essence of posibilismo. If a writer chooses not to write
under such circumstances, or until he has complete freedom, then he is handing
victory to the censors and depriving his audience of his message. On the other
hand, Sastre claimed that posibilismo did not seriously challenge censorship; it
was merely a way of avoiding it. Moreover, he recognized the need for structural
change that was not a feature of Buero’s posibilismo. Buero’s refusal to recog-
nize even the partial rectitude of Sastre’s stance is disturbing; so too is Sastre’s
inconsistency. Buero’s claim to be working on the front line of the opposition to
Franco was overstating his case somewhat, considering that he was working
from within the state-approved commercial system: ‘Yo siempre he dicho que mi
teatro era posibilista y que además tenía que serlo, pero lo que no aceptería es
que fuera más posibilista que otros.’38 Others might disagree. If he insisted that
Sastre’s work was posibilista, then surely he should have acknowledged that it
was less so than his own work.
Buero continued to defend posibilismo in later years when Arrabal resurrected
the polemic. In an article published in Estreno in 1975, John Dowling wrote
about an ‘incidente ridículo’ involving Arrabal, which had led to the dramatist’s
trial for injury to the Patria and blasphemy. Arrabal, misinterpreting the incident
that Dowling referred to, replied in an article, also published in Estreno. In it, he
defended his position as an author in exile and implied that those who remained
36 Sastre, ‘Nivel político’, p. 38.

37 Alberto Miralles, ‘Hombres de teatro: Alfonso Sastre’, Yorick, no. 11 (1966), 11.
in Spain accepted censorship: ‘Somos tantos los que hemos preferido el exilio a
la mordaza.’39 He seemed to resent Dowling’s assertion that he had the support
of Buero for a proposed production in one of the commercial theatres of Madrid
and, consequently, Arrabal also attacked Buero, both for his posibilismo and his
lack of support.
Buero’s rejoinder, published in the same issue as Arrabal’s article, refuted the
latter’s claims about his failure to support ‘los autores exiliados y amordazados’,
citing examples of his endorsement of them in the press. Moreover, he reiterated
his earlier claim that Sastre was a posibilista, and asserted that Arrabal too had
been posibilista on occasion:
En los dos libros de obras suyas que se han editado en España antes del men-
cionado «incidente ridículo» de 1967 había, al parecer, pequeños cortes que él
aceptó, por lo menos durante el largo tiempo que pasó hasta que, después del
incidente, quiso repudiar tales libros; pero en uno de ellos se sustituía además
muy oportunamente, a efectos de censura – y Dowling lo recordaba en su
artículo –, el título Guernica por el anagrama «Ciugrena», y con este título vi
yo mismo representar la obra en un Colegio Mayor. (O.C. II: 805)
Buero defended the prizes that Arrabal had criticized, reminding him that many
supposedly silenced authors had benefited from such awards. He also countered
Arrabal’s comments about Buero’s position as Academician by pointing out that,
at the time of his trial, Arrabal was happy to receive the support of three mem-
bers of the Real Academia. Overall, Buero was unhappy with what he considered
to be an attempt on the part of Arrabal to belittle the work of authors who had
remained in Spain. He asserted that ‘los españoles que hayan elegido el exilio
son precisamente los que tienen menos derecho, desde esa barrera, a juzgarnos
y a condenarnos con tan grosera simplificación’, and defended ‘la primordial
importancia que el interior y lo que en él se realiza tienen como plataforma de
nuestra libertad teatral’ (O.C. II: 809, 813). Others too felt that Arrabal had no
right to criticize authors who had chosen to remain and work in Spain. Martín
Recuerda said of Arrabal: ‘Tenía que haber vivido y sufrido en España, todos
estos años que hemos vivido, para darse cuenta de lo que puede ser un realismo
actual.’40
Arrabal, in turn, replied to Buero’s essay, which he classed as ‘altamente
difamatorio’.41 His provocative article, titled ‘La alienación franquista’, was a
thinly veiled denunciation of Buero. It outlined the arguments used by
Francoists to defend the theatre under Franco, and then attributed these same
arguments to Buero. Nonetheless, his assertion that Buero did not comprehend
39 ‘Objeciones de Arrabal al artículo de Dowling’, Estreno, 1 (no. 3, 1975), 5.

40 O’Connor and Pasquariello, ‘Conversaciones’, p. 17. Both Carlos Muñiz and Robert
Louis Sheehan reflect the same opinion, the former in ‘Conversaciones’, pp. 15, 16, and the
latter in ‘Tres generaciones’, p. 26.
41 Fernando Arrabal’, ‘Contesta Arrabal’, Estreno, 2 (no. 1, 1976), 4–5 (p. 4).
POSIBILISMO 131
the plight of the exile would seem to be true. Arrabal claimed that by choosing
exile he retained his dignity, implying that Buero and others did not. Buero’s
response, again published in Estreno, was to dismiss Arrabal’s allegations as
unfounded. He also noted that the arguments used to damn him were not applied
to others working within Spain. Repudiating Arrabal’s argument, he defended
his stance: ‘Nuestra oposición socio-teatral en España, lejos de estar «alienada»,
ha sido y es una lucha positiva y eficaz, contra viento y marea, en el interior del
país. Es decir: en el verdadero frente de la batalla’ (O.C. II: 819). While admit-
ting that at times he was ‘más cauto que valiente’, Buero denied that he had
failed to speak out.
The polemic came to an official end with Buero’s last article, although he
revisited it in La detonación. As in the case of the earlier polemic with Sastre,
neither dramatist demonstrated much respect for the stance of the other, while
both defended a similar attitude towards the ruling power. Certainly, Arrabal’s
exile was self-imposed, and he returned frequently to Spain. Nonetheless, in the
aftermath of the trial he was an officially banned author, and thus could not earn
a living from his work in Spain. As a response to the situation in Spain, it could
be argued that the choice of exile is the most honourable path. However, as
Buero noted, there was a doubt about the reasons for Arrabal’s choice of expatri-
ation. Buero and others attributed much of Arrabal’s rancour to his bitterness at
his lack of success in Spain. Arrabal’s words in 1966, on the staging of Los
hombres del triciclo in Madrid, go some way to confirming this: ‘Que me
pegaron un palo tremendo. Si hubiera tenido éxito, tal vez me habría quedado.’42
In the end, however, it is difficult to refute all of Arrabal’s allegations about
Buero’s position in Francoist society. Buero clearly was the acceptable face of
criticism, although, unfairly, Arrabal was reluctant to attribute any criticism at
all to the older dramatist.
The Fruits of Posibilismo

Posibilismo allowed Buero to make certain criticisms at a time when critics
were deemed to be enemies of the state. In common with other committed
dramatists, he delivered a message through his characters, but the message had
to be deciphered and interpreted. In the early days, Buero wrote commentaries
on his plays and throughout the years of his dramatic output continued to write
articles and deliver speeches on his work and what it meant. These explanations
of the dramatist’s perspective and vision were aimed at encouraging the reader
or audience to search for a meaning within the work itself.
In his portayal of societies in his plays, Buero offered an indictment of soci-
ety outside the theatre, composed of similar groups and factions with analogous
42 Salvado Jiménez, ‘En París, con Fernando Arrabal, español traducido a 20 idiomas’,
Yorick, no. 15 (1966), 9–10 (p. 10).

aims and ideals. He criticized the hypocrisy, corruption, cowardice and collusion
of the spectators who formed that society. García Lorenzo noted:
Buero, con personajes de 1949, 1960 o de siglos anteriores, sabe encontrar la

metáfora adecuada para llegar con ella a ofrecer una lección que clama por la
desaparición de lo que no debe suceder o no debe ser y para gritar a sus criat-
uras que en sus manos está la posibilidad de desenmarcar la mentira, de
realizar sus sueños, de acercarse a la utopia, de llegar a las estrellas, de aprox-
imarse a los ideales por los que el hombre ha luchado y – ése es su destino –
deberá seguir luchando.43
Frequently portrayed as corrupt and corrupting, the Establishment figures in

Buero’s plays are hypocritical and ruthless in their discrediting and elimination of
rivals and enemies. Generally, they represent the traditional Establishment figures
of Franco’s Spain, who, by their repressive actions or their inaction, protect the
dominant ideology. They present an unjust system as the only possible one and
use both force and coercion to legitimate their rule.
Buero denounced the Spanish society created in the aftermath of the Civil War,
where, as Mario observed, ‘¡Se vive del engaño, de la zancadilla, de la compo-
nenda! . . . Se vive pisoteando a los demás’ (O.C. I: 1142). This was a society
divided into victors and vanquished, where repression was institutionalized. In
the society Buero presented, the legacy of past conflict is felt in later generations
because there has been no answerability or attempt at reconciliation. Such polar-
ization is evident in the Cain–Abel dichotomy of the activos and contemplativos.
Like two sides in a fratricidal conflict, each on his own is doomed to failure and,
until there is reconciliation, there is no hope for either. Francoist society is fur-
ther represented in Buero’s condemnation of the apathy of ordinary people in
Hoy es fiesta, Historia de una escalera, the ‘absurdamente feliz’ inhabitants of
the Centro de enseñanza and the endless stream of contemplativos whose failure
to take action to improve their lot or to challenge their oppressors merely pro-
longs their suffering and the suffering of others. He criticized the xenophobic and
reactionary elements in Spanish society that prejudiced any attempts at reform.
This outlook is best embodied in the historical figure of Bernardo Avendaño, the
carriage driver and rioter of Un soñador para un pueblo, who is the voice of the
conservative pueblo, reluctant to change and resentful of the reforms and the for-
eigner who seeks to introduce them. Likewise, in Hoy es fiesta the brutal and
xenophobic nationalism of certain elements of Francoist society is reflected in
the antics and attitude of Sabas. However, the good traits of the pueblo are also
personified in characters such as Pedro (Las Meninas), a man who, like his
namesake in La detonación, serves as inspiration to and conscience of the prot-
agonist. Buero insisted that any solution to social injustice must be inspired by
43 Luciano García Lorenzo, ‘Buero Vallejo: conciencia crítica y testimonio intelectual’,
Ínsula, no. 503 (1988), 26–7 (p. 26).

POSIBILISMO 133
the pueblo, and not imposed by another group with another ideology claiming to
represent the common good.
Buero demonstrated how the wilful ignorance and inaction of the populace
served the regime’s ideologues well, providing no challenge to the official myth.
The kingdoms of Casi un cuento de hadas (1952) and Las Meninas are, like
Franco’s Spain, lands of pomp without glory, where the courts’ obsession with
protocol hides myriad injustices. The hypocrisy and greed of the New State are
alluded to in the historical dramas, in Madrugada and in Irene, o el tesoro. The
last features a family symbolic of a society held together by a loyalty based on
fear rather than respect, where it is easier to become a victim-maker than to make
an honest living. In El concierto de San Ovidio, Buero warned against a seem-
ingly liberal new order in society, dependent on the old, whose motivation is
once again shown to be personal greed and whose actions will do nothing to
improve social conditions. In all of his works Buero showed corruption among
the governors coupled with inaction among the governed to be the tragedy of
Spain. Progress, he suggested, could only follow from accountability.
Posibilismo also enabled Buero to criticize the collusion of the Roman
Catholic Church with the regime, in the upholding of a mutually beneficial ideol-
ogy. In 1953, Franco declared: ‘En la Historia de España es imposible dividir a
los dos poderes, eclesiástico y civil, porque ambos concurren siempre a cumplir
el destino asignado por la Providencia a nuestro pueblo.’44 Many of the charac-
ters in Buero Vallejo’s plays similarly find justifications and support for their
actions in the Church. The unchristian clergy in the works of Buero are often
pawns or willing collaborators of the rulers; as representatives of God and inter-
preters of His teaching, they are failures. Some, like Duaso in El sueño de la
razón, are merely human in their failings and are well intentioned, if perhaps
misguided, in their censorship; others are inhuman and callous. Some Church
representatives in the plays, like the Prioress of El concierto de San Ovidio, pre-
fer to wash their hands of involvement than to take the moral stand demanded by
the situation.45 Abuses of power by the Santo Oficio are referred to in El sueño
de la razón and in Las Meninas. Indeed the censors of the Franco regime who
examined the latter play did not like the dramatist’s portrayal of the Dominican
friar in the trial scene.46 Earlier, in the one-act play Las palabras en la arena,
Buero adapted a biblical story to illustrate a corrupt and hypocritical
Church–state alliance that displays some striking parallels with Franco’s Spain.
Buero criticized the use of coercion, threats and repression in defence of a
particular ideology in plays such as En la ardiente oscuridad, El concierto de San
44 Quoted from Franco’s ‘Mensaje a las Cortes españoles’, 26 October 1953, in Vázquez
Montalbán, Los demonios, p. 147.

45 Nonetheless, it must be admitted that she does show concern for the blind men (O.C.
I: 942–7); unlike Haüy, however, she fails to recognize their potential.

46 ‘Los espectadores creo que reprobaran como odiosa la actuación del Santo Oficio. Es la
tesis del oscurantismo religioso frente al progreso español.’ Report by the censor A. Avelino
Esteban y Romero, AGA/IDD 52.22 Topogr. 83-51 Ca. 71.715 Exp. 296-60.
Ovidio and La doble historia del doctor Valmy. What is clear is that Buero, like
Camus, rejected the nihilistic notion that if God does not exist, everything is per-
mitted. Ultimately, he believed that: ‘No se debe matar, cierto. Y menos aún, tor-
turar. Este es el límite de toda ideología’ (O.C. II: 486). The director of the Centro
de enseñanza sets in motion a plan to convert Ignacio to acceptance of the regime.
The first stage is to use persuasion to win him over. Once his spirit is broken he
can easily be converted to their way of thinking: ‘Los muchachos de este tipo
están hambrientos de cariño y alegría y no suelen rechazarlos cuando se saben
romper sus murallas interiores’ (O.C. I: 85). Yet, the system, which had seemed
implacable when everyone happily colluded, begins to crumble when challenged.
The strength of the Establishment and the old social order are recovered at the
end of the play, but the threat to that order had to be eradicated by violent means.
The only way for such a system to survive, it would seem, is if the myth of a
regime that cares for its subjects is backed up by the threat or use of violence.
Furthermore, Buero candidly criticized the censorship of art in his painterly dra-
mas. Las Meninas, more than any other play of the Franco period, puts censor-
ship on trial and accuses the art censors of having base motives for their actions.
Those who attempt to censor art and what it represents are those who least under-
stand it. Undoubtedly drawing on his own experiences, the censors he portrayed
in his works were just as capricious as their non-fictional counterparts. The report
written by Sr Morales on Arrabal’s El cementerio de los automóviles reads like
those of Buero’s fictional censor, Don Homobono:
Nada tengo contra Arrabal, no se me oculta que su fama dentro de la ‘van-

guardia’ escénica ha traspasado las fronteras, y, desde luego, he defendido
siempre los valores auténticos de esa ‘vanguardia’ como posible impulso ren-
ovador de las formas escénicas en peligro de anquilosamiento . . . No puedo,
sin embargo, traicionar la sinceridad de mi juicio dando, ante esta obra, otro
dictamen que no sea el de PROHIBIDA.47
Other characters from the plays suffer the type of injustice meted out to the
Civil War vanquished and the opponents of the Francoist hegemony. In El tra-
galuz, Buero referred to the fact that the father was forced to leave his job in a
ministry after the Civil War. Similarly, in Aventura en lo gris, Silvano has been
compelled to leave his position as Professor of History in the State University
because of his criticism of Goldmann’s regime. In Un soñador para un pueblo,
both Ensenada and Esquilache suffer exile as a result of their politics.48 Velázquez
faces the threat of exile for his taboo-shattering painting of a nude Venus in Las
Meninas, while Goya is forbidden to enter the court of Fernando VII who ban-
ished him in a fit of pique. The latter, unlike Velázquez, is persecuted for his
47 AGA/IDD 52.22 Topogr. 83-55 Ca. 85.155 Exp. 127-66 (O.C. I: 1544, 1545).
48 It must be acknowledged however, that their exiles are very different: Ensenada’s exile
is a punishment imposed on one who has fallen out of favour; Esquilache’s exile is an
abdication of power for the common good.
POSIBILISMO 135
politics and later chooses self-imposed exile in the face of threats of further
violence from the king’s representatives.
Buero’s plays are more concerned with conflict resolution and accommoda-
tion than victory. The heroes of his works are posibilistas. Given his personal
experiences, Buero was sympathetic to the man who, despite his best intentions,
breaks under torture. Correspondingly, there is more sympathy for the failed revo-
lutionary in Buero’s La Fundación than, for example, in Sastre’s En la red.
Rebels like David, Ignacio and Pedro, who are not posibilistas, are destined to
personal failure; the posibilista reformers, such as Velázquez and Valentin Haüy,
will, it is implied, achieve more in the long term. Buero’s rebels and dreamers,
like Camus’s homme révolté, create and stress values in an unethical society.
They refuse to collaborate with the activos in a repressive system. Society has
failed them. The lack of cohesion and popular support for oppositional ideology
is reflected in the dramas; Buero’s rebels stand alone. Little notice is taken of
their pleas at the outset. The spectator identifies with them from the security of
his own position, which is a position rejected by them. Buero did not show them
triumphant, but instead indicated the effects of their seemingly futile actions on
others. Thus, he demonstrated the long-term view and admitted the difficulty and
slow pace of the struggle against injustice. It is clear that this was not integration
propaganda, which would show the utter futility of rebellion, even in the long
term, nor is it agitation propaganda, which would attempt to show a successful
rebellion, but instead a more universal view. Buero’s rebel protagonists are, in
general, tragic heroes who cannot save themselves, but who may, through their
actions, inspire action in others. These heroes or antiheroes come to recognize
the truth of reality and self-knowledge before they die. The hope implicit in the
tragedy is that others may learn from their actions without having to repeat their
mistakes. The tragic rebel gains nobility in defeat, for his spirit survives to
inspire others.
The use of art as a political weapon to open the eyes of the spectator is com-
mon to many of the works of Buero. It constitutes his justification for his own
role as dramatist in a repressive society. Tellingly, the Establishment painter
Velázquez exemplifies for the posibilista Buero the role of the artist in society:
‘Ante un mundo enajenado de supersticiones, errores, milagrerías e injusticias,
su vida y su pintura nos revelan que él mantiene los ojos abiertos’ (O.C.
II: 705–6). In fact, Buero compared the painter’s Weltanschauung to that of
Cervantes, another of his abiding influences. However, Velázquez, like Buero
himself, worked within an established system. In an interview published in 1955,
Buero spoke about Velázquez, giving a description that could also be applied to
the dramatist: ‘La frialdad aparente no es otra cosa que el resultado de un
inmenso ardor que sabe someterse a la ley.’49 The fictionalized painter, like the
dramatist, is portrayed as the acceptable face of criticism, who will inspire
49 Luis Mayo, ‘Entrevista con Antonio Buero Vallejo, el más discutido de nuestros
dramaturgos actuales’, El Noticiero Universal, 28 April 1955, pp. 7–8 (p. 7).
reformers through his exposition of reality and falsehood. He is no rebel, for he

does not wish to overthrow the system, merely to reform it. He dreams of a bet-
ter future, which others will act to achieve. Art, for Buero, was a personal pas-
sion and an enduring influence on his work. He stated: ‘La pintura, como dijo
Leonardo da Vinci, «è una cosa mentale». Es que los pintores más grandes han
sido mentales, aunque parecieran sensoriales.’50 He believed in the revelatory
nature of art, and sought to harness this for his ethical and demystifying purpose.
The paintings used in plays such as Las Meninas, Diálogo secreto, El sueño de
la razón, Llegada de los dioses and La Fundación are imbued with significance
and are representative of action or characters in the drama. In El sueño de la
razón, the nightmare scenes of Goya’s Black Paintings not only reflect the hor-
ror of Spain under Fernando VII but also anticipate dramatic action.
Buero’s portraits of artists, musicians and writers depict the artist and intel-
lectual of his own time, who was marginalized if he took a critical stance on
social or political issues and who suffered the abuses of a state-imposed censor-
ship. These characters attempt to speak out against such restrictions and limita-
tions of artistic freedom and demand a greater freedom for all. Isaac Deutscher
wrote that the role of intellectuals is ‘to remain eternal protesters’.51 This state-
ment could be applied to all artists and intellectuals in the works of Buero. He
considered that artists, writers and intellectuals in any society, but particularly in
one such as Spanish society under Franco, had a moral duty to lead the protest
against social injustice. They are often outsiders and may have felt the brunt of
repressive censorship; though they may recognize their own limitations, they
rebel against those imposed by the authorities.
Picasso wrote: ‘El arte es una mentira que nos enseña a comprender la verdad
que, como hombres, somos capaces de entender.’52 Hence the artist or intellec-
tual is the one who demystifies through his labour, exposing the truth behind the
officially propagated ideology. Yet art is also mythification. Buero emphasized
the revelatory power of art and represented art as a source of truth, not merely
the illusion it is often taken to be. Characters in Buero’s plays are enlightened by
art, the written word and drama. He demonstrated, within plays such as Las
Meninas, El sueño de la razón and El concierto de San Ovidio, how art and
drama could impact upon the spectator and influence his future action. Buero fre-
quently spoke of the positive influence of art, in its various forms, on his own
choices and actions, specifically the etching reproduced in Sirio, which inspired
him to write El concierto de San Ovidio. This belief that both the actions and the
work of the artist can incite positive change is evident in both the dramatic and
50 O’Connor, Antonio Buero Vallejo en sus espejos, p. 307. Buero also stated, in an
interview published in Arriba, 23 December 1960, ‘La pintura es otra forma de intuición del
mundo.’ AGA/IDD 52.22 Topogr. 83-51 Ca. 71.715 Exp. 296-60.
51 Quoted in Harvey J. Kaye, ‘Why Do Ruling Classes Fear History?’, Index on Censorship,
24 (no. 3, 1995), 85–98 (p. 98).

52 Quoted in Una cultura en crisis, ed. by Josep Carlos Clemente, Testigos de España
(Barcelona: Plaza y Janes, 1973), p. 265.

POSIBILISMO 137
non-dramatic writings of Buero. He also made clear in Las Meninas that the true
spectator for this art, the audience at whom the message is directed, must be the
pueblo, not the ruling elite. Art, at times, is more real than a hypocritical and fal-
sified reality. This is what Tomás eventually realizes in La Fundación, where the
Turner landscape, the most obviously false element in the reality represented
upon stage, represents a possible future reality. It is a landscape of hope, not illu-
sion. It is the imagined restored Spain; it is what Said was referring to when he
wrote that geographical identity, captured by the colonizers, is reclaimed by the
native population at first in its imagination.53 In Buero’s plays, the dream or
vision is the first step towards action.
The Limits of Posibilismo

Buero was viewed as a critic by the regime, but it appears that he was the accept-
able face of criticism. By permitting a certain degree of condemnation of the
regime, those in power may have been protecting their own ideology. By not
damning him, the regime could claim him, arguing that his criticisms were proof
of the regime’s liberalism, rather than a challenge to its dogmatism. It could then
cite its treatment of Buero and his success as an example of its generous and all-
serving ideology. It allowed the regime to claim that the arts did not suffer under
Franco, and further to claim that those whom it treated more harshly were dan-
gerous extremists and pornographers. The complacency of those within the com-
mercial theatre world lent this view some legitimacy. Though cognizant of his
criticism, the regime at one stage tried to coerce Buero to lend it his support:
Sin dar nombres, te voy a contar dos proposiciones deshonestas que me hicieron,
una explícita, la otra implícita. La primera consistía en prometerme todo el apoyo
del aparato del Estado para proyectar mi nombre y mi obra en el extranjero, a
condición de que desarrollase en mi teatro el tema religioso. La otra fue más sútil
y, sin embargo, no menos directa: pretendían comprar mi silencio.54
He turned down the offers. This certainly suggests that the regime viewed his
work as unfavourable, but they also thought that he was not as strident an enemy
as others.
If, as suggested by Szanto, Althusser and others, the theatre is an ideological
state apparatus, then surely Buero’s position within it must be questioned. Did
the message sent out by his personal actions supersede, or merely contradict, the
message in his plays?
Y Buero Vallejo estrenó su obra experimental, El tragaluz. El tema de esta obra

polémica – el ‘subir al tren’, o sea, venderse al sistema – provocó muchos
53 Said, Culture and Imperialism, p. 271.

ataques a Buero; lo acusaban de subir él mismo a ese ‘tren’ oficial para poder
estrenar. Pero Buero se había mantenido al margen del sistema.55
Carlos Muñiz’s attempt to explain Buero’s success supports the argument that
Buero represented the acceptable face of criticism during the Franco years:
Buero, con evidente habilidad, ha escrito un teatro que no hiriera excesiva-

mente a la burguesa clientela habitual de nuestros teatros y a la par lo bastante
crítico como para merecer la estima de los sectores intelectuales y progresis-
tas. Una dramaturgia como la de Buero resultaba incluso oficialmente útil para
dar la impresión desde el Ministerio de Información y Turismo de una cierta
tolerancia capaz de mitigar ante muchos los efectos aniquilantes de la auto-
cracia franquista sobre la cultura y, concretamente, sobre el teatro. Ello justifica
que una buena parte de las obras de Buero se haya estrenado en los Teatros
Nacionales y que no se le haya prohibido por la censura, si no recuerdo mal,
más que La doble historia del doctor Valmy.56
In the same series of interviews, José Martín Recuerda, who denied claiming that
Buero was a right-wing dramatist, did assert that he was used by the right: ‘Tal
vez lo que diría fuera que «Buero le venía bien utilizarlo a las derechas, como
nombre glorioso».’57 Yet it would be overly simplistic to argue that Buero was
merely a pawn in the regime’s ideological games. It is clear from his posibilismo
that he had carefully considered his position and concluded that he could do
more good from within the system than as an outsider. However, it was a tricky
game to play, and it led to accusations of collusion with a regime that he utterly
opposed. Sastre, for example, viewed Buero’s posibilismo as little more than
self-censorship and collusion with the enemy. Arrabal too, wrote:
No creo ser mejor moralmente o espiritualmente que Buero Vallejo, pero

pienso que hay que tener presente que finalmente le ha tocado representar en
el gran teatro del mundo un papel difícil por no decir imposible: el de un autor
subvencionado, premiado y colmado de ‘honores’ por el franquismo.58
It is undeniable that Buero’s criticisms were subtler than those of many others
who set themselves up as anti-regime dramatists. Furthermore, his use of allu-
sion, euphemism and double meaning allowed the work to be read ‘straight’ by
those who did not wish to see the underlying argument. Within the plays, more-
over, Buero blamed the leadership for what he considered to be wrong with Spain
and the populace for their apathy and irresponsibility, while simultaneously
excusing his own contradictory position as an often officially acceptable writer.

56 O’Connor and Pasquariello, ‘Conversaciones’, p. 15. In fact, it was not the only one of
his plays to be banned.
58 Fernando Arrabal, ‘La alienación franquista’, Estreno, 2 (no. 1, 1976), 9–10 (p. 10).
POSIBILISMO 139
Another element of his work that could be considered contradictory was

Buero’s portrayal of women, which, for the most part, was in keeping with the
Francoist ideology. Buero stated his belief that ‘la mitad mejor del género humano
es la feminina’, and his depiction of women in his dramas was often both roman-
ticized and stereotyped.59 Women frequently inspire action in men, but have little
power to act themselves and are dependent on men for success. Female characters
like Juana in En la ardiente oscuridad, Adriana in El Concierto de San Ovidio and
Nuria in Llegada de los dioses are used to seduce a man into believing the official
myth. Ultimately, they are defined by the men in their lives. The world of Buero’s
dramas is a patriarchal one. Halsey comments that, in his early work, Buero’s
women are ‘wives, mistresses and mothers, lacking any sense of autonomy’, but
she notes that in his later plays, ‘Buero began to create a series of independent and
liberated female characters who find meaning outside their relationship with the
other sex’.60 It is true that a new breed of intellectual and liberal female charac-
ters, such as Amparo in Lázaro en el laberinto (1986), emerges in the later plays.
Nonetheless, while they might function as judges of men’s actions, they are rarely
protagonists. The focus of the dramas remains the tragedy of men, albeit a new
generation of men, in a changing, but still patriarchal, society.
Almost always in the background, Buero’s women stand a remarkably high
risk of being victims, and, unlike the male characters, may not be responsible for
their own pitiful predicament. Linda Sollish Sikka convincingly argues the case
for their classification as structural agents and moral guides, although she occa-
sionally and perhaps over-generously grants them the status of protagonist.61
Moreover, women are often victims of men’s ambitions and attentions. Cristina
Ferreiro shows that in Música cercana (1989) Sandra is not only a victim of her
father and the type of society he has helped to create, but also of René, the young
idealist who puts his cause before his love for her. Ferreiro further describes her
as, ‘la niña rica que intenta de una manera utópica y absurda borrar las fronteras
entre clases sociales e ideologías políticas’.62 Generally, women do not fight the
ideological battles in the works of Buero.63
There are many more contradictions and ambiguities associated with the
author that have led to criticisms, yet most of these are consistent with his per-
sonal experiences or his posibilismo. So while posibilismo implied contradiction
and compromise, it clearly also allowed Buero to criticize the dominant ideology,
albeit indirectly. Hence, it would appear that in posibilismo Buero found a solu-
tion to his own moral dilemma about writing social drama in a repressive state.
59 De Paco, ‘Buero Vallejo y el teatro’, p. 68.

60 Martha T. Halsey, ‘Women as Author Surrogates in Four Tragedies of Antonio Buero
Vallejo’, in Spanish Theatre: Studies in Honour of Victor F. Dixon, ed. by K. Adams,
C. Cosgrove and J. Whiston (London: Tamesis, 2001), pp. 41–55 (pp. 41, 42).
61 ‘Buero’s Women: Structural Agents and Moral Guides’, Estreno, 16 (no. 1, 1990),
18–22, 31.
62 ‘La mujer, víctima del hombre en Música cercana’, Estreno, 16 (no. 1, 1990), 2.
63 Exceptions to this, with certain limitations, are Mary (La doble historia del doctor
Valmy), Verónica (Llegada de los dioses) and Cristina (Jueces en la noche, 1979).
5
History, Myth and Demythification
Buero’s Use of History and Myth: An Introduction

The truth about the past and the truth about the present
are indivisible. Without accepting the truth about what
happened it is impossible to address correctly what is
happening now; without the truth about what is happening
now it is impossible to substantially improve the existing
state of affairs.1
Much of the use of myth and history in Spanish twentieth-century literature

was born of an abuse of the same by the dominant group in society; the regime
used history as ‘a legitimator of action and cement of group cohesion’.2 As
Elizabeth S. Rogers commented, ‘It is this official version of History (with its
capital H) which sets the standards of behaviour and thus becomes the basis of
role definition in society, as much in the past as in the present.’3 In his employ-
ment of history, Buero’s aim was to reclaim its logical trajectory and to deny
the Nationalist–Falangist version of Spain’s history, which contrived to deny
and falsify certain critical events of the past; by offering an alternative, possi-
ble version of history, he implied the falsity of the official version. Buero was
also anxious to demonstrate how history repeats itself and how people continue
to make the same avoidable mistakes through ignorance, deliberate or
otherwise, of the past. Like other authors who employed history in their works,
Buero aimed to debunk the myth of an historically unified Spain. Moreover, in
these dramas, he showed how the future is affected by the past and determined
by the present, and he denounced the apathy that threatened his vision of
Spain’s future.
In Buero’s plays, myths are given a new treatment in which the supposed truth
they contain is parodied, subverted or exposed as false. Thus, it is suggested to
the spectator that other hallowed myths may also be deceptive. It is also the case,
however, that the author himself took advantage of the supposed eternal truth of
myth to persuade an audience that an element of a myth, perhaps one previously
ignored, is true.
1 Statement issued by the Czech dissident group, Charter 77, in 1988 and quoted in Kaye,
‘Why Do Ruling Classes Fear History?’, p. 90.

2 Hobsbawm, ‘Introduction: Inventing Traditions’, p. 12.
3 Elizabeth S. Rogers, ‘Role Constraints versus Self-Identity in La tejedora de sueños and
Anillos para una dama’, Modern Drama, 26 (no. 3, 1983), 310–19 (p. 311).
HISTORY, MYTH AND DEMYTHIFICATION 141
Both myth and history offer another advantage to the dramatist who wishes to
use them to make a political point: the spectator is aware of the outcome, often
before the characters are. Therefore it is the process, rather than the consequence,
that is being re-examined. In essence, Buero wished to challenge his modern
audience to question the myths in their own reality, and, further, to see them-
selves as a part of an historical process, capable of activating change. Hence he
denied the notion that the future is preordained and not determinable by the
masses.
Obviously then, Buero’s use of myth and history was not casual. In fact, he
presented an interpretation that challenged the official version of events but only
to submit another possible version:
Desmitificamos, pero para volver a mitificar. [. . .] No hay que destruir los

mitos, sino estudiarlos. No hay que creer que esa palabra equivale a «mentira».
Sólo es mentiroso el mito en el terreno de la ciencia y del pensamiento
racional; en el del arte, puede ser la expresión condensada de una gran verdad.
(O.C. II: 434)
This raises questions about the motivation of Buero’s interpretation of myth and
history; it is worth remembering that Buero’s experience in the Civil War had
more to do with propaganda than with combat.4 For Pilar de la Puente, Buero’s
historical drama is ‘un teatro de ideas, un teatro dialéctico, donde a través de los
personajes se enfrentan ideas o puntos de partida ideológicos’.5 Halsey insists
that ‘no puede existir una dramatización representativa o neutral de la historia’,
as the writer must choose what to record and highlight.6 It is evident that Buero,
like the regime he opposed, employed history and myth to garner support for his
own views. Yet Buero argued that his art, and the views contained therein, were
not subordinate to the ideology of any particular group.
The choice of time period and setting in Buero’s historical dramas was
deliberate. These plays offer a modern perspective on repressive periods of his-
tory, similar in some respects to the Franco era. They offer a view of the past that
was hidden or denied by the dominant ideology: ‘Buero quiere llegar a una com-
prensión del pasado para penetrar hondamente en los problemas actuales.’7 He
also showed that, while politicians and kings may come and go, art remains,
often as a testament to the times. Clearly, while the regime sought to advance the
view that Spain’s future was Francoist, Buero, like Sastre, Martín Recuerda and
Rodríguez Méndez, all of whom wrote historical drama, encouraged his audi-
ence to acknowledge the possibility of social and historical change.
4 Mariano de Paco recalls that ‘mientras espera la movilización de su quinta, trabaja en el
taller de propaganda de la FUE’. In ‘Buero Vallejo y el teatro’, p. 49.

5 Pilar de la Puente, ‘El teatro histórico de Buero Vallejo’, El Urogallo, no. 2 (1970), 90–5
(p. 91).
6 Martha T. Halsey, ‘El intelectual y el pueblo: tres dramas históricos de Buero’,
Anthropos, Monograph no. 10 (no. 79, 1987), 46–9 (p. 46).

7 De la Puente, ‘El teatro histórico’, p. 94.
Labanyi highlights the importance of myth in cultural imperialism and indi-

cates how it was used by the Franco regime to legitimate and universalize the
ideology it wished to inculcate.8 As it is assumed to contain a certain symbolic
truth and universal values, by incorporating myth, one can claim legitimacy; she
argues that by exposing myths as false, the Spanish authors of the day sought to
demonstrate that the myths of the regime also needed to be questioned. The
regime promoted a certain type of literary culture, one that reinforced the ruling
ideology and focused on a return to the heights of Spain’s cultural Golden
Age–the type of cultural policy, in other words, that Edward Said described in
Culture and Imperialism:
In time, culture comes to be associated, often aggressively, with the nation or

the state; this differentiates us from them, almost always with some degree of
xenophobia. Culture in this sense is a source of identity, and a rather combat-
ive one at that, as we see in recent returns to culture and tradition. These
returns accompany rigorous codes of intellectual and moral behaviour that are
opposed to the permissiveness associated with such relatively liberal philoso-
phies as multiculturalism and hybridity.9
Unsurprisingly, history too had been claimed by the Civil War victors who used
it selectively to promulgate the myth of a united, Catholic, España eterna both
in literature and film.
For the writers of the opposition, however, myth had another purpose. Ilie
observed that the writers who employ myth in order to expose the distortions and
falsifications of reality that form the official myth of the dominant ideology do
so because straightforward criticism is not possible. Thus, it seems that, for Ilie
at least, the use of myth is a form of posibilismo.10
Recourse to History
ÉL Durante siglos tuvimos que olvidar, para que el pasado no nos paral-
izase; ahora debemos recordar incesamente, para que el pasado no nos
envenene (O.C. I: 1165).
In the historical dramas Un soñador para un pueblo, El concierto de San Ovidio,
Las Meninas, El sueño de la razón and in the post-Franco period, La detonación,
Buero Vallejo chose characters and eras that were not only interesting from a
political perspective but which also had a profound and lasting effect on the evo-
lution of Spanish society. While not strictly historical and perhaps better termed
mythical dramas, the earlier plays Las palabras en la arena and La tejedora de
sueños also have much in common with the historical dramas. With the exception
8 Labanyi, Myth and History.

9 Said, Culture and Imperialism, pp. xiii–xiv.
10 Ilie is cited in Labanyi, Myth and History, p. 43.
of El concierto de San Ovidio, which is based in the time just before the French
Revolution and contains non-historical protagonists, all are based around times,
characters or events familiar to the average spectator.11 Szanto writes of historical
drama: ‘Such literary exploitations of the past are not accidental; history and its
artefacts are always most valuable to any daily present when they serve contem-
porary needs, when they give plausible answers to contemporary quandaries.’12
This is indeed what Buero attempted with his historical dramas, as Luciano
García Lorenzo also recognizes:
Si obviamos rasgos tales como el vestuario, la escenografía, cualquier otro dato

externo, esos personajes históricos están siempre hablando al hombre contem-
poráneo de problemas que también lo son, y aún más, de problemas que tra-
scienden la contemporaneidad, que pertenecen al hombre de cualquier época.
Problemas como el de la justicia, el de la libertad, el de la tolerancia; como el
de – constante en todo su teatro – ser consecuente con uno mismo, seguir un
camino determinado con la honestidad que exige esa consecuencia.13
Buero, then, linked history to the present and the future and also to the necessity
of hope. Steiner calls literature ‘dramatized expectation, in so far as it is a cri-
tique of the actual in the light of the possible’, and clearly Buero’s ideas about
hopeful tragedy and his stress on the possibility of social reform fitted in with
this.14 Lyon convincingly argues that Buero’s historical dramas are valuable for
the dramatist’s ‘ability to synthesize apparently contradictory approaches: his-
torical documentation and creative imagination, fidelity to the past and relevance
to the present, individual and collective interpretations of history’.15
It is interesting to note that even in his most futuristic drama, El tragaluz, which
reconstructs the present from the future, in order to examine the past, it is hope
in our day that the dramatist focused on, rather than the supposed perfection of
11 The historical character of Valentín Haüy appears briefly in the middle of the play and
as a type of narrator at its end, but spectators would not be expected to recognize his name.
The name of the ‘villain’ Valindin is historical, but his characterization is entirely of Buero’s
invention.
12 Szanto, Theater and Propaganda, p. 8. Ruiz Ramón described Buero’s historical dramas
as ‘tiempo de mediación entre pasado y presente’. Francisco Ruiz Ramón, ‘Teatralidad y

espectáculo en la obra de Buero Vallejo’, in El teatro de Buero Vallejo: texto y espectáculo,
ed. by Cristóbal Cuevas García, Ámbitos Literarios-Ensayo, 34 (Barcelona: Anthropos;
Málaga: Servicio de Publicaciones e Intercambio Científico de la Universidad de Málaga,
1990), pp. 121–37 (p. 125).
14 Like Steiner, Buero recognized what the former termed ‘the primordial mechanism of
thwarted hope’ in human motivation: ‘Historical man, engaged in the stress and fragmentary
vision of economic and political conflict, knows that in the conjugation of the verb to be there
is a future perfect. That knowledge, which Ernst Bloch calls the Prinzip Hoffnung, is at the
core of his endeavour.’ Steiner, Language and Silence, pp. 414, 413.
15 John Lyon, ‘History and Opposition Drama in Franco’s Spain’, in Spanish Theatre:
Studies in Honour of Victor F. Dixon, pp. 91–109 (p. 105).

a distant future. The characters of Él and Ella, researchers from the future, pres-
ent their experimental project to the spectators. It focuses on a family in the pres-
ent and its failure to come to terms with its past and it is suggested that, unless it
does, the family will never progress.16
It is not accidental that other dramatists whose style was much admired by
Buero have also written dramas that revisit and revise history to make a univer-
sal statement about man. Albert Camus based his Les Justes on the 1905 assas-
sination in Moscow of the Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovitch. Arthur Miller’s
The Crucible, set in the past but with obvious contemporary relevance, is similar
in some respects to Buero’s historical dramas. Indeed, Buero held that Miller
would have written that play without McCarthyism just as he claimed that he
himself would have written his historical plays without Francoism (O.C. II:
1198). Ricardo de la Fuente Ballesteros notes that, as in Buero’s plays, ‘la man-
era ibseniana se basa en el desvelamiento de un pasado que determina el presente
de los personajes’.17 The influence of Unamuno’s theory of intrahistoria too, can
be observed in Buero’s exploration of social history against the backdrop of
political and military official history, and in his concentration on the worth of the
individual.
In 1980 Buero wrote: ‘Escribir teatro histórico es reinventar la historia sin
destruirla’ (O.C. II: 826-7). His historical dramas, unlike history, are based on
possibility and are therefore more philosophical than factual.18 Responding to
16 The episode from the past occurred at the end of the Civil War, when the family was
waiting to board a train to flee to Madrid. Vicente, the eldest child, managed to get on the train
but took the family’s supplies with him, leaving the others stranded and starving; as a result,
Elvirita, his baby sister, died and his father lost his mind. Thirty years later, the family has
neither faced, nor recovered from, the events of the past. The mother insists on forgetting the
past, while the father’s disturbed behaviour concentrates on cutting figures from magazines,
asking ‘¿Quién es ese? and ‘saving’ them. Vicente, a successful publisher, in his determination
to succeed continues to create victims, the latest of whom is his employee and mistress,
Encarna, who is pregnant. His younger brother, Mario, a contemplativo, still lives with his
parents and rejects Vicente’s choices and lifestyle; he is in love with Encarna. The father fails
to recognize Vicente and confuses Encarna with his dead daughter. Mario judges Vicente,
forcing him to confront the past and accusing him of continuing to create victims, but later
regrets his action. When left alone with his father, Vicente admits his guilt for the first time
and begs for forgiveness; yet he does not wish to change his behaviour. The father, a disturbed
God-like figure, kills Vicente with the scissors, telling him, ‘tú no subirás al tren’ (O.C.
I: 1177). As a result, the father is locked away. Hope for the future is found in the relationship
between a more humble Mario and Encarna. Él and Ella return and answer the father’s
question, identifying the spectators as the people referred to, and suggesting that the
experiment only succeeded if they saw themselves from multiple perspectives. Speaking for
Buero, they identified the problem of twentieth-century Spanish society as an inability to
recognize themselves in others.
17 ‘Ibsen y Buero: Hedda Gabler y Las cartas boca abajo’, in Cuevas García, ed., El teatro
de Buero Vallejo: texto, pp. 243–57 (p. 247).

18 ‘Poetry has to convince us that the events it describes are possible, and it does so by
confining itself to such events as are probable or necessary. In order to be intelligible and win
assent, poetry is thus forced to aim at universality, since the necessary and the probable are
criticisms of his historical dramas, Buero said: ‘No estoy haciendo historia sino
literatura, literatura teatral, de modo que habrá un porcentaje del personaje real
y otro porcentaje del escritor de la obra, que soy yo.’19 Nevertheless, he was
criticized for his fictionalization of historical characters, such as Velázquez and
Goya and for his appropriation of the myth and the words of Larra to defend his
own posibilismo. Buero always made it clear, however, that these were only pos-
sible interpretations of the characters; they were never intended as biographical
texts. Writing about El sueño de la razón, the dramatist commented: ‘Pienso, sin
embargo, que esta invención o intuición mía, si no consta que sucediese, bien
pudo suceder’ (O.C. II: 451). The historical dramas therefore are possible histo-
ries, usually focusing on the private face of a public figure.
Hence, in the interests of art, through which he seeks to highlight certain
hidden or denied realities, Buero revised official history. Moreover, Buero took
some licence with the chronology of events in order to serve his dramatic purpose
(O.C. II: 516–17). Some of the events depicted are historical possibility rather
than historical fact, and serve to allow Buero to contrast past and present.
The stress in the historical dramas is on the possibility of change. Buero made
clear that things once considered impossible were now possible, and implied that
what appears to be infeasible now may be realized in the future; nothing is pre-
ordained or naturally impossible, despite what the dominant ideology would
have one believe. His characters continually assert that one can learn from his-
tory. Even the rebel protagonists, such as Ignacio (En la ardiente oscuridad) and
David (El concierto de San Ovidio), who strive for the seemingly impossible,
inspire in others the understanding that what seems unrealizable now may one
day be accomplished.
Ignacio y las gentes como él se rebelan frente a algo que parece insuperable,
tienen todo el derecho de hacerlo, y aun la obligación; porque puede que lo que
entendemos por insuperable no lo sea, o al menos no lo sea del todo. Hay un
momento, una situación, una etapa en la que sí lo es, pero a lo mejor al día
siguiente eso cambia. [. . .] No hay que resignarse a la insuperabilidad.20
In other works, drawing on the spectator’s knowledge of the outcome, Buero

highlighted the changes that occurred in the past, which at the time were
considered the folly of dreamers.21 Esquilache talks hopefully of future times
when burning heretics at the stake will be viewed as the anathema of civilized
society and when the reforms he tries to introduce will be accepted. It should also
universals. History is under no such constraint; it does not usually have to convince us that the
events it describes are possible – what has happened must have been possible.’ Aristotle’s
Poetics, intro, notes and trans. by James Hutton and preface by Gordon M. Kirkwood (New
York: W. W. Norton, 1982), p. 14.
19 Amell, ‘Conversación’, pp. 124–5.
20 Enrique Pajón Mecloy, ‘La ardiente claridad de Antonio Buero Vallejo: entrevista’,
Quimera, no. 65 (1987), 59– 63 (p. 62).

21 Dixon, ‘ “Pero todo partió de allí” ’, p. 44.
be obvious to the spectator from 1958 that the society in which he lives owes
something to men such as Esquilache who helped to form it.22 Velázquez yearns
for a day when it will be possible to paint and freely exhibit nudes and a day
when man keeps no other man slave; Goya dreams of flying machines of the
future; David dreams of the day when even a poor blind man may be able to read
and study and become a musician. For the Spanish spectator of the drama, this
is all now possible: the day once dreamed of has arrived. Why not then, Buero
implied, the other seemingly impossible ambitions, such as a just, censorship-
free, democratic society? Why not then, the landscape of La Fundación or the
future society of El tragaluz’s Él and Ella? The apathy and resignation encour-
aged by the regime are the greatest enemies of change. The spectator must real-
ize that he is part of the evolutionary process of history and is responsible for its
future. This stress on flux and change was in stark contrast to the regime’s pro-
fessed immutability and essential, eternal values. In Un soñador para un pueblo,
as in Las Meninas, Buero attacked this myth of immutability. Velázquez tells his
king that, ‘Para morir nace todo: hombres, instituciones’ and Esquilache, in his
conversation with Villasanta, declares: ‘Las naciones tienen que cambiar si no
quieren morir definitivamente. [. . .] Nosotros marchamos hacia adelante y sus
señorías no quieren moverse. Pero la Historia se mueve’ (O.C. I: 932, 790).
In the plays, history is used to highlight both continuity and the differences
between past and present. Buero recognized the dangers of nationalism and the
seductively easy answers it provided to a people willing to be led; hence nation-
alism, with its xenophobic emphasis on purity and its appeals to unity and blind
loyalty, is denounced again and again in the plays. He attempted to show that
those who protect this nationalism at all costs against an identifiable foe are often
motivated by self-interest rather than the common good. The Nationalists glori-
fied the Golden Age and created a link between it and Spain under Franco; Buero
drew parallels between the decadence of both eras. The Nationalists dismissed
the nineteenth century as an error; Buero reclaimed it, showing how it logically
precipitated the events of the twentieth century. The Nationalists stressed the
nobility of the pueblo; Buero did the same, while also exposing its ignoble
racism and its manipulation by the ruling elite. Roman Catholic ideology and
values influenced the Nationalists; Buero showed how both Church and govern-
ment betrayed their virtues. The Nationalists emphasized a return to a destiny
that had been betrayed by the Republicans and liberals; Buero revised Homer’s
Odyssey to analyse the return to origins myth, and demonstrated the cruelty of
the supposedly heroic leader who returns and does not save the Motherland, but
rather damns her to an unhappy dependence on his might. While none of the
above examples could be classified as direct attacks on Francoism, there are
some very obvious allusions made.
22 Raymond Carr wrote of the Caroline bureaucrats: ‘Their concrete achievements
remained limited, but there is no practical reform of the nineteenth century, no reforming
attitude of mind, that cannot be traced back to one of the servants of Charles III.’ Spain
1808 –1939 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966), p. 61.
Buero, like other writers of historical drama, focused on:
periods in which an older, reactionary view of life was colliding with some
newer, more attractive dispensation: by identifying with the proponents of the
new, the audience not only would feel it was experiencing the force of histor-
ical continuity, but it could flatter itself for being on the side of progress.23
These reflected many of the changes occurring in Spanish society when the plays
were written and are among his most political works.
Un soñador para un pueblo (1958) was the first of Buero’s historical dramas.
Based in Madrid in March 1766, during the reign of Carlos III, it tells the story
of the anti-reform riots and the overthrow of the Minister, the Marqués de
Esquilache. Buero described it as a ‘versión libre de un episodio histórico’ (O.C.
II: 423). Buero’s interpretation of events rejected the notion that the rising was
a spontaneous, popular one, which grew from the ground up and toppled a man
who wished to curb the traditional freedoms of the people. Buero instead staged
a rising orchestrated and manipulated from the top down by traditionalist nobles,
led by the Marqués de la Ensenada, whose positions of power were threatened
by the reforms. The myths and rumours spread about Esquilache and the reforms
are exposed as deliberate falsifications. Buero made the point that, while the
rioting had a political agenda, the huge popular support would scarcely have
been possible if the reformers had not been so heavy-handed in their dealings
with the public and particularly in their use of the Walloon Guard to put down
any resistance to change. This play is thus in keeping with Buero’s outlook: ‘the
most significant implication of the play is that real change requires both the dis-
mantling of established power structures and the genuine involvement of the
people’.24
Both Carlos III and Esquilache recognize that the traditionalist nobility are
behind the increasing resistance to reform. As David Johnston points out, both
Villasanta, who represents the conservative nobility, and Ensenada, a reformer in
a previous government who resents his lack of power, wear wigs that are
outdated and therefore symbolic of their commitment to the past and their reluc-
tance to embrace change.25 The old order displays scant regard for the Spanish
people, and Ensenada declares that ‘el español es desequilibrado’ and is there-
fore in need of absolute rule (O.C. I: 770). Buero examined the way in which a
case is made for the need for a paternalistic leader by demonstrating the natural
weakness of the Spaniard, and subverted it in his work, recuperating the pueblo
23 Herbert Lindenberger, Historical Drama: The Relation of Literature and Reality
(Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1975), p. 9.

24 Chris Perriam, Michael Thompson, Susan Frenk and Vanessa Knights, A New History
of Spanish Writing 1939 to the 1990s (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 48.
25 Johnston, ‘Posibles paralelos’, p. 350. Moreover, Duaso in El sueño de la razón, despite
working as a censor under Fernando VII, demonstrates his allegiance to an earlier, more
liberal, period by wearing the cross of Carlos III.
and demonstrating that the degeneracy of the pueblo is usually caused by

their leaders. He also highlighted the turpitude of the leaders themselves.
Furthermore, Buero challenged the notion that the pueblo is improved as a result
of its submission to a particular leader. As Lyon points out, ‘Buero’s central pre-
occupation was the problem – unresolved in 1766 and still seeking a solution in
1958 – of the pueblo’s involvement in the power process.’26
In the play, the Church, as usual, favours the conservative view and the
conservatives are happy to claim divine approval. Villasanta laments the passing
of the Santo Oficio, which was banned under Carlos III and, like many in
Franco’s time, predicts that the path of reform will lead to a godless Spain.
Interestingly, Francisco Abad draws another parallel, likening Esquilache to the
leaders of the Second Republic.27 Buero described the play as ‘una defensa de la
España “ilustrada” ’, and went on to say, ‘creo que resulta, en suma, un drama
bastante actual’ (O.C. II: 423–4).
Las Meninas (1960) is a play in two parts, the first of which serves as an
introduction to the various characters and the second of which sees the artist,
Velázquez, on trial for a series of offences against the court. The play is set in
Madrid, in the court of Felipe IV, in the autumn of 1656. Buero’s play is about
the artist Velázquez, who like the dramatist, acted as conscience of his society,
using his art and his position in the court to highlight social injustice. In the play,
Velázquez is pitted against the activo Establishment figure of the Marqués, who
is shown to manipulate the weak king, Felipe IV, in order to preserve his own
power and privilege and increase his own wealth at the expense of the ordinary
people. The play portrays a social elite at best blind to the miserable reality of
the lives of ordinary Spaniards but more often, callously indifferent. Velázquez,
an enlightened intellectual and gifted artist, is inspired by the pueblo, rather than
by his masters. The pueblo, represented by the activo-turned-contemplativo,
Pedro Briones, is the only figure to truly understand both the artist and his art;
indeed, in a scene with the artist in Part I, he interprets its social message for the
audience. Shown through his relationship with Velázquez and the telling of his
own story to be a good man, Pedro dies at the hands of the regime for crimes he
committed to better the lot of his comrades. Las Meninas is a play about the role
of art and the committed artist in society, a play in which Buero’s vision of his
own role is clearly demonstrated. It is also an attack on censorship, on weak lead-
ership, on voluntary blindness and on false morality. In it, Buero indicated why
and how he used history, letting the public know that there were parallels with
contemporary Spain. Velázquez, as a contemplativo, has a vision of a better
Spain, but, inspired by Pedro, he learns to act also.
In 1656, Velázquez is court painter and aposentador (chamberlain), but not
yet a member of the Order of Santiago. He has completed an illicit Venus, which
26 Lyon ‘History and Opposition Drama’, p. 99. It was a constant concern of the dramatist
himself and he revisted it in La detonación.

27 ‘Ideas sobre la tragedia y actitudes éticas de Antonio Buero Vallejo’, in Cuevas García,
ed., El teatro de Buero Vallejo: texto, pp. 277–91 (p. 285).

is housed in his studio and has begun work on the painting that would be his
masterpiece, Las Meninas. Both his innovative artistic technique and his enlight-
ened world view are misunderstood by others and attacked by those whose artis-
tic and social status are threatened by them. The play examines the strength of
the artist in his isolation, his search for a viewer and, in Part II, the righteous-
ness of his valiant stand for his work and against his attackers. The play ends
in compromise, rather than defeat, for the artist, but his art and its influence
survive.
Notwithstanding the fact that it was deliberately termed a ‘fantasía’ to make
clear that it is not history, Buero was widely criticized for his creation of a rebel
Velázquez, which many saw as a distortion of the reality of the historical
Velázquez, a canonical painter, said to be mindful of his privileges.28 Buero
viewed him instead as a critic of society:
Velázquez, conocedor seguro del Quijote como lo eran todos entonces y lúcido
testigo, igual que Cervantes, de la decadencia del país, lo que acaso le llevó a
concebir la pintura de su Don Juan de Austria, aquel patético cincuentón de
«triste figura» rodeado de caballerescas piezas de arnés tiradas por el suelo,
como la del otro Don Quijote hundido en su fatal empeño de llegar a ser el
adalid cuyo nombre ostenta y que, resuelto a transmutar un rincón del Alcázar
en su particular Cueva de Montesinos, añora desde ella el desvaído ensueño,
la casi subconsciente ideación, de la confusa acción naval esbozada en el fondo
del cuadro. (O.C. II: 1291–2)
Nonetheless, it is difficult to agree completely with Margaret E. W. Jones, who

classifies Buero’s Velázquez as ‘a rebel-hero in his refusal to compromise and
his unequivocal victory’.29 In fact, his victory is far from unequivocal: apart from
his position within the court, which is in itself dubious for a rebel, he agrees
never to display the painting of the Venus.
The decadence of court life portrayed in Las Meninas contrasts sharply with
the poverty of society and the depletion of resources as a result of war. Once
again events are depicted in this play that did not or might not have happened,
but which add to the drama or were necessary for the dramatist’s investigation
28 Gonzalo Fernández de la Mora wrote: ‘Y la reconstrucción que Buero nos brinda de don
Diego, por ejemplo, es absolutamente inadmisible a causa de su radical y palmaria

inautenticidad, tanto que no hay palinodia prologal o epilogal que pueda remediarla’ and went
on to say that if the artist was alive he would be shocked to discover how he had been turned
into ‘un pequeño revolucionario de 1848’, in ‘Demasiada Fantasía’, ABC, 17 December 1960.
Adolfo Prego, writing in Informaciones on the same date, defended Buero’s treatment of
Velázquez and his right to take licence with history. ‘Temas históricos’, AGA/IDD 52.22
Topogr. 83-51 Ca. 71.715 Exp. 296-60. Buero argued, ‘contra los usuales tópicos de su
adhesión a las instituciones vigentes, de sus vanidosos afanes de ennoblecimiento y de su vida
supuestamente acomodaticia, los parcos datos de su biografía revelan a un hombre
independiente, internamente desapegado, crítico, entero’ (O.C. II: 425).
29 Margaret E. W. Jones, ‘The Modern Spanish Theater: The Historical Perspective’,
Revista de estudios hispánicos, 9 (no. 2, 1977), 199–218 (p. 208).

of censorship, freedom of expression and the role of the artist in a society where
liberty is severely curtailed. The liberties taken with the portrait of the court and
characters therein were taken in order to demystify the distorted portrait of the
Golden Age presented by the Franco regime.
Defined as a ‘parábola en tres actos’, indicating that there is a message in the
play for the spectator, El concierto de San Ovidio (1962) is set in Paris in the sum-
mer and autumn of 1771. The protagonist is David, a poor but talented musician,
blinded as a young child and now residing in the Hospicio de los Quince Veintes
with other blind men who are expected to contribute to their keep by begging in
the streets of Paris. They are viewed by those who run the Hospicio as somehow
less than human; little is expected of them and they are shown no respect. Their
handicap renders them not just blind, but invisible. The society in which they live
is undergoing a transformation, as it moves from an old feudal system to a more
modern structure. Traditional society is already in decline while a new breed of
bourgeois capitalist, represented in the play by Valindin, is rising. A similar
dichotomy was evident in Spanish society in the 1960s as the technocrats pre-
pared to take over from the declining old guard of the Franco regime, while still
relying on their patronage. The place for the blind and the weak in the new social
order, however, is shown to be no better than in the old. The old order, represented
by the Prioress in charge of the Hospicio, expected them to beg for their keep; the
new order, represented by the opportunistic businessman Valindin, expects them
to perform in a grotesque parody of a musical group that he forms with the goal
of making his fortune at the Paris Fair. A clash of ideas takes place when David
sees the group as an opportunity for the blind men to prove themselves. He
attempts to teach the others to play well, rather than to play badly for entertain-
ment, and to believe in their own worth as people; he longs for recognition of their
humanity. Valindin will not countenance this challenge to his plan, and threatens
David, manipulating the latter’s feelings of protectiveness towards the youngest
and most vulnerable member of the group, Donato, to get his way. The clash is
heightened by the two men’s competition for the attentions of Valindin’s lover,
Adriana. She is the first to see the humanity of the blind men and to treat them
well; like them, she is exploited by Valindin. In an immersion scene of great ten-
sion, David murders Valindin. His victory over Valindin, and Donato’s betrayal of
him, lead to his own downfall and the return to former ignominy of Adriana and
the other blind men. David’s act of rebellion could thus be interpreted as a fail-
ure. The key to the play, however, is in the final monologue of Valentín Haüy, who
comments on the action of the play, thirty years after the concert took place.
Inspired by his revulsion at witnessing such exploitation, the ‘ultraje a la
humanidad’ at the Paris Fair, he established in post-revolution France a school to
teach blind children. His work offers hope that David’s dream might some day be
realized.
Although basing his play loosely around historical characters and setting it in
a carefully chosen historical period, Buero again broke with recorded history for
the purposes of his message in El concierto de San Ovidio. Thus the Hospicio de
los Quince Veintes is run by a religious order in the play, whereas in reality it
was a secular institution.30 This alteration allowed Buero to comment on the role
of the Church in the face of societal change. The action takes place in the trou-
bled years leading up to the French Revolution when, as Valentín Haüy states,
‘Francia entera no era más que hambre y ferias’ (O.C. I: 1022).
The modern Valindins, opportunistic businessmen, had begun to exploit the
apertura.31 Valindin, like his Francoist counterparts, relied on the patronage and
manipulation of tradition and history in order to legitimate his ideology. As he
would in La detonación later, Buero here warned against superficial reform that
merely serves to replace one elite group with another, with no real benefits for
the pueblo. It must also be acknowledged that another struggle was taking place
at the time in Spain, and from this a Marxist analysis may also arise. The play
was staged during a period of heightened civil unrest. It was a time when stu-
dents and workers challenged the dominant ideology and began to propose a
united opposition. A state of emergency was declared on 4 April 1962. Buero’s
wife, Victoria Rodríguez, was among those arrested while taking part in a peace-
ful protest against the brutal treatment of miners by the forces of the state.32
The play is set in the time of the rise of capitalism, when the bourgeoisie began
to gain power at the expense of the aristocracy and has been taken to represent
a class struggle. Certain allusions were drawn about proletarian struggle against
the bourgeoisie.33 Abellán is one of the critics whose analysis of Buero’s theatre
leads him to conclude that the dramatist is Marxist in outlook:
La preocupación por los seres más desheredados de la fortuna, las clases

humildes y las situaciones donde la injusticia reina, no es una mera preocu-
pación social de testimonio o de denuncia, sino que revela un interés positivo
por el análisis marxista de la lucha de clases. [. . .] Los ciegos del Hospicio de
los Quince Veinte que van a constituir la orquestina son perfecta ejemplifi-
cación de la clase proletaria, donde David – el líder de todos ellos – llega a
exclamar frases de claro sabor revolucionario.34
Others too, such as Doménech and Iglesias Feijoo found references to the class
struggle in this play. Not all of the critics are in agreement, however. Jordan,
30 Derek Gagen, ‘The Germ of Tragedy: The Genesis and Structure of Buero Vallejo’s El
concierto de San Ovidio’, Quinquereme, 8 (no. 1, 1985), 37–52 (p. 44).

31 As Johnston states: ‘Valindin representa claramente la figura del capitalista cuya visión
del mundo es de signo ascendente [. . .] y, por otro lado, en un contexto español más
específico, él es el “aperturista” cuya empresa todavía necesita el visto bueno de los que tienen
el privilegio de la autoridad.’ Antonio Buero Vallejo, El concierto de San Ovidio, ed. by David
Johnston, Colección Austral, no. 82, 9th edn (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1991), p. 17.
32 Gagen, ‘The Germ’, p. 43.
33 Gagen points out that the blind portrayed in the play are working-class blind. He also
notes that the play is described as a ‘parábola en tres actos’, and therefore, clearly has some
sort of message for our times. ‘The Germ’, pp. 46, 39.
34 José Luis Abellán, ‘Buero Vallejo: el teatro como modo de conocimiento’, in Antonio
Buero Vallejo: literatura y filosofía, co-ordinated by Ana María Leyra (Madrid: Editorial
Complutense, 1998), pp. 165–84 (p. 172).
for example, while conceding that it is there within the play, does not place great
emphasis on the theme of class struggle.35 Even acknowledging Gagen’s point
that the blind musicians are working class, it must be admitted that the only one
engaged in the struggle is David. Jordan argues: ‘If Valindin can be seen as rep-
resenting the thrusting, upwardly mobile class antagonist, the blind men as a
group are far from symbolising the poor and oppressed engaged in collective
struggle against him.’36
Yet, it is important to note that the revolution fails and Buero Vallejo was more
sympathetic towards the reform of Haüy than the revolution of David. David’s
struggle, which begins as rebellion against the mistreatment of his fellow blind
musicians, betrays a less worthy underlying motive: jealousy. Overall then, the
play is more closely linked to Camus’s ideas on rebellion than on Marxist class-
conscious revolution. Perhaps there is a suggestion here from the dramatist that
a collective struggle, one that leads to rebellion rather than revolt, might have
succeeded. In essence, the play can be read as a treatise on ideology, stressing
power relationships and the methods used by some characters to dominate
others. These may be direct, repressive methods, or more indirect, ideological
methods, such as the educational system, or the manipulation of the desire for
security and material well-being. Jordan refers to the institutionalization of this
domination, through the establishment of an authority protected by legislation,
which then becomes socially acceptable and naturalized, and consequently,
resistence or opposition to this domination becomes unacceptable. Furthermore,
the play highlights other attacks on the dominant ideology in Francoist Spain,
evidenced in Buero’s representation of the family, the Church, the role of
women, police corruption and protectionism and patronage. There are thus clear
parallels with the ideological struggles in Francoist society.
El sueño de la razón (1969), a play about the aged and deaf Goya’s relation-
ship with the repressive regime of Fernando VII, has obvious resonances for the
time in which it was written. It is set in Madrid in December 1823, in the time
near the end of the artist’s life, and a turbulent period politically. Like Las
Meninas, this play is both historical and painterly, and Buero made much use of
Goya’s work, incorporating images from it into set and action, and incorporat-
ing titles of his etchings and Black Paintings into the often disturbing dialogue.
Buero wrote: ‘Sus Caprichos y Disparates, sus Pinturas Negras, son el reflejo
punzante, en su alma irónica y atormentada, de la monstruosa realidad que cul-
minó en la restauración absolutista de Fernando VII’ (O.C. II: 534). Once again
Buero examined the relationship between an outspoken and unconventional artist
and a repressive regime; here though, the king is less benign and the artist less
conciliatory. Immersion was used to make the audience experience the deafness,
35 In fact he cites Gagen’s observation that David’s cry of ‘¡Unidos hermanos!’ is an echo
of the PCE slogan, ‘¡Uníos hermanos proletarios!’ Barry Jordan, ‘Patriarchy, Sexuality and
Oedipal Conflict in Buero Vallejo’s El concierto de San Ovidio’, Modern Drama, 23 (no. 3,
1985), 431–50 (pp. 448, 431). See also Dixon, ‘ “Pero todo partió de allí” ’, p. 39.
36 Jordan, ‘Patriarchy’, p. 432.
confusion and frustration of Goya. The artist, isolated in the Quinta del Sordo
and by his deafness, is under siege by Fernando VII, who seeks to punish him
for perceived slights and for the artist’s disobedience. The king manipulates
Goya’s friend, the priest Duaso, in order to attack the artist. Goya’s family is also
critical of his lifestyle and his work. Solace for the artist is found in the friend-
ship of the doctor Arrieta and in the company of Leocadia, his housekeeper and
mistress, drawn from the pueblo, who suffers his passionate temper out of affec-
tion for him. Goya’s nightmare vision of a Spain gone mad is depicted in the
Black Paintings that adorn the walls and disturb his visitors. Life imitates art in
a scene that begins with the artist in the pose from El sueño de la razón on stage
and recreates the nightmare, which is then echoed by the arrival of the
Voluntarios Realistas and their attack on the artist and rape of Leocadia. The end
of the play sees Goya choosing exile in France over further victimization in
Spain.
Buero made the point that the two-part play, also described as a ‘fantasía’, ‘es
un drama, no un estudio histórico’ (O.C. II: 451). The Spain portrayed in El
sueño de la razón is ‘un país al borde del sepulcro . . . cuya razón sueña’ (O.C.
I: 1334). The Head of State, Fernando VII, is attacked in the play. Buero exposed
the myth of el Deseado as damaging to the nation when, in the dream sequence,
Gata proclaims ‘¡Viva el rey neto y muera la nación!’ (O.C. I: 1326). The paral-
lels to be drawn between Goya’s Spain and Buero’s Spain were highlighted by
Buero in an article written in 1975:
Tal lección sigue siendo, por desgracia, válida en este tiempo. [. . .] Las sal-
vajadas, por ejemplo, que algunos grupos de ultraderecha de mi país vienen
cometiendo en los últimos años se parecen lamentablemente a las que, en la
época de Goya, cometieron los Voluntarios Realistas. (O.C. II: 467–8)
Just as Buero hoped that his own theatre would do, Goya’s Black Paintings, and
both the artistry and critique of society they contain, survived the baneful period
of the década ominosa.
Buero referred to history even in many of the non-historical dramas. This
is evident in his use of a history teacher as protagonist in Aventura en lo gris,
the first of Buero’s Surelian dramas.37 Silvano, the protagonist, is a man
whose understanding of the past allows him to anticipate the errors of the
future; hence, he seeks to employ history as a lesson about man, his present
37 This is a two-act play with a dream sequence between the two acts. It tells the story of
a group of war refugees, holed up in an abandoned house with no food, awaiting a train that
will take them from Surelia and the approaching enemy troops. The play explores the
behaviour of this diverse group as they discover the truth about their own motivations and
those of others. The group includes a discredited historian, Silvano, who lost his university
position for his challenges to the regime of the dictator, Goldmann, and Goldmann himself,
who, despite the propaganda message relayed about his patriotic defence of the nation, has
disguised himself and, calling himself Alejandro, is attempting to flee unnoticed with his
and his future possibilities. Silvano’s crime, in the eyes of the dictator,
Goldmann, was to use history as a demystifier of the regime to ‘desenmas-
carar la hipocresía del Gobierno, que ya la preparaba, y a denunciar las
verdaderas causas de esta guerra’ (O.C. I: 426). He continues to debunk the
myth of Goldmann, whom he exposes as an abuser and a coward. Silvano con-
tradicts Carlos’s negative allegations about the enemy, insisting on a common
humanity betrayed by political leaders and manipulated by propagandistic
interpretations of history.
Another drama in which history is employed in an unconventional manner is
El tragaluz. In it Buero created an extraordinary perspective for the spectator,
who views his own time and place as history.38 It is a clever combination of
immersion and alienation techniques employed to make the spectators identify
with the future and yet see themselves as they now are. Not only do they witness
their present as history, but they are also shown how history has led them to that
present. This is achieved by the use of reference to events of the Civil War and
its immediate aftermath, demonstrating how these incidents shaped the present.
Thus, the spectator is shown the influence of the past upon the present, and is
also made aware of a possible future, which is very different to his present; he is
invited to speculate on how such a future might be achieved, having been shown
that historical change is possible and that learning from the past is not only con-
ceivable, but desirable. Kronik observes that the play, which ‘addresses the over-
all problem of man in historical context, [. . .] contains both history and the myth
of history; and to the extent that it becomes an agent of change, it is in itself a
force of history’.39
In other non-historical dramas, such as Historia de una escalera, a play
dealing with the lives of a group of neighbours in a run-down building and span-
ning thirty years from pre- to post-Civil War, and particularly in post-Franco
plays such as Música cercana (1989) and Las trampas del azar (1992), Buero,
like the social Realists of the 1950s, examined generational differences as a
means of exploring changing and unchanging attitudes towards recent history,
and in particular, the Civil War. Furthermore, in his adaptations of Hamlet and
Mother Courage and her Children for the Spanish stage, Buero again deliber-
ately chose historical drama to comment on the abuse of power.
mistress, Ana. In the shared dream sequence, people are revealed as they truly are. The
characters awaken to discover that Isabel, the young mother whose child was the result of her
rape by an enemy soldier, has been murdered. Silvano discovers that Goldmann killed her; he
in turn is killed by Carlos, the young soldier who loved her, though he could not accept her
child. When the others leave for the border in a final attempt to escape, Silvano and Ana
remain behind with Isabel’s baby, hoping that the child will be accepted and saved by the
approaching troops. The play ends with the salvation of the child, but there is no justice for
Silvano and Ana, who are facing the soldiers’ guns as the curtain drops.
38 History and future are used in a similar manner in Caimán.
39 ‘Buero Vallejo’s El tragaluz and Man’s Existence in History’, Hispanic Review, 41
(no. 2, 1973), 371–96 (p. 376).

Responsibility, Accountability and History

For Kronik, the question raised in the historical dramas is this: ‘Is man’s
circumstance the fruit of historical determinism or of individual choice?’40 By
showing how man’s repetition of past mistakes is a matter of choice, not destiny,
Buero’s answer was clear; it was an answer that undermined the Nationalist myth
of an inescapable destiny.
When the individual accepts responsibility for, and remains in contact with, the
product he creates and its effects on the users, he has taken one step toward
becoming aware of the function of these materials in the history of his time.
Not a revolutionary step, to be sure, but the first of many necessary steps
toward total social change. Such awareness may lead to the beginnings of his
control over the future.41
In his attacks on apathy and his emphasis on positive, if difficult, change, Buero
linked the idea of responsibility and accountability to that of historical progress.
His plays stress the significance of the human individual, the need to assume
individual responsibility, the possibility, through individual determination and
commitment – though not without collective action – of fulfilling a universal
urge to overcome Man’s limitations, both socio-political and ontological.42
The regime’s ideology, on the other hand, attacked the notion of personal
influence on the flux of history, stressing instead the inevitability of Spain’s
destiny, and thus the need to conform and be led. This official myth, reflected by
the authority figures in the plays, propagates the idea that the rulers have the best
interests of the nation at heart. Thus, it follows that challenges to their personal
power are represented as a threat to the nation. By denying man the freedom to
be master of his own destiny and by convincing him that he neither wants nor
needs the burden of responsibility, the myth-makers engender the mass apathy
necessary for them to perpetuate their self-serving politics.
Buero’s historical and mythical figures are reduced to human level. Not only
are mistakes of the past repeated, but so too are some of the mythological influ-
ences in his work. The Cain and Abel inspired activos and contemplativos in
many of his plays continue to make the same mistakes until they learn from each
other and accept both responsibility and accountability. Characters, themes and
Foundations are repeated in the works of Buero in an attempt to highlight the
repetition of errors of the past.43 As Harvey J. Kaye wrote: ‘History and its
40 Kronik, ‘Buero Vallejo’s El tragaluz’, p. 372.

42 Dixon, ‘The “immersion-effect” ’, p. 163.
43 The reference to foundations is a link to the play, La Fundación, in which ‘la
fundación’, ostensibly a progressive research foundation, is revealed to be a prison. The

reality of the location was distorted by an inmate, Tomás, whose tormented mind could not
progressive political possibilities are not resolved.’44 Buero feared that the
young, usually the embodiment of hope for the future, might, through impa-
tience, repeat the errors of the past rather than learn from them. This is a theme
he developed further in the plays of the post-Franco period. Buero’s dramas
remind the spectator that the present in which he lives is the result of choices
made and actions taken or not taken in the past and, as such, is only one of many
possible presents.
As Halsey argues, one of the aims of Buero’s historical dramas was to
encourage the audience to identify with the victims of certain historical actions
to understand more deeply the plight of the victims of contemporary Spain.45
The essential sameness between torturer and tortured underscores the common
humanity of all characters. Buero stressed that the tortured can escape becom-
ing torturers by making choices based on history and hence avoiding the
repetition of historical errors. Characters, choices and conflicts of the present
are shown to be echoes of similar elements in the past, or the result of a failure
to recognize and avoid historical errors. In plays such as La tejedora de sueños,
El tragaluz, Historia de una escalera and Aventura en lo gris, Buero highlighted
the social consequences of war and the endless repetition of the same mistakes,
and asked why people fail to learn from past errors in order to avoid them in the
future.
Through his spokesperson, Silvano, in Aventura en lo gris, Buero expressed
his frustration and disillusionment at the waste that is war; an outraged Carlos
talks of the brutality of the invaders who raped so many Surelian women, but
Silvano reminds him that: ‘Ellos decían lo mismo, el siglo pasado, cuando les
invadimos nosotros’ (O.C. I: 424). Goya’s doctor, Arrieta, makes a similar point
to Duaso in El sueño de la razón: ‘Hoy nos dicen masones a los vencidos;
mañana se lo dirán a las gentes como usted’ (O.C. I: 1321). This also reminds
the spectator of the tit-for-tat accusations of brutality and justifications by both
sides in the more recent Spanish conflict. In El tragaluz, one of the researchers
from the future defines the tragedy of twentieth-century society: ‘El mundo
estaba lleno de injusticia, guerras y miedo. Los activos olvidaban la contem-
plación; quienes contemplaban no sabían actuar’ (O.C. I: 1178).
In his theatre of the Franco period, Buero damned what would later be termed
the pacto de olvido, a theme he returned to in his post-Franco theatre. This deter-
mination to forget is linked to apathy, a shirking of responsibility, and the likely
repetition of past errors. In El tragaluz, the mother’s selective memory of events
cope with it and instead created the more soothing myth. As long as he remained in
this delusional foundation, there was truly no hope for escape; only by recognizing the
foundation as a prison could he hope to escape it. Thus Buero argued that those in society who
fail to recognize the limitations that surround them will never overcome them, nor even
attempt to; as long as they view their oppressors as their benefactors, they can never escape
their control.
44 Kaye, ‘Why Do Ruling Classes Fear History?’, p. 86.
45 Halsey, ‘El intelectual’, p. 47.
at the train station excuses Vicente’s part in the death of his sister: ‘Bueno: se
nos llevó a Vicentito, porque él logró meterse por una ventanilla y luego ya no
pudo bajar’ (O.C. I: 1139). Later, when Mario and Vicente discuss the train, the
former, in an effort to apportion blame and the latter, to reiterate the myth, the
mother insists: ‘Hay que olvidar aquello’ (O.C. I: 1174). Mario recognizes that
his mother revises history to protect herself from a terrible truth, just as he has
protected himself from a society dominated by people like his brother.
Commenting on the character of Mario, Kronik notes:
The downtrodden cannot convincingly explain away their situation by blaming

either historical circumstance or the established order. Every man has powers
of discretion, a conscience, and the ability to exercise his will. If he is a puppet
in the hands of history, history alone is not the culprit.46
Buero suggested that the family’s stagnation in the basement flat and their lack
of progress was linked in some way to this wilful amnesia and determined lack
of accountability.
Similarly, in Llegada de los dioses, Felipe rewrites his personal history,
eliminating all mention of war and torture in which he played an active role and
reconstructing himself as a respectable businessman. After Julio has tried to
destroy the myth for Nuria, Felipe seeks to restore it: ‘Olvida sus palabras, nena.
¡Te juro que son falsas! [. . .] Nada malo te sucederá; ni tus padres ni yo lo
permitiríamos’ (O.C. I: 1365). Other characters, in plays such as Hoy es fiesta,
Irene, o el tesoro, El terror inmóvil, Las cartas boca abajo and La Fundación,
determine to forget certain pivotal past events and as a result of their denial suf-
fer guilt and frustration in the present. Buero insisted on the need to remember
and learn.
Demystifying Francoist Ideology

Luis Martín Santos described the function of literature in society thus: ‘Una
primera función relativamente pasiva: la descripción de la realidad social. Otra
función especialmente activa: la creación de una Mitología para uso de la
sociedad.’47 In both cases, he argued, the result could be social change. Castellet
also quotes Juan Goytisolo: ‘España y la cultura española están mistificados de
tal manera que ya no son materia viva para el escritor.’ Hence, for Goytisolo, the
function of art is to destroy myth. It can be argued that in doing so, he created
another, equally motivated, myth. This literature is usually more concerned with
questioning and destroying certain myths than with providing answers. Contrary
46 ‘Buero Vallejo’s El tragaluz’, p. 384.

47 Quoted in ‘Apéndice: tiempo de destrucción para la literatura española’, in Literatura,
ideología y política, ed. by José María Castellet (Barcelona: Anagrama, 1976), pp. 133–56
(pp. 145, 150).
to the novelists of early social realism of the 1950s, however, Buero did not look
back to a paradise lost, although he held out hope for a possible future Utopia.48
Unlike many novels and plays of disillusion and disenchantment, Buero’s plays,
while certainly highlighting the gap between the official myth and the social real-
ity, also hinted at a different future, which for the protagonists might be only a
dream or illusion.
Not having been educated by the regime and indoctrinated into the Francoist
ideology and mythology, Buero generally did not take as a starting point the
accepted mythology of the regime. Yet, the ideology of return to origins, exem-
plified in the myth of Ulysses cited by Labanyi in Myth and History, is one sub-
verted by Buero Vallejo in La tejedora de sueños.49 The hero’s return and the
consequent slaying of the rivals are parodied in Buero’s play and the myth of
the hero-saviour is exposed as false. Thus, Buero demonstrated the creation of
the myth of Ulysses, and invited the spectator to reject it as Penélope does, and
from there, to reject other myths as false. In his version, the myth of Ulysses,
like the myth of Spanish nationalism, is revealed as an ideologically motivated
version of history.50
Ragué Arias described the employment of Greek mythology in the right-wing
theatre of the 1940s and 1950s, ‘para grandes espectáculos que estaban al servi-
cio de la ideología oficial.’51 Buero was acting in a very deliberate manner when
he chose to subvert the story of Odysseus’ return to Ithaca in La tejedora de
48 Labanyi cites the use of the book–antithesis –synthesis model of Paradise Lost–The
Fall–Utopia in literature of the Franco period. For the Francoists the Second Republic
represented the Fall, while for the Republicans and opponents of Franco, it was Paradise
Lost.
49 The importance of the Odyssey myth in the culture of Francoism is evidenced by
the many versions that appear in the literature of the period and after. These include works
by Gonzalo Torrente Ballester (El retorno de Ulises), Antonio Gala (¿Por qué corres
Ulises?), Carmen Resino (Ulises no vuelve) and Salvador S. Monzó (Ulises o el retorno
equivocado). José C. Paulino wrote of these plays and others: ‘Ideológicamente sirve tan
bien para realizar una crítica a la ideología del régimen franquista y su simbología, como
para rechazar los valores de violencia militar y represión de la sociedad de posguerra o para
proponer una imagen desencantada de los héroes de esa misma sociedad en su ocaso más
ridículo y vulgar que emotivo.’ ‘Ulises en el teatro español contemporáneo. Una revisión
panorámica’, Anales de la literatura española contemporánea, 19 (no. 3, 1994), 327– 42
(pp. 338–9).
50 This analysis thus disagrees with Härtinger, who contends that La tejedora de sueños is
not a political drama. He based this assertion on a conversation with Buero in which the
dramatist commented that concrete parallels between his Ulysses and Franco were not his
conscious plan. However, Härtinger did not seem to consider Buero’s other comments: ‘Esa
politización de la obra [. . .] no la rechazo; entiendo que es una de las cosas que puede suscitar
la obra. Y como yo llevaba dentro a un antifranquista inevitable, pues también – consciente o
inconscientemente – todo eso puede haber estado operando en mí; no lo niego.’ Härtinger,
Oppositionstheater, pp. 64, 65. Buero wrote elsewhere about the demystifying role of La
tejedora de sueños (O.C. II: 434).
51 María José Ragué Arias, Lo que fue Troya: los mitos griegos en el Teatro español actual,
Colección Damos la palabra (Madrid: Asociación de Autores de Teatro, 1992), p. 19.

sueños (1950) to tell a vastly different version of events than the officially
sanctioned one.52 There are some noteworthy deviations from the original, how-
ever, apart from the obvious reinterpretation of the relationship between
Penélope and Ulises.53 Penélope herself is brought out from the shadows of her
husband’s legacy and shown to have been a victim, not only of a society run by
and for warmongering men, but also of history, as the recorded version of events
was the official myth and not the truth. Buero reclaimed her as a mythical, but
human, character in her own right, not merely a prop in the myth of Ulises. Here
he created a new myth of Penélope in the place of the demystified one. Nor was
Buero the first to criticize the returning hero: in Book XXIV of the original it
becomes clear that Odysseus too had his critics. The view of Odysseus held by
Eupeithes, father of Antinous, the first of the suitors to be killed, was echoed in
Buero’s portrait of the returning hero:
What a mass of evil things this man’s devices have brought upon us Achaeans!
Many of us, all men of courage, he took away with him in his ships; he lost the
ships and he lost the men; and now that he has come back again he has killed
the noblest of all the Cephallenians.54
In Nationalist mythology, Penélope represents the Motherland, and thus the

myth is employed to encourage the unswerving loyalty of the pueblo to the
courageous warrior-leader. This leader is involved in heroic and worthy actions,
and thus his eventual homecoming is a return to glory and triumph. The Odyssey
myth provides a mythical justification for a righteous war, for sacrifice and
patience on the part of the people, for the purging of the enemy usurper at home,
and it promises the glorious return to the Motherland of the valiant protector.
Buero subverted this. In Homer’s Odyssey the suitors are deserving of their fate;
in La tejedora de sueños this is shown to be untrue in the case of Anfino. In the
Odyssey, the Fall is justified – Ithaca falls after Odysseus leaves and is redeemed
by ritual slaughter after his glorious return; in Buero’s version, the fall of
Ítaca is the result of Ulises’ return, his ritual slaughter of his enemies is por-
trayed as barbaric, and the redemption it offers is shown to be a falsification.
52 Hazel Cazorla classifies the play as remystification, rather than demystification. ‘El
retorno de Ulises: dos enfoques contemporáneos del mito en el teatro de Buero Vallejo y Antonio
Gala’, Hispanófila, 29 (no. 87, 1986), 43–51 (p. 45). Buero claimed that it is both (O.C. II: 434).
53 Unlike in the original, Buero’s Euriclea is blind and almost deaf and, like other
physically impaired characters in the works of Buero, she perceives what others do not. The
character Dione, on the other hand, is the dramatist’s invention and provides insight into the
character of Penélope. Odysseus is described in the original by gods and mortals as ‘subtle
witted’, ‘shrewd’ and ‘staunch’; Penelope says of him, ‘he was never a tyrant to any man’. In
Buero’s version he is exposed as a cowardly oppressor. Odysseus is also more generous in the
original. He tells Eurycleia: ‘Utter no cry of exultation. Vaunting over men slain is a
monstrous thing.’ Homer, The Odyssey, trans. by Walter Shewring, The World’s Classics
Series (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), pp. 51, 274.
54 Homer, The Odyssey, p. 295.
Buero re-examined the myth from Penélope’s perspective and portrayed a

woman suffering and abandoned, yet proud. Her erstwhile protector thwarts the
salvation that she dreams of. The myth of a Penélope who loves her husband and
eagerly awaits his return is revealed as false, both through the speculations of
Euriclea and Dione, and through Pénelope’s own actions and words.
Linking the ideas of myth and history in La tejedora de sueños, Manuel Alvar
comments: ‘Ulises es el fantasma del pasado inoperante de cara al porvenir.’55
By subverting the Odysseus myth, Buero not only overturned the Nationalist
myth of the returning hero but also demonstrated how his return in fact led to
misery and anguish. Ulises’ declarations on war in the play have their parallels
in the Francoist ideology, which glorified the Civil War as a necessary purging
before regeneration and return to glory. As Ragué Arias observes:
En Ulises, Buero desenmascara la verdadera realidad del héroe militar. Ulises

no es el hombre ennoblecido por la guerra sino el hombre destruido por la
guerra y por ello vaciado de humanidad, el hombre que ya solo sabe seguir
destruyendo y salvar las apariencias, salvar su prestigio inventando una men-
tira, un falso mito para ejemplificación de la posteridad.56
The effects of war on society are seen in the destruction of Ítaca and Penélope’s
plight. In his portrait of Telémaco, Buero criticized the effects of war on succes-
sive generations, a theme he was to take up again in Llegada de los dioses. The
society depicted at the end of the play, like Francoist society, is one in which ‘the
appearance of truth is more important than truth itself’.57 Ricard Salvat I Ferré
notes:
Esta obra fue la que más mella hizo, a nuestro entender, en el alto aparato
oficial del franquismo. Estrenada, como las anteriores, en un teatro nacional,
tenía todo el valor de un desafío y de un valeroso reto. Quien quiso entender
la reflexión sobre la reciente guerra civil y sus terribles consecuencias, pudo
entenderlo. El atreverse a «leer» la fiel Penélope como una arriesgada y
valiente Clitemnestra, cambiaba todos los esquemas de la aparentemente
tranquila y satisfecha conciencia cultural del franquismo.58
Franco Durán observes: ‘Su marido ha regresado para vengarse, pero no arriesga
su vida, mata a unos enemigos indefensos.’59 There is no attempt at reconciliation
55 Manuel Alvar, ‘Presencia del mito: La tejedora de sueños’, in Estudios sobre Buero
Vallejo, pp. 279–313 (p. 293).

56 Ragué Arias, Lo que fue Troya, pp. 30–1.
57 Rogers, ‘Role Constraints’, p. 311.
58 Ricard Salvat I Ferré, ‘El más fascinador de los juegos: el teatro de Buero Vallejo y su
incidencia social’, in Antonio Buero Vallejo. Premio ‘Miguel de Cervantes’ 1986, pp. 75–99
(p. 84).
59 ‘Interpretación del mito clásico en La tejedora de sueños’, in El teatro de Buero Vallejo:
texto, pp. 313–21 (p. 318).

and the ideology of the returned leader is imposed. For Fernando de Diego, ‘La
muerte del pretendiente representa también la derrota de una ideología, de una
visión del mundo.’60 Penélope’s words in praise of Anfino and against Ulises are
clearly criticisms of their respective ideologies and the contemporary Spanish
versions of the same.
Lamartina-Lens reads Penélope and Helen in Buero’s play as representations
of good and evil. The former is abandoned in her prime for the sake of the glory
of her husband:
Penelope’s rivalry with Helen for men’s attention and her wish to be fought
over by men is one of Buero’s greatest flaws in the development of Penelope’s
character in the play. This cattiness is truly unbecoming to such a tragic figure
while it reinforces a patriarchal negative image of woman.61
In contrast, if Penélope is viewed as a symbol of Spain, as Cazorla suggests, the

meaning changes somewhat.62 It can be argued that, if read thus, Penélope’s
conduct no longer seems ‘catty’, but rather indicates her comprehensive and jus-
tifiable concerns about the destructive nature of war. Moreover, even on a
non-symbolic level, this behaviour is surely just further evidence of Buero’s
demystification of the mythical figure of Penélope: he made her human.
In the original, Telemachus beseeches Odysseus to spare the bard and the
page, who served the suitors under duress; Buero’s Telémaco is not so forgiving.
He is portrayed as a weak character who has suffered his father’s absence,
perhaps even more than Penélope. The lack of guidance shown to him has reper-
cussions later. Having been abandoned once before and shunned by the suitors,
Telémaco is eager to believe his father’s myth, which gives him a role and a
promise of future power. A parallel can be drawn between his character and those
groups who, feeling themselves badly treated under the liberals in the Second
Republic, were willing to accept the myth of nationalism as a justification of
their revolt against an elected power.
The play also demonstrates the creation of the myth that is familiar to the
audience. Despite what has occurred, and for the sake of his own prestige, Ulises
insists on creating the illusion of his joyous return to Penélope’s welcoming
arms. This fantasy of happiness is finally the only thing that binds them together,
and it will be resented by Penélope and enforced by Ulises: ‘Nuestro nombre
debe quedar limpio y resplandeciente para el futuro. Nadie sabrá nada de esto’
(O.C. I: 182). History is rewritten and the myth that replaced it is immortalized
in the final song of the slave chorus, which commemorates a faithful Penélope
and an heroic Ulises. Like the Marquis of Las Meninas, and like Franco himself,
60 ‘Espacio dramático e ideología en La tejedora de sueños de Antonio Buero Vallejo’, in
El teatro de Buero Vallejo: texto, pp. 351–9 (p. 357).

61 Iride Lamartina-Lens, ‘Myth of Penelope and Ulysses in La tejedora de sueños, ¿Por
qué corres Ulises?, and Ulises no vuelve’, Estreno, 12 (no. 2, 1986), 31–4 (p. 32).
62 Cazorla, ‘El retorno’, p. 44.
Ulises determines that what displeases him does not exist and will not be
recorded.
Buero used biblical mythology to subvert the Nationalist–Catholic mythology
of his day; not only did he show that the clergy are more interested in power and
avarice than the positive values commonly associated with religious figures, but
he highlighted the corruption of their methodology and reasoning. They are seen
to interpret the scriptures to suit their own ends. Their lack of compassion is
exposed and reminds the spectator of a similar lack of concern for the victims
shown by the Roman Catholic Church in the aftermath of the Civil War. Biblical
mythology is dealt with most obviously in Las palabras en la arena (1948). Arie
Vicente, in an article about the esperpéntico and the tragic in Las palabras en la
arena, notes the parallels between the society portrayed in the play and the
dramatist’s society:
La corrupción es la regla del sistema pero necesita un mínimo de autoconfianza

para mantenerse. La confesión del sacerdote pone en tela de juicio la validez
de una sociedad sostenida por la institución religiosa. En la España franquista,
siendo la Iglesia la columna vertebral del régimen y la que proporcionó a la
campaña bélica el estatuto de ‘cruzada’ al faltarle al sacerdote la creencia, se
derrumba el mito nacional católico.63
Podol too, argues that Buero’s Las palabras en la arena questions ‘the
compatibility of the demand for vengeance, an integral component of the rigid
honour code, with the Christian virtue of forgiveness, epitomized by Christ and
his teachings’.64 Asaf’s tirade against forgiveness parodies the dominant ideo-
logy of Francoism: ‘Pero perdonando no puede haber familia, ni mujer segura,
ni hijos obedientes, ni Estado, ¡ni nada!’ (O.C. I: 64).
The dramatist also made use of other myths in his attempt to contest the
myths propagated by the regime. Ricardo Doménech has written about the
‘trasfondo mítico’ in the works of Buero Vallejo, incorporating the myths of
Oedipus, Don Quijote and Cain and Abel.65 Influences of Greek mythology can
be seen in Llegada de los dioses, Historia de una escalera, Aventura en lo gris,
Diálogo secreto, Música cercana, Las trampas del azar and El concierto de
San Ovidio. Father figures are punished for their determination to hide and
obscure past transgressions. Their castigators are the next generation, who
have suffered for their sins. This demystification of a paternalistic figure has
repercussions beyond the father figures of the plays, however. As Jean Cross
Newman highlights, many of the plays contain unethical father figures, whose
63 Arie Vicente, ‘Convergencia y divergencia de lo esperpéntico y lo trágico en Las
palabras en la arena, de Antonio Buero Vallejo’, Estreno, 13 (no. 2, 1987), 28–31 (p. 29).
64 Peter L. Podol, ‘The Theme of Honor in Two Plays of Buero Vallejo: Las palabras en
la arena and La tejedora de sueños’, Hispanófila, 23 (no. 68, 1980), 39–46 (p. 41).
65 Ricardo Doménech, El teatro de Buero Vallejo: una meditación española, 2nd edn
(Madrid: Gredos, 1993), p. 351.

choices have a negative effect on their offspring.66 Characters who in theory

should serve as moral guides fail to do so. A further element of the Oedipus
myth common in the plays of Buero Vallejo is, of course, the Teiresias figure
of a blind visionary.
Unlike in traditional mythology, however, the characters in Buero’s plays are
not punished by the gods; nor do the gods solve their problems. Buero criticized
those men who would be gods and seek to determine the fate of others; he also
found fault with those who seek gods to lead them and who refuse to take
responsibility for their own action or inaction. According to Sollish Sikka,
Buero ‘completely reinterprets the matter of guilt and pardon, handled swiftly
and effectively in Genesis by divine intervention, to stress ultimate personal
responsibility’.67 There is no Deux ex machina in the plays of Buero, only man’s
free will. Buero’s protagonists and, by extension he suggested, the spectators,
would not be judged by an all-powerful, all-seeing God, but rather by History.
Buero drew attention to the mythical figure of Saturn in El sueño de la razón to
draw a parallel between the actions of the destructive God and those of a
destructive leader. Saturn, like Cronos who is recalled in Caimán, devoured his
offspring.68 It is clear then, that Buero employed myth and history to demystify
the regime’s own mythology, and occasionally to create another possible myth
to replace it, or at least to suggest that other interpretations existed.
The Quixotic myth also features in Buero’s plays, most obviously in Mito,
which highlights the importance of myth: ‘Desmitificar es saludable y nece-
sario, pero no es, creo, la fórmula definitiva de un arte finalmente desenajenado.
Desmitificar es relativamente fácil; la dificultad – y el hallazgo – del arte
consiste en volver a mitificar, de modo más real, con los escombros de las
desmitificaciones’ (O.C. II: 445). Characters such as Ignacio (En la ardiente
oscuridad), Eloy (Mito), Silverio (Hoy es fiesta), el Padre (El tragaluz), Asel
(La Fundación) and Gaspar (Diálogo Secreto) are clearly influenced by the fic-
tional caballero, who was regarded by the dramatist as a very positive figure.
In Un soñador para un pueblo, Esquilache’s wife tells him: ‘le temo a tu qui-
jotismo’ (O.C. I: 778). Moreover, as Doménech observes, in La Fundación
Tomás has helped the activos Asel and Tulio to recognize the need for a dream
or a vision: ‘como si Tomás hubiera contagiado a los dos con sus locas fantasías,
igual que Don Quijote acaba contagiando con las suyas a algunos de los
personajes que le rodean’.69 Further examples of the Quixotic myth can be
seen in the presence of Dulcinea figures in El concierto de San Ovidio and
66 Jean Cross Newman, ‘El fracaso de la figura paterna en el teatro de Antonio Buero
Vallejo’, in El teatro de Buero Vallejo: texto, pp. 187–99.

67 Linda Sollish Sikka, ‘Cain, Mario and Me: Interrelatedness in El tragaluz’, Estreno,
16 (no. 2, 1990), 29–32 (p. 29).

68 Enrique Pajón Mecloy, ‘La dialéctica de los límites en el teatro de Antonio Buero
Vallejo’, Anthropos, Monograph no. 10, 28–31 (p. 30).

69 Ricardo Doménech, ‘Tríptico: En la ardiente oscuridad, El concierto de San Ovidio y
La Fundación’, in El teatro de Buero Vallejo: texto, pp. 17–39 (p. 35).

La Fundación.70 The successful employment of this myth relies on the public’s

familiarity with it, and its acceptance of an essential truth in the notion of a certain
lucidity and integrity in the words and actions of one mocked by respectable
society.
Buero also utilized biblical mythology to explore the mechanisms of
myth-making and to demystify modern myths based on the familiar classical
mythology. Like the Nationalist mythmakers, Buero traded on the public’s per-
ception of the truth contained in these myths in order to re-examine them and to
expose how they could be manipulated to serve a particular interest. Obviously,
his demystification of biblical myths challenged the Roman Catholic ideology in
Francoist Spain. Sollish Sikka writes: ‘Since temporal and spatial distinctions are
eradicated, we also receive biblical confirmation that objectification is morally
unacceptable and that we are, indeed, our brothers’ keepers.’71 Indeed, the idea
that man is his brother’s keeper is a constant one in Buero’s work. The Christian
idea of love and respect for one’s neighbour or brother coincided with the drama-
tist’s views on personal responsibility and duty to oneself and to society and, in
the wider sense, to man. Throughout Buero’s body of work, those who are self-
serving to the detriment of others are condemned, while those who make personal
sacrifices and struggle against the odds for positive social change are praised.
Their good work is shown to live on after their demise, and they serve as an
inspiration to others, even in defeat. Sollish Sikka points out that in the biblical
story, ‘had Cain seen his brother as part of himself, homicide would have been far
less likely, probably impossible’.72 In El tragaluz, and in many other plays, Buero
used Cain and Abel figures, activos and contemplativos, neither of whom is whole
until he adopts some of the characteristics of the other, at which point he becomes
an activo-contemplativo. This intellectual man of action recognizes the good and
evil within himself and others; through acknowledgement of his own limitations
as well as his strengths, he makes conscious and responsible choices and calls
upon others to do the same. He is the figure who recognizes his brother in him-
self and is therefore incapable of fratricide. This recognition may come too late
for his own salvation, although it might still inspire others.73
70 John P. Gabriele and Laura L. Kenreich, ‘De Dulcinea del Toboso a Melania de
Salignac: El arquetipo cervantino en El Concierto de San Ovidio’, Neophilologus, 80 (no. 3,

1996), 417–24. Dixon, ‘ “Pero todo partió de allí ” ’, p. 45.
71 Sollish Sikka, ‘Cain’, p. 29.
72 Sollish Sikka, ‘Cain’, p. 29.
73 Unlike most other commentators, Sollish Sikka relates the myth of Cain and Abel in El
tragaluz, not to the two brothers, but rather to Vicente and his young sister, Elvira, whom she
describes as the Abel of the play, as she was the victim of Vicente’s actions. She then classes
Mario, who is usually seen as the Abel figure, as the Old Testament God, who sits in
judgement upon his brother. This leaves the father, usually viewed as the God-like figure, as
another Cain figure whose killing of Vicente and whose mental instability are judged to be a
result of his own failure to forgive Vicente and to recognize elements of himself in his son.
While there might be some degree of plausibility in this interpretation, it seems to miss the
connection in Buero’s work between the Cain and Abel figures and the activos and
Buero’s use of myth extended to an examination of the motivated use of lan-

guage in order to distort reality and to create myth. Writing on language and
ideology, José Hierro Pescador asserted that:
el lenguaje es monopolizado por la clase dominante y utilizado como vehículo

ideológico dificultando, por medio del proceso educativo, las posibilidades de
que la clase dominada exprese clara y espontáneamente por medio de la lengua
sus intereses propios, su concepción de la realidad y su conciencia de clase.74
He generalized, arguing that ‘es ideología cualquier utilización del lenguaje que
exprese una visión deformada del mundo y de las cosas cuando esa deformación
está, implícita o explícitamente, al servicio de los intereses de la clase domin-
ante’, and went on to reason, citing Voloshinov, that ideology is about signs and
‘siendo la palabra el signo por excelencia, huelga concluir que es igualmente el
fenómeno ideológico por excelencia’.75
Thus it follows that, in order to challenge the ideology of the dominant group
in society, one must question the language employed by it to normalize and legit-
imize a particular perspective. In plays such as En la ardiente oscuridad, Las
Meninas, La detonación and Llegada de los dioses, characters expose this mythi-
fication by revealing the reality hidden or falsified by motivated language.
Indeed, Ignacio’s aim in En la ardiente oscuridad, like that of writers Juan
Goytisolo and Luis Martín-Santos, is destructive. He announces: ‘Yo os voy a
traer guerra y no paz’ (O.C. I: 90).76 Yet, unlike some of his Spanish and
European peers, Buero did not engage to any great extent in drawing attention to
artifice as a means of blurring or exposing the gap between reality and myth; he
did not expose the falsifications and distortions of his own language as a means
of drawing attention to language as falsifier. Nonetheless, it is clear that, on occa-
sion, he undermined the power of a character’s motivated words by showing how
they were betrayed by reality.
En la ardiente oscuridad tells the story of Ignacio, a reluctant new student at the
misleadingly titled Centro de enseñanza, a school for the blind.77 Certain forms of
contemplativos. There is no reason to suggest that Elvira might not also be an innocent Abel
figure. However, Mario too retains elements of this mythological character, particularly when
he recognizes himself in his brother and questions his right to judge him, an act not very
typical of an Old Testament God. However, in keeping with Sollish Sikka’s own argument, it
is precisely Vicente’s inability to see elements of his brother, that is contemplativo elements,
within himself, that leads to his downfall; he has no faith in his own ability to change for the
better, although Mario, belatedly, recognizes this possibility.
74 José Hierro Pescador, ‘Ideología, lenguaje y clases sociales’, Sistema, no. 23 (1978),
3–18 (p. 6).

75 Hierro Pescador, ‘Ideología’, pp. 8, 9.
76 ‘Prácticamente, en nuestra realidad espiritual española, está todo por destruir.’ Luis
Martín-Santos, quoted in ‘Apéndice: tiempo de destrucción’, p. 135. Ricard Salvat discusses

Buero’s ideological use of language in ‘El lenguaje escénico’, pp. 19– 42.
77 When he arrives, Ignacio discovers that the directors and students of the Centro have
embraced the myth that blindness is normal and indeed they live very normal lives within the
language are imposed and particular words are taboo in the carefully constructed
and restrictive society of the Centro de enseñanza. Despite the obvious falsity of
their position, the directors and pupils of the centre, rather than admit that the
students are visually handicapped, prefer to consider people with sight as visually
gifted. The word ‘ciego’, commonly considered to be purely descriptive rather than
derogatory, is rejected; the approved term in the Centro de enseñanza is ‘invidente’
and the corresponding term for normal or sighted people is ‘vidente’. Both Ignacio
and his father comment on the lack of logic in this employment of language, for
outside the centre, a ‘vidente’ is a person with second sight. Even the name of the
centre gives no indication of its purpose and promulgates a false sense of normal-
ity within.78 The myth of normality, created by the motivated use of language, is
further emphasized by the students’ appearance and their reaction to Ignacio, who
insists on using a cane. Carlos justifies their peculiar employment of language,
telling Ignacio: ‘Mis palabras pueden servir para que nuestros compañeros
consigan una vida relativamente feliz. Las tuyas no lograrán más que destruir’
(O.C. I: 103).79 It is easy to see why the Centro de enseñanza was so readily
identified as a symbol of the country at large with its taboos and wilful blindness
to the truth and general unwillingness to challenge the obvious lie.80
In Las Meninas, a play based on the life and work of Velázquez, the character
Pedro, like Velázquez, sees the shallowness of the myth propped up by language
confines of the Centro. Ignacio refuses to accept this false proposition, insisting that the
students must face the reality of their situation and the limitation that is their blindness. His
frustration at his non-vision and his desire for an understanding of something he has never
known, show the tragedy of human existence; his acceptance of limitations coupled with his
desire to overcome them represent human hope. A battle of wills ensues between Ignacio and
Carlos, the leader of the students and the spokeperson for the directors. This is further
complicated by the fact that Ignacio not only wins over many of the students, but also Carlos’s
girlfriend, Juana. It looks like Ignacio’s realistic, yet hopeful, view will win out, but a jealous
Carlos kills him and the ‘normality’ of the Centro is restored; the other students embrace the
myth once again, dismissing Ignacio’s ideas, which they had earlier accepted. Carlos,
however, having eliminated Ignacio, is now consumed by the latter’s vision. He too rejects the
myth of the Centro and longs for a sight that remains a mystery to him; he will take up the
mantle of Ignacio and challenge the falsity of their existence, insisting on the need to accept
their limitations, while yearning to overcome them and to understand the mystery that is sight.
78 A similar case is La Fundación. In addition, the Sección Política of the police in La
doble historia del doctor Valmy is a misleading description of the torturers who form its ranks.
79 Unlike Unamuno’s San Manuel Bueno, however, Carlos, initially at least, seems to
believe the myth he propagates.

80 Buero wrote of the echoes of ordinary Spanish society in the community of the blind
and implied that the blind community of the Centro de enseñanza represents Spanish society
as a whole: ‘En décadas anteriores, la inclusión en el Libro Hablado de ciertas obras era
censurada en España por la propia Organización de Ciegos, así como se prohibían otras para
la totalidad del país – para otros «ciegos» a quienes se pretendía mantener con los ojos
cerrados–. La Organización era, fatalmente, un microcosmos que reproducía las
peculiaridades y carencias del macrocosmos social en que se hallaba inserta’ (O.C. II: 454–5).
Of course, the philosophical concerns evident in the play, while not considered in depth in this
book, should not be overlooked.
devoid of meaning. When looking at the painting of Las Meninas he associates

the tired old dog with the lion representing Spain, which ‘ya no es más que un
perro.’ On hearing that the dog’s name is León, he comments: ‘No es curioso: es
fatal. Nos conformamos ya con los nombres’ (O.C. I: 892). During his trial
Velázquez is asked to accept the official myth as the other courtiers do, but
Velázquez refuses to employ the language demanded of him: ‘Unas palabras de
fidelidad nada cuestan . . . ¿Quién sabe nada de nuestros pensamientos? Si las
pronuncio podré pintar lo que debo pintar y vuestra majestad escuchará la men-
tira que desea oír para seguir tranquilo’ (O.C. I: 931).
Llegada de los dioses, a play about art, truth, blindness, victims and victim-
makers and environmental issues, sees Julio, an unsuccessful artist, return with
his activist girlfriend, Verónica, to the idyllic island home of his father, Felipe, a
successful businessman and now an artist, in order to confront him about his
past.81 The play presents the creation of an agreeable myth and rejection of real-
ity, highlighted by the characters’ use of language. Not only do they gloss over
and dismiss any unpleasantness, but also, as Iglesias Feijoo argues, the charac-
ters’ everyday language shows up the falsity and hypocrisy of their lives.82 While
Felipe and his friends use language to disguise the truth, Julio uses language to
attack them and their myth; his bluntness is intended as an insult and an affront
to their apparent sensibility. Artemio reproaches him for his language, but Julio
retorts: ‘Lo siento. Ni sé ni quiero usar el vuestro’ (O.C. I: 1394). Unlike his
father, he is unwilling to measure his words.
In the painterly dramas, the visual language of the artists Velázquez and Goya
clashes with the accepted notions of art. The former, with his impressionistic
style, forbidden themes and somewhat unusual perspective, and the latter with
his expressionistic nightmare vision of Spain, challenge the distortions
demanded of a courtly painter of their times.83 Goya’s Black Paintings success-
fully use mythology to assail the official myth of the regime. Buero, in El sueño
de la razón, demonstrated how the reality of life under Fernando VII resembled
81 Julio, who is suffering from a temporary, psychosomatic blindness, believes that he is
paying for the past sins of his father, a wartime torturer who made his home in Spain after the
end of WWII and who lives contentedly there, in complete denial of his past life. Julio is
hoping to find a cure for his blindness by forcing his father to confront his past; others are less
sure that his father is to blame for his blindness. In confused hallucinations, Julio sees the
masks that Felipe and his friends employ to hide reality and he judges them; he also envisages
his father’s victim. Julio wants to punish his father, but, it is suggested, perhaps more for his
success than for his past. When Julio’s half-sister, Nuria, the fruit of Felipe’s unacknowledged
relationship with Matilde, dies following the explosion of a wartime bomb, it seems that
Felipe is paying for his past. Nonetheless, when Felipe himself dies from a heart attack, Julio
relapses into blindness and realizes that he tortured his father.
82 Antonio Buero Vallejo, La tejedora de sueños; Llegada de los dioses, ed. by Luis
Iglesias Feijoo, no. 45, 9th edn (Madrid: Cátedra, 1990), p. 65.
83 The Inquisition prohibited the painting and exhibition of lascivious or lewd images, a
classification that included all nudes. Artists who defied their rules on obscenity in art were
subject to fines, banishment and excommunication.
the monstrous mythical vision of Goya. In the play, life imitates art when the
artist’s nightmare is realized by the king’s forces. For Buero, art was a form of
mythification that has as its aim the revelation of truth, and it is contrasted with
mythification whose objective is distortion and deception. Indeed, Fernando
VII’s manipulation of language, similar to that of the Francoists, is exposed as a
tool of falsification, used to damn and ostracize the opposition; it also serves as
a threat, intended to instil fear into those branded Freemasons, liberals and
afrancesados. The king, who believes that he is ignored by Goya, claims: ‘A mí
me ha retratado poco y a mis esposas, nada,’ failing to realize that he and those
who surround him are, in fact, the protagonists of the monstrous Black Paintings
(O.C. I: 1268).
In other plays too, Buero demonstrated how myths are created to disguise or
falsify reality. Casi un cuento de hadas, based on Perrault’s Riquet à la houppe
(Ricky of the Tuft), is a case in point. After Riquet has killed Armando and finally
is promised to Leticia, the king demands that the unsavoury incident be sup-
pressed, lest it should affect the image of the country: ‘¡Damas y gentilhombres!
Silencio absoluto sobre todo lo ocurrido’ (O.C. I: 301). Propaganda is used to
great effect in Un soñador para un pueblo to convince the people that their
lifestyle and dress code are sacred and to further convince them that the reforms
ushered in by Esquilache represent a threat to their dignity. The work of the
jingoistic and conservative nobles is made easier by the fact that the man they
wish to present as the enemy of the people is a foreigner. As such, they maintain
that he cannot have their best interests at heart; they, on the other hand, wish to
protect the common good and the traditions of their nation against a foreign
threat. Similarly, Paulus and Daniel of La doble historia del doctor Valmy claim
to be protecting the populace from an ill-defined threat posed by agitadores such
as Aníbal Marty. They too, argue that their work is not only justified, but neces-
sary. By creating and maintaining a threat that the ordinary people believe, they
can justify any action taken against them.
Buero blatently challenged the myth put forward by the Francoists and repeated
by Tomás in La Fundación: ‘Es hermoso vivir aquí. Siempre habíamos soñado
con un mundo como el que al fin tenemos’ (O.C. I: 1431). This myth of content-
ment and plenty is alluded to in plays such as Mito, Las Meninas and En la ardi-
ente oscuridad. Problems that clearly controvert the fable propagated by the
regime, that theirs is the best of all possible worlds, are denied; those who high-
light the gap between the myth and the reality are discredited or punished. In Mito,
Buero’s ‘versión del mito quijotesco que no oculta ni niega su fuente’, the myth
of ‘el auge y la riqueza de la patria’ is revealed as false by Simón’s statement that:
‘Tengo hijos y mujer, y apenas gano para darles vestidos y comida’ (O.C. I: 1193,
1198; O.C. II: 443). Those who live in the court of Felipe IV in Las Meninas are,
like the blind students of the En la ardiente oscuridad, cosseted and blind to the
reality outside the walls. They live an illusion and are protected from the truth by
those who seek to exploit the situation. When Velázquez confronts the Marquis
about the striking sweepers, he is instructed that the discontent he talks of must
not be acknowledged: ‘Aprended, don Diego, que tal descontento no puede existir
en Palacio; luego no existe’ (O.C. I: 868). At the end of the play, despite
Velázquez’s rebellion, the myth of a contented and self-sufficient land continues.
Ruiz de Azcona comments to Doña Marcela: ‘Hay quien se queja, doña
Marcela . . . Pero nuestra bendita tierra es feliz, creedme . . . Como nosotros en
Palacio’ (O.C. I: 935). The comparison is an apt one, for the notion of contented
palace dwellers is also false. Doña Marcela is a scorned and bitter woman, Nieto
and the court painters are consumed by jealousy, María Teresa is shielded from a
reality she desires, nobody is truly free, and the king, by his own admission, is the
most miserable man on earth.
Historical and Mythological Drama and the Censors

MARTÍN Se cuentan las cosas como si ya hubieran pasado y así se soportan
mejor (O.C. I: 847).
When asked if he utilized history in his dramas as a device to evade censorship,
Buero replied: ‘No, es una estética, un concepto, aunque no niego la posibilidad
de que luego co-exista un cierto aspecto táctico. Pero este aspecto táctico no es
esencial.’84 Unlike the character Elías in Hoy es fiesta, for whom the past ‘es una
manera de consolarse del presente’, for Buero, ‘la historia misma de nada nos
serviría si no fuese un conocimiento por y para la actualidad’ (O.C. I: 589; O.C.
II: 827–8). Nonetheless, he went on to say:
Si no es más que recurso o pretexto, bien posible es que no logre verdadera

consistencia. El teatro histórico ilumina nuestro presente cuando no se reduce
a ser un truco ante las censuras y nos hace entender y sentir mejor la relación
viva existente entre lo que sucedió y lo que nos sucede. (O.C. II: 828)
So, while not exclusively conceived as a means of avoiding censorship, it is

obvious that Buero also capitalized on euphemistic references to the past in his
posibilista style. In fact, he admitted as much in an interview with Lara and Galán:
Mis obras históricas – Un soñador para un pueblo, Las Meninas, El sueño de

la razón – responden a ese planteamiento indirecto, lo que no quiere decir que
no son recursos, que no son astucias, aunque pueden llevar dentro de sí un
cierto recurso de referencia a lo actual mediante lo histórico. Pero no son sólo
eso ni se escriben sólo por eso. Se escriben porque el tema histórico por sí
mismo les da a los problemas una amplitud y una densidad que a mí me pare-
cen mucho mayores.85
84 Pérez de Olaguer, ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo, nuevo Académico’, p. 8. He makes a similar
point in Isasi Angulo, ‘El teatro’, p. 305.

85 Diego Galán and Fernando Lara, ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo: ¿un tigre domesticado?’,
Triunfo, 13 February 1971, pp. 32– 4 (p. 33).

What is clear from the documents held in the Archive at Alcalá de Henares is
that his employment of a historical setting did on occasion help Buero to evade
censorship. A moral report on Buero’s Madre Coraje y sus hijos (Mother
Courage and her Children) demonstrates this. Padre Avelino Esteban y Romero
clearly believed that the historical distance employed would preclude parallels
being drawn between the Thirty Years War and recent events in Spanish history
(Appendix XII). Similarly, Srta Sunyer, who read El sueño de la razón, com-
mented on the author’s devious intentions, but believed the work to be so centred
on the character of Goya as to make it specific to that era and thus safely dis-
tanced from contemporary Spain.86 Another document in this file details the two
possible interpretations of El sueño de la razón, the first a purely historical read-
ing and the second an allegorical reading of the play, linking it to the modern day
and the Franco regime. The author of the document was careful to point out to
his fellow censors that the prohibition of the play might in fact confer upon it the
second, damning interpretation; on the other hand, by authorizing it, the
Francoists would be showing that they were not identified with the regime
depicted in the play (Appendix XIII). Clearly, then, the recourse to history
worked as a means of eluding censorship; nonetheless, it is also evident that the
censors were aware of potential allusions to their political leaders, but chose to
disregard rather than to highlight them.
The use of mythology also served to make Buero’s dramas more universal,
a fact that surely aided their passage through the offices of the censors, while still
allowing for a specifically Spanish interpretation. For example, as Arie Vicente
recognized, Las palabras en la arena:
no es el drama una simple obra de denuncia social sino que trasciende la

situación desde la época de Cristo, a la sociedad española y a cualquier
sociedad en donde está en tela de juicio la posición del hombre aferrado al
credo de sus leyes.87
Sometimes the censors were not so willing to turn a blind eye. Documents
cited earlier show that Buero’s use of a biblical episode in Las palabras en la
arena was found unsuitable for staging during Holy Week, 1958. A censorship
file on La Fundación is also interesting for its conclusions about Buero’s use
of myth. In his report on the play, Padre Jesús Cea defines fable as ‘una fic-
ción artificiosa, para enseñar algo útil o moral, o también para encubrir o
disimular una verdad’; he then cites the following as an example of a fable
within the play:
La moraleja en este caso es evidente: el intelectual, portavoz de las libertades

y el progreso, debe seguir luchando por sus ideales de justicia contra toda posi-
ble opresión. Una nueva fábula: el abuso del poder contra los indefensos.

87 Vicente, ‘Convergencia’, p. 30.
Como corolario: una manifiesta simpatía por todos los delincuentes, encarce-
lados o desterrados, como si de inocentes se tratase.
His report attempts to debunk Buero’s demystification and to re-establish the

Francoist mythology exposed in the play. He concluded that the play should be
authorized only if the setting is clearly not Spain, and recommended cuts on
pages 95, 100 and 104.88
88 AGA/IDD 52.22 Topogr. 83-56 Ca. 85.495 Exp. 145-73. See chapter 3 for details.
6
Ideology in Buero Vallejo’s Theatre
The Ideology of Buero Vallejo

In many of his non-historical plays, Buero dealt quite directly with political and
ideological themes, in particular, the morality of violence, but also the defence and
legitimation of ideology, the role of the intellectual in society and the question of
rebellion and revolution. This is most obvious in La Fundación, La doble historia
del doctor Valmy, El tragaluz and En la ardiente oscuridad. Buero’s personal ide-
ology could be classed an ethical socialism and was determined by his relationship
with the dominant and alternative ideologies operating in society. He consistently
defended socialism as a means of organizing society, and this concern is evident
in his theatre.1 José Luis Abellán recognized this and claimed: ‘Tengo la impresión
que la crítica ha despreciado excesivamente el contenido ideológico del teatro de
Buero.’2 Yet perhaps he reads too much into the expression of a specific ideology
in his works. In his analysis of El concierto de San Ovidio, for example, he claims:
‘En las relaciones individuo-sociedad la ideología marxista resulta patente en la
obra de Buero.’ Buero’s work could only be classed as Marxist in the most holis-
tic sense.3 While his theatre does not defend a clearly defined Marxist ideology, it
does discuss the nature of ideology and its influence on, and acceptance by, soci-
ety. Buero maintained that art should not be corrupted by a specific ideology, which
is interesting when one considers that he was accused by each side of prostituting
his pen to the other.4
1 It is thus difficult to agree with John Lyon, who wrote: ‘No sólo se ha negado a poner su
teatro al servicio de actitudes comprometidas, sino que, en general, ha preferido apartarse del
terreno social y político para concentrarse en los temas trágicos y morales.’ ‘Buero Vallejo y
el tema de la violencia’, in El teatro de Antonio Buero Vallejo: homenaje, pp. 127–39 (p. 127).
While Buero is clearly concerned with moral issues and the idea of tragedy, these are not
separated from social and political action in his works. Nonetheless, his other finding, that
Buero Vallejo’s work contains: ‘un cierto escepticismo ante todas las ideologías, al menos
como justificación de actos de violencia y crueldad’, must be acknowledged (p. 128).
2 Abellán, ‘Buero Vallejo: el teatro como modo de conocimiento’, pp. 171, 172.
3 Lukács claimed: ‘el objeto del marxismo es precisamente el hombre en su totalidad’.
‘Lukács y la literatura’, in Castellet, ed., Literatura, ideología, pp. 62–81 (p. 78).
4 Using the very argument that Buero undermines in La doble historia del doctor Valmy,
an article in Fuerza Nueva defends the police and interprets the play as an attack by a
politically motivated dramatist: ‘Todo proviene de la profesión del enfermo: policía social, y
que ejerciendo tan noble profesión – sin la cual no sería posible la vida en ningún país del
mundo por ser los mantenedores del orden público – [. . .] Y de ahí viene el arranque para
IDEOLOGY IN BUERO VALLEJO’S THEATRE 173
The artist, according to Buero, should remain independent of party politics

and critical of injustice from all quarters: ‘De hecho ha habido casos de escritores
militantes; sólo que a mí me parece que se cumple mejor un servicio social en
profundidad por el escritor que se mantiene políticamente independiente, aunque
pueda tener convicciones muy arraigadas.’5 Yet he acknowledged that the action
and influence of art on society is:
una acción gota a gota, soterrada, difícil, poco aparente. [. . .] A la larga, la

acumulación de todo eso puede quizá traducirse en profundas transforma-
ciones, pero a la corta es muy difícil que una obra, por revulsiva que sea,
resulte también revulsiva en el plano social.6
Nonetheless, he did believe in the power of catharsis, as is evident from his por-
trayal of Haüy in El concierto de San Ovidio, and indeed his own inspiration for
writing that drama, as well as from an article he wrote about Ibsen and Ehrlich.7
Rejecting Tendenzpoesie, it is nevertheless evident that the degree of impartial-
ity to which Buero aspired was probably impossible. As Eagleton puts it: ‘The
literary text is not the “expression” of ideology, nor is ideology the “expression”
of social class. The text, rather, is a certain production of ideology.’8 Theatre may
reveal truths about the values and beliefs of the time, even without treating them
as themes. This may be achieved by what it does not say, as well as what it does
say and by what appears to the author to be so self-evident as not to need articu-
lation. Hence, Buero’s dramas reveal not only the dominant ideology that he crit-
icized in his work but also, by this very criticism, his own values.
Buero’s ideological leanings were evident, even as a student, from his involve-
ment in the FUE. Later Buero was a Communist, although he subsequently aban-
doned the militant PCE:
El Partido Comunista me atraía más que cualquier otro, pero no me afilié a él

hasta bien entrada la guerra, y en él seguí, activamente, todos mis años de prisión
y algunos más. Después, poco a poco, fui alejándome de la militancia – aunque
no de ciertas convicciones básicas – por toda una serie de dudas ideológicas y
hacer el más feroz ataque a la Policía de no sabemos qué país, pero que dado que el autor no
la sitúa en ninguno determinado, nos corresponde, sin duda, buena parte de la acusación;
mucho más si la acción se sitúa en nuestra época, el autor es español, estrena en un teatro de
Madrid y tiene los antecedentes políticos que tiene Buero Vallejo.’ Fuerza Nueva, 6 March
1976. In AGA/IDD 49.021 Topogr. 73-46 Ca. 69.036 Carpeta no. 49: Artículos Prensa.
6 Galán and Lara, ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo: ¿un tigre domesticado?’, p. 32. His interviewers
were sceptical about his commitment.

7 ‘Haüy commences by reading the beginning of the Troisième note, and he makes clear
that “todo partió de allí”.’ Gagen, ‘The Germ’ (p. 49). Ehrlich was inspired to dedicate himself
to the eradication of syphilis after seeing a production of Ibsen’s Ghosts. ‘Ibsen y Ehrlich’
(O.C. II: 595–7).
tácticas que, sin embargo, no me impidieron asumir públicamente actitudes cívi-

cas en numerosas ocasiones. Así que, desde hace muchos años, no milito en
ningún partido.9
Subsequently he remained aloof from party politics, while continuing to argue

the need for some form of socialism in Spain. In response to the question ¿Te
consideras un escritor independiente? Buero stated: ‘Lo soy. Creo que así
cumplo mejor mi misión, aunque, en ocasiones, de manera voluntaria, sigo con-
signas de la izquierda en general.’10 Asked in 1975 to define himself polit-
ically, Buero stated: ‘Mi convicción política es la de la necesidad, revolucionaria
si es preciso, de un socialismo lleno de justicia y también de libertad que abar-
que todo el planeta’ (O.C. II: 1277). He remained openly critical of the capital-
ist system, which is perhaps surprising for someone who worked in the
commercial theatres, and he confessed to Paniker: ‘El socialismo debería ser el
futuro de la humanidad. El capitalismo es radicalmente injusto.’11 While clearly
not a Monarchist, as is evident from the programme note to El sueño de la razón,
Buero respected the king, Juan Carlos, ‘a quien considera el máximo garante de
la estabilidad democrática española’.12 The ideology reflected in his plays was
obviously a personal vision and did not always sit easily with the more rigor-
ously defined or imposed ideologies of political groupings. The values he
stressed in his work are moral and ethical values, and there is a humanistic ele-
ment to his theatre that tends to override strictly political concerns, but it would
be wrong to consider him apolitical.13
Nonetheless, he too was capable of employing methods reminiscent of those
used by politicians and propagandists to defend the values he supported. Later,
in the plays of the post-Franco era, Buero himself engaged to some extent in the
demonization of capitalists, as is evident in his portrayal of certain characters in
Jueces en la noche, Música cercana and Las trampas del azar. Despite the ele-
ment of anti-capitalism in his work, however, the theatre of Buero is not repre-
sentative of a class-conscious socialism. When asked by Mariano de Paco if the
hope in his drama was ‘una esperanza de clase’, he replied: ‘No necesariamente.
Pero a veces son esperanzas de o para una clase.’14 A concern for the pueblo is

10 Fernando Martín Iniesta, ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo: “Mi posibilismo fue el de todos” ’, El
socialista, 1 October 1978, p. 20.
11 Paniker, Conversaciones, p. 182.
12 Antonio Pérez Henares, Antonio Buero Vallejo: una digna lealtad, Imágenes y palabras,
26 (Toledo: Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha, 1998), p. 23.

13 ‘Los valores que apoya Buero son siempre valores humanos. Nunca confunde estos fines
o metas con valores instrumentales, es decir, con intereses de una determinada clase, partido o
ideología política.’ Halsey, ‘El intelectual’, p. 46. ‘This better Spain, the investigators suggest,
has been reached through changes, not in political systems, but in ethical attitudes. For Buero
recognizes that the basic problem is not political, but human.’ Martha T. Halsey, ‘El tragaluz:
A Tragedy of Contemporary Spain’, The Romanic Review, 63 (no. 4, 1972), 284–92 (p. 291).
indeed evident in works such as Historia de una escalera, Hoy es fiesta, Un

soñador para un pueblo, Las Meninas and La detonación; yet, in the historical
plays in particular, it is also clear that the dramatist identified himself, not with
the pueblo, but rather with the artists and intellectuals, whom he appeared to
view as a class apart, necessarily removed from both the political rulers and the
common people. One of Buero’s main concerns, perhaps betraying the influence
of the Generation of ’98, was defined as: ‘España como tragedia’ [. . .] ‘que
es también, por supuesto, el tema del hombre y de la sociedad como tragedia’
(O.C. II: 422).
Through characters such as Asel (La Fundación), his Velázquez (Las
Meninas) and Plácido (Misión al pueblo desierto), Buero stressed the limits of
all ideologies, as well as their similarities and the comparable methods employed
to uphold and defend them. Asel’s despairing words seem to reflect Buero’s own
beliefs about modern society:
Vivimos en un mundo civilizado al que le sigue pareciendo el más embria-

gador deporte la viejísima práctica de las matanzas. Te degüellan por com-
batir la injusticia establecida, por pertenecer a una raza detestada; acaban
contigo por hambre si eres prisionero de guerra, o te fusilan por supuestos
intentos de sublevación; te condenan tribunales secretos por el delito de resi-
stir en tu propia nación invadida . . . Te ahorcan porque no sonríes a quien
ordena sonrisas, o porque tu Dios no es el suyo, o porque tu ateísmo no es el
suyo . . . A lo largo del tiempo, ríos de sangre. Millones de hombres y
mujeres . . . (O.C. I: 1471)
Asel, like Buero, expresses the same collective guilt for the wrongdoings com-
mitted by those he supports, and recognizes the ease with which victim becomes
victim-maker. He also perceives the function of fear as a tool used to uphold a
specific ideology, yet can pardon those who, like him, were weak in the face of
threats, but who then redeemed themselves by accepting both their responsibil-
ity and their limitations.
Fundamentally, Buero believed in the possibility and the necessity of change.
He stressed the need to be open to a revision of one’s beliefs and not to defend
dogmatically a specific ideology: ‘Si el teatro ideológicamente más afirmativo
no deja abierta la puerta al posible replanteamiento sobre nuevas bases de las pre-
guntas que pretende contestar, no se inserta activamente en un progreso efectivo’
(O.C. II: 690–1). As he never tired of pointing out, everyone bears some respon-
sibility for the continuation of a repressive system, be it through self-delusion,
apathy or active support for the ruling ideology. Commenting on some of the
more ideological works of Buero, Payeras Grau wrote: ‘En el mundo moderno
la inocencia es imposible y todo el que no lucha contra la infamia se convierte
en cómplice puesto que no es posible ignorarla.’15 Hence, a plea for solidarity is
15 Maria Payeras Grau, ‘Complejidad dramática y trasfondo ético en el teatro de Buero
Vallejo (a propósito de dos dramas de intención política’, in Anthropos, Monograph no. 10,
an important part of what could be termed Buero’s ideology. Yet, according to

some of his harshest critics, a plea for solidarity in his plays was betrayed by a
lack of solidarity on the part of the dramatist.
Ideology and Violence

Buero explored the morality of violence in his theatre. Violence is usually con-
demned, yet on occasion the dramatist betrayed a more ambiguous attitude
towards it. Violence, according to Buero, ‘no siempre implica negatividad’ (O.C.
II: 483). An examination of his political theatre shows that the violence he criti-
cized had base motives, while Buero justified certain well-intentioned violence;
this means, of course, that violence was justified or denounced based on a sub-
jective interpretation of its motivation.
One of the principal tools employed to uphold and defend a dominant ideo-
logy is violence, or the threat of violence. It functions as a warning to encour-
age the fear, support or apathy required to sustain the ruling group’s values and
to allow them to go unchallenged. Buero examined the place of violence in the
defence of a ruling ideology and explored its effects on its victims, its perpe-
trators and on the population at large. It can be seen that once persuasion fails
in En la ardiente oscuridad, El concierto de San Ovidio, El sueño de la razón
and La doble historia del doctor Valmy, the authorities resort to intimidation,
threats and finally violence, in an effort to stem the opposition to their rule. A
mood of fear is created and, where necessary, backed up by brutal action.
Establishment figures intimidate and terrorize others in order to protect their
own values.
In La Fundación and La doble historia del doctor Valmy, Buero explored how
the threat of violence or of punishment can create a fear that leads to a deform-
ation of reality and the construction of a comforting illusion. In the former, the
protagonist, Tomás, is trapped in a prison; for Tomás, however, it is too much to
bear. He is incarcerated with the people he betrayed and so his distressed mind
seeks solace by building an alternative to the cruel reality: Tomás believes him-
self and his co-prisoners to be happily working in a well-endowed research
foundation, free to pursue their goals. The chinks in the illusion appear gradu-
ally over the course of the action of the play and the spectators, immersed in the
delusions of Tomás, begin to notice some anomalies. Gradually, through the
patient intervention of Asel, and despite the scepticism of the others, Tomás –
and the spectators – regain a vision of reality, and with it, a vision of a better
future. The reality of prison, though disturbing, is preferable to the illusion, as it
58–63 (p. 63). O’Connor too notes that in El tragaluz: ‘Mario insinúa la carga ideológica de
la “pregunta tremenda” humanística cuando dice de un transeúnte: “Me siento él”. Al rechazar
la discusión de que el hombre está total y eternamente solo, Mario percibe una solidaridad
mística con todo el que haya vivido.’ Patricia W. O’Connor, ‘Confrontación y supervivencia
en El tragaluz’, in Anthropos, Monograph no. 10, xii–xiii (p. xiii).
allows for hope for escape. In La doble historia del doctor Valmy Buero por-
trayed the delusion of an entire society. The well-dressed couple insists that the
torture described in the first case study could not happen in Surelia. Unlike Mary,
who opened her eyes to the truth and faced the consequences at the end of the
play, their refusal to accept reality does not change. However, it has conse-
quences for them also. At the end of the play Buero, through Dr Valmy, diag-
noses their denial of reality as evidence of insanity. He then went further and
revealed that they are in an asylum, and that the spectators have been immersed
in the asylum with them, suggesting that they too might be suffering from a
similar madness.
If the falsification of reality is exposed, as it is in La Fundación by Asel and
in La doble historia del doctor Valmy by Mary and Lucila, then the upholders of
the unjust dominant ideology move to check the threat posed by this exposure,
usually by employing coercion or abuse. Thus, in La doble historia del doctor
Valmy, Mary’s rejection of the deception and attempts to reveal the truth to
Daniel lead to her own castigation. When Daniel tries to reject the falsification
of reality that he has previously accepted and defended, the reaction of the rul-
ing ideology, represented by Paulus, is at first to attempt to convince him of the
truth of the myth, by justifying their work. Later, when this has failed, Paulus
threatens him with violence. Daniel, though now aware of the inhumanity of his
actions, is too afraid of the consequences to leave and is unlikely to get permis-
sion to do so from Paulus, so instead will continue to feed the myth that their
work is a necessary evil.16
Fear and the threat of violence are highlighted in many of the plays. Despite
his ostensible philanthropy, Valindin in El concierto de San Ovidio relies on them
to get his way. It suits his purpose to speak of high-minded values, yet these are
exposed as falsified and motivated. Base motivation behind noble philanthropy
is also exposed in En la ardiente oscuridad. As Halsey notes:
By maintaining the illusion that all is well, this order denies its citizens respon-
sibility for their own destiny. Furthermore, as we see with the murder of the
rebel student Ignacio, it never hesitates to resort to violence when its authority
is challenged.17
Carlos does not bear full responsibility for his action in killing Ignacio, but is
rather a pawn of the Establishment, of which he will become a part should
he prove himself an obedient and loyal student. In Act III, Don Pablo hints at
16 In this he is reminiscent of Mario Benedetti’s Capitán: ‘Caí en la emboscada y ya no hay
posible retroceso. Estoy entrampado. Si yo le dijera que no puedo abandonar esto, usted me
diría que es natural, porque sería abandonar el confort, los dos autos, etcétera. Y no es así.
Todo eso lo dejaría sin remordimientos. Si no lo dejo es porque tengo miedo. Pueden hacer
conmigo lo mismo que hacen, que hacemos con usted.’ Mario Benedetti, Pedro y el Capitán,
4th edn (Madrid: Alianza, 1996), p. 85.
17 Martha T. Halsey, ‘Reality, Illusion and Alienation: Buero Vallejo’s La Fundación’,
Hispanófila, 30 (no. 3, 1987), 47–62 (p. 47).

violent action in conversation with Carlos, but does not directly order it. The
obvious solution is to expel Ignacio from the centre, but the director is reluc-
tant to do so, as it would tarnish the image of the school. He tells his favoured
pupil of the threat to the stability of the centre that Ignacio represents and
classes him ‘el enemigo más desconcertante que ha tenido nuestra obra hasta
ahora’ before going on to utter the suggestive phrase: ‘Carlos, piense usted en
algún remedio. Confío mucho en su talento’ (O.C. I: 118).18 The latter, inter-
preting these words to suit his own motives, as well as those of the centre, kills
Ignacio, thus eliminating the threat to the regime and allowing the official myth
to be reinstated.
Similarly, in Las palabras en la arena, the community leaders do not hesitate
to resort to violence to maintain their position of dominance. Buero, through the
rabbi Jesus, demonstrated their hypocrisy and their dishonorable motives. Again,
it is suggested that such positive values as those they claim to uphold should not
have to be defended by violence or threats of violence. Yet, the case of the adul-
teress is not the first to be dealt with in this manner, as is clear from Gadi’s state-
ment to Eliú: ‘Otras veces se ha lapidado con menos pruebas’ (O.C. I: 58). Jesus
is condemned as ‘un falso profeta’ and the leaders, who consider him a threat to
their dominance, determine to kill him (O.C. I: 61). They conspire to organize a
spontaneous stoning that will rid them of the threat posed by Jesus and the val-
ues he preaches, while leaving them free of blame and spuriously fulfilling the
Law of Moses.
Much later, in El sueño de la razón, Buero was still concerned with this theme.
A fear of retribution inspires the fervour of Fernando VII in the elimination of
opposition to his rule. Arrieta reveals that: ‘No hay memoría de que el rey haya
perdonado una ofensa’ (O.C. I: 1320). The sycophantic Calomarde also repre-
sents the despotism of the hegemony; at this point in history he is not yet a
Minister, though he features as one in the later play La detonación. His hatred
of Goya and desire for revenge is the result of an insult to his vanity, and thus,
as Buero made clear, the violence that arises from them is unjustifiable cruelty.
Threats too are successfully used to inspire fear and incite hatred. Leocadia
informs Goya and Arrieta of two anti-liberal decrees rumoured to have been
penned by Calomarde and approved by Fernando VII: the first of these promises
an amnesty to those who attacked and robbed liberals; the second threatens the
death penalty for all Freemasons and liberals except those who give themselves
up and turn informer. Goya also receives threats in his home on various occa-
sions. Then, in the final scenes of the play, the king’s representatives enter the
artist’s home by force, beat and bind him, and rape Leocadia before pillaging his
18 As Mariano de Paco points out in a footnote in his edition of En la ardiente oscuridad,
‘Estas palabras de don Pablo están cargadas de trágica ironía, pero también de ambigüedad
respecto a la intención del director al pronunciarlas.’ Colección Austral, no. 124, 12th edn
(Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1991), p. 119. Of course, it could also be that Don Pablo’s words are
naïve rather than sinister; after all, there is no sign later that he supposes Ignacio has been
murdered.
property. Buero was clear about the relationship between the violent action
depicted in his play and that in modern Spain: ‘Escribí, pues, de amarguras,
temores y esperanzas también muy actuales’ (O.C. II: 468).
The same oppressive modes of securing victory over the opposition are seen
in Las Meninas. The authority figures refuse to countenance any criticism and
insist on the maintenance of a myth of contentment in a land of plenty. Pedro
tells Velázquez, who is cosseted by his position as court painter, that the entire
country is starving but that the only response from the authorities is violence.
The Spain portrayed in Las Meninas can be likened to Francoist Spain.
Discontent is viewed as unpatriotic and treasonous dissent. As the Marquis puts
it: ‘Los revoltosos nunca pueden tener razón frente a su rey. El descontento es
un humor pernicioso, una mala hierba que hay que arrancar sin piedad’ (O.C.
I: 883).
In Un soñador para un pueblo, Bernardo’s attack on other members of the
pueblo and his plunging of Madrid into a symbolic darkness contains echoes of
the Civil War. It is senseless, unjustified violence, inspired by xenophobic mis-
trust of the reformers, which has been manipulated by certain forces in whose
interests it is to maintain the pueblo in ignorance. This idea is repeated in Mito,
which features state violence in the name of the common good. The strike action
is a reminder of similar action in Spain and, as Carlos Álvarez points out, the
methods of the regime echo those of the Nazis in 1933.19 During the curfew the
police burn the presidential palace and then blame the strikers. Once their
enemies are discredited, the apparently liberal regime can then justify harsh
punishment for them.
The military members of the Establishment come in for particular criticism in
the works of Buero Vallejo for their part in curtailing the liberties of others for the
sake of maintaining the personally beneficial status quo. Asaf’s fulminations
against the rabbi’s reasonable opposition to their brutal laws in Las palabras en
la arena is reminiscent of similar tirades against those who dared to criticize the
supreme power of Franco and his minions. John Lyon cogently argues: ‘Asaf
encarna la ética militarista del orden, la disciplina y la obediencia que confunde
la intransigencia con la fuerza y el perdón con la debilidad.’20 The curfew imposed
by the regime in Mito is enforced by a brutal police force and the liberty sup-
posedly enjoyed by all is false, although many resolve not to recognize this.
Repressive state apparatuses are also employed in Las Meninas, El sueño de la
razón, Un soñador para un pueblo and La Fundación to tame opposition to the
ruling ideology and to protect the elite they serve. There is also a suggestion of
19 Antonio Buero Vallejo, La doble historia del Doctor Valmy; Mito, intro. by Carlos
Álvarez, Colección Austral, no. 280, 3rd edn (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1992), p. 42.
20 Lyon, ‘Buero Vallejo y el tema de la violencia’, p. 128. He then relates this to Spain: ‘La
moral intransigente, el espíritu inquisitorial, el miedo y la fragmentación social hacen

trascender esta obra de su marco judaico-romano y la relacionan tanto con la España de las
obras históricas (por ejemplo, Las Meninas) como con la sociedad española de los años
cuarenta y cincuenta.’
police corruption in El concierto de San Ovidio. Through the protection afforded

to him by aristocratic patronage, it is hinted that Valindin can avail of a secret let-
ter, which can serve to have someone imprisoned without trial. Similarly, in La
tejedora de sueños, Buero questioned what is portrayed in The Odyssey as
Odysseus’ justified violence. In the original, Odysseus’ anger is portrayed as eth-
ical: both he and his family suffer at the hands of the suitors. In his version, Buero
raised doubts about the rectitude of his actions by exposing them as motivated by
baser considerations. The stability and well-being imposed by the returning hero
are exposed as false.
Yet, despite his criticisms of the repressive state apparatuses and of the use of
intimidation and threats to safeguard a particular ideology, Buero admitted that
he believed violence to be justified on occasion:
Yo diría que hay que atenerse a la lección de la historia. Lo ideal sería que
todo pudiese resolverse paulatinamente de modo pacífico, pero la historia nos
enseña que se producen sobrecargas, y que estas sobrecargas estallan de una
manera o de otra. Entonces se pueden entender las violencias; no disculpar-
las, pero sí, repito, entenderlas. Yo entiendo que, incluso desde el punto de
vista revolucionario, la violencia es la presión que las masas hacen para que
se cambien instituciones y estructuras, pero una presión que nunca debiera
traducirse en asesinatos o en torturas. [. . .] Si la violencia se ejerce desde una
presión social justificada, tiene razón, aunque nunca debe ser cruel ni dar paso
a desmanes.21
Like Camus, who distinguished between rebellion and revolt, Buero distin-
guished between violence and cruelty, rejecting the latter as unjustifiable. This
philosophy is reflected throughout his theatre and in the dramatist’s own attitude
towards protest. Violence, torture and murder are usually the methods employed
by the tyrannical figures in his plays, although occasionally, as in El concierto
de San Ovidio, the rebel protagonist uses violence to overthrow an oppressor in
an act he justifies for the sake of the greater good, but later laments. The danger
in this argument is that it can be and is used by both sides in a conflict to justify
violent action. The difference in Buero, as in Camus, is that the rebel suffers per-
sonally for his violent actions: ‘Y cuando caigamos en la práctica sistematizada
de la crueldad, por suponerla ineludible en algún caso, nuestro deber será el de
«pagarlo» con nuestro remordimiento y nuestra enmienda en lo que nos reste de
vida’ (O.C. II: 1281). In the end, David’s death does not improve the lot of
the blind beggars, nor that of Adriana, so the justification of his act is ques-
tionable. Valentín Haüy is inspired to act, as Gagen points out, not by David’s
violence, but by his humiliation.22
21 O’Connor, Antonio Buero Vallejo en sus espejos, pp. 327–8.

22 Gagen, ‘The Germ’, p. 44. Significantly, Haüy implies a parallel with the ancien régime
and the revolutionaries also executed later (O.C. I: 1022); for Buero the French Revolution
was the locus classicus of necessary violence and unnecessary cruelty.
Hence, Buero’s position on violence could be considered somewhat ambigu-

ous. Perhaps this should not come as a great surprise, given his personal history:
La experiencia nos ha demostrado que en ciertas ocasiones históricas no hubo

otro modo de dar un paso adelante, de lograr una mejora de las estructuras
sociales, que el de la violencia, y ello por el hecho muy conocido y obvio de
que las clases y poderes dominantes en una sociedad determinada se resisten
a ser licenciadas cuando la historia, de hecho, las ha licenciado ya. Y como esa
resistencia es asimismo violenta y bárbara, no hay más remedio que oponerle
otra violencia. (O.C. II: 483)
He thus rejected the Kantian notion that: ‘Todo mal medio engendra un mal fin’
(O.C. II: 484). Acknowledging that, theoretically at least, this pure moral
approach is irreproachable, he nonetheless insisted that it was naïve and that
good ends have on occasion been achieved by violent means. Availing himself
of Larra’s words in La detonación, he explained his views on violence:
‘Asesinatos por asesinatos, ya que los ha de haber, estoy por los del pueblo’ (O.C.
I: 1563). As Buero pointed out, Larra’s words would not be acceptable to all: ‘Un
moralista puro la rechazaría indignado’ (O.C. II: 485). The use of violence by the
pueblo in Un soñador para un pueblo was not justifed by the dramatist, however,
as it is motivated, cruel violence, manipulated by those defending the ruling ide-
ology. In contrast, the anger and violence of the pueblo in La detonación or that
of Pedro, symbol of the pueblo, in Las Meninas, is viewed as righteous and per-
haps even necessary for social change. In fact, Buero suggested that, at times,
one has a moral duty to fight:23
Hubiera sido fácil, al estilo de algunos puristas que se refugiaron en el extran-

jero en torres de marfil, decir: «No, no. Yo con el crimen no quiero nada. Me
voy a llorar por los crímenes de España a París, a Nueva York o a Méjico»
Pero no valía huir; había que mancharse las manos aquí dentro, lamentando
que algunos se las mancharan demasiado para salvar la causa popular; y si el
crimen nos rozaba, aunque fuese de modo indirecto, intentar el difícil consuelo
de que, en el otro bando, el crimen era por lo menos tan grande, si no más, y
sin duda mucho menos disculpable socialmente. (O.C. II: 485)
Yet, as always, Buero stressed the need to assume responsibility for the barbar-
ities committed by those who commit violent acts, be they Republican or
Nationalist: ‘Y hoy por hoy, sólo una conclusión parece imponérseme: la de que,
en el fondo, todos somos, en mayor o menor grado, coautores de todos los
23 Llovet also recognized this as the message of La doble historia del doctor Valmy: ‘No
está seguro de que los luchadores vayan a triunfar así como así, pero sí está seguro de que esa
lucha es un imperativo ético.’ Enrique Llovet, ‘La doble historia del doctor Valmy’, Sábado
Gráfico, 22 February 1976. In AGA/IDD 49.021 Topogr. 73-46 Ca. 69.036 Carpeta no. 51:
Críticas.
crímenes. Y la mayor honradez está en comprenderlo e intentar superarlo’ (O.C.

II: 486).24
Justified violence in Buero, as in Camus, has limits. In La Fundación he gave
a further example of violence that was unjustifiable, despite being defended by
some of the more sympathetic characters, that is, those who are themselves vic-
tims of the ruling ideology. Having shown through Asel his belief that struggle
and occasionally violent struggle may at times be necessary, Buero set limits by
refusing to justify Lino’s violent act:
Buero aboga en este momento concreto por una limitación de la violencia y

por un rechazo de la crueldad, pero nunca por un abandono de la lucha contra
lo establecido, contra aquello que supone la alienación del hombre. Se fomenta
constantemente la acción y se recuerda el deber de vencer. Los personajes
estarán recluidos en una prisión, pero se convencen unos a otros de la necesi-
dad de la acción. La cuestión reside, en última instancia, en si esa acción puede
o debe ser violenta y hasta que punto.25
So, while allowing certain justifications of violence, Buero rejected others, high-
lighting again his contradictions. Certainly his attitude towards violence was not
always clear-cut.
The disturbing ambiguity of Buero’s stance was further evident in his portrayal
of the characters Carlos III and Esquilache in Un soñador para un pueblo. They
represent the type of enlightened paternalism mentioned by Jordan in his com-
mentary on Haüy in El concierto de San Ovidio.26 Buero seemed not to blame
them, yet these well-intentioned reformers clearly bear some responsibility for the
resurgence and domination of the conservative ideology represented by Ensenada
and Villasanta.27 It is the king’s distance from the populace that allows them to
consider him a puppet of Esquilache and also allows the conservative nobles to
24 Buero returned to this theme in the post-Franco play Misión al pueblo desierto. Plácido,
Buero’s spokesperson for much of the play, rejects Damián’s tactics for defeating the
Nationalists and condemns the crimes of his own side, arguing ‘si los revolucionarios no
saben ser más humanos que los opresores, la Revolución fracasará’. The only justifiable
violence can come from the masses and in order to achieve social change: ‘Pero son las masas
las que han de imponer el cambio cuando les llegue su hora y estén preparadas, legalizando a
la fuerza nuevas instituciones y sistemas, no mediante crímenes. Sólo a eso le llamo yo
verdadera violencia revolucionaria.’ Antonio Buero Vallejo, Misión al pueblo desierto, ed. by
Virtudes Serrano and Mariano de Paco, Colección Austral, no. 488 (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe,
1999), pp. 49, 79. Further references to this play are given after quotations in the text.
25 Antonio Buero Vallejo, La Fundación, ed. by Francisco Javier Díez de Revenga,
Colección Austral, no. 114 (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1989), p. 29.

27 Rafael Benítez Claros, in a very negative analysis of the theatre of Buero Vallejo, goes
as far as to accuse him of supporting tyranny in this play. ‘La vena de magisterio neoclásico
que late en el fondo de Buero [. . .] muestra su fuerza entusiasta en las alabanzas del
despotismo ilustrado. Después de haber llorado sobre los miserables, Buero canta al tirano.’
‘Buero Vallejo y la condición humana’, Nuestro Tiempo, 19 (no. 107, 1963), 581–93 (p. 591).
manipulate public opinion against his favourite. Like Ensenada and Esquilache,
Carlos III is paternalistic in his attitude towards the pueblo, although with
Esquilache he hopes to provide the reform needed to educate and enlighten them:
‘Los españoles son como niños . . . Se quejan cuando se les lava la basura’, but
complains that they seem to prefer tyranny: ‘Quizá preferirían un tirano; pero
nosotros hemos venido a reformar, no a tiranizar’ (O.C. I: 799). The authorities
also resort to violence in order to force acceptance of unpopular legislation. In his
misjudgement of the volatile mood of the populace, Esquilache takes measures
that only serve to aggravate an already tense situation and to hasten his own down-
fall. The plan to censor the dress of Spaniards, while ostensibly done for the greater
good, is badly handled and, in best censorial fashion, is allowed no challenge. The
aggressive tactics employed spark retaliation from some elements of the pueblo,
and this mistrust is then manipulated in the campaign against Esquilache. After the
riots, when the pueblo demonstrates its capacity for violent, self-destructive action,
the Walloon Guards attempt to quell the fighting with brutal measures. However,
the play does at least demonstrate that such violent measures, even when employed
in support of the common good, do not always achieve their intended aim.
Despite the ambivalence of his attitude towards violence, Buero had a resolute
opinion on torture. In his plays Buero never justified torture, but looked at how
the torturer justifies his own actions in the name of positive ideological values
and the common good: ‘Sin descargar al individuo de la aquiescencia culpable a
estas injusticias, la obra de este autor comprometido plantea la antitesis didác-
tica de una sociedad aceptable, para discubrir las contradicciones de una
sociedad inaceptable.’28 Some, like Paulus in La doble historia del doctor Valmy,
seem to relish their work and are inspired by hate, while others, such as Daniel,
are motivated by fear. For Buero:
La tortura es el límite de cualquier ideología. Nada puede justificarla, ni siquiera

disculparla; quien la ejerce se sitúa fuera de lo humano y destruye sus propios
fines, por bueno que los crea, y se destruye a sí mismo, aun si no lo advierte, y
carcome a la sociedad a que pertenece y cree servir. (O.C. II: 1283)
In Llegada de los dioses it is a feature of Felipe’s presumably Nazi past that

haunts his son. Felipe tries to deny his son’s allegations and is unwilling to accept
blame or responsibility for his deeds, preferring to claim, like the torturers in La
doble historia del doctor Valmy, that he was just doing his job. He then attempts
to justify torture by claiming that it was used in order to extract information that
would save the lives of thousands of their troops, and he asserts that the oppos-
ition engaged in torture also. Buero, while giving voice to this popular and con-
science-salving argument, clearly did not accept it: ‘En ningún caso podemos
convertir la tortura, que fue regla en otros tiempos, en excepción permisible’
(O.C. II: 1280). A similar case is presented and dismissed in La doble historia
28 Plataforma, February 1976. In AGA/IDD 49.021 Topogr. 73-46 Ca. 69.036 Carpeta
no. 39: Noticias sobre teatro.

del doctor Valmy. Daniel, like the censors and torturers in Franco’s Spain, prefers
not to reveal his occupation to those not directly involved. He is a spokesperson
for the regime and seems to believe the propaganda that allows him to feel that
the brutality he is engaged in is not only desirable, but necessary: ‘Mi oficio es
un duro oficio, doctor . . . Pero sin nosotros el país se hundiría’ (O.C. I: 1051).
The brutal torture of Marty does not yield any positive results for the torturers.
Furthermore, their monstrous behaviour has repercussions, and Daniel is not the
only one whose sickness of mind becomes physically manifest.
The Betrayal of Humanity: Victims and Victim-makers

La obra no es el enfrentamiento de un monstruo y un
santo, sino de dos hombres, dos seres de carne y hueso,
ambos con zonas de vulnerabilidad y de resistencia. La
distancia entre uno y otro es, sobre todo, ideológica.29
In the Surelian dramas, Aventura en lo gris and La doble historia del doctor
Valmy, and in La Fundación, the ideologies of the victims and of their opponents
are never defined:
En teoría, el espectador no debiera saber si los ‘suyos’ son los policías o los
detenidos políticos a quienes torturan, para que así, por encima de las razones
de cada cual, el drama se alzara como una denuncia indiscriminada contra la
práctica institucional de la tortura. Y – esto es fundamental en el pensamiento
de Buero – contra quienes la consienten o fingen ignorarla simplemente porque
está al servicio de sus intereses.30
Thus, Buero again stressed what both Asel and Silvano note in the plays,
which is that those who find themselves in a position of victimhood now may
have been or may yet be victim-makers. Similarly, those who are or have been
torturers may yet be victims, as Daniel Barnes learns. In La doble historia del
doctor Valmy, as in Llegada de los dioses, Buero depicted the normal life of a
torturer. The dramatist wanted the reader to believe that both Daniel and Felipe
are ordinary people who have done wrong. As Veronica recognizes, it is not sim-
ply that these characters are evil or inherently wicked: ‘Lo espantoso de tu padre
es que es simpático’ (O.C. I: 1358). The thrust of Buero’s argument is that all
men have a common humanity, which certain characters have chosen to betray.
He was concerned to show that everybody has the capacity to become like Daniel
or Felipe: ‘La lucha contra la tortura es por ello, en el plano ético, una lucha con-
tra nosotros mismos; la vigilancia de nuestros más turbios movimientos del
ánimo’ (O.C. II: 1282). Buero not only condemned the choice they made, but
29 Benedetti, Pedro y el Capitán, p. 10.

30 ‘Teatro: sobre la tortura’, Triunfo, 7 February 1976. In AGA/IDD 49.021 Topogr. 73-46
Ca. 69.036 Carpeta no. 52: Críticas.
also the torturers’ attempts at justification and their weakness in failing to accept
responsibility for their actions.31 In this sense, Vicente in El tragaluz is such a
victim-maker, and Buero denounced him more for his continued abuse of others
and attempts at legitimation of his actions than for that first selfish act.
Obviously, as the character Asel in La Fundación demonstrates, everyone has
their limitations and weaknesses, but one must accept or strive to overcome
them. Asel too was a victim-maker; like Tomás, he broke under torture and his
confession led to the detention and death of others.32
The victim-maker may be a victim who cannot accept his limitations or who
cannot countenance defeat. The essential difference between Asel and Tomás on
the one hand, and Vicente, Felipe and Daniel on the other, is that the former even-
tually admit accountability for their failings. They attempt to accept and then sur-
pass their limitations and continue to strive for an ideal, while the latter
compromise their ideals out of fear or self-interest, and collude with and justify a
negative ideology. Asel tells the cured Tomás: ‘Tomás, nadie puede ser fuerte si
no sabe antes lo débil que es’ (O.C. I: 1478). For Buero, the posibilista who rec-
ognized that he could not defeat the regime with his dramatic works, accepting
personal compromise or even personal failure, was not the end of hope; not to
dream is to resign oneself to apathy and accept the status quo, yet a dreamer who
does not recognize his limitations is doomed to fail. Julio’s final recognition, in
Llegada de los dioses, that he is not in a position to judge his father, is thus a sign
of hope: ‘No soy mejor que tú: yo también te he torturado hasta la muerte’ (O.C.
I: 1407). Like Mario in El tragaluz and Gabi in Las trampas del azar, Julio, in his
eagerness and impatience to judge and condemn his father, is in danger of repeat-
ing his failings and becoming a victim-maker. In Irene, o el tesoro too, the fam-
ily members and Méndez take the easy way out, making a victim of Dimas in
order to escape their own victimhood. Adriana in El concierto de San Ovidio is
in danger of doing the same. At first she allows herself to be used to seduce David
and the others to conform, but later she refuses. David too becomes a victim-
maker, killing his exploiter and love rival, Valindin. Silverio in Hoy es fiesta is a
victim-maker, who later saves Doña Balbina from becoming a victim of others. It
would appear that those who become victim-makers are often those who have no
dream of a better future. As Lyon says: ‘Cuando David se enfrenta con Valindin
en la oscuridad, ha renunciado a sus sueños y ha adoptado la visión del mundo de
su adversario, un mundo de verdugos y víctimas en el que uno tiene que comer o
dejarse comer.’33 Similarly, Carlos in En la ardiente oscuridad is in danger of
becoming the Centro’s next victim after he assumes the dream of Ignacio.
31 Just as Benedetti’s Capitán stresses, the conversion from ordinary man to torturer is a
gradual process, but a difficult one to reverse: ‘Más bien un pequeño cambio tras otro pequeño
cambio. Ninguna convicción profunda. Más bien una pequeña tentación tras otra pequeña
tentación. Económicas o ideológicas, poco importa.’ Benedetti, Pedro y el Capitán, p. 64.
32 Buero recounted a similar event from his own experience to O’Connor. Antonio Buero
Vallejo en sus espejos, pp. 283–6.

33 Lyon, ‘Buero Vallejo y el tema de la violencia’, p. 133.
Rebels and Reformers

Buero’s view of rebellion again betrays a similarity to the thinking of Camus. It
also links in with his occasional justification of violence: ‘Apparemment néga-
tive, puisqu’elle ne crée rien, la révolte est profondément positive puisqu’elle
révèle ce qui, en l’homme, est toujours à défendre.’34 Yet Buero advocated cal-
culated ethical reform rather than revolution; in his works, both rebels and
reformers act for the sake of others and for the sake of certain moral values
absent or ignored in society. Their altruism is evident in their rejection of prag-
matic offers by those who feel threatened by their vision. This is evident in El
concierto de San Ovidio, when Valindin taunts David with the alternative to his
proposition: ‘¿Qué seréis entonces? ¿Muertos de hambre y de orgullo?’ (O.C. I:
983). They reject existing unjust ideologies and simultaneously discover new
values for which they demand recognition. Like Camus, Buero refused to accept
the excesses of some rebels that saw them becoming tyrannical in their opposi-
tion to an established tyranny:
La última lección que el dramaturgo intenta dar tímidamente desde las perple-
jidades de La Fundación no es la de que no haya que hacer revoluciones, sino
de que las revoluciones que se hayan de hacer tienen que asumir una muy fría
consideración de los excesos en que pueden incurrir, pues esos excesos sí
pueden destruir la obra revolucionaria a la larga, aunque nos parezca que, a la
corta, la consolidan. (O.C. II: 484)
Hence, the difference between Buero’s rebels and reformers is a posibilista atti-
tude and a cognizance of the limits of violence. While the reformers may become
successful rebels, the rebels are in danger of becoming victim-makers. Of course,
this may be read as an attempted vindication of the dramatist’s own posibilista
stance. In addition, Buero stressed that the opposition to a repressive regime
must be serious and sincere. If it is merely youths rebelling against their parents,
he argued, it will do very little good:
La risa y la sátira son duras, pero saludables . . . Algunos han sabido mirar de
ese modo. Pocos, porque es una mirada difícil . . . Es la mirada del desengaño.
Pero, de repente, todos los jovencitos bien alimentados se han puesto a mirar
así. (O.C. I: 1356)
The characters that protest at the injustice suffered at the hands of a repressive
regime and rebel in the name of liberty might suffer further injustice for their
action, but may also serve as an inspiration to others. The rebel protagonist is
often an activo-contemplativo, a person who not only has a vision of a better
34 Albert Camus, L’Homme Révolté (Paris: Gallimard, 1951), p. 32. Rebellion, which
seems negative as it creates nothing, is profoundly positive as it reveals that which is worth
defending in man.
society, but is also prepared to take risks to attain it. When faced with the choice
between silence and protest, the rebel chooses protest and hopes that others will
follow suit; there can be no going back, and the rebel must assert his rights and
dignity even if the consequence is death. The rebel affirms that his cause is
greater than himself and therefore acts for the common good. Yet the tyrant also
claims to work for the common good, the difference being that the rebel is pre-
pared to sacrifice himself, believing his action to be for the betterment of soci-
ety, and demonstrating a total commitment to his cause. Les Justes exemplified
Camus’s beliefs about revolt, that to be justified it must involve self-sacrifice
rather than the sacrifice of others. In that play, the nihilist Stepan is seen, in his
words and actions, to be dangerously close to those he seeks to overthrow.
Buero’s rebel, David, on the other hand, is similar to Camus’s Kaliayev in cer-
tain respects, as his killing of the tyrant figure leads to his own death. Unlike
Kaliayev, however, David is not happy to die, but like him David is a dreamer
with a cause he judges to be more worthy than his own survival. Yet Kaliayev
did not kill the children or breach the limits of acceptable violence. Thus,
David’s moral dilemma and his tragedy are perhaps greater than Kaliayev’s: ‘¡He
matado, Adriana! ¡Yo quería ser músico! Y no era más que un asesino’ (O.C. I:
1017). He is a tragic figure because he went beyond the limits he had set for him-
self, and his motivation was not entirely pure. Indeed, Buero did not justify
David’s violence and instead showed how his rebellion failed.
Ignacio in En la ardiente oscuridad, like David, rails against the prevailing
conditions and demands the seemingly impossible. He wins over one of his most
powerful enemies, Carlos, and it is the latter who will lead a future rebellion, or
perhaps engage in a slower, but effective reform. Yet Ignacio foresees the day
when the others also will rebel, in the metaphysical sense, against their very
blindness but also against the falsity of the regime: ‘La guerra que me consume
os consumirá’ (O.C. I: 90). When Juana questions why he will not conform to
their happiness, Ignacio’s reply is that of a rebel whose cause is greater than the
self: ‘¡Ver! Aunque sé que es imposible, ¡ver! Aunque en este deseo se consuma
estérilmente mi vida entera, ¡quiero ver! No puedo conformarme. No debemos
conformarnos’ (O.C. I: 90). His all-consuming desire for vision is symbolic of a
desire for truth, however frustrating the process and painful the outcome. The
other students, however, like the blind musicians of El concierto de San Ovidio,
are wilfully blind to the truth. Despite his physical disadvantage, Ignacio is spir-
itually enlightened and therefore neither contented nor deluded. The message of
his rebellion is that the others also must reach the point of disillusionment and
rebellion for progress to be made. He is truly horrified by the deception he per-
ceives and which he has rejected for himself and for the sake of them all. In this
he is like David in El Concierto de San Ovidio, who is angered by the apathy of
the other blind musicians and their acceptance of their slavery: ‘¡Estáis muertos
y no lo sabéis! ¡Cobardes!’ (O.C. I: 950). Ignacio’s insurrection is inspired by
the indignity common to all and not just himself: ‘Me duele como una mutilación
propia vuestra ceguera; ¡me duele, a mí, por todos vosotros!’ (O.C. I: 113). Like
Asel in La Fundación, Ignacio recognizes that if he could escape the prison of
his blindness, he would find himself in another prison. He acknowledges the

need for a constant struggle for truth rather than the ease of contentment with a
lie, and he tries to explain to Carlos that his message is one of hope.
Once he makes the decision to kill Ignacio, Carlos in turn becomes l’homme
révolté. His motive is resentment and he breaches the limits of acceptable vio-
lence, but he repents his negative action and thus is brought closer to the spirit
of Ignacio’s rebellion. He begins to talk like Ignacio almost immediately. He
comments to Doña Pepita: ‘¡Vuelve la alegría a la casa! ¡Todo se arregla!,’ but
he no longer believes the myth and now he too despises the self-delusion of the
‘ciegos’ who waste no time abandoning the rebel who died for them in favour of
the revival of the myth (O.C. I: 123). The final words of the play are spoken by
Carlos, but they are the words of the rebel Ignacio, and are repeated for the audi-
ence who must make similar choices about blindness and vision, silence and
protest.
Rebellion can also be inspired by the sight of others being repressed. Mary
Barnes in La doble historia del doctor Valmy, once informed of the injustices
being committed against her enemies in her name and in the name of society, is
incensed and rebels against it. Over the course of the play, she changes from a
symbol of traditional, conservative society and cosy collusion with an oppressive
regime to an enlightened and outraged woman, capable not only of thinking for
herself but also of taking action. She rejects the excuses offered by her husband
and demands that he face his moral responsibility to reform and to leave his job.
Her rebellion is not for the sake of Aníbal Marty, nor for the politics he espoused,
but for the attack on his humanity and on what she sees of herself in him and for
the future of others like her son. Verónica in Llegada de los dioses has rebelled,
not only against her upbringing but also against the destruction of the planet by
people like her father and Felipe.35
Generally, these figures do not benefit personally from their rebellion but may
inspire in others what Buero suggested is a slower, but ultimately more success-
ful process of posibilista reform. A future victory for the idea, if not for the indi-
vidual rebel, is promised. As Doménech comments about Buero’s rebels in his
introduction to La detonación: ‘Su sueño, su España soñada, no muere con
ellos.’36
While David’s action in taking on his Goliath may be a cry of protest, a
demand for respect as an equal and an act of liberation, at the end his rebellion
35 Similar characters who challenge the status quo and the official myth include Silvano of
Aventura en lo gris and Penélope of La tejedora de sueños.

36 Antonio Buero Vallejo, La detonación; Las palabras en la arena, ed. by Ricardo
Doménech, Colección Austral, no. 315, 3rd edn (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1993), p. 17. Steiner
writes: ‘The utopias which are built into revolutions necessarily have an ideal, indistinct
contour. It is of the essence of a revolutionary situation that the now must pre-empt the
tomorrow, that the imagination, when in the grip of the future tense, should concentrate on the
short range. Dreams must be disciplined to cover the ground of the possible.’ Language and
Silence, p. 413.
seems to have been in vain. There was another reaction to the humiliating spec-
tacle, however: Valentín Haüy’s protest at the time is dismissed by Valindin and
by the onstage audience, but he returns at the end of Act III. Time has pro-
gressed since the end of the dramatic action and much has happened since
David’s rebellion and death. The French Revolution has taken place and a new
social order is in place. Haüy is revealed as a reformer, inspired by the suffer-
ing of others, to act for the betterment of society: ‘Ante el insulto inferido a
aquellos desdichados, comprendí que mi vida tenía un sentido,’ and he dedicates
his life to achieving what David only dreamed of: the education of the blind.
His success confirms what Buero wished the audience to realize: ‘el hombre
más oscuro puede mover montañas si lo quiere’ (O.C. I: 1022). In fact, he went
further and suggested that the slow process of reform initiated by Haüy is more
successful in the long term than the destructive rebellion of David, which
resulted in more suffering. Buero presented two reactions to the same event and
came down clearly on the side of reform. Valentín Haüy is the posibilista
reformer who does not attempt to destroy society, but rather to introduce spe-
cific reforms. One does not always need the patronage of the powerful to
achieve societal change, but obviously one must be prepared to accept gradual
change rather than revolution. In the play, as Gagen mentions, Buero raised
questions about social and personal responsibility through Haüy, who asks who
will assume responsibility for the death of David.37 Jordan too, notes Buero’s
emphasis on reform: ‘La resistencia que mejor funciona, que consigue algo y
que crea las condiciones para el cambio, se presenta como no violenta y hasta
cierta punto como “feminizada”, ejemplificada en parte en Adriana, pero más
directamente en Haüy.’38
The Role of the Intellectual

GOYA Delaciones, persecuciones . . . España. No es fácil pintar. ¡Pero yo
pintaré! (O.C. I: 1277).39
Another sort of rebellion is a feature of the painterly dramas. Velázquez’s rebel-
lion is not so much his painting of a nude Venus, as his defence of his right to
do so. Yet he is a late rebel. His position in court is a testament to his collusion
with the system. Like all rebels, however, he values truth above contentment
but acknowledges that others may not. He admits his weaknesses and knows
that he is not always brave, but, inspired by the bravery of his former model,
37 Gagen, ‘The Germ’, p. 49.

38 Barry Jordan, ‘Las relaciones de poder en El concierto de San Ovidio’, in El teatro de
Antonio Buero Vallejo: homenaje, pp. 111–25 (p. 121).
39 Fernando VII’s complaint that ‘lo más difícil es la suavidad’, can be read as a comment
on his brutal politics as well as his embroidery, in a play where art and politics are inextricably
linked (O.C. I: 1269).
Pedro Briones, he finally rebels.40 Nevertheless, his acceptance of the condi-

tions imposed by the king at the end suggest that he, like Buero, is a posibilista,
who prefers to compromise and hopes to inspire reform rather than to rebel
and lose his voice of protest and his position. As Mariano de Paco com-
mented: ‘A sus limitaciones contesta el pintor superando la resignación o la
acomodación, rebelándose por medio de la actividad creativa.’41 He will con-
tinue to express his protest, but from the comfortable and contradictory posi-
tion of court painter. Despite this, Buero’s point was that the artist or
intellectual is a lone figure, misunderstood and often misrepresented, as in Las
Meninas in which Buero questioned the censorship of art based on misinter-
pretation or incomprehension of the artist’s work. Yet despite the difficulties
and dangers involved, the artist continues showing his work to others in the
hope of finding someone who will understand the message. Both Pedro, who
once aspired to be an artist, and Velázquez himself, understand the suffering
that comes with the artist’s clarity of vision and thus the temptation not to see:
‘Sólo quien ve la belleza del mundo puede comprender lo intolerable de su
dolor’ (O.C. I: 894). Like Esquilache (Un soñador para un pueblo) and Larra
(La detonación), Velázquez seeks ‘alguien que me ayude a soportar el tormento
de ver claro en este país de ciegos y de locos’ (O.C. I: 858). Each of them finds
that person in a character symbolic of the pueblo, with whom he seeks to iden-
tify but fails to save.
Esquilache and Goya suffer similar incomprehension from family and friends,
and the former is rejected by those he wishes to enlighten. Goya’s imprisonment
in his own house has its parallel in the prohibition on foreign travel that Buero
suffered for years. Esquilache is forced to choose between exile and war, and
opts for the personal misery of the former. Velázquez’s plight is less extreme and
closest to that of Buero; he remains within the Establishment, accepting certain
limitations such as a ban on the exhibition of the Venus, but employing his art to
register his dissent. Like Buero, whose plays were viewed by a censor before
being staged, Velázquez must receive authorization to complete his paintings
from the king, whose reign he then criticizes within the work. Tulio and Asel,
the troubled intellectuals of La Fundación, finally recognize that while Tomás’s
illusion was mostly negative, he was right to dream, but that to make progress
the dream must be a goal; it must be possible, not a replacement for reality:
‘¡Soñar con los ojos abiertos! Y tú los estás abriendo ya. ¡Si soñamos así, sal-
dremos adelante!’ (O.C. I: 1461).42
40 Pedro, the inspiration for Velázquez’s rebellion, is a rebel himself who, while serving as
a soldier, was incensed by his captain’s treatment of his company and killed him in a duel. His
action, unlike that of the artist, culminates in his death, but the message of his rebellion
survives him.
41 Mariano de Paco, ‘Planos de significación en el teatro de Antonio Buero Vallejo’, in
Leyra, co-ord., Antonio Buero Vallejo: literatura, pp. 185–94 (p. 191).
42 It must be noted, however, that Tulio changes his mind at the point when he is led away
to his execution (O.C. I: 1463).

Buero himself clearly identified with the plight of his intellectuals and artists.
It is undeniable that, despite his successful career, he too suffered rejection, from
both the right and the left. Beltrán, the sacrificed author in El tragaluz, is
described by Mario in terms that also fit Buero. Mario sees Beltrán as his alter-
ego and his better. Beltrán is, in the eyes of Mario, what Buero aspires to be: the
conscience of his country. He is not the only one of Buero’s intellectuals to suf-
fer, however. Larra too in La detonación is viewed in similar terms as the con-
science of his era, and he too endures interference from the censors and the
ridicule and incomprehension of many of his contemporaries and of society in
general. Mariano de Paco writes: ‘El escritor es, entre otras cosas, conciencia –
o subconciencia – de la sociedad. De ahí que el conflicto sea inevitable y, a
menudo, perjudicial para el escritor.’43 The historical plays in particular focus on
‘a key conflict between forces of change and immobility around an artist or intel-
lectual whose importance lies not so much in being the prime mover of events
as in being an unusually perceptive observer of them’.44
In the works of Buero, this role is also extended to certain artists. María
Teresa sees Velázquez as the conscience of the palace, the one who by his paint-
ing will force others to examine their motives and face their responsibilities.
Felipe IV considers him a judge. Goya too judges the country’s leaders in his
Black Paintings. Like other rebels and heroes in the works of Buero, and indeed
the dramatist himself, Velázquez recognizes his own limitations; he knows that
he is not always brave.45 He also recognizes the limitations of others. Velázquez
rejects María Teresa’s suggestion that man is ‘tan despreciable’, saying that he
is imperfect (O.C. I: 873). Velázquez, like the other intellectuals in Buero’s the-
atre, does not expect miracles, but does expect people to acknowledge and
assume their culpability and their duty to themselves and to society. The role of
the artist is thus to defend the truth in the face of a comfortable myth and to be
the conscience of a society that has been lulled into a false, guilt-free compla-
cency by the official version of events. Hence, Buero’s Velázquez, even when
faced with punishment, chooses to tell the king the unpleasant truth about
Spain:
El hambre crece, el dolor crece, el aire se envenena y ya no tolera la verdad,

que tiene que esconderse como mi Venus, porque está desnuda. Mas yo he de
decirla. Estamos viviendo de mentiras o de silencios. Yo he vivido de silencios,
pero me niego a mentir. (O.C. I: 932)
The intellectual must defend the truth, despite the difficulty of doing so.
Velázquez tells María Teresa: ‘La verdad es una carga terrible: cuesta quedarse
solo. Y en la Corte, nadie, ¿lo oís?, nadie pregunta que le digan la verdad’ (O.C.
I: 873). Velázquez uses his art to expose the official myth and to portray the truth

44 Perriam and others, A New History, p. 49.
45 (O.C. I: 873); (O.C. II: 819).
of his country’s difficulties. By painting the reality of life in the palace in Las
Meninas, the artist strips away the myth to reveal ‘una de las verdades del
Palacio’, a painting Pedro refers to as ‘un cuadro sereno: pero con toda la tris-
teza de España dentro’ (O.C. I: 889, 892–3). Pedro, as well as realizing the sig-
nificance of the painting, also recognizes the function of such work. His words
are applicable to the work of any protesting or committed artist in any repressive
society: ‘Vuestra pintura muestra que aun en Palacio se puede abrir los ojos, si
se quiere’ (O.C. I: 894). Las Meninas is a painting in which Velázquez has used
all his knowledge, both of art and of Spanish society.
Goya’s Black Paintings also reveal truths that cannot be spoken. The paintings
are satirical rather than mad in their depiction of the country’s powerful rulers as
beasts and monsters.46 Goya paints what he sees around him, yet his paintings
reveal hope, albeit slim, amidst the destruction. Goya says: ‘Amé la razón, y
pinto brujas’; nonetheless, the monsters of Goya’s Black Paintings are not a mani-
festation of madness, but rather they are a reflection of Spain’s monsters, born
of a collective loss of reason (O.C. I: 1317).
It cannot be denied that Buero’s use of the Establishment painter Velázquez as
a rebel hero in Las Meninas was controversial. It could perhaps be seen as an
attempt to rationalize his own position within the state-sponsored commercial
theatre. It could be argued also that the recuperation of a well-intentioned and
misrepresented Esquilache in Un soñador para un pueblo is a similar case.
Echoing sentiments expressed in the latter, Juana, the artist’s wife in Las
Meninas, recognizes that for Velázquez, ‘todos somos niños’ (O.C. I: 859).
Velázquez is thus not unlike the patriarchical intellectuals of other works, who
see it as their role to lead the pueblo to action or to a better future.
Buero seemed to view himself in the same light. As Dixon points out, ‘en El
Concierto de San Ovidio es indudable que Buero compadece a y padece con
David, pero a quien se parece es a Valentín Haüy’.47 The fate of the rebel like
David is to die for his cause. The role of the artist or intellectual is to take up the
protest and lead on, but in a more pacific manner. Buero’s praise for figures of
the Enlightenment in Un soñador para un pueblo also raises another interesting
ideological issue. It is one which Eagleton has commented on:
It seems, then, that Althusser’s theory of ideology is faced with an awkward

choice. Either it must divide society into two groups, one of which is assumed
to be superior because it possesses science and must save the other, just as the
philosophers of the French Enlightenment (criticized by Marx in the third book
on Feuerbach) believed that they were the natural possessors of reason who
alone could enlighten the ignorant and passive masses of the people. Or it has
46 ‘El rey es un monstruo, y sus consejeros unos chacales a quienes azuza, no sólo para que
maten, sino para que roben. ¡Amparados, eso sí, por la ley y por las bendiciones de nuestros
prelados! . . . Los pinto con sus fachas de brujos de cabrones en sus aquelarres, que ellos
llaman fiestas del reino’ (O.C. I: 1292).
47 Dixon, ‘ “Pero todo partió de allí” ’, p. 42.
to be construed as a theory of the necessary domination of the ruling ideology

in so far as ideology is supposed to be simply realized in certain apparatuses
and imposed upon society even against the will, and precisely by means of the
unwitting efforts, of dissenters.48
The former could be a description of Esquilache, or even of Haüy. For, as Jordan

commented: ‘If Haüy, sensitive and humane, is a genuine, cleaned-up version of
previous oppressive paternalisms, he is nonetheless their continuation. The
motives may have changed, but the patriarchal structure and social relations of
dependence remain.’49 He continues:
Indeed, the terms in which it is framed (the re-establishment of human

integrity, the transcending of social differences and inequalities, the smooth-
ing over of conflict) might well appear as mystifications, part of the repertoire
of twentieth century liberal pieties. Moreover, in societies based on private
property and class divisions, the appeal to a generous paternalism and the
belief in the sovereign individual are arguably no answer to social contradic-
tions and conflicts, however sensible they may have seemed in the context of
the early 1960s in Spain, when El concierto was initially staged.50
Buero clearly saw his own role as that of a traditional, rather than organic, intel-
lectual. He highlighted what was wrong in society and hoped to inspire action in
others, but he was not a rebel. In fact, like the traditional intellectuals, he formed
a necessary part of the system he sought to reform.
Legitimation of Ideology
Es verdad que escasean las vías para la formación y
la expresión de las diversas opciones que, dentro de la
legalidad constitucional, son posibles en ciertos aspectos
de la vida política nacional – política religiosa, cultura,
exterior, político-administrativa . . . – Pero quizás esto
provenga, más que de fallas legales, del escaso espíritu
asociativo español.51
A similar paternalistic attitude towards the bewildered herd of Spanish people is

reflected in the views of Establishment figures of Buero’s plays. The presumption
48 Eagleton, Ideology, p. 64.

51 Alberto Ullastres Calvo, Ministro de Comercio 1957–65, in Paniker, Conversaciones,
pp. 32–3. José L. Aranguren, also interviewed by Paniker, referred to what he called ‘la trampa
conservadora’: ‘que la gente no está, en España, preparada para la democracia, y así, los que
poseemos la cultura, tenemos que absorber todos los papeles. La gente no está preparada para
la democracia y nosotros nos encargamos, secretamente, de que nunca lleguen a estar
preparados. Y las cosas se prolongan indefinidamente’ (p. 11).
of incompetence or disinterest of the people allows those who wield power to

justify their autocratic rule. Those who disagree with the official ideology are
deemed ignorant and criticized for their failure to understand the truth. The
representatives of the Establishment depict their opponents as a challenge
to the stability and well-being of society. It then becomes easier to punish or
ostracize them.
Daniel in La doble historia del doctor Valmy refuses to accept responsibility
for his cruelty, preferring to blame society for his and his companions’ actions:
‘Vivimos una época terrible, Mary. Ellos no son más que . . . ejecutores. Si son
culpables, toda la sociedad es culpable. [. . .] No lo hacen por crueldad. Los
detenidos tienen que confesar’ (O.C. I: 1074). The suggestion that Daniel might
not agree with the methods employed by the police is deemed a betrayal and a
threat to the stability of the system. As a result, he is threatened with torture by
the very people for whom he works. Paulus, who is the chief officer of their
group and who was responsible for his vocation, warns him that: ‘En momentos
como este, no resistir es simpatizar con el enemigo’ (O.C. I: 1080). Paulus rejects
as propaganda all opposition to their work. This defence of their actions was par-
ticularly relevant in the early 1960s when the play was submitted to the censors’
office for approval. The brutal action of the police in putting down the civil unrest
was always justified by a regime claiming to have right on its side. Paulus’s jus-
tification of their actions is reminiscent of words spoken by Vicente in El tra-
galuz. He tells Daniel: ‘Puede que sea una salvajada, pero es que estamos en la
selva’ (O.C. I: 1097).52
Another play in which the voice of opposition is silenced by the dominant
group is En la ardiente oscuridad. Ignacio becomes a problem in the centre
when he refuses to accept the Establishment view. His determination to destroy
the complacency of the other students and their illusion of happiness and nor-
mality obviously represents a threat to the stability of the established order, and
it is decided that Ignacio must be removed in a way that is least damaging to
the image of the centre. By diagnosing Ignacio firstly as the one with the prob-
lem, and later as the problem itself, its inhabitants are denying all that is wrong
with the Centro. They confuse living a pleasant existence with bowing down to
paternalistic rule. Ignacio proves that the students are normal only when they
know their surroundings intimately and they do not change. Hence the security
offered by the Centro is a false one. Any change that is introduced is a threat to
the stability of the system and to the myth. When his attempts to discredit
Ignacio fail, Carlos appeals to Ignacio to consider the other students whose
comfortable lives he has upset by his insistence on debunking the myth. For
Carlos the official myth of the centre is the mentira vital, which allows the stu-
dents to live in happiness, whereas for Ignacio it is what prevents them from
ever hoping to attain true happiness. For Ignacio, contentment, which is linked
52 In El tragaluz Vicente asked, ‘¿Quién puede terminar con las canalladas en un mundo
canalla?’ (O.C. I: 1177). Felipe in Llegada de los dioses also chooses to blame society for his
own cruel actions.
to truth, is not attainable without suffering; yet even then, happiness is merely
possible, not guaranteed. Carlos, on the other hand, like Unamuno’s San
Manuel Bueno, prefers to offer the students a false guarantee of happiness. Yet
Carlos later rejects Doña Pepita’s offers of special friendship and her eyewit-
ness account, and becomes as cruel about her as Ignacio was. His rejection of
her leads her to call him a madman, which may be the first step in a process to
discredit Carlos who, by his adoption of Ignacio’s rebellion, in turn will threaten
the status quo.
Another feature of legitimation of a dominant ideology, and one that is par-
ticularly relevant to Francoist Spain, is the use of the ideological apparatus of the
Church. Like the Nationalists, the Church and community leaders of Las pal-
abras en la arena claim to have God on their side. Matatías declares: ‘¡Hay que
matar a ese agitador que se atreve a profanar las gradas del Templo con sus plan-
tas impuras!’ (O.C. I: 59). He finds justifications for his murderous proposal in
the scriptures, much as the Francoists found justification for their actions in the
teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. The arguing factions of Scribe and
Sadducee are reconciled, superficially at least, for the sake of appearances and
for their common aim, just as the different factions in the Nationalist camp united
to maintain their advantage over others. In the play, the holy men’s lust for
revenge is pitted against the rabbi’s teaching of forgiveness. In common with the
churchmen, Asaf uses scripture to support his argument, claiming that the Law
of Moses, like the law of Franco, is immutable. By asserting that Jesus is a dan-
ger to society, Asaf reserves for himself the position of defender of the home and
the common good.
The Church is exposed as a more insidious operator in El sueño de la razón.
Duaso is a censor for the regime of Fernando VII, and Goya laments his actions
‘al servicio de tan mala causa’ (O.C. I: 1300). Duaso rejects the abuse of the
powerful position and reputation of the Church to justify anti-liberal violence and
brutality, and is outraged when the accoutrements and good name of the Church
are appropriated by the hoodlums who visit Goya’s home and threaten him. Yet
he justifies his stance as a censor by claiming that it is charitable work:
‘Endulcemos dolores y callemos ante otras torpezas, puesto que no podemos
hacer más’ (O.C. I: 1321). He argues that: ‘El hombre siempre será pecador, y en
nuestra mano sólo esté evitarle algunas ocasiones de pecado . . . Soy censor de
publicaciones por eso’ (O.C. I: 1321). This attitude, which is rejected by Buero,
demonstrates a lack of faith in man and an unwillingness to grant him the oppor-
tunity to be master of his own destiny.
In Las Meninas, another religious figure, Nieto, the hypocritical and devious
cousin of Velázquez and a fresh initiate into the Santo Oficio, uses the power
his newly acquired status affords him to damage and censor the artist. His prud-
ery and piety are shown to be a mask for petty jealousies. His reaction to the
nude Venus, which he persuades Doña Juana to show him, is one of sanctimo-
nious horror. The Church is not portrayed in a good light in El concierto de San
Ovidio either. While it is undeniable that the beggars are clothed, fed and lodged
in the Hospicio, the priority of the order running the Establishment seems not
to be the people it was founded to help, but rather the wealth of the order and
the maintenance of the ruling ideology that supports it. The Church is very
much a part of the old Establishment and is shown to be resistant to change;
anything new or unusual is disapproved of, hence Valindin’s venture is deemed
‘demasiado raro para ser sano’ and the man himself suspiciously ‘partidario de
las nuevas ideas’ (O.C. I: 941, 942).
The ideological state apparatuses, as well as having a legitimating function,
also operate as tools of coercion, inculcation and propaganda in a cohesive
attempt to naturalize the dominant ideology. The workings of ideological appar-
atuses can be seen in the decisions taken and the message propagated after the
murder of Ignacio in En la ardiente oscuridad. Doña Pepita is the first to
re-establish the myth when she claims that ‘se ha matado’, something she knows
to be untrue (O.C. I: 120). Ultimately, Don Pablo opts for the accidental death
explanation as it is in keeping with the myth of the centre as a place full of happy,
well-adjusted students: ‘La hipótesis del suicidio era muy desagradable. No
hubiera compaginado bien con la moral de nuestro centro’ (O.C. I: 121). Ignacio
is not mourned; he was a problem that has been resolved.
Buero also subverted the Francoist ideology’s emphasis on Church and fam-
ily to demonstrate how it can be uncharitable and negative when falsified. The
crime of adultery in Las palabras en la arena, as in Francoist Spain, was the
crime of a woman.53 The ideological apparatus of the family as a protector of
order and peace is analysed in this play as a justification for revenge and an
excuse for murder. In Las Meninas, Velázquez’s wife, Juana, is portrayed in quite
negative terms, yet she might also represent the typical product of a proper edu-
cation in Spain under Franco.54 She believes that no honourable woman would
ever sit for such a portrait and that was why she refused her husband’s request
to be his model for a nude Venus. The painting of the Venus further encourages
53 ‘Adultery was a crime for which a woman could be sent to prison, while concubinage
(male adultery), though a criminal offence, was treated more leniently.’ Rosa Montero, ‘The
Silent Revolution: The Social and Cultural Advances of Women in Democratic Spain’, in
Spanish Cultural Studies: An Introduction, ed. by Helen Graham and Jo Labanyi (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 381–5 (p. 382). In their book, La memoria insumisa:
sobre la dictadura de Franco, Nicolás Sartorius and Javier Alfaya commented on the
misogynistic nature of the Franco regime: ‘una misoginia, por supuesto, que tenía hondas
raíces en la vida de un país cuyo código moral fue durante mucho tiempo de un esencial
machismo’. Nicolás Sartorius and Javier Alfaya, La memoria insumisa: sobre la dictadura de
Franco, 3rd edn (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 2000), p. 332.
54 Pilar Primo de Rivera; daughter of Miguel Primo de Rivera and sister of José Antonio,
controlled the Sección Femenina of the Falange and, under the Franco regime, was influential
on women’s issues. Her words on the education of women reflected the attitude of the regime:
‘Queremos conseguir que todas las mujeres tengan una formación religiosa a fondo,
apartándolas de ciertas cosas que no son necesarias y que, en cambio, las impide percibir toda
la grandeza de la liturgia ordenada por la Iglesia.’ From Discurso pronunciado en el III
Congreso Nacional de la Sección Femenina de Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las
J.O.N.S., in Cuatro discursos de Pilar Primo de Rivera (Madrid: Editorial Nacional, 1939),
pp. 17–27 (p. 22).
her to believe rumours of his infidelity.55 John Lyon makes a similar point that
in La tejedora de sueños: ‘El mito de la fiel esposa que se defiende heroicamente
del acoso de los pretendientes, mientras sueña con el regreso de su legítimo
marido, encaja perfectamente dentro de la ortodoxia católica acerca de la mujer
y el matrimonio.’56 The position of the family in the Francoist ideology is sub-
verted in La doble historia del doctor Valmy, where the family unit is destroyed
by the value system defended by the ruling elite. An alternative family is pre-
sented in the workplace, with the dysfunctional father–son relationship of Paulus
and Daniel. Later, Buero returned to the family theme when, in Jueces en la
noche, he criticized the Church’s influence and its insistence on the unity of the
family as necessary for the preservation of social stability.
Censorship is another form of ideological control mentioned by Buero in his
plays. In both Las Meninas and El sueño de la razón there is reference to the role
of the Santo Oficio in art censorship. In the seventeenth century, the Inquisition
prohibited the painting and exhibition of nudes because they were considered las-
civious; the punishment for defiant artists was excommunication, exile (usually
for one year) and a fine of five hundred ducats. In 1633, Vicente Carducho pub-
lished his book Diálogos de la pintura, su defensa, origen, escencia, definición,
modos y diferencias, in which he condemned naturalistic painters such as
Caravaggio and Velázquez. In it, he explained the moral purpose of art and
deemed certain subjects improper for church and court art.57 In 1649, with the
publication of his Arte de la pintura, Francisco Pacheco, father-in-law of
Velázquez and art consultant to the Inquisition, laid down the rules for Spanish
painters. He advised the use of female models solely for the painting of the face
and hands, and the use of secondary sources for all other parts. His conservative
attitude towards art is echoed in his daughter’s words when she tells her husband
Velázquez: ‘Nunca debiste pensar en tales pinturas’ (O.C. I: 910). In Las Meninas,
Velázquez is subjected to an Inquisition-style examination and charged with,
among other things, lasciviousness in his portrait of Venus. It is suggested to
Velázquez that he should destroy his Venus before the trial so as to avoid conflict
with the rules, but he refuses these suggestions of self-censorship made by both
his wife and the king, choosing instead to risk all in defence of the truth.
The expert opinion of Nardi, another court painter, is used in an attempt to
discredit Velázquez in the eyes of the king; he interprets Velázquez’s portraits as
55 Buero pointed out in an interview with Octavio Roncero in Arriba in 1960 that the
Venus in the play is not, as it is commonly assumed, the Venus del espejo (the Rokeby Venus),
‘No basé mi obra en La Venus del espejo’, in the Las Meninas file, AGA/IDD 52.22, Topogr.
83-51 Ca. 71.715 No. Exp. 296-60. The dramatic action is set in 1656, and the Venus del
espejo was not completed until 1657. Therefore it is one of the other two Venuses the artist is
supposed to have painted, one of which is said to have been in his home when he died.
56 ‘Buero Vallejo y el tema de la violencia’, p. 129.
57 Carducho is mentioned by both Velázquez and Nardi in the play. Nardi refers to him as
‘mi venerado amigo y maestro’, and thus presumably would favour Carducho’s traditional
methods and criticisms of Velázquez, while Velázquez dismisses a critic by claiming that he
sounds like Carducho (O.C. I: 866, 869).
disrespectful to the royal family. Buero, through Velázquez, cleverly demon-

strates the truth of the adage, ‘When correctly viewed, everything is lewd’ and
turns the trial around to show that the lasciviousness Nieto claimed to find in the
painting was in fact, in the eye of the beholder. He further criticizes the hypocrisy
of the censors by highlighting the fact that he has not exhibited the painting and
that other nudes in the palace, painted by Italians, have not been censored. This
point about one rule for foreigners and another, harsher, one for Spaniards was
equally pertinent when the play was first staged as many dramatists and com-
mentators complained that what was deemed acceptable in a foreign production
was often censored when the dramatist was Spanish.
In El sueño de la razón, the censorship of art is alluded to but does not form
part of the dramatic action. In 1814, Goya had been summoned by the Santo
Oficio to defend his painting of the Maja desnuda, and he refers to this in the text.
Like Velázquez before him, he finds the fault to be the censor’s rather than in his
painting. Goya considers the members of the Santo Oficio to be the unclean ones
and refers to them as ‘bichos’, ‘insectos que se creen personas’ and ‘hormigas en
torno a la reina gorda’. Furthermore, he suggests that the evil they so cleverly per-
ceived in his Maja desnuda emanated instead from their ‘ojos de bichos’ (O.C. I:
1278). There is a hint of censorship in the idea that the book on torture that Mary
Barnes is reading in La doble historia del doctor Valmy was written by a for-
eigner, suggesting that similar material by a native of Surelia would be sup-
pressed by the censors. Censorship is referred to in Mito also, with mention of
book burning. Finally, the case of Beltrán in El tragaluz shows how politics and
business interfere with literature and art in defence of certain political values.
Censorship was perhaps the ideological apparatus that most directly affected
Buero, but it was not the only one he targeted in his theatre. En la ardiente oscuri-
dad highlights the role of education as an ideological state apparatus, whose aim
is not to enlighten its pupils, but rather to inculcate the acceptance of a pleasant
and reassuring myth. The allegorical nature of the play is clear. Ignacio employs
politicized language to describe the regime at the Centro de enseñanza: ‘Vosotros
sois los alumnos modelo, los leales colaboradores del profesorado en la lucha
contra la desesperación, que se agazapa por todos los rincones de la casa. (Pausa).
¡Ciegos! ¡Ciegos y no invidentes, imbéciles!’ (O.C. I: 89). The myth propagated
by the model students and the director of the Centro is like the myth of the
Fundación, where everything is described in pleasant terms as the best of all pos-
sible worlds. María Teresa in Las Meninas, too, is educated to accept a falsified
version of reality. This link between education and politics is mentioned in the
later edition of Aventura en lo gris also. Silvano talks of his expulsion from his
university post as a propaganda victory for the regime: ‘Necesitaba una víctima
propiciatoria, y me tocó a mí. ¡Había que enardecer la moral combativa . . . de
los demás!’ (O.C. I: 415). It is also clear that he failed to play a part in the incul-
cation of the ruling ideology from his position of influence within the university.
Furthermore, he compliments Goldmann on his clever ploy to make him the
scapegoat of the government. Silvano was expelled from his job for what he said
and wrote, but he was not imprisoned. Therefore his supporters could not argue
that his treatment had been brutal. By not imprisoning him, they made him vul-
nerable to attacks from his enemies, who were incited by the government’s care-
ful manipulation of his words. Censorship then prevented him from defending
himself. In La Fundación Buero highlighted another effect of a repressive ideo-
logy in Tulio’s reference to a brain drain of those who are ideologically opposed
to the regime, a clear echo of the aftermath of the Civil War in Spain. A similar
desire to leave Spain in order to progress and get on in life is expressed by Juanito
in Las cartas boca abajo, suggesting that the consequences of the imposition of
the Francoist ideology on intellectual life in Spain were not shortlived.
Persuasion, seduction and propaganda are other ideological tools exposed in
the plays of Buero. Duaso in El sueño de la razón, Juana in En la ardiente
oscuridad, Paulus and the other policemen in La doble historia del doctor Valmy
all employ coercion in the first instance to try to persuade others to conform
to the established system. They try to persuade others that the system is both
representative and good and that there is no real alternative. There is further
evidence of coercion in Vicente’s attempts to get Mario to board the train in El
tragaluz, Felipe and Nurias’ attempts to convince Julio of the pleasantness of
life in Llegada de los dioses and Valindin’s use of Adriana to win over the blind
musicians in El concierto de San Ovidio.
The consequences of propaganda and the legitimating role of the ideological
state apparatuses are shown to be effective by the character Carlos in Aventura
en lo gris. According to Carlos: ‘Goldmann habría salvado a Surelia si le
hubiesen dejado las manos libres. Y es el único, ¡el único!, que ha sabido morir
en su puesto, en lugar de huir . . ., como el resto de los ministros’ (O.C. I: 428).
He has been taught that the enemy: ‘odian nuestra cultura superior’ (O.C. I: 427).
In a manner typical of nationalistic ideology, the enemy has been branded as an
inferior race of barbarous thieves who had no right to the land Surelia wished to
annex. Silvano alone rejects the mythmakers and ideologues of all sides. He
speculates on how the death of Goldmann will be reported, as it is very much
dependent on the political allegiances of whoever writes the report: ‘Mañana se
escribirá: «Un héroe llamado Albín mató al tirano de Surelia» O quizá: «Un
asesino mató a Goldmann, el héroe surelés»’ (O.C. I: 473). Silvano then, like
Buero, observed history repeating itself and knows that it is always written by
the victors.
7
Theatre and the Transition to Democracy
Theatre and Politics: The Transition

La censura de los últimos años de Franco era una censura
bastante más suave y bastante más permisiva, aunque
siguiese siendo muy molesta, que la de los primeros años.1
In the years immediately prior to Franco’s death, civil unrest in Spain had
grown, and those demanding reform were supported by a large proportion of
the population, including some members of the previously uncommitted bour-
geoisie and also some Catholic clergy. When he died, many felt that it was time
for a break with the past and a commitment to democracy. Nonetheless, despite
expectations to the contrary, the transition from dictatorship to democracy was
orchestrated from the right rather than imposed by the left. Although the tran-
sition to a more democratic form of government seemed to have been relatively
smooth, it displeased many of the hard-liners of the old regime and caused
some to suspect that the reactionaries might not remain silent. Buero Vallejo
voiced his concerns in Jueces en la noche (1979) and again in 1983, when he
wrote: ‘las fuerzas reaccionarias siguen poniendo abundantes obstáculos al
proceso en marcha y amenazándolo con sus repetidos intentos de involución’
(O.C. II: 524).
There had been a gradual easing of censorship in the last few years of the
Franco regime. However, there were occasional crackdowns and an increase in
the number of silencios administrativos. Yet as Carr and Fusi point out:
The change was irreversible. Spain rediscovered the female nude in films,
plays and magazines. The press continued to report in detail strikes and
terrorist actions and to comment at length and in depth on the political
situation. The views of the opposition leaders appeared with relative frequency
in the daily press and in the weeklies.2
Even some of those who had long supported Franco began to call for change;
many of the more aperturista members of his governments were active in the
process of transition.
1 Antonio Buero Vallejo, quoted in Sheehan, ‘Tres generaciones’, p. 26.

2 Raymond Carr and Juan Pablo Fusi, Spain: Dictatorship to Democracy, 2nd edn
(London: George Allen & Unwin, 1981), p. 197.
THEATRE AND THE TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY 201
The theatre became a site for ideological battle once again. Records in the
Archivo General de la Administración show that the government in 1976
continued to monitor the theatre world closely. For example, a report con-
tained in the files notes the presence of certain political figures at the per-
formance in Madrid of a play by the exiled dramatist Alberti: ‘Se observaba
especialmente la presencia de Marcelino Camacho, dirigente de las Comisiones
Obreras; de Simón Sánchez Montero, miembro del comité central del Partido
Comunista Español, y de Enrique Tierno Galván, presidente del Partido
Socialista Popular.’3 Nor did the transition government remove censorship
immediately. In June 1976, the government ordered the closure of the play La
maja desnuda de Cáceres, which was being performed at the Café Teatro
Stefanía, because of ‘transgresiones cometidas sobre el libreto’ and ‘por la
posible alteración de orden público a que pudieran dar lugar’.4 Four actors
were arrested and were imprisoned before being released without charge three
days later.
The sexual revolution in the Spanish theatre, which was linked to ideological
change in society, had begun before the death of Franco. Peter Schaffer’s Equus
was staged in 1975, as was Gala’s ¿Por qué corres, Ulises?, which also contained
some nudity.5 The so-called destape, described by Gala as ‘una catarsis física, no
una catarsis mental’, caused an at times excessive reaction, but then some of the
events were also extreme.6 For O’Connor: ‘Erotic theater clearly was the culmin-
ation of the materialistic, secular trends subtly initiated thirty years ago as well
as a logical response to almost four decades of sexual repression.’7 Abellán was
to contend that the destape was fundamentally a psychological reaction to the
new, euphoric mood post-Franco and not, as others have claimed, the result of
the removal of the tools of coercion, such as censorship.8 In fact, there were prob-
ably elements of both. Certainly, it could not have emerged had censorship
remained in place.
The pillars of society reacted to this development in a predictable manner, as
a survey about pornography and nudity, published in October 1975, demon-
strates. Padre Venancio Marcos, Secretary of the Hermandad Sacerdotal Español,
3 AGA/IDD 104.04 Topogr. 82-68 Ca. 576 MIT/00.710: Notas sobre obras en general.
4 Notas sobre obras en general. Els Joglars’s work, La torna, is another example; it was
withdrawn from the stage and banned shortly after its première in 1977.
5 In February 1976, a report by AFP from Madrid stated: ‘Un Comité de moralidad pública
ha enviado amenazas a la dirección del teatro madrileño de La Comedia si continúa

representando la obra Equus, del autor inglés P. Schaffer. Este Comité amenaza con incendiar
el teatro y proceder al juicio de los actores que la representan. Estos últimos son tratados de
delicuentes pornográficos y la actriz María José Goyanes, que aparece en el escenario con los
senos en el aire, es amenazada de ser disfigurada y de cortarle el pelo al cero.’ Notas sobre obras
en general.
6 Sheehan, ‘Tres generaciones’, p. 26.
7 ‘The Sexual Revolution in Post-Franco Theatre’, Cuadernos de Aldeeu, 1, Monograph
(no. 1, 1983), 57–65 (p. 64).

8 ‘Problemas historiográficos’, p. 320.
commented that ‘la barca española, el cine, el teatro y las revistas, están nave-
gando en una cloaca’. He went on to say:
Culpables de esta pornografía que nos está ahogando son: los productores de
cine, los guionistas y autores, que por un afan desmedido de ganar dinero
fabrican esas películas que son engendros de imaginaciones calenturientas y
enfebrecidas por el dinero. [. . .] Son culpables las Direcciones Generales de
Prensa, cinematografía y teatro, que han llegado a una apertura que no creo
sea la del doce de febrero, sino la apertura de los vestidos.
He blamed critics and the public also, and damned the rest of Europe with the
words: ‘Si en Europa se hacen esas cosas, aquí no queremos ni debemos imitar
a esas democracias europeas cuyas estructuras están llenas de suciedad y
porquería.’ Betraying a paternalistic attitude common among defenders of the
ruling ideology, he concluded that nudity in art has a place, but that this place is
not in the cinema or the theatre:
Se me dirá que el cine y el teatro son arte. Y el arte del desnudo es para los
museos a donde van las personas amantes de verdad del arte. Pero no son para
el cine, el teatro y la prensa, a donde acuden los amantes de la porquería y la
suciedad cuando se trata de espectáculos pornográficos.
Another priest, Padre José María Díez Alegría, revealed a similar attitude. Although
he was more reasonable and less critical of nudity in the cinema and theatre, he did
note a difference between this and other art. The danger, as he saw it, was that in
the cinema and the theatre, the spectator is presented with nudity in motion.9
Government vigilance and right-wing disapprobation were not the only
problems faced by the theatre. Both left- and right-wing extremists attacked not
only political figures but also artists and theatres, judged by them to be enemies of
a certain cause or ideology. In March 1976, the performance of Manuel Martínez
Mediero’s Las hermanas de Búfalo Bill was interrupted by smoke bombs thrown
by reactionaries. An article condemning the play, published in El Alcázar, seems
to have incited further violence and threats against the actors.10 In April, the direc-
tor of Papillon received a death threat from the Escuadron Justiciero de la Alianza
Anticomunista de España.11 Buero Vallejo was among those people associated with
committed theatre or the new liberal theatre who received death threats:
En todo cambio históricamente importante arrecia el deseo de eliminar a

personas que hayan sido notorias hasta entonces. Es una buena oportunidad,
incluso generacional, de anular vigencias. Los enemigos te llegan a amenazar
9 AGA/IDD 104.04 Topogr. 82-68 Ca. 581 MIT/00.584: Pornografía y Erotismo.

10 Caridad Plaza, ‘Teatro con policía’, El Diario Vasco, 24 March 1976. In AGA/IDD
49.021 Topogr. 73-46 Ca. 69.036 Carpeta no. 35: Noticias.
11 AGA/IDD 104.04 Topogr. 82-68 Ca. 653 Orden Público/20.260: Coacciones y
Amenazas anónimas 1973–77.

por el temor de que, pese a todo, no desaparezcas; supuestos amigos atacan

también, a ver si así te vas a la cuneta. Digo ahora todo esto porque se me
pregunta, pero es mejor callarse, pues de lo contrario alguno de los que te ata-
can te acusa encima de paranoico. Menos mal que los intentos de ‘defenes-
trarme’ no los he señalado yo, sino otros escritores: Isaac Montero, por
ejemplo.12
Furthermore, the editors of Estreno wondered in 1976 whether the inability to

find theatres willing to stage productions of Buero’s La doble historia del doc-
tor Valmy was a deliberate act of environmental censorship.13 When the Teatro
Benavente Theatre Company applied for permission to stage the play, Franco
was still alive. The application, seeking authorization, is dated 30 October 1975.
The first meeting of the censorship board was on 7 November. Of the three
censors who read the play, two advocated its authorization, but the third cited
norms 14.2 and 15 of the censorship legislation as reasons for prohibition. The
split vote meant that a plenary session had to be called, and the play was sent to
a further eleven readers. Once again, the lack of clarity in the legislation affected
the verdicts. Among the different censorship regulations that were apparently
breached by the play were rules 1, 3, 4, 15 and 18. The most frequently cited
norm was 14.2, which states:
Se prohibirá: [. . .] La presentación denigrante o indigna de ideologías políti-

cas y todo lo que atente de alguna manera contra nuestras instituciones o cer-
emonias, que el recto orden exige sean tratadas respetuosamente. En cuanto a
la presentación de los personajes, ha de quedar suficientemente clara para los
espectadores de distinción entre la conducta de los personajes y lo que
representan.14
Regulation 1 was a general rule prohibiting a play that: ‘En su conjunto se

considera gravemente peligrosa’, norm 3 ruled against the justification of any
behaviour that could be interpreted as ‘moralmente reprochable’ and norm 4
ruled that the work in question ‘debe conducir, lógicamente, a una reprobación
del mal’.15 Paradoxically, for legislation introduced by such a divisive regime,
norm 15 prohibited works that advocated hate among different peoples or that
defended such divisions in society. Norm 18 ruled against works in which ‘la
acumulación de escenas o planos que en sí mismos no tengan gravedad, cree, por
la reiteración, un clima lascivo, brutal, grosero o morboso’.16

13 ‘Cartelera’, Estreno, 2 (no. 2, 1976), p. 50. They also report that the dramatist received
threats to his person, and indeed to his life, probably as a response to the play or his signature
on a document calling for an amnesty for political prisoners.
14 Orden 9 febrero 1963, Normas de censura cinematográfica, p. 3930.
15 Orden 9 febrero 1963, Normas de censura-cinematográfica, p. 3929. ‘Mal’ was
presumably to be defined in terms of the Roman Catholic-influenced ruling ideology.

16 Orden 9 febrero 1963, Normas de censura cinematográfica, p. 3930.
Sr Vázquez Dodero favoured the prohibition of La doble historia del doctor

Valmy because the setting for the play was too reminiscent of Spain, and
suggested that it might be more acceptable if set elsewhere:
Aunque se sitúa en un país imaginario, en ningún momento se tiene la sen-

sación de que ocurra, por ejemplo, en un país comunista, sino en uno más o
menos dictatorial de occidente. Y, en occidente, el Estado policiaco que teóri-
camente, más se parece al que pinta Buero, es el español. Que sitúe la acción
tras el telón de acero o, quizá, en un país sur-americano, y podría pasar, pese,
como digo, a lo repugnante del argumento.17
Another censor thought that the government’s enemies might find in the play, ‘un
arma contra el Régimen’, and yet another saw in it ‘peligrosidad desde todos los
ángulos de visión’.
A majority of readers saw fit to prohibit the play, but the Secretary and the
Subdirector General de Actividades Teatrales voted in favour of its authorization.
This resulted in a total of seven votes in favour of authorization of the play and
seven against, and so the decision was referred to the Director General de
Cinematografía y Teatro. A report from the Subdirector General de Actividades
to the Director General, dated 4 December 1975, is interesting for what it reveals
about the censors’ deliberations and the reasons for their verdicts. The
Subdirector General advocated authorization of La doble historia del doctor
Valmy. He argued that the theme is treated in a general way and could not be
attributed to a particular country or even a particular political ideology
(Appendix XIV). The censorship board met on 12 December 1975. The follow-
ing day, the Director General returned a verdict of authorization with three cuts,
though the final decision was left until after a representative group of censors had
viewed the dress rehearsal (Appendix XV).18
La doble historia del doctor Valmy premiered in the Teatro Benavente, Madrid
on 29 January 1976 under the direction of Antonio González Vergel. It enjoyed
considerable success and ran for over six hundred performances. It also won the
El Espectador y la Crítica and the Trofeo de Radio España prizes and was author-
ized for publication by Espasa-Calpe in June 1976. However, in addition to the
earlier mentioned death threats and possible environmental censorship, there was
additional negative reaction. On 9 February the Director General de Seguridad
issued a report on Buero Vallejo in which the dramatist was condemned for his
‘campaña teatral contra la policía’. The author of this report was convinced that
the play was written about the Spanish police and cited Buero’s personal and
political history as evidence both of his bad character and mischievous intent.
17 AGA/IDD 52.22 Topogr. 83-51 Ca. 71.779 Exp. 147-67. All further references to
censors’ reports and correspondence about La doble historia del doctor Valmy are from
this file.
18 The play was reviewed in April 1979, and there was a unanimous decision to award it
an over 18s rating.

A note was then sent to the Ministro de Información y Turismo informing him
of Buero’s latest ideological attack (Appendix XVI). Further negative reaction
included an unsigned review of La doble historia del doctor Valmy, published in
Fuerza Nueva in 1976, which contained the following recommendation:
La acusación a la Policía – de no sabemos qué país – es tan despiadada, que

en forma alguna debe de tolerarse. Y no lo decimos por la censura, que es
mejor abolir, por ineficaz, sino por los propios espectadores, que deberían
reaccionar ante obras semejantes dirigiéndose al Juzgado de Guardia a
presentar la correspondiente querella.19
The destape did not merely cause problems for the reactionaries, however. The
high hopes for a new theatre from the banned or silent dramatists were seen to
be misplaced when many of the would-be revolutionaries embraced nudity over
politics. The profit-driven directors exploited this trend, which for a while greatly
increased the numbers attending the theatre. However, the destape probably
added to the decline in numbers of traditional bourgeois theatre audiences, many
of whom were uncomfortable with the new direction in the theatre. A prolifer-
ation of translations offered what seemed to be the only respite from the destape,
and even some of these, as well as some Spanish classics, were adapted and
sexualized to suit the mood of the day. One such case was Ángel Facio’s
production of Lorca’s La casa de Bernarda Alba, which featured the actor Ismael
Merlo in the title role on a stage dominated by images and symbols of the female
genitalia. The traditional audience absented itself from such productions. Pérez-
Stansfield wrote of the typically bourgeois audience: ‘No quiso aceptar el
cambio, y en la temporada teatral de 1977–1978 se habló de una crisis del teatro,
no por falta de autores, sino por falta de material rentable: el público.’20
O’Connor noted: ‘What had begun as a plea for freedom had ironically become
obligatory. If nudity was prohibited prior to 1975, by 1977 an unspoken law
seemed to require the display, at least momentarily, of a female breast or two.’21
A comment made by Buero in 1996 could equally be applied to much of the
theatre of the transition period:
El teatro tiene que renovarse, por supuesto, pero a condición de seguir siendo
teatro; en muchos experimentos, se pasa de la raya, y lo que se produce ya no
es teatro. [. . .] Pirandello, por ejemplo, no era un renovador disparatado, sino
un renovador que se mantenía dentro de los cauces del teatro de texto, de
19 Fuerza Nueva, 6 March 1976. In AGA/IDD 49.021 Topogr. 73-46 Ca. 69.036 Carpeta
no. 49: Artículos Prensa. The author of the article goes on to write: ‘En cualquier caso, le
recomendamos acuda a una de las sesiones del teatro Benavente al vicepresidente de Asuntos
para el Interior y ministro de la Gobernación, señor Fraga Iribarne. Quizá tenga alguna
sugerencia que hacer.’
20 María Pilar Pérez-Stansfield, Direcciones de teatro español de posguerra (Madrid: José
Porrúa Turanzas, 1983), p. 308.

21 ‘The Sexual Revolution’, p. 60.
situación, de coherencia. Y eso sí era – y es – fecundo. En España hoy en día,

hay poca renovación verdadera.22
Another feature of the theatre of the transition period was the rise of highly
politicized right-wing drama. In essence, what was on offer now was agitation
propaganda, demanding political action and blaming the democratic movement
for modern Spain’s ills. Previously, right-wing theatre had settled into a form of
integration propaganda; now, the theatres again became the arena for an ideo-
logical battle. Ironically, plays such as Antonio D. Olano’s Madrid, pecado mor-
tal (1977) and Enrique Barreiro’s Muñecas (1979) employed the tools of sexual
liberation to criticize democracy and freedom, including the perceived licen-
tiousness of the newer theatrical trends. The staging of plays such as Eloy
Herrera Santos’s Un cero a la izquierda (1978) and Olano’s Cara al sol . . . con
la chaqueta nueva (1978) were more comparable in many ways to political
assemblies than to normal theatrical performances. Marsillach wrote:
Cuando Un cero a la izquierda se presentó en Madrid, los espectadores ‘ultras’

o no, que este es otro asunto – abarrotaron el teatro todos los días y consigu-
ieron convertir las representaciones en mítines políticos. Algo que no había
ocurrido desde los tiempos gloriosos de la oposición.23
Zatlin Boring makes a similar point in her description of the staging of Herrera’s
Que Dios os lo demande (1979): ‘The atmosphere was that of a political rally,
not of a theatrical presentation.’24 Indeed, Herrera himself described Un cero a
la izquierda as:
Una obra que en el momento más agudo de la crisis no sólo teatral, se convirtió
en revulsivo, sacó a la gente de sus casas y consiguió una asistencia masiva de
público durante dos años. [. . .] el texto de la misma era portador y portavoz
de unos deseos contenidos en la mente del espectador.25
Reactionary nationalism was also evident in the Arlequin Theatre Company,

whose political manifesto was published by the magazine Fuerza Nueva. The
main objective of this group was to ‘crear y fomentar un teatro español, hecho por
22 O’Connor, Antonio Buero Vallejo en sus espejos, p. 314. Antonio Gala’s attitude seems
to have been much the same as Buero’s. He stated: ‘La libertad de expresión es exigible, pero
no garantiza, ni muchísimo menos, la existencia de un teatro mejor.’ Zatlin Boring, ‘Encuesta
sobre el teatro madrileño’, p. 14.
23 Adolfo Marsillach, ‘Cinco años de teatro: 1975–1980’, Tiempo de Historia, 4 (no. 72,
1980), 215–29 (p. 220). For more on the reception of these and other plays of the transition,
see Manuel Pérez, El teatro de la transición política (1975–1982): Recepción, crítica y
edición (Kassel: Reichenberger, 1998).
24 ‘Agit-prop from the Right: The Theater of Eloy Herrera’, Estreno, 6 (no. 2, 1980), 18–21
(p. 20).
25 Zatlin Boring, ‘Encuesta sobre el teatro madrileño’, p. 16.
españoles, con obras dignas de ser programadas, saneando al propio tiempo la

cartelera de hoy en día, incluso el ambiente o mundillo interior del teatro’.26 The
group also called for increased censorship and the exclusion of foreign actors and
directors, and they repudiated pornography. Their call for a return to Golden Age
drama and to a national and religious theatre was a reaction to the destape and
was ignored by the majority of commercial theatres at the time. Nonetheless, their
demands, along with the undeniable success of much of the extreme right-wing
drama, is a testament to the ideological conflict in the theatre.
Changes in Legislation
Sastre proposed the creation of a Teatro Unitario de la Revolución Socialista in
the early days of post-Francoism, but his proposal was not welcomed.27 It was
probably a little out of step with the reality of the times in any case. Nobody was
calling for left-wing political revolution any more. Later, in 1981, he would still
claim that ‘la democracia no es un hecho en España todavía y que por lo tanto
está muy justificado hacer un teatro radical’.28 Others proposed a more moder-
ate reform. Late in 1977, Rafael Pérez Sierra, then Director General de Teatro,
gathered a group of theatre professionals to create a structure for the new Teatros
Nacionales. The result was the drawing up of the statutes that created the Centro
Dramático Nacional. However, the document was not published in the BOE and
was thus not legally binding. The result, according to Marsillach in 1980, was
that: ‘el Centro Dramático Nacional sigue estando hoy atado de pies y manos a
la Administración y sujeto a cualquier viavén político interesado en mantenerlo
o en sepultarlo’.29
Changes in legislation affecting freedom of expression were few in the years
prior to Franco’s death, as the government sought to retain full control while
responding to the mood change in Spanish society, which demanded greater
autonomy. As Abellán wrote: ‘El empleo del “silencio” podía haber sido el único
asidero legal para poner en práctica una política de liberalización. En cambio,
sólo parece haber servido para intimidar.’30 While the Ley de Prensa e Imprenta
was not vigorously enforced during the transition period, neither was it immedi-
ately rescinded. José Luis Cebrián summarized the period: ‘el panorama de la
prensa española de la democracia resulta al final una mezcla de excesos y
temores no abandonados’.31 The Ley del Libro, introduced in 1975, did not
replace the 1966 Ley de Prensa e Imprenta, rather it merely amended article 2
of the latter. The article was not actually suppressed until the introduction of
26 Vicente Romero, ‘El teatro de la extrema derecha’, Estreno, 1 (no. 3, 1975), 11–12 (p. 12).
27 Cramsie, Teatro y censura, p. 98.
28 Vogeley, ‘Alfonso Sastre’, p. 461.
29 Marsillach, ‘Cinco años’, p. 223.
30 ‘Censura y autocensura’, p. 174.
31 ‘La Prensa en crisis’, Tiempo de Historia, 4 (no. 72, 1980), 173–9 (p. 177).
the Ley Anti-libelo in April 1977. Yet, in a move that damaged confidence, severe
restrictions on what could be said about the Armed Forces and the Crown were
included in the Ley Anti-libelo.
Nor were there many practical changes in the early post-Franco years. The
application of the censorship legislation had not been vigorously enforced for
some time previously, but its continued existence was a threatening reminder of
the not so distant past. Of the years 1975–78, prior to the introduction of the
constitution, Buero claimed: ‘Era una régimen que todavía arrastraba puntos de
vista y posiciones mentales pocos propicios al atrevimiento, la experiencia, la
experimentación o la osadía.’32 In 1976, Andrés Reguera Guajardo, Ministro de
Información y Turismo under Adolfo Suárez, stated on the continued use of the
Ley de Prensa:
Entiendo que puede y debe ser modificada, o más bien desaparecer, para que
en el futuro los delitos de prensa se atengan al código. Pero entre tanto,
estamos aplicando una política que en lo que respecta a sanciones administra-
tivas, solo se ejercen cuando se ponen en pelígro cuestiones graves de interés
general. Lo mismo sucede con la censura. En especial con la de publicaciones
o espectáculos escritos. Se ha elevado el techo en cuanto a estos últimos, como
prueban las carteleras, pero en cuanto a las publicaciones, hemos buscado un
equilibrio entre la libertad de los editores y la sensibilidad de la mayoría, las
publicaciones eróticas se editan, pero no se exhiben en los quioscos dañando
la sensibilidad indiscriminada del ciudadano. En estos últimos meses hemos
hecho escaso uso de las facultades sancionadoras de la administración.33
Clearly, this right-led government was, despite its democratic pretensions, still
loath to devolve power to those outside its ranks. The retention of power by this
group was presented as being in the common interest and for the protection of
shared values. Some months later, LOGOS reported Minister Reguera’s
declaration: ‘No me considero Ministro “de” la información, sino “para” la infor-
mación.’ Yet the positive implications of this statement were undermined by
another statement made by the Minister and quoted by CIFRA on the same day:
Así también, cuando profesamos la urgente importancia y necesidad de la lib-

ertad informativa, que incluye la crítica, no podemos dejar de ligarla con unos
matices de objetividad de planteamientos y ponderación en las manifesta-
ciones que son inherentes al ejercicio de la profesión informativa, así como a
unos límites – la Monarquía, la unidad nacional y el respeto a las fuerzas
armadas – que no son discutibles porque, por encima de las más profundas
mutaciones, representan el núcleo de lo permanente y el soporte de nuestra
misma evolución democrática. 34

33 Reported by LOGOS, 22-2-1976. AGA/IDD 104.04 Topogr. 82-68 Ca. 576
MIT/00.102: Declaraciones y discursos.
34 Declaraciones y discursos.
In 1977 theatre censorship came under the control of the newly named
Ministro de Cultura. Nonetheless, the legislation affecting the theatre was not
actually repealed until 1978, with the publication of Real Decreto 262/1978 de
27 de enero (Mº. CULTURA), TEATRO, CIRCO Y VARIEDADES. Libertad de
representación de espectáculos.35 This legislation replaced the earlier censorship
laws but was not intended to result in an unregulated theatre.
The new legislation stated that the verdict on a play would be granted within
fifteen days of authorization being sought. However, the Dirección General
reserved the right to change the categorization of the play thereafter. Article 8 of
the law created the Comisión de Calificación de Teatro y Espectáculos, with the
Director General de Teatro y Espectáculos as President, the Subdirector General
de Actividades as Vice-president and the Jefe de la Sección de Ordenación de
Dirección General as Secretary. The law stipulated that there were to be no more
than twenty committee members, who were to be nominated by the Ministro de
Cultura.
Further regulatory legislation was published in the Orden de 7 de abril de
1978 (Mº. CULTURA), por la que se dictan normas sobre calificación de
espectáculos teatrales. Article 2.1 lists the new classifications of dramatic
works:
Art. 2.º : 1. Las calificaciones de los espectáculos teatrales y artísticos se otor-

garán teniendo en cuenta las edades de los públicos que, en cada caso, puedan
tener acceso a la representación y serán las siguientes:
a) Para todos los públicos
b) Para mayores de catorce años
c) Para mayores de dieciciocho años.36
Yet, as the Real Decreto 262/1978 had specified, plays which, ‘por su temática
o contenido [. . .] puede herir de modo especial la sensibilidad del espectador
medio’ were to be classified «S» and would receive no support from the state,
financial or otherwise (Appendix XVII).37 Little seemed to have changed. The
government still effectively controlled the theatre, as many theatres and com-
panies depended upon it for finance.
Companies wishing to stage a play had to send in an application at least thirty
days before the proposed date of staging, stating the category of production for
which they were seeking authorization. In the case of an application for a single
performance, seven days’ notice was required. The documentation required was
detailed in article 4 of the new legislative order. Article 5 dealt with the Comisión
de Calificación de Teatro y Espectáculos (created by Real Decreto 262/1978)
35 Real Decreto 262/1978 (Mº Cultura), Teatro, Circoy Variedades. Libertad de
representación de espectáculos, BOE, no. 53 (ref. 481, 3 March 1978), pp. 496–7.
36 Orden 7 abril 1978 (Mº Cultura), por la que se dictan normas sobre calificación de
espectáculos teatrales, BOE, no. 89 (ref. 9621, 14 April 1978), pp. 8611–13.
37 Real Decreto 262/1978, Teatro, Circoy Variedades, pp. 496–7.
and specified that members were to be appointed for three years, with the possi-
bility of an extension at the discretion of the Minister. The Comisión could be
called to session by the President or by a simple majority of members. Verdicts
were to be agreed by simple majority of members and the President had the
casting vote. Once finalized, notice of the categorization of the play in question
was sent to the company. Article 11.1 outlined the composition and role of the
Subcomisión de Valoración, which was comprised of a maximum of seven mem-
bers of the Comisión and which was ‘el órgano asesor en orden a la protección
y fomento de los espectáculos teatrales y artísticos de especial calidad’.38 Article
13.1 stipulated that, in accordance with earlier legislation, the classification
awarded to any given drama must be displayed on all advertising and
promotional material for the play as well as in a prominent position in the box
office. This process remained unchanged until 1985, although there were some
organizational reshuffles in the meantime.
Apart from this legislation specifically affecting censorship, constitutional
change, affecting all of the state apparatuses, was introduced late in 1978. The
constitution defines the Spanish State as a Parliamentary Monarchy and affirms
the government’s commitment to democracy. Liberties and rights, which were
ignored by the previous regime, are guaranteed by the constitution. Article 15
abolishes torture and the death penalty.39 Article 16.1 guarantees ‘la libertad
ideológica, religiosa y de culto de los individuos’.40 Article 20 deals with the sub-
ject of censorship and states:
Artículo 20:
1. Se reconocen y protegen los derechos:
a) A expresar y difundir libremente los pensamientos, ideas y opiniones
mediante la palabra, el escrito o cualquier otro medio de reproducción.
b) A la producción y creación literaria, artística, científica y técnica.
c) A la libertad de cátedra.
d) A comunicar o recibir libremente información veraz por cualquier
medio de difusión. La ley regulará el derecho a la clausula de conciencia y
al secreto profesional en el ejercicio de estas libertades.
2. El ejercicio de estos derechos no puede restringirse mediante ningún tipo
de censura previa.
3. La ley regulará la organización y el control parlamentario de los medios de
comunicación social dependientes del Estado o de cualquier ente público y
garantizará el acceso a dichos medios de los grupos sociales y políticos signi-
ficativos, respetando el pluralismo de la sociedad y de las diversas lenguas de
España.
38 Orden 7 abril 1978, Calificación, p. 8613.

39 However, it includes the reservation ‘salvo lo que puedan disponer las leyes penales
militares para tiempos de guerra’. Constitución española, ed. by Luis López Guerra, 9th edn
(Madrid: Tecnos, 1997), pp. 39–40.
40 Constitución española, p. 40.
4. Estas libertades tienen su límite en el respeto a los derechos reconocidos en

este Título, en los preceptos de las leyes que lo desarrollen y, especialmente,
en el derecho al honor, a la intimidad, a la propia imagen y a la protección de
la juventud y de la infancia.
5. Sólo podrá acordarse el secuestro de publicaciones, grabaciones y otros
medios de información en virtud de resolución judicial.41
This article, and indeed the entire constitution, made it clear that a return to
Francoism was not desired by the government, the king, or the vast majority of
the people.
Substantive reform of the theatre did take place in 1985 with the creation of the
Instituto Nacional de las Artes Escénicas y de la Música (INAEM), charged with
the control and development of theatre and music in Spain.42 It heralded a restruc-
turing of state aid to the theatre and the creation of arts and cultural bodies charged
with the development and support of the theatre and other cultural endeavours.
The Comisión de Calificación de Teatro y Espectáculos, which had read the plays
and operated under the Negociado de Calificación, was disbanded and a new clas-
sification process agreed between the Director General of the INAEM and the
Ministerio de Educación y Cultura. The INAEM has a role similar to the old
Dirección General de Música y Teatro, and upon its inception it took control of
the Teatros Nacionales, the Orquestra y Coros Nacionales de España and the Junta
Coordinadora de Actividades y Establecimientos Culturales. The INAEM con-
trols the state-funded national theatres, each of which has a specific artistic brief.
The Centro Dramático Nacional (CDN) stages modern classics and translations,
although it has been criticized for its failure to stage contemporary Spanish drama
with any regularity. The Centro Nacional de Teatro Clásico stages new and tradi-
tional versions of the Golden Age classics, and the Centro Nacional de Nuevas
Tendencias Escénicas (CNNTE) was established to ensure support for new
authors and innovative and experimental theatre. The final branch of the National
Theatre is the Teatro Lírico Nacional, which stages opera and zarzuela. The
budget for the running of the Instituto is much greater than the budget of its prede-
cessor, but the plans for the new structure are much more ambitious. The state
gives grant aid to theatre companies and groups, which abide by certain regula-
tions stipulated in the new legislation. While this has led to certain improvements,
such as an increase in the number of theatres, tours and festivals, it also has
brought with it disadvantages, such as an increasing dependence on the grant sys-
tem. Effectively, this means that little is achieved in the Spanish theatre world
without the support of the state, ironically a situation that Franco had also sought
to bring about. The INAEM would appear to have effected an improvement in the
41 Constitución española, pp. 42–4.

42 The INAEM was created by Real Decreto 565/1985 (PRESIDENCIA DEL
GOBIERNO), de 24 de abril, por el que se establece la estructura orgánica básica del
Ministerio de Cultura y de sus organismos autónomas. Articles 8 to 16 are reprinted in ‘El
INAEM: partida de nacimiento’, Cuadernos el público, no. 6 (1985), 15–16.
quality of the theatrical offerings, at least in the national theatres, but complaints
persist about the arrangements for funding, and favouritism shown to certain
authors, as well as issues of training and professionalism.
Overall, the reform has been gradual but noticeable. In an interview published
in Estreno in 1991, Buero compared the theatre of the day favourably to the
theatre of the mid-1980s, in so far as economic aid was concerned. However, he
pointed out that the theatre had lost out overall in the entertainment stakes, with
other forms of entertainment winning over the mass audiences that the theatre is
seemingly unable to draw.43 This problem of attracting and retaining an audience
had to be contended with and, as Buero said: ‘De lo que se trata es de recuperar,
de reconstruir, al público, y esto no se consigue sólo con espectáculos excep-
cionales o con festivales.’44
Plus ça change . . . Democratic Control of Theatre

MESONERO El más triste secreto a voces es que los liberales no existen
(O.C. I: 1518).
Ideology did not end with the death of Franco. Claims by many dramatists that
it was more difficult to stage plays in 1980 than in the Franco years demon-
strated that old problems had not been resolved. According to Buero, the years
1978–81 saw an increase in grant aid and prizes, but nothing to compare with
the rest of Europe. Gala said that the stress was on foreign plays at the expense
of the development of Spanish theatre. Cabal claimed that the independent
groups suffered under the theatre policy of the time, and many folded under the
pressure and lack of funding. On the attitude of the socialist government, no
dramatist was flattering. Gala claimed that what was created in those years was,
‘un teatro prácticamente oficial’.45 Despite structural and legislative changes in
the post-Franco era, what has been defined as a theatre crisis remains largely
unsolved and many fear that the negative trend will be difficult to remedy. In
1991, Fernández Insuela carried out a survey in Estreno in which he asked the
views of the Generación Realista on the Spanish theatre from the mid-1980s to
1990. The dramatists interviewed were José María Rodríguez Méndez, José
Martín Recuerda, Lauro Olmo and Carlos Muñiz, and their responses to the
questions posed were overwhelmingly negative. Rodríguez Méndez lamented
the absence of Spanish drama and what he considered the poor quality of trans-
lations of foreign works. He was highly critical of the theatrical administration,
which he blamed for the ongoing problems: ‘A esas tales no les importa ni el
teatro, ni la cultura ni nada por el estilo. En parte son las más culpables de que
43 Peter L. Podol, ‘El estado actual del teatro en España: entrevista con Antonio Buero
Vallejo’, Estreno, 17 (no. 1, 1991), 9.

el nivel cultural del país haya caído tan bajo, pues está en manos de funcionar-
ios sin seso.’46 More than one dramatist criticized the rampant amiguismo in the
administration, and Martín Recuerda criticized the failure of the universities to
provide drama courses. A survey in ALEC in 1990 produced similar results.
Buero Vallejo commented on the increased popularity of other forms of art and
entertainment, which attract not only prospective audiences but also prospective
dramatists away from the theatre. Some of the younger playwrights such as José
Luis Alonso de Santos and Fermín Cabal, who had theatrical successes in the
early 1980s, went on to carve out a niche for themselves in the world of cinema.
Cabal too was highly critical, not only of the administration’s failure to develop
the theatre, but also of its nepotism. However, he expressed the hope that a new
wave of theatre would emerge from the independent sector, which would be
author-dominated, as opposed to the director-driven productions of the previous
decade. There was a general feeling among those surveyed that the administra-
tion did not do enough to encourage younger or more experimental dramatists
and concentrated instead on what Cabal referred to as the ‘cadáveres exquisi-
tos’ of the classic theatre.47 Some of the respondents criticized the new form of
censorship prevailing in the post-Franco theatre. The dramatist Pilar Pombo
wrote:
Ahora ni siquiera se puede correr el riesgo de saltarse a la torera los tachones,

que en ‘otro tiempo’ adjudicaba la censura. Ahora simplemente, o se le niega
la subvención a uno o no se le concede un teatro donde representar. La censura
sigue existiendo. Es una censura económica pero, al fin y al cabo, censura.48
She defined the relationship between ministry and dramatist as one of ‘amo’ and
‘súbdito’ and also complained about the lack of accountability in the organiza-
tions controlling the funding of theatre. The ‘underground’ dramatist Jerónimo
López Mozo condemned the state’s control of the free theatre. He made a point
similar to that of Pilar Pombo about the dependence of the commercial theatre
on state subventions that translated into self-censorship on the part of the author
wishing to have a play accepted for staging by a company. As in the Franco
period, the safe productions were staged at the expense of more experimental
or challenging work. In 1985, Martín Recuerda maintained: ‘Hay quizás más
censura ahora que en el franquismo, porque en el franquismo te decían no y ya
lo sabías, pero es que ahora hay una cantidad de cosas pequeñas por debajo que
depende de eso el que se nos estrene.’ However, Jaume Melendres countered
this by saying: ‘La censura es la censura, y el hecho de tener obras de treinta
46 Antonio Fernández Insuela, ‘Encuesta: la Generación Realista ante el teatro español de
1985–1990’, Estreno, 17 (no. 2, 1991), 5–9, 42 (p. 6).

47 John P. Gabriele and Candyce Leonard, ‘Perspectivas sobre el teatro español a los
quince años de la democracia’, Anales de la literatura española contemporánea, 15 (nos 1–3,

1990), 253–73 (p. 257).
48 Gabriele and Leonard, ‘Perspectivas’, p. 266.
personajes que no se ponen por razones económicas, creo que no es censura.

Estos son condicionamientos económicos de la industria.’49 Buero’s attitude lay
somewhere between the two. When asked in 1984 whether he considered that
censorship continued to exist in Spain, Buero responded: ‘Hay todavía formas
de presión social que podríamos llamar residuales, emparentadas con la censura
anterior; pero el organismo llamado censura y la necesidad de someter los tex-
tos a una aprobación previa, han desaparecido.’50 Nonetheless, as he made clear
in his post-Franco theatre, the removal of censorship did not signify the termi-
nation of ideological pressure on society.
Martín Iniesta was one of those critical of the creation of the Centro Nacional
de Nuevas Tendencias Escénicas for its insistence on novelty, instead of sup-
porting what was being produced. He further criticized the creation of prizes for
young authors, which excluded the older generation and reduced their chances
of having their work produced. Instead, he suggested, what was on offer was
drama based on modern and fashionable themes, such as drugs and racism, but
without a corresponding commitment from the dramatists to social change or
criticism of society.51 At the Congreso Internacional Autor Teatral y Siglo XX in
1998, many dramatists were still complaining about new forms of censorship.
José María Rodríguez Méndez mentioned the new censorship of box office and
state subvention and lamented the age of the director in the theatre.52 He was also
scathing in his criticism of the inclusion of Muñoz Seca among the great
dramatists of this century, considering him, much as Monleón did in his book on
right-wing theatre, to be a third-rate author. He further lamented the disappear-
ance of dramatists such as Olmo and Muñiz from the collective memory. Jaime
Salom was critical of the emphasis on the classics and on foreign theatre, citing
as an example the programme for the 1998 Madrid Theatre Festival. Most of the
plays were foreign and of the Spanish plays being staged, half were by classical
authors, leaving only four plays by modern Spanish authors. José Sanchis
Sinisterra was slightly more positive and, while he too cited the inequitable grant
system, unlike Rodríguez Méndez, he was positive about the return of the auteur.
Elsewhere, Ragué Arias summarized the situation: ‘Entre 1982 y 1995, preva-
lecen las contradicciones de una política teatral que por un lado proclama su
voluntad subsidiaria y no intervencionista, mientras que de hecho transforma al
Estado en el principal empresario teatral.’53 In 1994, the situation was much the
same. Ragué Arias cites Eduardo Haro Tecglen who, in the Anuario de El País
49 ‘Mesa Redonda 2: escribir en España’, Cuadernos el Público, no. 9 (1985), 40–63 (p. 56).
50 De los Reyes, ‘Comentarios’, p. 23.
51 Fernando Martín Iniesta, ‘Teatro español en la democracia’, Cuadernos
Hispanoamericanos, no. 572 (1998), 95–8 (p. 98).

52 Congreso Internacional Autor Teatral y Siglo XX, Casa de América, Madrid del 25 al 27
de noviembre de 1998.
53 María José Ragué Arias, El teatro de fin de milenio en España: de 1975 hasta hoy
(Barcelona: Ariel, 1996), pp. 115, 117. She also wrote, on p. 114: ‘El control de las
subvenciones parece haber sustituido a las censuras franquistas.’
of that year, criticized ‘la función de empresario teatral que ha asumido la

Administración pública y su interés en programar espectáculos que no supongan
discusiones políticas: los clásicos’. The above complaints seem to support the
arguments put forth by Abellán and Buero Vallejo. Abellán had warned of the
dangers of assuming that censorship, once removed from the statute books, had
disappeared; he recognized that censorship was merely one element in an
ideological system:
El hecho de que la censura franquista – la censura gubernativa – asumiera en

sus actuaciones una multiplicidad de intereses censorios, constituyéndose en
juez y parte de lo que debía o no debía ser publicado, ha contribuido fatalmente
a identificar y confundir la desaparición del sistema censorio con la aparición
de la libertad de expresión sin práctica censoria – pese a su hermetismo y
misterio – nos ha inducido a concebir sus actuaciones como unidimensionales
y provistas de total transparencia, impidiéndonos captar la multiplicidad de
condicionamientos en juego.54
Buero too was reluctant to consider the removal of Francoist censorship from
the legislature as a total victory for freedom of expression and the end
of Spain’s problems. It was a view that was not entirely welcomed by those
who wished to forget the past and concentrate on the future, but was proved
correct:
La censura se ha suprimido, pero no han terminado otras censuras, porque

todos sabemos que, en sus peores aspectos, la censura no es más que el reflejo
oficializado de algo que la sociedad misma, enferma, segrega. Y la sociedad
española no está todavía sana. Guarda dentro muchos de los fermentos, de los
gérmenes que originaron e hicieron durar al franquismo; y por ello, en esta
nueva etapa en la que evidentemente vamos a trabajar con mayor libertad y en
la que estamos ya viendo muestras iniciales de un cambio bueno y esperan-
zador de las actividades creadoras, sigue habiendo no obstante serios
inconvenientes, graves problemas de censura ambiental, y otros muchos de
carácter estructural, económico, etc., que no por ser de distinto orden dejan de
afectar a la vida cultural. (O.C. II: 497)
It was clear to those who wished to acknowledge it that the hegemonic and
ideological structures of Francoism did not disappear from Spanish society when
Franco died. Many of the people who had served under Franco and who had
supported his regime remained in privileged positions and showed no desire to
relinquish their power. Manuel Abellán criticized the fact that even after the
disappearance of censorship, ‘sobrevive el personal censorio; esos censores de
brocha gorda que pasan a los servicios de presidencia del gobierno’. He further
condemned the fact that: ‘En la radio y la televisión del Estado se han empeñado
54 Abellán, ‘Problemas historiográficos’, p. 323.

en colocar a profesionales de la censura más cavernaria: Robles Piquer y

Nasarre.’55
Another issue for some dramatists and commentators was the focus of drama
in post-Franco Spain. In 1976, Buero had commented on the role of the theatre
during the Franco years and why he thought drama had an important role to play
in the political education of his countrymen:
De todos es sabido que porque faltaban otras plataformas más normales y más
lógicas de expresión política, las que ofrecían el teatro y la literatura, por ejem-
plo, eran especialmente óptimas en esos tiempos para expresar a través de ellas
las inquietudes políticas de orden general.56
However, now that the dramatists and novelists were free to speak clearly about
politics, so too were journalists, and it was generally accepted that the news
media were best placed to communicate information about social and political
issues. After the advent of democracy in Spain, the theatre no longer needed to
take on the role that it had adopted when the press was not free. Nonetheless, the
question then arises of how free the press was, and is, in democratic Spain, or
indeed in any modern democracy.
The control of the media, an insidious form of ideological control in a
democratic state, is a topic that features in Buero’s play Música cercana. Further
links between corrupt politicians and powerful business and banking corpor-
ations are mentioned in other Buero plays of the post-Franco era. The dramatist
warned that this concentration of power is complemented by a powerful cap-
acity for influencing public opinion and noted that democracy in Spain, as
elsewhere, saw the creation of a new and powerful elite and a new underclass.
This new elite was drawn from the world of banking and business and had close
symbiotic links with politicians. In Spain, the ruling party controlled much of the
media in the initial democratic period. Later, when the media expanded, it was
still controlled by small elite groups. Suárez had been the Director General of
Radio Televisión Española (RTVE) under Franco, and the opposition, recogniz-
ing the opportunity that this presented for media manipulation by the head of
government, demanded that a body be established to monitor it. This was done,
but the Consejo Rector was government-appointed and inevitably favoured the
rulers of the day. However, when the Socialists came to power in 1982, they
merely weighted the system in their own favour. Yet some degree of criticism
was always to be allowed, and even encouraged, for without it the myth of
objectivity would be betrayed. Buero highlighted in Música cercana, among
other things, the insidious power of the propagators of a new ideology for a new
ruling elite.
55 Alberto Cañagueral, ‘Entrevista con Manuel Abellán: “He bajado a los sótanos de la
censura y lo he fotocopiado todo” ’, Actual, 8 October 1982, pp. 78–83 (p. 83).
56 Fernando G. Delgado, ‘Cuando la obra y el testimonio van juntos. Antonio Buero
Vallejo: “Todos hemos sido víctimas” ’, Ínsula, no. 361 (1976), 4.

Previously Silenced Plays and the Pacto de olvido

There were great expectations for the theatre in the post-Franco era. Many
believed that the theatre of protest, which had been censored or prohibited during
the Franco years, as well as the theatre that had never been written or published
because of the repressive atmosphere, would conquer the stage, creating a
vibrant theatre scene and ending the dominance of the theatre of evasion. Others
correctly judged that these expectations were misplaced and were not surprised
when a theatre crisis was soon diagnosed. Ricard Salvat was one of those who
anticipated that the disappearance of censorship would result in a new Golden
Age of theatre: ‘Nadie puede negar que las mejores obras de la generación real-
ista están por estrenar.’57 This did not happen.
Frank P. Casa said of the 1976–77 theatre season that it was ‘almost a
retrospective of Spanish theater of exiles and banned authors’.58 While this
description may be correct, the trend was shortlived. A number of plays that had
been banned previously were produced; many of them, however, were not well-
received and were considered by audiences to be old-fashioned or irrelevant in the
new era of greater freedom. According to Ragué Arias, in the late 1970s ‘la
democracia parecía dejar sin objetivo a los grupos de teatro independiente’, many
of whom had earlier been part of the theatre of opposition.59 In general, the drama-
tists who survived into the post-Franco era were those who had registered their
protest in Spain, under Franco. Many returning exiles were not well-received.
Hence, expectations that the new political situation would lead to a new, freer,
more open style of literature were only partially fulfilled. Buero wrote:
Natural es que, ante la «nueva» situación española, fuera y dentro se propenda

a pensar que el estilo oblicuo deje paso a nuevas formas de escribir y no diré
que no vaya a suceder algo de eso; pero quizá no con el alcance que se supone.
No olvidemos que, con censura o sin ella, bajo la dictadura y bajo la libertad
(relativa), la oblicuidad, en sus diversos grados, suele ser condición intrínseca
de la obra de arte. (O.C. II: 487–8)
Some historical dramas, which had been prohibited during the Franco years, were
quite successful in the immediate aftermath of the dictator’s death, but they were
no guarantee of continued success for any author. In addition, drama dealing with
the Franco period as history enjoyed brief success, and Fernando Fernán Gómez’s
play Las bicicletas son para el verano, which won the Lope de Vega prize in 1977,
proved very popular when staged in 1982. This play dealt with the Civil War in
an overt manner, and its acceptance was a sign of how the times had changed.
57 In Una cultura en crisis, p. 186.

58 Frank P. Casa, ‘The Assimilation of Ramón del Valle-Inclán’s Dramas into
Contemporary Spanish Theater’, in The Contemporary Spanish Theater: A Collection of
Critical Essays, ed. by Martha T. Halsey and Phyllis Zatlin (Lanham: University of America
Press, 1988), pp. 163–82 (pp. 171–2).
59 Ragué Arias, El teatro de fin de milenio, p. 60.
Buero’s 1977 play La detonación, in which he dealt with censorship and transi-
tion politics, was also successful. Despite being set in the nineteenth century, the
parallels between the action in the play and 1970s Spain were obvious.
Other asignaturas pendientes included Alberti’s Noche de Guerra en el Museo
de Prado, written in 1956 and finally staged in Spain in 1978, and Muñiz’s
Tragicomedia del Serenísimo Príncipe Don Carlos, which was banned in 1972
and successfully revived in 1980. Martín Recuerda’s El engañao, banned in
1972, was staged in 1981, and his Las arrecogías del Beaterio Santa María
Egipciaca had successful runs in both 1977 and 1978. Further successes
included two plays by Rodríguez Méndez. Bodas que fueron famosas del
Pingajo y la Fandanga and Flor de otoño, which had been prohibited in 1965
and 1973, respectively, were produced in 1978 and 1982. Valle-Inclán’s Los
cuernos de don Friolera was revived to great critical acclaim in 1976 after a
lengthy prohibition. However Lauro Olmo’s earlier-banned La condecoración
was not well-received when produced in 1977. According to Farris Anderson,
writing in 1978, the staging of previously silenced works ‘has been successful
only in so far as it has established the political viability of plays previously
excluded from the stage. From an artistic, critical, or commercial standpoint,
these productions have generally not been successful.’60 As Berenguer put it:
El teatro politico más directamente ligado a la tradición de la escena realista

social que se oponía a la dictadura encuentra un eco muy diferente en la cam-
biante escena política. El público, como la sociedad, está cambiando y sigue
con diferente interés las propuestas escénicas que tienen resonancica política.
La libertad de expresión en el Congreso de la Transición Política sustituye a la
mordaza dictatorial que convertía los scenarios teatrales en tribunas políticas e
ideológicas durante la Era de Franco. El lugar público y la influencia de
muchos autores (algunos irán desde la oposición a la marginación) empieza a
manifestarse a través de los mecanismos del Mercado y, de modo incipiente,
de las actuaciones subvencionadoras del poder público (mucho más acusadas,
quizás por el carácter transitorio de este período, entre los partidos que ocu-
parán el poder, desde 1982).61
Although he received the Premio Nacional de Teatro in 1986 and his earlier-
prohibited La sangre y la ceniza: Diálogos de Miguel Servet (1965) was a minor
success when staged in 1977, Alfonso Sastre did not enjoy lasting theatrical suc-
cess in the democratic era. The large theatre companies generally ignored him.
Sastre, who had been one of the most respected and outspoken revolutionary
dramatists of the Franco era, chose voluntary exile from his homeland in the demo-
cratic period, although he later returned to Spain. Moreover, he left the PCE and
60 ‘The Madrid Theatre Season, 1976–77: Problems of Transition’, Estreno, 4 (no. 1,
1978), 8–11 (p. 9).

61 Ángel Berenguer and Manuel Pérez, Tendencias del teatro español durante la transición
política (1975–1982), Historia del teatro español del siglo XX, IV (Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva,
1998), p. 156.
focused his interest on the radical politics of the Basque country. Arrabal too,
despite the fact that six of his dramas had their Spanish premières between 1975
and 1978, failed to live up to expectations. It is undeniable that he now enjoys a
certain celebrity, or notoriety, in Spanish theatre circles, but his work is rarely
staged in contemporary Spain, though his other writing has enjoyed considerable
success.62
In the immediate post-Franco era, politics became the nation’s favourite
spectator sport and other modes of entertainment seemed unimportant in
comparison. Yet there was another trend associated with the destape and the
revived interest in progressive politics, and this was a determination to leave
the past behind. Martín Iniesta denounced the ‘pacto de silencio’ that followed the
dictator’s death and criticized the collective resolve to forget the past.63 It was this
pacto de olvido that allowed members of the Francoist hegemony to lead the
democratization process and retain power and positions of privilege and
influence. It is this same denial of the recent past and of responsibility for past
crimes that Buero criticized in his post-Franco plays. Buero Vallejo’s Jueces en
la noche, which deals with Spain’s transition to democracy, proved unpopular
with some critics who did not wish to be reminded of the problems, rooted in the
recent past, which were still present in the newly democratized Spain. The
protagonist is an opportunistic Minister from the Franco era, who has reinvented
himself as a life-long democrat in order to satisfy his craving for power and main-
tain his position of privilege. Moreover, the play’s right-wing plot to discredit the
left and restore power to the former elite, anticipates the events of 23-F.
Once again, the Spanish people had resolved not to deal with the past and, as
Buero suggested in plays like Las trampas del azar, they are thus likely to repeat
its errors. Hence, as in earlier plays, in much of his post-Franco theatre the nega-
tive actions of characters are rooted in their unwillingness to face up to the past and
to accept responsibility for their earlier actions or inaction. It was a theme that
continued to cause problems for the dramatist in post-Franco Spain, and he was
condemned for dredging up a past that others were determined to put behind them:
Buero, poco a poco, nos ha ido obligando a tener que enfrentarnos con nuestra
historia pasada, reciente e incluso inmediata. Cada vez más ha ido usando el
elemento onírico como procedimiento narrativo. Ha ido potenciando y, por lo
general lo ha logrado, el carácter imaginativo de su narrativa escénica. De ahí,
quizás, que sus últimas obras, las que hablan de lo que suceden en días más
recientes, hayan vuelto a sufrir tantos ataques, unos ataques que uno a veces
no entiende y, claro está, no puede aceptar, porque nos recuerdan actitudes de
épocas pasadas.64
62 Arrabal was finally awarded the Premio Nacional de Teatro in 2001, and the production
in 2002 of Carta de amor (como un suplicio chino), by the Centro Dramático Nacional, may
be the start of a new trend.
63 Martín Iniesta, ‘Teatro español en la democracia’, pp. 96–8.
64 Salvat, ‘El lenguaje escénico’, p. 39.
Officially, censorship was gone, and there was no longer a single focus for
protest as there had been under Franco. Consequently the theatre of protest was
not considered to be as relevant as it had been during the Franco years.
Nonetheless, a dramatist criticized for being a moderado during the Franco
period and who continued to make similar criticisms of Spanish society in the
democratic era instead of rejoicing in her liberalism, was not always popular. It
is interesting to note that even Buero’s last play, Misión al pueblo desierto
(1999), also deals with the Civil War and the largely forgotten Junta de
Protección del Tesoro Artístico.
The type of drama that Buero Vallejo continued to write and his enduring
stress on the need to recognize and challenge the ideological and hegemonic
structures of Spanish society put him at odds with the most recent generations of
Spanish dramatists. At the Congreso Internacional Autor Teatral y Siglo XX in
1998, the younger dramatists stressed that theirs was a drama written in freedom,
and they highlighted their lack of ideology. Antonio Onetti even claimed that,
when he began his career, he felt that he had arrived too late. Thus, while others
heralded the end of ideology with the end of Francoism and, in their under-
standable desire to progress, chose to ignore their unresolved past, Buero
continued to demand accountability and remembering. He also demonstrated the
emergence of a new, progressive ideology that, despite its association with the
new, progressive Spain, was reminiscent in many respects of the previous
regime’s ideology. He further implied that it was associated with, and of benefit
to, many of the same people. Echoing Buero Vallejo, Cabal draws similar
conclusions:
El teatro te ofrece la posibilidad de mostrarle a la gente que no somos como

creemos ser, que el mundo está lleno de ideologías, de señales sobre los espec-
tadores del mundo en las que el poder nos explica cómo somos y nos hace
comulgar con ruedas de molino; y el teatro puede mostrar que no es verdad.65
For some it was an unwelcome message.
65 Ragué Arias, El teatro de fin de milenio, p. 177.

8
The Post-Franco Theatre of Buero Vallejo
The Post-Franco Plays

El mundo todo es máscaras. Todo el año es Carnaval.1
It could be argued that once the transition to democracy had begun, Buero Vallejo
and other writers of the opposition had no focus for their committed literature.
The notion that the committed writers were somehow out of date, however, rests
on the belief that post-Franco Spain was an open, liberated, ideology-free society.
Buero disagreed and continued to use his theatre to deliver a critique of society.
While it is undeniable that, after the end of Francoism, the central focus for his
denunciations was no longer there, Buero did not redefine his role in the light of
the transition but rather continued to view his function as that of the traditional
intellectual in society, highlighting the new forms of censorship, propaganda and
inequality to be found there. At the centre of his post-Franco theatre remained
the twin preoccupations of accountability and remembering. He was also con-
cerned to account for his own past actions, that is, to vindicate his oft-criticized
posibilismo at a time when some were saying that his work was no longer rele-
vant. This is nowhere more evident than in his extremely motivated portrait of
Larra as heroic posibilista in La detonación.
In his post-Franco theatre, Buero argued for an abandonment of the pacto de
olvido and for the need to confront the past. He returned to the themes of myth
and history; the history referred to is recent Spanish history, and a new myth-
ology falsifies a new reality. The pacto de olvido forms an important part of this
latest mystification. Buero was quite obviously disillusioned with modern
Spain, and these plays are notably more pessimistic than earlier ones. An oppor-
tunity for answerability and remembering has been deliberately ignored in the
name of progress. This new Spain, based on the contradictory ruptura pactada,
is portrayed as a myth that distorts the reality of continuismo. The notion that
modern Spanish society is wholly democratic, given its origins and its denial
of the past, is exposed as yet another mystification. Yet Buero himself was again
contradictory. One of the more troublesome facts about Buero’s post-Franco
theatre is that, while condemning the latest, more insidious forms of mystifi-
cation that disguise new ideologies in society, he engaged in his own form of
1 Mariano José de Larra, Artículos, ed. by Enrique Rubio, 9th edn (Madrid: Cátedra,
1990), p. 203.
mystification of the recent past or, more specifically, of a certain spirit of

opposition, now absent.
During the transition to democracy, Buero’s plays warned against hypocritical
and turncoat politicians whose lust for power seemed greater than their desire for
genuine democracy. The plays discuss the motives of those in power and
challenge the spectator to open his eyes to political and social reality. Buero’s
concern for responsibility and accountability became more pronounced as char-
acters are tormented by a past that they refuse to acknowledge or which they seek
to deny or manipulate to suit present needs. This lack of accountability for past
actions or inaction is the root of their downfall. Buero’s dream of a socialist
Spain, which for a while promised fulfilment, was another myth, and the drama-
tist’s disillusionment with the socialism of the PSOE is evident from the dramas
written during their period in office. He endeavoured to demystify the corrup-
tion, intrigue and glamour of the 1980s’ boom in Spain. Clearly Buero believed
that the ideals for which his heroes had struggled against the oppressive rules
of Fernando VII (El sueño de la razón), Felipe IV (Las Meninas), Valindin
(El concierto de San Ovidio) and Ulises (La tejedora de sueños) were betrayed,
as the majority of Spaniards sought to forget the past.
The plays of the transition period, La Fundación, La detonación and Jueces
en la noche, caution against the ease with which a new Foundation can be
constructed and the facility with which people blindly enter it, believing them-
selves to be free. La detonación demonstrates how a mask of liberalism can hide
the same face that had ruled before. Socialism is dead; solidarity, where it exists
in this modern Spain, is found among the corrupt who, by defending each other,
protect themselves. The only one to recognize and criticize this ‘solidaridad en el
basurero’ is Gaspar in Diálogo secreto, an aged revolutionary in the mould of
Asel from La Fundación (O.C. I: 1855). Freedoms for which many struggled
and suffered are no longer valued or respected; the revolutionary spirit may
live on in the youth of other countries, but it has expired in Spain. The only real
non-conformists in modern Spanish society are old men such as Gaspar and
Salustiano (Las trampas del azar), who clearly belong to another epoch. The
Spain Buero depicted is an opulent and luxurious new Foundation that is rotten
to the core. There has been no accountability for past misdeeds, and the oppor-
tunists prosper freely in the brave new world they have created. The people of
the new Spain not only accept, but also aspire to, the latest Foundation and the
comfort it represents, and they have closed their eyes to the corruption that lies
beneath the veneer of contentment. Like the Foundation from 1974, it is super-
ficially attractive, but difficult to escape. The tragedy of this one, however, is that
it was not imposed but rather consciously created.
Recurrence of past mistakes is reflected in the repetition of generations in the
post-Franco plays, particularly in Las trampas del azar, but also to some extent
in Música cercana. Repetition is also a feature of La detonación, as one govern-
ment replaces another with little real change in evidence. Buero reiterated themes
and characters, and even actors, to stress the repetition of errors that all are
engaged in. In Las trampas del azar, he returned to the themes of responsibility
THE POST-FRANCO THEATRE OF BUERO VALLEJO 223
and free will, as well as dealing again with impatience, which was a theme in La
detonación also. The character Patricia, who is similar to Verónica from Llegada
de los dioses, ‘lleva implícita en sí la crítica a cuantos han caído – a diferencia
de ella – en un mal posibilismo a través de dejaciones acomodaticias y prove-
chosas’.2 O’Connor points out that, unusually for a Buero play, the misfortune in
Las trampas del azar is the result of fate or coincidence, and not of man’s
actions.3 She fails to acknowledge, however, that later the characters make
choices that are based on free will rather than fate. Buero did not excuse charac-
ters their actions because they were rooted in an initial unforeseen misfortune but
rather criticized them, much as he did Vicente in El tragaluz, for their failure to
take responsibility for later actions and for the willingness with which they blame
fate for their own shortcomings. He experimented with the notion of karma,
which sees the moral effect of, and final accountability for, past actions in the
next life, if not in this one.
Recibiendo su justo castigo en esta dimensión, como no la recibió en la anterior,

Gabriel empieza a percibir los horrores de la guerra causados por su egoísmo
al oír el llanto desgarrador de un niño. Aunque no ha visto en vida la violencia
que hizo posible su laboratorio, invade su conciencia ahora la verdad: que por
sus decisiones, incontables niños han sido víctimas de las guerras y miles de
niñas han sido violadas.4
Yet this outcome also signals that there is little hope for a defeat of the pacto de
olvido: accountability has moved from this life to the next. Buero did not respect
those whose haste to progress lead them to a betrayal of their better selves and
of what he perceived as their duty to society. In some ways he was less naïve than
those writers who thought they could inspire revolution with their words, yet he
too revealed a certain naïveté in his hope that his audience would recognize
themselves in his work and chose accountability over the pacto de olvido.
Although his post-Franco plays were generally well-received by the public,
many of the established critics were less than enthusiastic. Doménech goes so
far as to write that ‘la prensa española lo silenciará sistemáticamente’.5 Iglesias
2 Patricia W. O’Connor, ‘La sincronicidad en dos obras acrónicas’, in Leyra, co-ord.,
Antonio Buero Vallejo: literatura, pp. 129–39 (p. 135).

3 Patricia W. O’Connor, ‘Las trampas del azar: ¿unas coincidencias significantes?’,
Estreno, 21 (no. 2, 1995), 5–6. This is also the case, albeit less obviously, in other works such
as El concierto de San Ovidio where David’s blindness is the result of an unfortunate accident.
4 O’Connor, ‘La sincronicidad’, p. 138. Similarly, Juan Luis Palacios assumes his guilt in
his dreams, but not in his conscious reality.

5 Doménech, El teatro, p. 21. On the backlash against Jueces en la noche, Derek Gagen
wrote: ‘Según Alberto Miralles, los partidos políticos temían provocar a la ultraderecha y por
eso impedían el desarrollo de un teatro agresivo a través del proceso que denomina “la
progresiva domesticación de la vanguardia teatral”.’ ‘Conciencia individual y colectiva en
Jueces en la noche’, in El teatro de Buero Vallejo: homenaje, pp. 71–84 (p. 76).
Feijoo, too, notes that Buero’s comments on the new Spain were unwelcome in
certain quarters:
En la última década, [. . .] no ha dejado de estar latente un cierto disgusto entre

parte de la crítica y el público ante la permanente subida a la escena de prob-
lemas concretos de la realidad contemporánea, como si se sugiriera que la
normalización democrática de la vida española ya no justificase su tratamiento
en el teatro.6
He also comments that the criticism of Buero’s continued commitment in his

theatre often betrayed a hypocrisy on the part of the critic, as: ‘En los primeros
diez años de su vida de autor no faltaron quienes consideraban tal ingrediente
escaso o insuficiente ante la urgente demanda de un arte más explícito o inter-
vencionalista.’ Yet there were others who welcomed Buero’s refusal to embrace
the pacto de olvido. Ricard Salvat praises the dramatist’s insistence on raising
the issues of Spain’s recent history in La doble historia del doctor Valmy and
later in Lázaro en el laberinto.
Se fue haciendo como un silencio, como un vacío entre el público, se creó un

clima de tensión e incomodidad como si todos nos dijéramos: ‘Ya era hora de
que alguien se atreviera a hablar de este tema tabú y a decirnos y recordarnos
que en este país se torturó’. Algo parecido me ha sucedido recientemente
al ver Lázaro en el laberinto, donde también no pude menos que admirarme
porque por fin, en uno de nuestros escenarios se hablaba de la muerte absurda,
por lo absolutamente innecesaria, de uno de nuestros estudiantes, uno de
tantos.7
Fernando Martín Iniesta, too, notes Buero’s determination to expose the mysti-
fication process in evidence during the period of transition: ‘Que nos echen la
basura a la boca es algo que a nadie nos gusta. Es lógica la reacción que ante
Jueces en la noche han tenido determinados sectores de la clase intelectual, que
nos circunda y, cuando puede, nos asfixia.’8 Jueces en la noche had a short run
of only two months. Buero said of it: ‘el argumento molestó’, and the company
withdrew it as soon as they had covered their costs.9 Earlier, when the play was
6 Luis Iglesias Feijoo, ‘Buero Vallejo: un teatro crítico’, in El teatro de Buero Vallejo:
texto, pp. 70–88 (p. 71).

7 Salvat, ‘El lenguaje escénico’, p. 39.
8 Quoted by Alberto González Vergel in ‘Mis montajes de Buero Vallejo’, in Buero Vallejo:
cuarenta años, pp. 61–4 (p. 64). González Vergel then added: ‘Me parece un juicio elocuente
y certero, que alude, sin duda, a la “inoportunidad” de aquel estreno, en aquel momento
determinado de nuestra transición política.’
9 De los Reyes, ‘Comentarios’, p. 21. Phyllis Zatlin Boring commented: ‘Buero’s Jueces
en la noche in the Fall of 1979 unleashed a violent reaction, mostly political. [. . .] Buero was
attacked from Right and Left as an opportunist.’ ‘Theatre in Madrid: The Difficult Transition
to Democracy’, Theatre Journal, 32 (no. 4, 1980), 459–74 (p. 469).
still running, Buero responded to an anonymous article in ABC, which criticized

Jueces en la noche and claimed that, ‘A Buero le iba mejor con la censura’:
Pues se trata, ya lo habrá venteado el lector sagaz, del empeño en decir «no»
a esta obra, por razones obvias para quien la conozca, aunque el público diga
«sí». [. . .] Hay maneras bastante más graves de dañar la continuidad de un
éxito que la de ese articulillo, y también se están intentando. (O.C. II: 504)
Apparently they succeeded.

In his later theatre, Buero also took the opportunity, most notably in La
detonación, to claim vindication for his posibilismo. In Lázaro en el laberinto,
Germán’s words to Amparo are an echo of those received by Buero himself with
regard to his tendency to obscurity and subjective individualism.10 Here, Buero
revealed the critic’s words to be motivated by selfish interests, as he did in La
detonación and Diálogo secreto also.
La detonación: A Vindication of Posibilismo?

La detonación is the dramatization of José Mariano de Larra’s flashback of his
life in the moments up to his suicide on 13 February 1837. It is a political drama
about a period of transition and was written during a later transition period. In it
Buero explored not only the political parallels with his own time, but also the
role of the artist with regard to censorship and posibilismo. Larra’s impatience at
the slow pace of change and the seemingly endless repetition of past mistakes
lead to his despair and death. The play also examines the writer’s relationship
with the pueblo and suggests, by Larra’s admission to Pedro, that he did not
always treat him fairly. It is clear from their Christmas Eve dialogue that Larra,
through his arrogant sense of superiority, failed to acknowledge the suffering of
the pueblo. Pedro confronts him with his own words:
Aquí dice que yo soy un animal que solo sabe comer y dormir y que, si no
soy feliz, tampoco soy desgraciado. (Mira a su señor.) Como si un criado
fuese menos que un perro. Y como si las penas fueran sólo cosa de gente fina.
(Larra se acerca al velador y se sienta, eludiendo la mirada del criado.)
(O.C. I: 1600)
Pedro reminds him that ‘los pobres vamos a la Guerra. Ustedes, no’ and says,
‘Sepa que ese artículo me ha hecho daño. Yo no soy un animal.’ (O.C. I: 1602).
Yet Pedro, despite his suffering, insists ‘hay que vivir’ (O.C. I: 1605). Indeed it
is Pedro, as a symbol of his conscience, that Larra relies on in his last moments.
After the final shot, Pedro’s final words to the audience ask if his accusations
10 ‘Quiero decir que la literatura no contribuirá a un cambio social positivo si se empantana
en conflictos individuales’ (O.C. I: 1919).

might not have caused Larra to despair: ‘Yo vi que su cara se volvía blanca al
decirle que ellos no iban a la Guerra . . . A veces pienso si no lo maté yo’ (O.C.
I: 1617). Buero, through Larra, was perhaps apologising for his own distance
from and failure to empathize completely with the pueblo; unlike Larra,
however, Buero assumes some of the wisdom of the older Pedro, who knew ‘que
es menester un aguante inagotable’ (O.C. I: 1617).
La detonación is among the most significant of Buero’s plays, for it contains
a deliberate and skilful attempt by the author to vindicate his position as a writer
under Franco. In the drama he took the opportunity to reiterate his stance in the
posibilismo–imposibilismo debate, using the experiences and writings of Larra
to validate his choice. The play was successful and ran for over two hundred per-
formances but Buero’s appropriation and mythification of the nineteenth-century
writer was denounced by some critics. The dramatist himself acknowledged that:
‘Quizá nunca una obra mía ha recibido crítica más dividida: elogios enormes y
condenas absolutas, o casi’ (O.C. II: 489). In the play Buero also analysed the
difficulties of political transition and warned against the facile acceptance of a
pleasant-sounding myth that is nothing but cosmetic change, which continues to
falsify and distort reality. It is also a play that elaborates on the ideological links
between culture and the state.
The choice of author and setting for this play was certainly motivated by the
author’s intentions. The fact that he returned to history was also self-justifying,
lending weight to the dramatist’s argument that his choice of a historical setting
in earlier plays was for artistic reasons and not, as it had been suggested, merely
as a means of evading censorship. Buero revisited the nineteenth century to
comment on contemporary Spain and his own role in recent Spanish history:
Es una etapa que tiene bastante parecido con la actual. Fue también una etapa
de transición política desde el absolutismo de Fernando VII, que podría en
alguna medida compararse con la dictadura de Franco, a través de unos gob-
iernos tibiamente liberales que no daban la medida necesaria en aquella época
para lograr la modernización de España, que representaron fracasos políticos
más o menos parecidos a los de la época del franquismo y a los posteriores
en la transición, y en los que se mantuvo un absolutismo residual semejante
a ciertos residuos del franquismo que aún se observan.11
The parallels between the two periods of transition are obvious, and Buero
counselled against the repetition of mistakes made during the transition from the
authoritarian regime of Fernando VII to the more liberal Regency of María
Cristina, which in the play is portrayed as a betrayal of liberal aspirations. When
La detonación was written the censorship legislation was still in place, as were
the censors. In the play, as in the reality, the changes in government do not result
in the hoped-for legislative reforms; indeed censorship continues, ‘para no per-
judicar las reformas’ (O.C. I: 1547). Even the more lenient Ministers merely
11 Buero Vallejo in Gabriel de los Reyes, ‘Comentarios’, p. 22.

adapt it to suit their own needs. Promises are broken and dreams of liberaliza-
tion are shattered. The so-called liberals betray the same elitist attitude towards
the pueblo as their predecessors. Echoing the sentiments of Ensenada in Un
soñador para un pueblo and many integristas of the Franco regime, Mendizábal
claims: ‘La plebe es ignorante. Darle hoy el voto sería el caos’ (O.C. I: 1585).
The Ministers are notable for their similarity to each other, despite loudly pro-
claimed changes in policies and governments. In fact the same actor plays the
parts of Calomarde, Cea Bermúdez, Martínez de la Rosa, Mendizábal, Istúriz
and Calatrava.12 In addition, though Calomarde, Cea Bermúdez and Martínez de
la Rosa wear different masks, and claim to represent different ideologies, they
wear the same uniform. Hence they represent the continuismo that for a while
seemed inevitable after the death of Franco. The favouritism shown to members
of the ruling elite of Francoism by the supposed democrats of the transition
governments is paralleled in the drama by the actions of Mendizábal and Istúriz.
The modes of censorship employed by the various Ministers in their dealings
with opponents do not change with each government transition. Similarly, the
early post-Franco years saw little change in governments’ manner of dealing
with dissidents. While Buero did not attempt to excuse the terrorist activity of
Spain, he did attack the official terrorism of the military and the police, which
was seemingly condoned by the government. It is worth noting that government
terrorism or counter-terrorism continued to be an issue in Spain long after the
transition to democracy was supposedly completed.
The play contains criticisms of the reliance on the repressive state apparatuses
to protect change, and Buero called into question the commitment of some for-
mer Francoists leading the reform in 1970s Spain. The play advises that serious
consequences may arise from a failure to embrace ruptura and the limitations
necessarily implied by a policy of ruptura pactada. In the play, Larra criticizes
successive governments’ failure to address adequately the issue of the fueros of
the Basques, leading to Basque support for the Carlist pretender, which, in turn,
prolonged the conflict. A similar drama was being played out in the transition
period when the government was slow to deal with regional autonomy. Its reluc-
tance to move on the issue resulted in an escalation of terrorist activity, and the
government responded with heavy-handed measures in the Basque country.
The setting for much of the dramatic action, El Parnasillo, was also carefully
chosen. It was, according to Puente Samaniego, a product of the epoch: ‘Su origen
sólo puede explicarse por la falta de libertad para formación de grupos y asocia-
ciones libres en época de represión política. Precisamente reaparecieron las tertu-
lias durante el reinado de Fernando VII.’13 It had its parallels in Buero’s time also,
as the right to demonstrate and hold meetings was not granted until May 1976.
Moreover, the reaction of those in El Parnasillo to the death of Fernando VII reflects
12 Furthermore, the same actor plays the roles of Cambronero and General Cabrera, and
the same actress plays Pepita Wetoret and Dolores Armijo.

13 Pilar de la Puente Samaniego, A. Buero Vallejo: proceso a la historia de España
(Salamanca: Salamanca University Press, 1988), p. 105.

the debate that followed the death of Franco in 1975. One character proclaims: ‘Con
Fernando VII vivíamos mejor’, adapting a popular catch-cry of those nostalgic for
the days of Franco in the period after his death (O.C. I: 1591). La detonación, as
Jueces en la noche would later, warns against the continued presence of those
whose nostalgia for the previous regime could be harnessed by reactionaries.
The choice of the nineteenth-century setting was thus important for what
Buero wished to say about the transition. Yet the choice of protagonist was even
more significant. In La detonación, Buero drew questionable parallels between
himself and Larra in order to justify his own performance as a writer under
Franco. Larra was viewed by some committed writers to have been a valuable
and successful critic of Spanish society, a role that Buero certainly aspired to.
Juan Goytisolo claims that the example of Larra was relevant to the Francoist
period. Goytisolo, hailed as one of the arch-demystifiers by the most radical of
the literary opposition, considered Larra to be one also: ‘Durante su corta exis-
tencia Larra llevó a cabo una ingente obra de demistificación que, por desgracia,
no ha tenido seguidores de talla’.14 In La detonación, Buero set himself up as this
very ‘seguidor de talla’. By supporting his own stance with Larra’s famous
words, Buero claimed to have fulfilled a similar role in Francoist Spain. Yet
Buero took his argument further, and included in his dramatic portrait the claim
that Larra was a posibilista, less extreme, and more successful for it, than some
of his apparently more radical contemporaries. Moreover, Buero implied that he
went further than Larra did. Referring to Larra, David Johnston comments: ‘Sus
limitaciones personales le hacen desanimarse ante el callejón sin salida de la his-
toria patria, ante la imposibilidad de comunicar la verdad.’15 Buero, in contrast,
was patient and did not give up hope.
The lack of political progress in Spain led to a pessimism evident in Larra’s
later works and a disenchantment with politicians of all hues. Ilie writes: ‘During
these final months, Larra represented his reality as a bad dream, filled with
absurdity and madness. He stratified his perception of reality, superimposing
private desperation upon public conflict.’16 As in his other historical dramas, it is
this mix of public and private that Buero staged in his depiction of Larra’s final
nightmare. Buero stated: ‘La decisión del suicidio está determinada por toda la
historia española anterior y el desencanto que sufre este escritor por el «impasse»
que padece España, en todas sus instituciones, en aquel momento.’17 The point
implicit here is that Buero, unlike Larra, refused to relinquish all hope. It is
notable, however, that a similar disillusionment with post-Franco politics is
evident in the later works of Buero.
Buero used the play as an opportunity to justify the stance he took regarding
the previous regime and revisited the posibilismo controversy in order to
14 Juan Goytisolo, ‘La actualidad de Larra’, El furgón, pp. 7–20 (p. 15).
15 Johnston, ‘Posibles paralelos’, p. 359.
16 Paul Ilie, ‘Larra’s Nightmare’, Revista Hispánica Moderna, 38 (nos 1–2, 1974–75),
153–66 (p. 155).

17 De los Reyes, ‘Comentarios’, p. 21.
vindicate himself. He explored the role of the intellectual in society as lived by

Larra and his opponents, and had the characters find in his own favour. Yet, as
was often the case with Buero, the play betrays an inherent contradiction. By
appropriating Larra to demystify the process of transition to a more liberal form
of government, Buero himself engaged in a mystification of the figure of Larra
for his own motivated purpose. As Johnston puts it: ‘La misión del escritor es
quitar caretas, promover ese cambio vital.’18 Buero, however, creates a mask for
his fictional Larra. The parallels drawn between Buero’s Larra and the dramatist
himself are many and have been the focus of some criticism. By justifying
Larra’s determination to ‘hablar . . . sin hablar’, Buero was clearly, and some
would say unfairly, justifying his own posibilista position (O.C. I: 1511).
Fernández Torres is one critic who objected to Buero’s laying claim to Larra to
acquit, or perhaps mystify, the dramatist’s own attitude:
El tema central de la obra no es otro que la función social del intelectual en

general y la orientación de su práctica en condiciones de opresión y dictadura,
y en el tránsito desde esa situación hacia una posible o supuesta situación de
libre expresión; el paralelo con la situación actual no puede ser más evidente –
Buero Vallejo toma a Larra (mejor al personaje de Larra tal y como él lo con-
cibe) como portador de su mensaje. Su no es el su de Larra, sino el su de Buero
Vallejo. [. . .] No es, pues, una lógica interna de la obra la que provoca la acción
y el movimiento de los personajes, sino una lógica externa: la dictada desde
fuera por el propio Buero Vallejo, que obliga a los personajes a actuar en fun-
ción directamente de sus concepciones políticas o ideológicas.19
In fact, he accused Buero of doing what the dramatist had previously criticized
in others: employing fiction to further a particular cause, in this case the author’s
own. In the play, Larra is accused of being a moderado by Clemente Díaz.
Nonetheless, as Halsey notes, this is not the impression of Larra that Buero
wishes to convey, but rather the opposite: ‘It is Larra who, like Buero himself, is
the real revolutionary although branded a moderate by his enemies.’20 Buero
demonstrated in the play that it is the ostensibly moderate Larra who is the most
successful and influential critic of the regime, despite the more radical and
provocative words of some of his contemporaries. Interestingly though, Ilie’s
description of Larra can equally be applied to the posibilista Buero: ‘He opposed
censorship on ideological grounds and fought it on the day to day journalistic
18 Johnston, ‘Posibles paralelos’, p. 359. In the play, most of the characters wear masks,
and Larra is the one who unmasks them to reveal the truth. In his final despairing moments,
perhaps reflective of his guilt for his treatment of Pedro and the pueblo, he sees his own face
as a mask and fears that there will be nothing beneath it: ‘Quizá solo hay máscaras’ (O.C.
I: 1616).
19 Alberto Fernández Torres, ‘La detonación de Antonio Buero Vallejo’, Ínsula, no. 372
(1977), 15.
20 Martha Halsey, ‘Larra, The Tragic Protagonist of La detonación’, Estreno, 4 (no. 1,
1978), 14 –15 (p. 14).

level; yet he lived with the censors to the point where he could carve out a career
and meet the required deadlines.’21
An important element of Buero’s vindication was thus his portrayal of the role
of the intellectual in this play:
If La detonación is a portrayal of a political period that closely parallels the

present, it is also a reflection on the role of the committed intellectual in a
repressive society. Like Velázquez of Las Meninas and Goya of El sueño de la
razón, Buero’s Larra evinces the dramatist’s own passion for truth in a time of
falsehood and deception.22
Buero’s Larra is another version of the dramatist himself, battling against the
censors and bearing witness to times of great change. He suggested that the com-
mitted artist or writer must continue to question and challenge the powers that be,
despite their seeming liberalism and commitment to reform. Buero again
distinguished between posibilismo and self-censorship or collusion. Carnerero in
the play is presented as a writer eager to collude, whose opportunism and pendu-
lum loyalties ensure his survival and prosperity under many different masters.
Mesonero writes in the costumbrista style that was popular at that time and
guaranteed not to offend the regime or the censors, and in the play he advises
Larra to adopt a similar style: ‘Haga reír, pero no enfade’ (O.C. I: 1517). A clear
distinction is drawn between these two positions and that of Larra. A safe literary
style is also advocated by Larra’s father who advises his son not to seek out the
truth. He counsels him to be a coward in order to protect himself and warns: ‘Un
descuido, una palabra imprudente y te desterrarán’ (O.C. I: 1510). Larra’s wife
Pepita also advocates a similar version of self-censorship. She asks Larra, ‘¿Por
qué no escribes como Mesonero? Estaríamos más tranquilos’ (O.C. I: 1539).
Despite this pressure to conform, Larra chooses to write satires and criticisms of
the regime, which might attract the unwelcome attention of the censor, but which
allow him to fulfil the role of social commentator that he has chosen for himself.
As O’Connor comments: ‘Aunque La detonación hace hincapié en los graves
problemas que traen los regímenes represivos, Larra prueba que con talento y
“cálculo”, se pueden superar algunos obstáculos a la libertad de expresión.’23 Thus
Buero asserted that Larra, a posibilista in his own cast, was no coward.
Not contented merely to appropriate the words and actions of Larra to defend
his stance, Buero went on to employ other historical figures to exemplify the
well-intentioned, but equivocal attitudes of Sastre and Arrabal, the other protag-
onists of the polemic.24 In his portrait of Espronceda, Buero criticized the
21 Ilie, ‘Larra’s Nightmare’, p. 164.

22 Martha T. Halsey, ‘Dramatic Patterns in Three History Plays of Contemporary Spain’,
Hispania, 71 (no. 1, 1988), 20–30 (p. 22).
23 O’Connor, Antonio Buero Vallejo en sus espejos, p. 129.
24 ‘Rejecting the position, not only of those writers who collaborate with a repressive
regime, but of those who remain silent when unable to speak clearly and of those who provoke
returned exiles who presumed to tell those who had remained in Spain how to
write or indeed how to interpret the politics of the day. The stance adopted by
Espronceda in his dealings with the politicians and censors is more provocative
than that of Larra, and when the censors prohibit the publication of certain
articles, Espronceda decides to publish a blank copy of El Siglo as a damning
indictment of censorship. Larra warns him against the move which, he predicts,
will bring the author further punishment, but his advice is ignored. Larra is
proven correct, however, and his own more careful attitude is vindicated.
Nonetheless, Larra betrays a certain admiration of the other writer’s tenacious
action, although he would not have taken it himself, being more wary of the con-
sequences. He defends Espronceda in an essay entitled ‘El Siglo en blanco’. This
parallels Buero’s claims to have defended authors such as Sastre and Arrabal,
whose methods he questioned, but whose right to speak he supported. Yet it is
interesting to consider how far Larra’s posibilismo extends. This character, who
was chosen to defend Buero’s position, is prepared to use his father’s connec-
tions to further his own ends; Buero himself always denied having a protector.
While commercial success in the post-Franco theatre could be used as a
measure of the correctness of Buero’s position, it would be an oversimplification
of the debate.25 Buero’s employment of Larra and his contemporaries to vindi-
cate his own position almost a century later is problematic. There is a danger that
with this portrait, Buero created more a weighty vehicle for his own beliefs and
values than an authentic representation of Larra. He went further than he did with
his fictional Velázquez or Esquilache, whose possible motivations are explicable
and acceptable within the arena of historical fiction. Here Buero’s portrait of the
imposibilista Clemente Díaz was a reductio ad absurdum of the debate. His
conversion of Larra’s main critic from radical opponent of a repressive censorial
regime to enthusiastic censor in a later, but similarly repressive social order,
amounted to little more than point scoring. As Fernández Torres commented:
‘Eso equivale a tomarse todas las ventajas ante el público a la hora de exponer
la polémica.’26
Clemente Díaz’s self-righteous silence and claim: ‘Hay que hablar claro o
callarse,’ was not supported by Buero or by his fictional Larra (O.C. I: 1546).
Díaz attacks Larra for his veiled criticisms and for not being sufficiently radical,
confrontations that prove suicidal, Larra maintains that the responsible writer must practice
the art of the possible, resorting, if necessary, to literary conventions or masks – always
effective weapons in difficult times.’ Halsey, ‘Dramatic Patterns’, p. 22. It could also be
argued that Mesonero represents Paso.
25 Sastre’s La sangre y la ceniza and Buero’s La detonación were both premiered in 1977,
the former in the Igualada in January and the latter in the Teatro Bellas Artes in September:
‘Las fechas y los lugares dicen bastante por sí mismos. Los dos autores más claramente
antifranquistas de los años cincuenta volvieron a ilustrar sus distintas posiciones en este
momento. Cada uno, a su forma, víctima de las circunstancias. Siempre he creído que su
antagonismo pudo ser evitado. Lo que les separó – el éxito o el fracaso – les era, en el fondo,
bastante ajeno.’ Marsillach, ‘Cinco años’, p. 221.
26 Fernández Torres, ‘La detonación’, p. 15.
accusations familiar to Buero. Buero depicted him, and by extension his other
critics, as self-censored revolutionaries in waiting, engaged in a radical fantasy
that does no real good. But Larra’s, and by extension Buero’s, protest is also
problematical. That he was opposed to the ruling ideology is unquestionable; the
degree and nature of this opposition, however, are not so easy to classify. The
ambiguity of Buero’s chosen stance is only amplified by the dramatist’s
insistence that his was the only way to deal judiciously with censorship. The
appropriation of the language of another writer to defend his own silences in
La detonación cannot be overlooked. Buero wrote in similar, but by no means
equal, circumstances. In his first play written after Franco, Buero used his voice
to distinguish between his own selective silence and the self-imposed and self-
defeating silence of Díaz and the final silence chosen by Larra.
Buero also took the opportunity to re-examine officially imposed silence in
the form of censorship. The symbolic figure of Don Homobono prevails, despite
the changes in administration, and he serves each new master with the same
enthusiasm. He first appeared in an article about censorship published in 1955
in which Buero wrote: ‘El severo señor analiza el argumento con increíble
sutileza y descubre que está lleno de veneno’ (O.C. II: 603). In La detonación he
is largely unchanged, still sycophantic and sly in his dealings with both writers
and masters, and still capable of uncovering veiled allusions to the rulers of the
day in the works submitted for his scrutiny. He claims to be working for the good
of Spain, as did the censors of Franco’s regime, and his passion for his work is
highlighted in the stage directions that note: ‘tacha con voluptuosidad’ (O.C. I:
1511). When he informs Larra of the prohibition of the sixth edition of El duende
satírico del día, he takes no blame, telling the author: ‘Yo siempre defiendo a los
escritores jóvenes’ (O.C. I: 1527). Similarly, once Calomarde is gone, Don
Homobono switches allegiances and also tells the writers in El Parnasillo of his
efforts on their behalf: ‘Yo . . . me he pasado la vida dulcificando las mutila-
ciones que ese hombre exigía en los escritos de ustedes.’ (O.C. I: 1544). Buero’s
opinion of the official censorship of the Franco regime was thus elucidated, and
he rejected the claim of some censors that they were attempting to soften the
blow and in some way protecting the writers from their own excesses. Buero also
revisited Church censorship in the play, and again the verdict is harsh. Padre
Froilán, who is little more than a reactionary fool, is portrayed as being nostal-
gic for absolutism. In the play, the new, liberalized Church is represented by
Padre Gallego, a returned exile and supporter of Martínez de la Rosa. When the
regime changes, Larra quickly realizes that censorship remains much the same.
Under Cea Bermúdez he discovers that ‘lo que no se puede decir, no se debe
decir’ and later under Martínez de la Rosa, ‘desde que tenemos una racional lib-
ertad de imprenta, apenas hay cosa racional que podamos racionalmente escribir’
(O.C. I: 1553, 1561). Larra also criticizes editorial censorship when Borrega
refuses to accept articles critical of Mendizábal or Istúriz because his publica-
tion is pro-ministerial.
It is legitimate to measure Antonio Buero Vallejo by political and ideological
criteria, as he publicly declared himself to be a committed social writer and
consistently linked his writing to his views on society. Nonetheless, the question
remains of his degree of commitment. Was his, as has been suggested, ‘una
pluma prostituida’? That Buero compromised is irrefutable; that his compromise
amounted to collusion with the regime is less clear. What is clear is that the
question was one that Buero could not escape and so attempted to answer with
La detonación.
The Legacy of Francoism in Post-Franco Society

It could be claimed that the influence of the recent past on the present is a
dominant feature of Buero’s post-Franco plays. Buero condemned the injustices
perpetrated by the former regime in the name of Spain. Returning to the theme
of accountability and remembering, he suggested that characters such as Lázaro,
Alfredo, Juan Luis and Gabriel, and by extension, other members of society,
cannot live fully until they reconcile themselves to their past. Commenting on
the protagonists of some of the later post-Franco plays, Dixon notes: ‘Todas,
asimismo, están dominadas por experiencias vividas por los mismos en un
pasado bastante lejano pero silenciadas durante años, cuyo recuerdo y revelación
los atormentan y destrozan en el presente.’27 Alfredo in Música cercana tries to
rewrite his personal history, but his negated past is what made his son what he is
and it also influences the fortune of his daughter. Once again, Buero stressed that
fate is not in the hands of the Gods. Earlier, in Diálogo secreto, Buero introduced
Fabio, who, by failing to face up to his past, causes injury to himself and others,
even though in this case his past is not directly linked to the Franco regime. Like
that of the regime, however, it is mystified.
Jueces en la noche explores the moral dilemma of an individual, Juan Luis
Palacios, a Minister of the Centrist Government and a former Minister under the
previous dictatorship, in order to examine the dilemmas facing society during this
period of transition. Memories of civil unrest feature. While a law student at
university, Juan Luis Palacios was a member of a right-wing group and was
personally involved in a shooting incident in which a left-wing student activist
was injured. His rival for Julia, who would later become his wife, was Fermín
Soria, a left-wing student activist in his days as a medical student; Fermín was
arrested for his part in student demonstrations, imprisoned and tortured, and
finally beaten to death by the representatives of law and order. Juan Luis has other
secrets too, including his role in the killing of Eladio González, his deception of
his wife, Julia, whom he tricked into marriage, and his financial affairs. Juan Luis
suspects Ginés Pardo, a disenchanted integrista and former Guardia Civil, of
plotting terrorist action to destabilize the government. Juan Luis, an aperturista
27 Victor Dixon, ‘Los efectos de inmersión en el teatro de Antonio Buero Vallejo: una
puesta al día’, Anthropos, Monograph no. 10, 31–6 (p. 34).

who has embraced democracy, knows that if he denounces Ginés Pardo, his own
past actions will be revealed and both his career and his marriage will be
destroyed. He is tormented by his past and has to decide whether to continue to
deny it, thus never escaping its hold on him, or to confront it and face the conse-
quences. Cristina, a university friend of Julia and Fermín, is instrumental in the
revelation of the truth. Buero showed, through the suicide of Julia, that the con-
sequences of such denial do not just affect the individual. The trio of musicians
contracted to play at the anniversary party Juan Luis has organized to please Julia
metamorphose into a trio of judges, all of them former victims of his, and he real-
izes that the past is inescapable.
The protagonist of Lázaro en el laberinto, who lives with his sister and her
children, is tortured by his failure to remember an event from his past. The inci-
dent in question occurred during his student days when he and Silvia, his
girlfriend of the time, were distributing anti-government leaflets. Afterwards, she
was set upon by a group of masked right-wing youths who beat her severely.
Lázaro never saw her again, but heard through his sister, Fina, that she went to
England; in fact she died from her injuries. Over twenty years later he is the
owner of a successful bookshop and lives a quiet, happy life. Then he hears that
Silvia is back and he hopes for a telephone call from her to put his mind at rest,
for Lázaro is tormented by his failure to remember clearly what happened that
day. He cannot recall if he helped her and was beaten up himself or if he was too
afraid and abandoned her. In his apparent eagerness for an answer, he begins to
hear the telephone ringing, even when it is silent. Amparo and Germán, two
friends of his nephew with very different motives and outlooks, act as catalysts
in Lázaro’s realization that he is seeking forgiveness, not clarification, from
Silvia. It is suggested that Lázaro is denying, rather than forgetting an unpleas-
ant past. Buero implied that the pacto de olvido is not the solution to Spain’s ills
and that those who choose to deny the past might yet regret their decision to do
so. The thrust of Buero’s argument is that without the peace of mind brought
about by accountability, true progress cannot be made.
Civil unrest during the Franco period is also alluded to in Las trampas del
azar. The Francoist businessman Armando is shocked when he learns that
Gabriel brought his daughter to a student rally. A student was injured during the
ensuing clash with the police, but the supporters of the regime merely condemn
the students. Civil unrest of a different kind is mentioned in Caimán. Néstor, one
of the most human and plausible of Buero’s heroes and the closest to a
revolutionary intellectual in his later work, is involved in the union movement
and is actively working for improved conditions and facilities in poor areas.
Buero criticized the earlier regime by referring to Néstor’s imprisonment and
maltreatment at the hands of the authorities, before his release during an
amnesty. It is a play in which Buero argues for progression and solidarity, but
not the pacto de olvido. Rosa, Néstor’s wife, is unable to move on from the past
and the death of their child and chooses not to live in the world without her;
Néstor has accepted her death and seeks to change the present so that accidents
such as the one that claimed her life will not recur.
By remembering in his plays the victims and vanquished of the Civil War,
Buero denounced the regime that ensured they remained victims in post-war
society and the democratic society that chose to deny them their historical voice.
In Jueces en la noche reference is made to the father of Fermín Soria, who spent
time in prison and who later, like the father in El tragaluz, finds it difficult to get
employment because of his political record. His Civil War allegiances shaped his
future and that of his son. Juan Luis, on the other hand, benefited from being the
son of a Francoist general. Again Buero stressed that the present and the future
are determined by the past, and that to ignore this fact is to falsify reality. In Las
trampas del azar, the prosperity of the Francoist businessmen is contrasted with
the poverty of Salustiano who, like Gaspar in Diálogo secreto, hails from the
ranks of the Civil War vanquished.
David Johnston’s analysis of the post-Franco plays highlights the emphasis
that Buero continued to place on demystification and answerability for action
taken in the past:
De un modo muy unamuniano, el teatro de Buero cuestiona y re-examina la

historia española, impulsado hacia ello por un ineludible compromiso ético,
desenmascarando primeramente el revisionismo del franquismo (por ejemplo,
a través del ‘rescate’ de personajes históricos como Larra), y posteriormente
los valores contradictorios que se plasmaron en el proyecto del estado
democrático.28
This lack of accountability allowed the earlier divisions to prosper, even in a

nominally socialist Spain. Jueces en la noche deals with the dilemma of one
individual as he confronts his past and makes a conscious decision about his
responsibility to himself and to society. It is a play about the lack of ethics and
accountability in the transition to democracy, when the rush to progress resulted
in voluntary amnesia on the part of many people, but more ominously, on the part
of the politicians from the previous regime. The ease with which former
Francoists reinvented themselves and embraced democracy signalled a warning
for many on the left who felt that a plot to reinstate the old right was a distinct
possibility. The play suggests that there is truth in the rumours that terrorism,
apparently from left-wingers, is orchestrated by the right in order to discredit
them. Reactionary elements of the previous ruling elite have not disappeared, but
have gone to ground for a while in order to await or orchestrate the moment when
once again a bid can be made for a return to the glorious past. Buero asserted
that, until the new democrats dealt with their past, they were at the mercy of the
reactionary right. Many of the characters in Jueces en la noche, echoing others
in La detonación, wear democratic masks to disguise their true motives.
Historical revisionism appears as a theme in Las trampas del azar also. Buero
returned to Franco’s manipulation of the regime’s image and the apparent
28 David Johnston, ‘Buero Vallejo: un teórico de la lucha histórico’, in Antonio Buero
Vallejo. literatura, pp. 79–92 (p. 84).

apertura, which, like the new democratic image of Juan Luis, was no more than
a cosmetic change to appease international observers and to hide the fact that
power did not change hands. Criticism of revisionism, falsification and myth
surfaces again in Música cercana. Alfredo is obsessed by image, so much so that
he wishes to revise his own history in order to fit in with the personal official
myth he has created. He can countenance no limits to his personal power, which
he extends to a dominance of time. The title of the sanitized video version of his
life is El tiempo en mis manos, an appellation that demonstrates his megalomani-
acal belief that he can control and recapture time, purge his past of any event or
image that displeases him and add desirable elements.29 This extends to the
incorporation into his mythical life of the woman whom, as a young man, he
desired. His attempt to control and reinterpret the past also includes his inter-
pretation of the rape of Lorenza, which he chooses to remember as ‘algo bello y
bueno que nos sucedió a los dos’ (O.C. I: 2007). Fabio too, revises his past in
Diálogo secreto, absolving himself of any responsibility for the myth he lives.
Such distancing and mystification, so much a feature of Francoist mythology,
allows his successors to assert their freedom from history, to argue disinterest on
their part and to render alternatives to their control unthinkable. Of course, in his
insistence on accountability and his visitation of the recent and not so recent past,
Buero too was involved in the process of historical revisionism, reclaiming the
past for the previously vanquished, and denying the earlier dominant elite their
exclusive version of events.
Linked to the idea of historical revisionism and the pacto de olvido is the idea
of repetition. In Las trampas del azar Buero returned to a favoured theme of
victim-maker turned victim, as Gabi threatens to destroy his father, who had
earlier brought misery to others:
Así, a través de un juego intertextual, Buero reinterpreta el mito de Cronos,

dios del tiempo y devorador perpetuo de sus hijos, ya que además de repetirse
físicamente, los personajes (y por extensión, los seres humanos), parecen
destinados al no ejercer su voluntad para modificar ese destino, a repetir,
generación tras generación, los mismos errores.30
This two-part play tells the interconnected stories of two families over three
generations. Lisardo is a friend and employee of Armando, and both are com-
mitted Francoists. Lisardo’s son, Gabriel, wants to marry Matilda, the daughter
of Armando, but both sets of parents disapprove. Gabriel disregards their advice
and even Matilda’s reluctance and the marriage goes ahead. Matilda, who was
29 This argument, that Alfredo was attempting to control his past and to falsify his reality,
contrasts with Halsey’s assertion that: ‘Like Lázaro, Música thus dramatizes the protagonist’s
attempt to discover the truth about his past.’ From Dictatorship to Democracy: The Recent
Plays of Buero Vallejo. (From La Fundación to Música Cercana), Ottawa Hispanic Studies, 17
(Ottawa: Dovehouse Editions, 1994), p. 237.
30 O’Connor ‘Las trampas’, p. 6.
badly scarred as a result of a bad reaction to treatment for cuts to her back when
she was a child, thought that nobody would be able to love her. Gabriel, unbe-
knownst to her, was responsible for the cuts to her back; ten years previously he
had thrown a tile at a street lamp from his sickbed in order to extinguish the light,
and he recalled hearing someone shout out when it broke. The only person he
admitted this to was a Republican veteran who played his violin on the street
beneath the lamp. Once they are married, Gabriel takes a job in her father’s
laboratory and abandons the former idealism that saw him once participate in
anti-regime student protests.
Part two takes place thirty years later and there is no trace of idealism left in the
older Gabriel. The laboratory is the target of ecologists and accused of pollution
and arms manufacture; Gabriel dismisses these criticisms. He now has a son, also
called Gabi, and he is as idealistic and impatient as his father was. Gabi, in his
hatred of his father, assumes that the latter caused his mother’s injuries and does
not believe his parents’ protestations to the contrary. He decides to investigate and,
as fate would have it, bumps into Salustiano who tells him what his father had
revealed years before. Gabi returns to his parents’ house with his girlfriend,
Patricia, and confronts his father. Matilda begins to doubt whether Gabriel ever
loved her and Gabriel, angered by his son’s condemnation, has a heart attack.
Patricia recognizes the damage done by Gabi, who made a victim of, not just his
father, but his mother also. Gabriel, in his dying moments, has a vision of
Salustiano who makes him face up to the consequences of his past actions.
Buero showed history being repeated as radical youth rebels and later
conforms; the individual’s reward for conformity is contrasted with the substan-
tial cost to society of his actions. The repetition motif is further underscored by
the use of the same actors to play the youth of each generation. The repetition
does not end with the advent of a democratic Spain, and the young Gabi is set to
reproduce the mistakes of his father and grandfather in his eagerness to distin-
guish himself from them. The problem of youth is the problem Buero diagnosed
in Larra – impatience. In their desire to break from the past, they fail to learn
anything from it. The voice of wisdom is once again the voice of the outsider,
the old revolutionary who is one of what is now a dying breed. Salustiano speaks
for Buero when he advises Gabriel: ‘Ande con tiento. A veces la precipitación es
un error.’31 O’Connor comments:
La primera pieza musical, Impaciencia, llama la atención a la cualidad que

influye negativamente en dos Gabrieles, padre e hijo. De jóvenes, ambos
fueron seres activos, enérgicos, nerviosos y lanzados, atributos asociados con
la falta de reflexión y con el egoísmo, ambos tan reprobados en el teatro de
Buero.32
31 Antonio Buero Vallejo, Las trampas del azar, intro. by Virtudes Serrano, Colección
Austral, no. 364 (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1995), p. 89. Further references to this play are given
after quotations in the text.
32 O’Connor, ‘La sincronicidad’, pp. 133–4.
Another function of the repetition device then, is to highlight the repetition of

choice, and not just errors.
Buero posed the question in Las trampas del azar: ‘¿Seguiremos
repitiéndonos, y no sólo físicamente?’, but in fact it is a question he had been
asking for some time in his dramas (Las trampas, p. 138).33 Characters and
choices are repeated from one generation to the next, just as on another level they
are repeated from one play to the next. Politicians are repeated and reinvented in
La detonación and Jueces en la noche. Characters move from one Foundation
to another, yet nothing changes. Those who fail to accept responsibility for
their past actions or who suffer from voluntary amnesia, cannot escape the
Foundations they have created. While this emphasis on the repetition of history
lends an overall coherence to his work, it might also lead to the claim that in his
later theatre, Buero did not progress beyond Francoism. Rather than viewing this
as a negative commentary on his theatre, however, it can be argued that Buero
intended it this way. Perhaps he chose not to move beyond Francoism in order
to deny the pacto de olvido and to insist on remembrance. It could be argued, on
the other hand, that this repetition, which became more prevalent in the later
plays, might be a sign that Buero had little new to say. Iglesias Feijoo, however,
views it differently: ‘Buero Vallejo, como todos los grandes creadores, está siem-
pre moviéndose en torno a los mismos temas expresados con los mismos o
parecidos recursos. Es decir, en el fondo está siempre escribiendo la misma
obra.’34 Misión al pueblo desierto seems to support this argument. In it, Buero
revisited many themes and issues dealt with in his earlier plays and suggested,
through his criticism of the behaviour of certain Republicans during the civil
conflict, that the pacto de olvido was an issue for everyone in modern Spain, not
just those who benefited from the outcome of the war.35
33 In Casi un cuento de hadas and La detonación he also employed the device used now
in Las trampas del azar using the same actors to play different roles in order to make a point.
Ana María Leyra also comments that: ‘Carlos es “como” Ignacio, pero no es Ignacio. También
nosotros somos “como” Ignacio, pero no somos Ignacio “como” Carlos, pero sin ser Carlos.
Repetimos las palabras, los comportamientos, las actitudes, los ciclos, pero en la diferencia,
siendo y no siendo los personajes, sintiéndonos idénticos, sintiéndonos diferentes.’ ‘Las
filosofías de la diferencia y la repetición en el teatro de Buero Vallejo’, in Antonio Buero
Vallejo: literatura, pp. 119–28 (p. 123).
34 Luis Iglesias Feijoo, ‘El último teatro de Buero Vallejo’, in Buero Vallejo: cuarenta
años, pp. 109–18 (p. 113).

35 At a time when a new generation of Spaniards was beginning to dig up the past, Buero
wrote Misión al pueblo desierto, a play that deals with the pacto de olvido and the importance
of cultural memory. Set in contemporary Spain, the theatre audience is immersed in the
Círculo de Estudios and becomes the audience for its lecture on an episode from the Civil War,
which is narrated by the Secretaria and recreated on stage. It tells the story of Lola, a relative
of the Secretaria, who was involved in the Junta de Protección y Salvamento del Tesoro
Artístico, and who sets off with the activo, Damián, to recover an El Greco from a village in
no-man’s land, close to enemy lines, where it is being guarded by Plácido, an artist and the
spokesman for Buero in the play. The play explores the importance of art, as well as
commenting on revolution and history.
The End of Ideology? A Portrait of Modern Spain

Tras el advenimiento de la democracia se ha dicho a veces que la crítica social
ya no era necesaria en nuestras letras. Pero siempre es necesaria porque
siempre hay aspectos criticables (O.C. II: 526).
Despite the emergence of Spain from a period of hegemonic rule with a ruling
ideology that was often difficult to define, the creation of a democratic state did
not herald the end of ideology, but rather the beginning of a new period in the
ideological history of the state. Familiar myths were thrown out, to be replaced
by new ones to distract the masses from the imperfections of their new reality.
Old values were put aside and new ones given priority. As in earlier plays, Buero
exposed the lie that some people live in order to protect themselves from a reality
they do not wish to acknowledge. The concealment of reality and the process of
mystification are shown to be as much a part of the new Spain as they were of
the old.
Buero was clearly disillusioned with modern Spanish society, its ostentation
and its empty promises:
No veo negativo todo progreso, sino muy positivo. Pero los hombres lo han
orientado tanto y tan desenfrenadamente por su instinto depredador, de
dominio y de lucro, que se han pasado de la raya. El resultado es una natu-
raleza gravísimamente deteriorada hoy, la amenaza de holocausto nuclear,
el horroroso despilfarro de gastos de armamento y tantas otras cosas.36
In the society depicted by Buero: ‘No hay ideales. La justicia es una farsa. La lib-
ertad, un engaño. La política se envuelve siempre con andrajos interiores. Los ide-
ales de la oposición se pudren al instalarse en el poder.’37 The lack of values and
the end of ideology are in fact a myth to disguise the existence of a new hegem-
ony. In the later plays, Buero blamed modern Spain’s ills on ‘los apetitos de lucro
y de poder’ and suggested that ‘una honda transformación socialista vuelve a
aparecer como la solución posible’.38 There seems to be a mood of pessimism in
these plays that was absent from the plays written under Franco; even the
intellectuals are defeated and forgotten. The socialist dream to be fulfilled in the
aftermath of the PSOE’s 1982 election victory was soon abandoned: ‘La acidez
de Gaspar al juzgar la nueva sociedad, la del socialismo y el cambio, desgarra al
espectador. Vivimos en la misma sociedad, la misma corrupción, las mismas
inmoralidades. Nada ha cambiado.’39 Unlike in Buero’s earlier plays, Spain’s
future does not belong to the intellectuals and their followers. Even the youth,

37 Luis María Anson, ‘Crítica de Diálogo secreto’, in Anuario Teatral El Público 1985
(Madrid: Centro de documentación teatral del INAEM-Ministerio de Cultura, 1986),
p. 195.
39 Anson, ‘Crítica’, p. 195.
in whom Buero usually found hope, has chosen instant gratification and
consumerism over ideals. They are characters in the mould of Vicente from El
tragaluz, for whom the acquisition of wealth takes precedence over all else.
Javier’s dismissal of his sister’s death in Música cercana as ‘una espantosa casu-
alidad’, unrelated to his own activities, echoes the reaction of Vicente to the death
of his baby sister (O.C. I: 2021). Yet even Vicente recognized his culpability at
the end of that play.
Despite the ostensible prominence of the theme in La detonación, it was not
until Jueces en la noche that Buero spoke directly about the transition period. It
contains characters representative of the pillars of Francoist and post-Franco
society and examines the power relationships that existed during the transition,
as well as noting the lasting influence of the Francoist ideology on a supposedly
democratic Spain. Buero made the point that Jueces en la noche was ‘una obra
muy significativa dentro de mi teatro; además, creo que era la obra que exacta-
mente había que estrenar en aquel momento. El que no durara más de dos meses
en cartel se debió a otros fenómenos.’40 Buero criticized the many former
Francoists who simply changed their title in order to retain their positions of
privilege in society. Juan Luis is clearly a member of UCD or AP.41 Buero makes
his intentions clear:
Antiguos colaboradores del franquismo se han incorporado lealmente a las

nuevas tareas, pero muchos otros lo han hecho por oportunismo y sin aban-
donar su oculto deseo de que la democracia vuelva a ser destruida. Concebí
por ello el caso imaginario, pero muy semejante a otros casos reales, de un
político del anterior régimen que quiere – o que quiere creer que quiere –
participar en la nueva etapa política desde el marco de alguno de los partidos
de la derecha organizados en la transición. (O.C. II: 524)42
The central argument of the play asserts that accountability and remembering are
necessary for a successful transition to democracy. Confronted with the dilemma
of accepting responsibility for past actions and perhaps losing power as a result,
or denying memory in order to ensure his survival, Juan Luis Palacios chooses
40 Brines, ‘Buero Vallejo: “Para estar en la Academia” ’, p. 41.

41 In the play the violinist who appears in Juan Luis’s dreams as one of the judges, reveals
that Juan Luis has invested his money in foreign bank accounts where it is safe. According to
Martha T. Halsey, this makes Juan Luis a technocrat who, ‘although they made possible
Spain’s so-called economic miracle did so through the sacrifices of much of society while they
themselves showed their lack of faith by sending their earnings to Swiss banks.’ From
Dictatorship, p. 141. This is further corroborated by a conversation Juan Luis has with don
Jorge in which he refers to ‘nuestros más sagrados ideales y creencias’, with its undertones of
Opus Dei involvement (O.C. I: 1660).
42 Buero admitted: ‘Incluso en Jueces en la noche me permití escribir sobre cierto ex-ministro
de Franco que se incorporaba a la nueva situación,’ but unfortunately did not reveal his name.
Ramón F. Reboiras, ‘Entrevista a Buero Vallejo: “Somos una especie lamentable, sin porvenir” ’,
Cambio 16, 16 January 1995, pp. 70–2 (p. 72).
the latter. Thus, what is offered in the play is a vision of the transition based on
the pacto de olvido, where power does not so much change hands as change
appearance. The pacto de olvido continued to preoccupy Buero, as he showed in
his last play, Misión al pueblo desierto. He stressed the importance of the his-
tory through the character of la Secretaria del Círculo de Estudios in the face of
the argument of the Vocal Adjunto that the issues raised by her about the Civil
War ‘carecen ya para nosotros de vigencia’ (Misión, p. 9). What is portrayed by
characters in the post-Franco plays as progress and freedom was revealed by
Buero to be a continuation of the elitism of old. Underlying Buero’s argument is
the notion that to advance in modern Spanish society is to accept the pacto de
olvido and a new distortion of reality.
Buero moved from this to deal with the themes of myth and history in Música
cercana. Again, Buero engaged to some degree in his own form of mystification
of a lost innocence, something that Alfredo, because of his determination to
control history, can never achieve. The play also contains one of Buero’s more
interesting post-Franco rebel figures, significantly one whose cause transcends
the borders of a Spain that is considered beyond redemption.43 Although his
nationality and his politics are not specified in the play, Buero clarified these in
an interview with Patricia W. O’Connor in 1990, when he made clear that René
is Nicaraguan and a communist. Buero protested against the power relations and
structures of modern society and reiterated his long-held view that socialism is
the best option for society. He criticized capitalism as ‘una estructura errónea
desde el punto de vista humano, porque se basa en la explotación del hombre por
el hombre, en el afán de lucro y en el incentivo del bienestar personal a costa de
los demás’.44 He was very critical of the capitalist ideology of modern Spanish
society and argued that only the victims, such as Lorenza, and the outsiders, such
as Gaspar, Salustiano and René, are fit to be judges and witnesses. Others, such
as Alfredo and his son Javier, are more concerned with rewriting the past, and
exploiting the present, than learning from it and implementing change. It is not,
in other words, simply that modern Spain is a place without a defined ideology,
but rather that it has a nominally socialist and, thus a mystified, capitalist
ideology. Like all successful ideologies, it relies heavily on myth, ritual and
symbol. It presents itself as democratic and socialist and distorts the reality that
material inequality and injustice still prevail.
Also obscured by the myth of a fully democratized society is the reality of the
insidious influence of the business world on the body politic. The involvement of
43 O’Connor suggested that the Nicaraguan René is an equivocal figure, in that both his
cause and his love are questionable. Buero defended his creation, by claiming that his
dilemma rests on the powerful pull of both his duties to his country and his love of Sandra.
His moral rectitude is highlighted, and his moral dilemma exacerbated, by his unwillingness
to cheat even those who are manipulating him. Antonio Buero Vallejo en sus espejos,
pp. 305–6.
44 Patricia W. O’Connor, ‘Una conversación con Antonio Buero Vallejo sobre Música
cercana’, Estreno, 16 (no. 2, 1990), 18–22 (p. 19).

business interests in the political forum comes to the fore in Jueces en la noche
and continues to feature in the later post-Franco works. The inequity that
prevailed under Franco permeates socialist Spain and the large corporations can
employ a type of economic censorship to remove from their ranks anyone who
might threaten the status quo or challenge their methods. Amparo in Lázaro en el
laberinto is let go from the company she worked for despite the increase in com-
pany profits; there is a suggestion that her political affiliations are the reason. In
Jueces en la noche, Don Jorge, the owner of Indelecsa, a large multinational cor-
poration with investments in Spain, is seen to have a special, almost paternal rela-
tionship with Juan Luis. The latter consults Don Jorge about political matters,
such as the advisability of moving further to the left in a bid to retain political
power. Don Jorge also has links with the reactionary right, in the form of Ginés
Pardo, and there is a suggestion that the company may be involved in the terror-
ist activity being planned by him. It is clear from a conversation that Don Jorge
has with Juan Luis that a degree of instability in a country might prove beneficial
to the business interests of the company, particularly if it is something they can
control. Juan Luis is rewarded for his favourable treatment of Indelecsa while a
Minister, with a lucrative position as a consultant with the company. He explains
to his wife why he is courting the favour of Don Jorge: ‘Las decisiones de la
alta política no se pueden tomar ignorando los grandes poderes económicos.
Si vuelvo a ser ministro, mi vinculación a esa empresa lo va a facilitar mucho’
(O.C. I: 1642).
The glamorous world of business is examined from the perspective of its
beneficiaries in Música cercana and Las trampas del azar. Yet Buero also high-
lighted the negative repercussions of corrupt business practice on society. In Las
trampas del azar, he revisited the Francoist origins of some of the successful
businessmen of the post-Franco period, reiterating the point about a transform-
ation rather than an end of ideology. In Spain in the 1980s, Buero suggested,
what mattered was the wealth of an individual, not the manner in which the
wealth was acquired. In Música cercana Alfredo and his son Javier are involved
in a large multinational company called Mundifisa, described as ‘una sociedad
de inversiones y de financiación’ (O.C. I: 1977). Here, language is exposed as a
tool of mystification; it is used to disguise the reality, which is that Mundifisa is
linked to the laundering of drug money. Alfredo also cites the creation of jobs
and wealth as a justification of his activities, just as Felipe from Llegada de los
dioses and Juan Luis from Jueces en la noche did before him. The gap between
motivation and justification is exposed: it is personal wealth, rather than munif-
icence, that is the impetus for his actions. The multinationals depicted here and
in Jueces en la noche are part of a powerful global elite, respected for their
wealth and power, but who consider themselves above the law of the states in
which they have their subsidiaries. The inclusion of the Nicaraguan, René,
allowed Buero to highlight the damage inflicted on other countries and peoples
by such corporations. Yet the damage eventually affects Spain also and, despite
the protection bought by his wealth, Alfredo cannot safeguard his daughter from
those who are excluded from the latest Foundation.
Buero extended his discourse on modern society in the play Caimán. The acci-
dental death of Carmela is linked to fraud and bankruptcy in a construction firm.
It is possible to trace an underlying argument against the business policies that
foster unemployment while increasing the profits of a select few. Dionisio was
made redundant in the sweeping cost-cutting measures of the period. What is
portrayed by some as the progress of modern society is revealed as a step towards
social calamity. Poverty, reminiscent of the destitution experienced in the after-
math of the Civil War, is a problem in 1980s society, and there is reference made
to both the increased number of beggars on the streets and the cynical techniques
employed by them to maximize their money-making potential. Néstor is the
modern socialist and trade unionist, equally critical of the corruption of the
wealthy and the cynical apathy of the poor. He is the only one of Buero’s post-
Franco intellectuals capable of inspiring action. He is a posibilista, with reason-
able expectations and hopes. One of the victims of society is revealed at the end
of the play to have been saved through the support and action of this homme
engagé. Caimán is perhaps the only truly hopeful play of Buero’s post-Franco
theatre; it is worth noting that it dates from 1981 – the year before the socialists
came to power.
Buero was also concerned to show that ideological powers effective under
Franco retained much of their influence in the new Spain. Significant among
these was the Roman Catholic Church. In Jueces en la noche, he seemed to sug-
gest that it had abdicated its responsibility to offer moral guidance in its haste to
distance itself from the past. In Juan Luis’s dream the Church and military,
represented by Padre Anselmo and the General, are closely linked, just as they
had been for much of the Franco era. While the priest can find justification
for the earlier killing of a rojo, the assassination of the General is problematical.
The thrust of Buero’s argument was that this link still existed in post-Franco
Spain, despite outward signs to the contrary. Both represent the interests of a
conservative, Catholic elite group that continued to wield substantial power in
society. When Juan Luis consults the priest for advice regarding the privileged
information he has received about the possible terrorist strike against a military
target, the priest fails to counsel him in accordance with the teachings of the
Church. Instead, he implies that Juan Luis must keep the family unit together at
all costs. The family is, of course, one of the ideological state apparatuses dear to
both the Church and the Franco regime. An exchange between Cristina and Padre
Anselmo is also highly critical of the Church, which proscribes divorce while
hypocritically providing annulments for those who can afford them. The institu-
tion of the family, like the institution of the Church, is valued more than the
people who constitute it or the spirit in which it is formed. The priest advises Juan
Luis to pray that the left do not become too powerful, underscoring Buero’s con-
tention that the Church was very much allied to a certain political ideology. The
crux of Buero’s argument is that the Church had failed in its role, both as moral
guide and charitable institution. In fact, he reasoned that it was people like Néstor
in Caimán, rather than priests, who were bringing hope and charity, coupled with
faith in terrestrial salvation, to the deprived. The Church does not appear in the
later post-Franco plays. The society portrayed by Buero in the late post-Franco
plays is a secular one where consumerism is the new religion. God is dead.
The mantra of this new Spain is spoken by Javier in Música cercana: ‘Nadie es
insobornable’ (O.C. I: 1976).
Buero extended his discourse to undermine the notion of an ideology-free and
democratic Spain by examining the new forms of censorship and propaganda
that are employed to support the new ruling ideology. In Música cercana, he
showed how easily those with power can manipulate the media and condition the
response of the reader to a given story. When the Mundifisa scandal breaks,
Javier informs Alfredo that ‘nuestra cadena de periódicos ya tiene instrucciones,
y nuestros abogados están trabajando’ (O.C. I: 1986). Alfredo has also suggested
the creation of a cultural foundation with the dual purpose of giving René a job,
thus retaining control over him and his daughter and distracting from the
Mundifisa scandal, ‘para lavar mi imagen de discutibles actividades anteriores’
(O.C. I: 1993). The proliferation of such foundations also has the effect of
turning culture into a commodity, while discouraging questions about the moti-
vation for its existence and obscuring the fact that it represents an ideological
employment of culture.
Buero explored another type of ideological cultural control in Diálogo
secreto and questioned the actions of critics who would be censors. The
dramatist returned to art in his exploration of the role of the critic in society
and the importance of interpretation of art. Fabio, the protagonist, is a suc-
cessful art critic and historian who suffers from dyschromatopsia and whose
career and reputation are constructed upon a lie. The play proved popular
among theatre-goers but not with the critics, which was hardly surprising
given the negative portrayal of a critic in the play. It is suggested that Fabio’s
unfounded and vitriolic criticism of Samuel Cosme’s art may have been
enough to cause the young artist to commit suicide. Buero hinted that his criti-
cism was motivated by jealousy, not only of Cosme’s artistic talent, but also
of his daughter’s affection for the artist. Language is exploited by Fabio, who
is protected by his professionalism and reputation and who wields language
like a weapon. As with many who defend self-serving values, he uses his skills
to make nonsense of alternative expositions. His position as a powerful and
expert critic makes his interpretation very difficult to challenge. Gaspar
accuses Fabio of being power-hungry and says that his weakness is ‘el de sen-
tirse poderoso y temido’ (O.C. I: 1857). He also claims that Fabio’s criticism
of Samuel Cosme was unjust: ‘Escribiste lo que sentías, no lo que pensabas’
(O.C. I: 1857).
Although some of the critics seem not to have thought so, Buero claimed
that he was not damning all critics, but merely those who judge unfairly and
abuse their positions of power and who use language to obscure rather than to
clarify. Buero thus returned to a theme dealt with in Las Meninas, where the
critics and censors are considered to play a significant role in the upholding
and defence of the ruling ideology. In that play Buero, through the character
of Velázquez, suggested that the lasciviousness that the censors claim to see
in his Venus was in fact, in the eye of the beholder. The point Buero made in
1984 was similar. Now, in democratic society, the critic is the censor. As far
back as 1956 Buero wrote: ‘La crítica es necesaria para poner las cosas en su
punto. Estimula, además, y contribuye, incluso cuando se equivoca, a la dis-
cusión de las obras. Y sólo de la discusión sale, a la larga, la luz para todos.
Por eso soy partidario de la crítica’ (O.C. II: 590–1). Yet he went on to com-
plain of ‘el seudotipo de crítico . . . que analiza demasiado, pero que admira
poco’ and of those who fail to be either impartial or rational in their judgements
(O.C. II: 591). The critic may influence the fate of an artist or writer, and Buero
was reminding him of his obligation to the truth, and of the humility required
for such a job that rests to some extent upon interpretation of the work in ques-
tion. The critic, like the artist, is part of the cultural apparatus of any society
and not apart from it.
Some critics of Diálogo secreto objected to the inclusion of a colour-blind
critic, which was considered dubious: ‘En principio, Buero Vallejo plantea en
Diálogo secreto el viejo problema entre la crítica y la creación. Lo plantea mal.
Acude a un caso inverosímil.’45 O’Connor notes that: ‘Se ha acusado a Buero de
atacar en esta obra a la crítica teatral en general y a un determinado crítico.’46
Nevertheless, it is in keeping with the motif of blindness in Buero’s plays, which
symbolizes an inability or unwillingness to see the truth, and is thus relevant in
this case as it demonstrates not only the level of Fabio’s deceitfulness but also
the extreme folly of his actions. Just as he exposed the bias of the censors of the
previous regime, who ostensibly worked for the common good, Buero now
revealed the prejudices of some critics. In an interview with David Johnston,
Buero said of critics in Spain:
Aquí hay un defecto de fondo en cuanto a la intelección de la tarea critica, del

que no creo que se cure. [. . .] Nos lo acredita nada menos que Baltasar
Gracián: «Los españoles abrazan todo lo extranjero pero no estiman lo
propio.» Aquí, en la medida misma en que se ha podido consolidar el prestigio
literario, los reparos crecen.47
This favouritism shown to the foreign over the domestic is probably in part a
reaction to the nationalistic and xenophobic fervour of the previous regime and
the notion that ‘España es diferente’. By criticizing this, Buero was of course
defending his own position as a writer under Franco and suggesting that some of
the criticism he received was unjust. It is worth noting that this alleged prefer-
ence for the foreign, and undervaluation of the indigenous cultural output, may
also have influenced the reception of such works abroad.
45 Eduardo Haro Tecglen, ‘Crítica de Diálogo secreto’, in Anuario Teatral El Público
1985, pp. 195–6 (pp. 195–6).

46 O’Connor, Antonio Buero Vallejo en sus espejos, p. 143. The critic in question, as the
footnote explains, is Eduardo Haro Tecglen, theatre critic of El País. Buero denied this.
47 David Johnston, ‘Entrevista a Antonio Buero Vallejo’, Ínsula, no. 516 (1989), 25–6 (p. 26).
Language and Silence: Contra Franco escribía mejor

Contra Franco vivíamos mejor.48
In the post-Franco plays, Buero refused to alter radically his philosophy and
style, instead continuing to employ symbolism and allegory to write plays crit-
ical of the new elite and the latest ruling ideology. Furthermore, Buero took the
opportunity in the post-Franco plays to reflect on language and silence and, in
particular, his own:
En lo que a mi se refiere, no hay una nueva etapa. Ni tampoco yo querría que

la hubiera, porque ello significaría para mí que la anterior era toda inválida, y
yo no pienso así. Pero, claro, alguna variación hay. Evidentemente, el tema de
Jueces . . . no lo hubiera podido tocar, de la manera en que lo he tocado, bajo
el franquismo. [. . .] Es más clara. Pero tampoco se tocan de una manera abso-
lutamente transparente, porque yo entiendo que aun sin censura, la absoluta
transparencia es un error ideológico y estético, cuando se trata de una obra
artística.49
He argued that silence and allegory serve an aesthetic purpose, even in a political
work; similarly, language and silence, carefully chosen, fulfil a political role in
a dramatic work. Buero distinguished between opportunistic language and
silence and fearful or provocative language and silence, and defended his own
choice.
Buero characterized himself in part by his contribution to literature of
opposition. Hence it is not surprising that after the death of Franco some con-
sidered his time to be over. Buero did not agree: ‘No es cierto que me «iba mejor
con la censura». Si grandes éxitos obtuve entonces, también sufrí mis mayores
fracasos. Entonces: no ahora’ (O.C. II: 503). It follows that the ambiguity that
was part of his relationship with the Francoist ideology may also have enabled
him to survive it. He was never completely identified with either the regime’s
favoured writers or its most radical opponents. Adolfo Marsillach defended
Buero against claims that he outlived his purpose as a committed dramatist:
El principal reproche que le hicieron – en el que, además, coincidió la

izquierda con la derecha – fue que parecía como si a Buero se le hubiera
acabado la inspiración con la muerte de Franco. Es decir, se le acusaba de lo
mismo por lo que hasta hacía muy poco se le alababa. Se masticaba en el aire
un apresurado deseo de enterrar cuanto antes el anterior lenguaje antifran-
quista. La derecha, porque estaba interesadísima en demostrar que el teatro de
Buero fue una excelente consecuencia del franquismo ya que la censura, según
48 Quoted by John Hooper, The New Spaniards (London: Penguin, 1995), p. 343. Manuel
Vázquez Montalbán twisted the refrain of those nostalgic for the Franco era to explain the lack
of a cultural and political renaissance in the post-Franco era.
49 Javier Alfaya, ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo: en la ardiente lucidez’, La calle, 25 September–
1 October 1979, pp. 42– 4 (p. 42).

sus planteamientos, es el mejor acicate para la ingeniosa invención de los

creadores. La izquierda, porque abrigaba la secreta – e infantil – esperanza
de que la joven democracia, en provechoso connubio con los pactos de la
Moncloa, iba a producir enseguida una nueva generación de maravillosos dra-
maturgos para los que Buero era un estorbo. [. . .] Sigo opinando que Buero
fue un poco víctima de las circunstancias. Al menos, la indignación con que
se le recibió no era, me parece, del todo justa. Entre otras razones porque,
a efectos teatrales, Franco no había muerto.50
Buero disagreed with the idea put forward by some critics, that he was better
writing against Franco than writing in freedom. He denied that his work became
ineffectual in the post-Franco years, while conceding that he had developed a
certain style that he had no intention of changing.51 García Lorenzo praised
Buero’s consistency, where others saw stagnation: ‘Pero pienso que el teatro de
Buero sigue diciendo hoy exactamente lo mismo que decía hace veinte, treinta
años.’52 Despite such support, there were those who have suggested that Buero’s
style of drama, and his repetition of the same old themes, were no longer
relevant. Of course the problem was not merely that Buero’s traditional style and
repetitive themes seemed outdated, but also that theatre of commitment itself was
no longer judged to be necessary. Even Cabal, who considers Buero’s contribu-
tion during the Franco years and the transition to have been valuable, believes
that the older dramatist was somehow out of step with the new Spain: ‘Buero ha
hecho un esfuerzo intelectual honrado en esto para reflejar esa transición.’Yet he
qualifies his praise of Buero by stating that, being:
Un hombre académico, muy desligado del pulso social del país, da una visión
que yo creo que no coincide en su análisis con la nueva generación. Creo que
los escritores y el público, que es lo más importante, el público de la nueva
generación . . . no partimos de los mismos análisis que Antonio Buero. Es
lógico.
He went on to claim that the theatre of Buero, Sastre and others, presumably of
the Realist Generation, was ‘pasado ya’.53
Nonetheless, the significance of Jueces en la noche in twentieth-century
Spanish drama should not be overlooked. In 1979, while others dealt with the
past, Buero was dealing with the transition and the future. Afterwards, however,
50 Marsillach, ‘Cinco años’, pp. 228, 229. One of those to criticize Buero and in particular
his play Jueces en la noche was Eloy Herrera, famous for his theatre of right-wing agitation
propaganda: ‘Autores que escribieron al dictado de unas conveniencias coyunturales y que al
quedar en libertad de imaginación demostraron sus limitadas actitudes creativas. Ahora
mismo tenemos el caso de Buero Vallejo con su último folletín-panfleto Jueces en la noche.’
Zatlin Boring, ‘Encuesta sobre el teatro madrileño’, p. 15.
his work, while focusing on modern Spain, had a despairing tone that revealed
the dramatist to be more retrospective than before. Dixon too, noted that ‘últi-
mamente ha parecido estar menos esperanzado que antes’.54 The message of
hope for Spain that earlier balanced his emphasis on history, is absent in all but
the words of defeated old men. Learning from the past and avoiding historical
errors seems less likely when history has been deliberately and selectively
obscured and the collective memory is, like Lázaro’s, a damaged one. Buero
himself seemed to realize that the position of the artist or intellectual with whom
he identified in Spanish society, rather than coming centre stage in an era of
freedom, had become more alienated. In the later post-Franco plays, Buero’s
politicized message is no longer spoken by the protagonists but by the old, the
disappointed and the alienated. Even in Misión al pueblo desierto, it is Plácido
who functions as Buero’s spokesperson, although the young Secretaria of the
Círculo de Estudios is critical of the pacto de olvido. Hence, without giving up
hope entirely, Buero did seem to recognize that his language no longer spoke to
those he wished to influence and the response from the audience was not protest
or commitment, but a deliberate silence.
54 Victor Dixon, ‘H. G. Wells en la vida y en la obra de Antonio Buero Vallejo’, in Antonio
Buero Vallejo: literatura, pp. 145–64 (p. 149).

Mono213_Conclusion.qxd 3/8/05 9:24 AM Page 249
Conclusion
VEGA ¡Usted no ha entendido! Larra concede algo para sacar más.

DÍAZ Es su opinión. Yo a eso le llamo una pluma prostituida (O.C. I: 1536).
Buero, like others before him, took the view that: ‘Vivimos tiempos muy difí-
ciles, en los cuales no puede uno hablar ni callar sin peligro’ (O.C. II: 1291).
A prudent man, he chose to address the issue of language and silence with posi-
bilismo, insisting that this form of protest was a valid one, the alternatives being
silence, collusion or exile. Language and silence were the main constituents of
the writer’s relationship with the ideological tool of censorship, yet Buero
insisted: ‘Considerar la censura como fenómeno absolutamente castrador es
una inexactitud. De haberlo sido, es obvio que nadie habría podido hacer nada’
(O.C. II: 507). This notwithstanding, his success during the years of the Franco
regime has been the subject of some controversy. As one of the Civil War
vanquished, his achievement was indeed remarkable and unusual, and through-
out his long career as a dramatist Buero often felt the need to defend himself
against accusations of compromise or collusion. In contrast to some of his
contemporaries, Buero believed that while preferable, absolute personal and
political freedom were not necessary conditions for the purpose of artistic
creation: ‘La historia nos muestra que no son necesarias. Probablemente nos
muestra también que con carácter «absoluto» nunca son posibles’ (O.C. II: 708–9).
Unlike some of his contemporaries, he chose to acknowledge that the influence
of art on society was a limited one:
El efecto o el influjo que el arte en general ejercía era mucho más pequeño
de lo que podía pretenderse. Esto sí es una realidad y puede haber producido
una decepción. [. . .] Esta realidad y esta decepción no provienen de ningún
error ideológico de fondo, sino de una ilusión que pudiéramos llamar juve-
nil o ingenua en el sentido de que consideraba demasiado potentes unos
medios que nunca lo han sido para el que sepa mirar con objetividad la
Historia.1
However, this very acknowledgement could also be interpreted as an excuse

for the choices he made. Other commentators suggested that commercially
successful social drama in Franco’s Spain, while not necessarily integration
1 Galán and Lara, ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo: ¿un tigre domesticado?’, p. 32.
propaganda, was simply meek. G. G. Brown wrote: ‘One cannot help thinking
that if the typical theatre-going public applauds it, then it cannot be of any
great social significance.’2
There is little doubt that Buero’s considered attitude towards the ideology of
Francoism allowed him to enjoy a career in the commercial theatre matched by
no other committed dramatist, and it enabled him to voice some criticism of the
regime, albeit veiled. Buero himself suggested that his success had more to do
with his attitude, an element of good luck and ideological motivations of the
regime, than any collusion or connections he might have had:
La hipótesis más fácil es la de pensar que este señor se ha vendido. Pero ocurre
que, a veces, en España, por fortuna para ella, hay ‘reinos de Taifas’, y que
aunque una dictadura muy fuerte trate de ahormar al país entero, pues de
pronto, un Jurado campa por sus respetos, una crítica campa por los
suyos . . . Una conjunción de cosas, en este sentido favorables, han determi-
nado la posibilidad de mi aparición y mi continuidad bajo Franco.3
Compromise, and the extent of his compromise, are central to an analysis of

Buero’s relationship with the ideology of Francoism. He did not court contro-
versy but instead sought to divert the regime’s attention from his criticisms. For
Buero, the question was not one of collusion or freedom but rather of degrees of
compromise. What must be recognized is that Buero made a calculated and
deliberate decision to engage in compromise and concession. Essentially, posi-
bilismo is what Buero considered to be the role of the artist or intellectual in a
repressive society, and this attitude is reflected in his plays. He rejected the
stance of those who conformed to censorship and said nothing worthwhile,
instead churning out frivolous entertainment; he also rejected the position of
those who created work so provocative and controversial that they courted the
wrath of the censor and condemned themselves to silence. Like many of his char-
acters, Buero was prepared to wear a mask, to employ euphemism, symbols and
historical allegory in order to say what could not be said directly. His posibil-
ismo also contained a moralistic tone, reminiscent of Camus, which eschewed
revolutionary sentiment in favour of moral responsibility. It also concentrated to
a great extent on the dramatist’s attitude towards and employment of history, in
particular his posibilista revisionism, which expressed history as progress: ‘Por
fin, frente a los figurones históricos de José María Pemán o Eduardo Marquina,
alguien se atrevía a interpretar o “releer” nuestro pasado colectivo desde la per-
spectiva de la izquierda no dogmática.’4 For Buero, as for Milan Kundera, ‘the
struggle of man against power is the struggle of man against forgetting’, and even
2 Gerald G. Brown, A Literary History of Spain: The Twentieth Century, 2nd edn (London:
Ernest Benn, 1974), p. 158.

3 Sainz, ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo: un intelectual’, pp. 26–7.
4 Salvat i Ferré, ‘El más fascinador’, p. 93.
CONCLUSION 251
in his later works the dramatist asserted the importance of history, responsibility
and memory.5
Buero consistently defended his posibilismo and insisted that it was both a
valid and a strident form of commitment:
Eso que se llamó ‘mi posibilismo’ fue el posibilismo de todos, tanto de los que
lo comprendían como de los que no, independientemente de la suerte que hayan
tenido. En cuanto al mío, que por haber tenido algunas veces suerte ha sido
tildado, en ocasiones, de excesivo, quisiera hacer notar que fue una actitud difí-
cil expresada mediante obras que pasaron grandes obstáculos antes de poderse
estrenar, y que, cuando se estrenaron, causaron fuerte impacto social. Se trataba,
por consiguiente, de un posibilismo exigente, tan al borde de la imposibilidad
que, a veces, el toro me pillaba por meses o por años. Todavía no está lejos El
doctor Valmy . . . que estuvo catorce años fuera de la circulación.6
Yet in so far as he was a committed dramatist, it must be acknowledged that

Buero’s commitment was defined and limited by his posibilismo. Despite assert-
ing that his theatre was political, Buero endeavoured to be an author of non-
ideological dramas:
Por supuesto que creo que en mi teatro hay grandes dosis de política, pero de
una política entendida como un fenómeno dramático, no como exposición de
ideologías concretas, ya que en este sentido creo que no sería indicado el
vehículo.7
He clearly chose not to align himself to any specific oppositional ideology, even
going so far as to criticize it in some of his works. However, the political nature
of some of his theatre had consequences for his art. Writers like Buero Vallejo,
who chose to remain in Spain rather than to flee, did so at some cost. He always
defended his actions, yet it is undeniable that the decision to remain in Spain and
to write for commercial audiences did involve a certain compromise. Buero had
to deal with the regime, accept cuts and modifications to his work and consider
carefully both his language and his silences. To an extent he recognized and
admitted to the compromise in which he was engaged, yet he refused to concede
that he may have compromised too much or too often. While Buero argued that
aesthetic devices could be used to evade censorship and simultaneously to
improve the work, the question of whether or not such devices would have been
employed if censorship did not exist is a pertinent one. Buero was consistent in
his denial of his use of certain aesthetic devices for strictly political purposes,
but as the plays were written in those circumstances and not in a censorship-free
environment, this can only be speculation or wishful thinking.
5 Milan Kundera, quoted in Kaye, ‘Why Do Ruling Classes Fear History?’, p. 90.
6 Martín Iniesta, ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo: “Mi posibilismo” ’, p. 20.
Posibilismo is a reaction to, and an engagement with, ideology, and Buero

defined and defended his theatre as posibilista. So while it is true that he avoided
the propagation of a specifically defined ideology in his theatre, his entire opus
was determined to some degree by ideology, both his own and the other ideolo-
gies operating in Spanish society. Buero, in plays such as El concierto de San
Ovidio, El sueño de la razón and Un soñador para un pueblo, as well as La
detonación and others, advanced the argument for a positive interpretation of the
acknowledgement of limitations. His position as tangential to the dominant ideol-
ogy afforded him views of the attractions and the myths of both the dominant
Francoist ideology and of alternative ideologies. Yet the essential contradiction
of Buero and his relationship with the hegemonic ideology remained, evidenced
in his endeavours to be critical of and also, paradoxically, acceptable to the
regime.
Linked to Buero’s posibilismo was his choice to work in the commercial
theatre. Recognizing the importance of audience interpretation of the drama, it
becomes apparent that the values and beliefs held by the audience will deter-
mine any interpretation. Ruled by the laws of supply and demand, rather than
any political concerns, the commercial theatre nevertheless tended to reflect
the values of its audience, or at least avoided representing works born of a
counter-ideology, which might be judged to be not to its taste. Furthermore, in
the case of drama produced in Francoist Spain, the presence of censorship
meant that allusion and symbolism were employed, which of course allowed
for more than one interpretation of the work in question, including a non-
political one. As José Monleón observed, the Spanish public ‘es un público
que, por lo general, no tiene conciencia de su lugar en el cuadro general del
hombre y de la historia’.8 This insufficiency was the focus of Buero’s explo-
ration of history in his dramas. José Tamayo was also critical of the Spanish
theatre-going public: ‘El público sabe lo que quiere ver. Pero en nuestro país,
el público carece de curiosidad.’9
Even acknowledging that, under Franco a deliberately popular theatre had all
but disappeared, despite the early efforts of Sastre and others, Buero’s determin-
ation to stage even his most committed work in the depoliticized commercial
theatres was problematic. O’Connor is overly generous in her assertion that:
‘Aunque expone sus convicciones sin hacer concesiones a un teatro comercial,
se siente complacido ante la aceptación del gran público e, irónicamente, a pesar
de escribir contra los espectadores acomodados que le pagan, se le tilda de opor-
tunista.’10 Of course, Buero was not alone in staging his works for a bourgeois
public. Sastre, despite his assertion that his ideal public is ‘el público popular’,
8 José Monleón, ‘En la frontera del teatro’, Cuadernos para el diálogo, Monograph no. 3,
28–30 (p. 30).

9 Rosario Izquierdo, ‘José Tamayo, animal teatral’, El correo de Zamora, 21 July 1976. In
AGA/IDD 49.021 Topogr. 73-46 Ca. 69.037 Carpeta no. 57: Teatro 1976.
10 O’Connor, Antonio Buero Vallejo en sus espejos, p. 32.
CONCLUSION 253
admits that ‘cuando las obras se representaban por fin, se representaban siempre
para un público burgués. Porque dentro de la estructura del teatro español el pro-
letariado no iba al teatro.’11 The commercial theatre audiences were overwhelm-
ingly middle-class and therefore unlikely to risk their privileged positions and
favoured status by committing themselves to reform in the manner advocated by
the dramatist. Like his fictionalized Velázquez, perhaps he was looking for his
public in the wrong place. As José Monleón wrote: ‘Nuestros autores rebelados
acaban – y repito que ello puede responder al legítimo deseo de estrenar –
gritando dentro de la Iglesia Teatral Española.’12
Asked by Medardo Fraile whether he had an abstract or a concrete idea of the
public as he wrote, Buero responded: ‘Una idea abstracta, pero es probable que
esa idea se impregne de la consideración del público real con quien vamos a
enfrentarnos; para combatirlo, claro.’13 Brustein wrote of the modern dramatist:
‘No longer the spokesman for the audience, or its paid entertainer, the drama-
tist becomes its adversary.’14 This effort must seem wasted, however, when the
audience is unmoved by this hostility, and merely concerned with being enter-
tained, as often appeared to be the case. As Bentley correctly pointed out, ‘an
enemy does not make a good audience’.15 Unlike Sartre, who believed that com-
mitted theatre should be aimed at the apathetic left, Bentley was of the opinion
that committed drama should be directed at those who are uncommitted. Buero,
it would seem, inclined towards Bentley’s view, and in his plays, most obviously
in La doble historia del doctor Valmy, he attacks the apathy of the bourgeois
audience. Nonetheless, he also denounced the apathy of the proletariat, who was
not usually present in the commercial theatre to be inspired by his enacted les-
son. So, while it is true that Buero was by no means a spokesman or apologist
for the largely bourgeois audience and even criticized their complacency and
collusion, neither was he a true dramatist of revolt as defined by Brustein.
Buero, perhaps because of his direct experience of revolutionary conflict and
the opposing views held within his own family, chose a more conciliatory line
and his heroes are constantly limited in their endeavours by what is or is not
possible. Yet, on another occasion, in response to the question, ‘¿Qué es el teatro
para Antonio Buero Vallejo?’, the dramatist replied: ‘Íntimamente, un intento
de arte, de pensamiento, de desahogo y de autorrealización. Mirando hacia
fuera, la tentativa de crear un público y de conectar con él.’16 Perhaps, then,
Buero’s objective in writing posibilista theatre for the commercial theatre was
to appeal to people on moral, ethical and historical, rather than ideological,
grounds.
11 Vogeley, ‘Alfonso Sastre’, p. 464.

12 José Monleón, ‘Francisco Nieva’, in Teatro breve contemporáneo, p. 18.
13 Medardo Fraile, ‘Charla con Antonio Buero Vallejo’, Cuadernos de Ágora, nos 79–82
(1963), 4–8 (p. 5).

14 Brustein, The Theatre of Revolt, p. 10.
15 Bentley, The Theatre of Commitment, p. 226.
Szanto, unlike many of the dramatists who employed this form of dialectical
theatre, recognized its essential failing:
Transforming the intention to propagandize against bourgeois structures and

for world revolution into a piece of theater intended for an audience without
revolutionary commitment is the problem which makes a theater of dialectical
propaganda the most difficult propaganda theater to create.17
This was Buero’s problem. In addition, the situation was worse in Spain, as the
state was not only bourgeois but also autocratic. The fundamental paradox was
this: the typical theatre-goer went to see a play in search of entertainment and
escapism, while the dramatist was seeking to educate his mind and prick his
political conscience. As Jardiel Poncela jokingly acknowledged: ‘El que hace un
teatro educativo no tarda en encontrarse sin público al que poder educar.’18
Nor was the Spanish theatre of protest particularly successful outside Spain,
unlike that of Germany and France, for example. Most of the committed drama-
tists were contented to remain in Spain and to direct their political message at an
inattentive audience. Their European contemporaries took their message beyond
the borders of their countries and engaged in a global discourse on ideology,
while the Spaniards remained largely inward-looking, focusing on ideological
problems within the context of Spain. Despite the universality of his commen-
taries on man and his place in society and in history, Buero’s success in a wider,
European or global context was not great. Perhaps because of his experiences
prior to taking up his pen, Buero does not appear to have been prepared to suf-
fer for his art the way some other Spanish and European writers did, but instead
he demonstrated a willingness to compromise by his adoption of posibilismo.
Clearly, Buero’s theatre does not set out to alter society radically. It is a testi-
monial theatre, at times seriously limited by the dramatist’s efforts to engage
with the ruling hegemony. His intention was to criticize and to demystify the
dominant ideology, not to overthrow it. Defending his position in his discourse
with the ideology of Francoism, a relationship defined by language and silence,
Buero stated:
Me inclino a pensar que al teatro español hay que valorarlo más por sus pal-
abras que por sus silencios, aunque con esto contradiga a los silenciados. Las
cosas se valoran por su propia existencia y cuando no existen no hay manera
de valorarlas. [. . .] A mí me gusta citar el expresivo ejemplo de los grandes
escritores rusos de la época de los zares, que trabajaron bajo una censura
fortísima, muy similar a la que nosotros hemos tenido. Por tanto, habrá que
tener en cuenta los silencios, sólo hasta cierto punto y quizá en poca medida.19

18 Quoted in Monleón, Treinta años, p. 80.
19 Delgado, ‘Cuando la obra’, p. 4.
CONCLUSION 255
Only that which exists can be judged later and although the restrictions on the
Spanish writer working during the Franco regime may have been severe, he still
possessed a voice, which according to Buero, he was obliged to use to the best
of his ability. He had little time for those who claimed that they did not write
because they could not say what they wanted to say: ‘Mala, buena o regular, la
valoración que nosotros demos a esta etapa del teatro español, será por lo que se
ha hecho y no por lo que no se ha hecho.’20
Yet, for all that posibilismo allowed him to express, it was a choice that limited
the dramatist. The cleverness of the ploy must be recognized, but so too must its
ambiguity, and it can be interpreted either as shrewd pragmatism or cynical
opportunism. Perhaps the most controversial compromise was Buero’s accept-
ance of a seat in the Real Academia, which some interpreted as a victory for posi-
bilismo, while others saw it as the final surrender of the dramatist. In his dramatic
work, Buero’s posibilista style was presented as a choice of language over
silence and a choice that ensured that the voice of opposition, albeit muted,
would be heard. Others considered that the message was corrupted or negated by
the essential compromise involved. Perhaps the most disturbing factor in Buero’s
posibilismo, however, was the dramatist’s refusal to acknowledge the serious
contradictions and limitations involved. In his theatre Buero excused similarly
compromised intellectuals and artists, most obviously in Las Meninas, while
denouncing the errors of others. That Buero Vallejo found in posibilismo a solu-
tion to his own moral dilemma about writing in a repressive society is difficult
to deny, although at times the impression is given that perhaps he protested
too much.
Buero drew deliberate and at times dubious parallels between himself and
Larra in an attempt to vindicate his posibilismo. Paul Ilie’s remarks about Larra
might equally be applied to Buero: ‘The “progressive” liberal – some might say
revolutionary – in Larra was impotent precisely because the bourgeois in him
insisted on maintaining good relations with a society that he fundamentally
repudiated.’21 Because of his family background, Buero, like Larra, was a mem-
ber of the social class most resistant to change. It was perhaps Buero’s greatest
limitation that he was so close to the bourgeois ideology, despite his proclaimed
socialism. Again and again in his works, his bourgeois, traditional intellectuals
advocate limited reform, rather than outright social revolution. This is perhaps
unsurprising, given his background, but its implications for the choices he made
are undeniable. Despite Buero’s sincerity, the question of whether or not his was
the most appropriate solution for dealing with the censors and the Francoist
hegemony remains. Perhaps the greatest failing of Buero’s posibilismo was that
it meant that his theatre was misdirected. It is difficult to stir a public that is
determined to be entertained. Quite simply, in his choice of posibilismo, Buero
20 Delgado, ‘Cuando la obra’, p. 4.

21 Ilie, ‘Larra’s Nightmare’, p. 165. Ilie also referred to Larra as ‘a journalist compromised
by his bourgeois inhibitions’ (p. 156). This is something that Buero hints at in La detonación.
at times played it too safe, tailoring his voice to suit an audience that, for the
most part, consisted of supporters of the dominant ideology.
Nonetheless, it has to be acknowledged that Buero did manage to engage in
demystification and criticism from within Spain. Some have claimed that Buero
Vallejo’s protest was a lame one and that his dissenting voice was rarely distin-
guished. Nevertheless, his protest was sufficient to draw upon the author the
unwelcome attention of the censors and also, on occasion, that of the aggressive
authors of death threats. One of the more interesting acknowledgements of
Buero’s commitment came from a critic who disapproved of Buero’s appropria-
tion of Larra. Fernández Torres, despite his reservations about some of Buero’s
choices, commended him for his determined opposition to the cultural con-
straints of the regime:
De entre los autores teatrales españoles, probablemente haya sido Buero

Vallejo uno de los que han aguantado con más firmeza el cerco cultural
impuesto por el franquismo a cuanto pudiera soñar, siquiera lejanamente, a
progresismo. Sólo ya en función de esa resistencia sorda, de la que él, por otro
lado, no ha sido único protagonista, debe merecernos respeto Buero Vallejo.22
Buero did voice some criticism, although it can be argued that he could have
done more. His ethical dramas and his exploration of the moral dilemmas of indi-
viduals showed up the dilemmas faced by many in Spanish society, as well as
the warped moral stance of a nominally Catholic state. Yet perhaps his most
important contribution to Spanish literature is his emphasis on the demystifica-
tion of history and, in post-Franco Spanish society, his lonely voice calling for
accountability and remembering. Berenguer commented: ‘El autor persiste en su
voluntad de dialogar críticamente con la nueva situación, afrontando la prob-
lemática de la relación del individuo con su propia conciencia y con la
sociedad.’23 Buero died just as a new generation of Spaniards began to confront
the past and challenge the pacto de olvido, echoing the hope expressed in his last
play, Misión al pueblo desierto, that those who believe that, ‘ciertos aspectos de
nuestra Guerra, aunque ahora esté de moda decir lo contrario, distan de haber
perdido actualidad’, will have the last word (Misión, p. 9).
It is worth noting that Larra’s testament to his times is valued today, despite
its flaws. ‘Survivability, as Brecht saw, is in any case a profoundly suspect cri-
terion of literary value: the history of the life, death and resurrection of literary
texts is part of the history of ideologies.’24 This book argues that Buero’s the-
atrical legacy, while equally flawed, is similarly valuable as a testament to the
repressive times of a committed writer and as a testament to the battle between
language and silence. A vindication of the word perhaps, but with the shadow
22 Fernández Torres, ‘La detonación’, p. 15.

23 Berenguer, Tendencias, p. 115.
CONCLUSION 257
of silence ever present as a reminder of what was not said. The reader must
decide how far to accept Buero’s own reply to one of his detractors:
LARRA Que este joven calle y me desprecie. Cuando crea que puede hablar,
ya no tendrá voz. Y su pluma no se prostituye . . . porque ya no tiene
pluma (O.C. I: 1536).
Mono213_List of plays.qxd 3/8/05 9:28 AM Page 259
List of Plays
Composition Date and Location of Premiere

1. En la ardiente 1946 (revised 1 December 1950, Teatro María
oscuridad 1950) Guerrero, Madrid
2. Historia de una 1947–48 14 October 1949, Teatro Español,
escalera Madrid
3. Las palabras en 1948 19 December 1949, Teatro
la arena Español, Madrid
4. La tejedora de 1949–50 11 January 1952, Teatro Español,
sueños Madrid
5. La señal que se 1952 21 May 1952, Teatro Infanta
espera Isabel, Madrid
6. Casi un cuento de 1952 10 January 1953, Teatro Alcázar,
hadas Madrid
7. Madrugada 1953 9 December 1953, Teatro
Alcázar, Madrid
8. El terror inmóvil 1949 Never performed
9. Aventura en lo gris 1949 (revised 1 October 1963, Teatro Club
1963) Recoletos, Madrid
10. Irene, o el tesoro 1954 14 December 1954, Teatro
Nacional María Guerrero, Madrid
11. Hoy es fiesta 1954–55 20 September 1956, Teatro
Nacional María Guerrero, Madrid
12. Una extraña 1956 Never performed
armonía
13. Las cartas boca 1956–57 5 November 1957, Teatro Reina
abajo Victoria, Madrid
14. Un soñador para 1958 18 December 1958, Teatro
un pueblo Español, Madrid
15. Las Meninas 1959–60 9 December 1960, Teatro Español,
Madrid
16. El concierto de San 1962 16 November 1962, Teatro Goya,
Ovidio Madrid
17. La doble historia 1964 22 November 1968, Gateway
del doctor Valmy Theatre, Chester, UK
29 January 1976, Teatro
Benavente, Madrid
18. El tragaluz 1966 7 October 1967, Teatro Bellas
Artes, Madrid
Mono213_List of plays.qxd 3/8/05 9:28 AM Page 260
19. Mito 1967 Never performed

20. El sueño de la 1969 6 February 1970, Teatro Reina
razón Victoria, Madrid
21. Llegada de los 1971 17 September 1971, Teatro Lara,
dioses Madrid
22. La Fundación 1972–73 15 January 1974, Teatro Figaro,
Madrid
23. La detonación 1975–77 20 September 1977, Teatro Bellas
Artes, Madrid
24. Jueces en la noche 1978–79 2 October 1979, Teatro Lara,
Madrid
25. Caimán 1980 10 September 1981, Teatro Reina
Victoria, Madrid
26. Diálogo secreto 1983 6 August 1984, Teatro Victoria
Eugenia, San Sebastián
27. Lázaro en el 1986 18 December 1986, Teatro
laberinto Maravillas, Madrid
28. Música cercana 1988–89 18 August 1989, Teatro Arriaga,
Bilbao
29. Las trampas del 1991–92 23 September 1994, Teatro Juan
azar Bravo, Segovia
30. Misión al pueblo 1999 8 October 1999, Teatro Español,
desierto Madrid
Adaptations
1. El Puente 1952 Never performed
2. Hamlet 1960 15 December 1961, Teatro
Español, Madrid
3. Madre Coraje y sus 1962 6 October 1966, Teatro Bellas
hijos Artes, Madrid
4. El pato silvestre 1981 26 January 1982, Teatro María
Guerrero, Madrid
Mono213_ Appendices.qxd 3/8/05 9:59 AM Page 261
List of Appendices
Appendix I Inventory of the files relating to the theatre of Antonio Buero

Vallejo. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, Archivo
General de la Administración.
Appendix II Tapescript of the Declaration of the State of Emergency,
24 January 1969.
Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, Archivo General
de la Administración. IDD 104.04 Topogr. 82-68 Ca. 576
MIT/ 00.102: Discursos.
Appendix III Report on the play Historia de una escalera by the censor,
Emilio Morales de Acevedo, 10 October 1949.
de la Administración. IDD 52.22 Topogr. 83-51 Ca. 71.418
Exp. 433-49.
Appendix IV Moral Report on the play Las palabras en la arena by the
censor, Padre A. Avelino Esteban Romero, 26 March 1956.
Exp. 409-49.
Appendix V Note detailing the prohibition of the staging of Las palabras en
la arena during Holy Week, 27 March 1958.
Exp. 409-49.
Appendix VI Note detailing the prohibition of the play La doble historia del
doctor Valmy, 15 March 1966.
Exp. 147-64.
Appendix VII Report containing a summary of the censors’ verdicts and
comments on the play El sueño de la razón, 23 July 1969.
Exp. 259-69.
262 APPENDIX
Appendix VIII Guía de censura for the play El sueño de la razón, 9 December
1969.
Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, Archivo General de
la Administración. IDD 52.22 Topogr. 83-55 Ca. 85.254 Exp.
259-69.
Appendix IX Authorization of the play La Fundación, 28 June 1973.
la Administración. IDD 52.22 Topogr. 83-56 Ca. 85.495
Exp. 145-73.
Appendix X Correspondence between Antonio Buero Vallejo and Carlos
Robles Picquer, Director General de Cultura Popular y el
Espectáculo, about the staging of Historia de una escalera,
March 1968.
Exp. 433-49.
Appendix XI Letter from the director, José Tamayo, to José María García
Escudero, Director General de Teatro, about Madre Coraje y
sus hijos, 3 October 1966.
Exp. 227-62.
Appendix XII Moral Report on the play Madre Coraje y sus hijos by the
censor, Padre Avelino Esteban y Romero, 21 August 1962.
Exp. 227-62.
Appendix XIII Report on the play El sueño de la razón, 9 December 1969.
Exp. 259-69.
Appendix XIV Report on the play La doble historia del doctor Valmy sent by
the Subdirector General de Actividades Teatrales to the Director
General de Cinematografía y Teatro, 4 December 1975.
Exp. 147-64.
Appendix XV Authorization of the play La doble historia del doctor Valmy,
12 December 1975.
Exp. 147-64.
APPENDIX 263
Appendix XVI Report on the anti-police sentiment contained in the play La

doble historia del doctor Valmy.
la Administración. IDD 104.04 Topogr. 82-68 Ca. 582
MIT/00.710: Notas sobre obras en general.
Appendix XVII Report on the play Llegada de los dioses by the censor, Antonio
Zubiaurre, 6 October 1978.
Exp. 687-78.
Appendix I
Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte,
Archivo General de la Administración
Sección/Grupo de Fondos: Cultura
Inventory of Files Relating to Antonio Buero Vallejo: Theatre Productions

Signatura Nº. Expd. Topogr. IDD
Historia de una escalera 71.418 433-49 83/51 52.22 [T]
88.282 111-81 83/57 52.22
Las palabras en la arena 71.418 409-49 83/51 52.22
En la ardiente oscuridad 71.423 473-50 83/51 52.22
87.875 38-79 83/57 52.22
Ilunpe Goritan1 85.329 507-70 83/55 52.22
La tejedora de sueños 71.421 411-50 83/51 52.22
La señal que se espera 78.551 30-52 83/51-55 52.22
Casi un cuento de hadas 78.587 456-52 83/51-55 52.22
Madrugada 71.679 402-53 83/51 52.22
Aventura en lo gris 78.623 395-53 83/51 52.22
Irene, o el tesoro 78.660 354-54 83/51-55 52.22
Hoy es fiesta 71.689 297-55 83/51 52.22
87.912 181-80 83/57 52.22
Una extraña armonía 78.726 1-57 83/51 52.22
Las cartas boca abajo 71.697 247-57 83/51 52.22
88.303 650-81 83/57 52.22
Un soñador para un 88.311 841-81 83/57 52.22 [F]
pueblo 78.779 293-58 83/51-55 52.22 [PR]
Las Meninas 71.715 296-60 83/51 52.22
87.598 296-60 83/57 52.22 [T]
El concierto de San Ovidio 71.725 287-62 83/51 52.22
87.589 287-62 83/57 52.22 [T]
La doble historia del 71.779 147-64 83/51 52.22
doctor Valmy 87.585 83/57 52.22 [T]
87.885 337-79 83/57 52.22
1
Basque version of En la ardiente oscuridad.
266 APPENDIX I

El tragaluz 87.599 172-67 83/57 52.22 [T]
87.889 454-79 83/57 52.22
Mito 85.238 97-69 83/55 52.22
El sueño de la razón 85.254 259-69 83/55 52.22
87.583 83/57 52.22 [T]
Llegada de los dioses 87.612 83/57 52.22 [T]
87.864 687-78 83/57 52.22
85.367 323-71 83/55-56 52.22 [F]
La Fundación 87.611 83/57 52.22 [T]
85.495 145-73 83/56 52.22
La detonación 85.673 375-77 83/55 52.022 [T]
Jueces en la noche 87.896 644-79 83/57 52.22
Caimán 88.296 456-81 83/57 52.22
Diálogo secreto 73.646 191-84 83/57 52.22
Adaptations
El puente (Gorostiza) 78.576 323-52 83/51 52.22
El pato silvestre (Ibsen) 88.307 779-81 83/57 52.22
Madre Coraje y sus hijos 87.589 217-62 83/57 52.22 [T]
(Brecht) 71.724 227-62 83-51 52.22
Hamlet (Shakespeare) 78.858 246-61 83/51 52.22
Inventory of Files Relating to Antonio Buero Vallejo: Theatre Publications

The order used here is the order of composition, which is the order used in the
Obra Completa. Where two plays are published in the same edition, they are
listed separately under the title of each drama. Larger collections containing
three or more works by Buero, or containing the works of other writers, are
included separately at the end of the listing.
Historia de una escalera Aga 9.217 4022-50 21/55 50.02
Aga 9.464 1534-51 21/56 50.02
Aga 9.859 1755-52 21/1-3 50.02 [F]
Aga. 13.468 4533-61 21/10 50.05
Ca. 135 2190-73 73/9-12 50.07
Ca. 593 12973-75 73/14-16 50.08
Ca. 492 14261-77 73/21 50.08
Ca. 89 4137-79 73/22-23 50.08
Ca. 155 7264-79 73/22-23 50.08
Ca. 27 1326-81 73/24-25 50.08
Ca. 96 2826-82 73/25 50.08
APPENDIX I 267

Las palabras en la Aga 9.859 1755-52 21/1-3 50.02 [F]
arena Aga 9.727 5258-51 21/1 50.02
Aga. 13.468 4533-61 21/10 50.05
Ca. 51 2315-79 73/22 50.08
En la ardiente Aga 9717 5148-51 21/1 50.02
oscuridad Aga 9871 1902-52 21/1-3 50.02 [PR]
Aga. 14.660 3983-63 21/14 50.05
Aga 18.539 9000-67 21/15-25 50.06
Ca. 499 7727-72 73/7-9 50.07
Ca. 953 14853-72 73/7-9 50.07
Ca. 106 1996-75 73/14-16 50.08
Ca. 231 10399-80 73/23-24 50.08
Ca. 368 10322-77 73/21 50.08
Ca. 280 9412-78 73/21-22 50.08
Ca. 9 545-80 73/23-24 50.08
Ca. 243 10521-81 73/24-25 50.08
Ca. 95 3372-83 73/25 50.08
La tejedora de sueños Aga 9912 2541-52 21/1-3 50.02 [F]
Aga 10.286 2420-53 21/1-3 50.02
Aga 15.896 973-65 21/15-25 50.06
Ca. 275 7237-76 73/16 50.08
La señal que se espera Aga 9.948 3143-52 21/2 50.02
Casi un cuento de Aga 10.226 1365-53 21/2 50.02
hadas Aga 16.474 5585-65 21/18 50.06
Ca. 154 6803-81 73/24-25 50.08
Madrugada Aga 10.734 2908-54 21/3 50.03
El terror inmóvil Ca. 37 1721-80 73/23 50.08
Aventura en lo gris Aga 11.155 3797-55 21/4 50.03
Aga 15.106 1719-64 21/15-25 50.06
Ca. 32 708-75 73/14-16 50.08
Irene, o el tesoro Aga 16.532 6139-65 21/18 50.06
Aga 18.539 9000-67 21/15-25 50.06
Ca. 499 7727-72 73/7-9 50.07
Ca. 231 10399-80 73/23-24 50.08
Hoy es fiesta Ca. 12.523 4042-59 21/6-9 50.04
Aga 19.080 5937-68 21/24 50.06
Ca. 605 9880-74 73/12-14 50.08
Ca. 32 708-75 73/14-16 50.08
Ca. 153 6809-80 73/23-24 50.08
Ca. 65 1801-82 73-25 50.08
Ca. 143 6353-81 73/24-25 50.08
Las cartas boca abajo Aga 11.973 1976-58 21/6-9 50.04
Ca. 235 10157-81 73/24 50.08
268 APPENDIX I

Ca. 1 10-77 72/40 50.08 [F]
Ca. 1 10-77 73/17-18 50.08 [F]
Un soñador para un Aga 12.590 5048-59 21/08 50.04
pueblo Aga 16.392 4863-65 21/18 50.06
Ca. 953 14853-72 73/7-9 50.07
Ca. 106 1996-75 73/14-16 50.08
Ca. 368 10322-77 73/21 50.08
Ca. 280 9412-78 73/21-22 50.08
Ca. 9 545-80 73/23-24 50.08
Ca. 243 10521-81 73/24-25 50.08
Ca. 95 3372-83 73/25 50.08
Las Meninas Aga. 13.190 1098-61 21/10 50.05
Aga 19.080 5937-68 21/24 50.06
Ca. 59 1000-73 73/9-12 50.07
Ca. 605 9880-74 73/12-14 50.08
Ca. 593 12973-75 73/14-16 50.08
Ca. 492 14261-77 73/21 50.08
Ca. 89 4137-79 73/22-23 50.08
Ca. 155 7264-79 73/22-23 50.08
Ca. 153 6809-80 73/23-24 50.08
Ca. 27 1326-81 73/24-25 50.08
Ca. 65 1801-82 73/25 50.08
Ca. 96 2826-82 73/25 50.08
El concierto de San Aga 13.723 287-62 21/10 50.05
Ovidio Aga. 14.456 1549-63 21/9 50.05
Aga 14.770 5444-63 21/14 50.05
Aga 15.162 2273-64 21/15 50.06
Ca. 532 8596-71 73/4-6 50.07
Ca. 500 7751-72 73/7-9 50.07
Ca. 607 9902-74 73/12-14 50.08
Ca. 737 12172-74 73/12-14 50.08
Ca. 113 3194-77 73/17-18 50.08
Ca. 174 4991-77 73/17-18 50.08
Ca. 256 11725-79 73/22-23 50.08
Ca. 107 4846-80 73/23-24 50.08
Ca. 24 869-83 73/25 50.08
La doble historia del Ca. 274 7205-76 73/16 50.08
doctor Valmy
El tragaluz Aga. 18.765 1407-68 21/23 50.06
Aga 19.080 5937-68 21-15-25 50.06
Ca. 489 4122-69 23/75-78 50.07
APPENDIX I 269

Ca. 30 472-71 73/3 50.07
Ca. 605 9880-74 73/12-14 50.08
Ca. 93 1733-75 73/14-16 50.08
Ca. 56 1594-77 73/17-18 50.08
Ca. 215 7296-78 73/21-22 50.08
Ca. 113 5283-79 73/22-23 50.08
Ca. 153 6809-80 73/23-24 50.08
Ca. 244 10926-80 73/23-24 50.08
Ca. 228 9951-81 73/24-25 50.08
Ca. 65 1801-82 73-25 50.08
Ca. 9 390-83 73/25 50.08
Mito Aga. 18.765 1408-68 21/23 50.06
Ca. 274 7205-76 73/16 50.08
El sueño de la razón Ca. 355 5595-70 23/79 50.07
Ca. 205 3204-71 73/04 50.07
Ca. 30 472-71 73/3 50.07
Ca. 93 1733-75 773/14-16 50.08
Ca. 56 1594-77 73/17-18 50.08
Ca. 215 7296-78 73/21-22 50.08
Ca. 113 5283-79 73/22-23 50.08
Ca. 244 10926-80 73/23-24 50.08
Ca. 228 9951-81 73/24-25 50.08
Ca. 9 390-83 73/25 50.08
Llegada de los dioses Ca. 135 2190-73 73/9-12 50.07
Ca. 275 7237-76 73/16 50.08
La Fundación Ca. 737 12172-74 73/12-14 50.08
Ca. 113 3194-77 73/17-18 50.08
Ca. 256 11725-79 73/22-23 50.08
Ca. 107 4846-80 73/23-34 50.08
Ca. 24 869-83 73/25 50.08
La detonación Ca. 51 2315-79 73/22 50.08
Jueces en la noche Ca. 14 811-80 73/23 50.08
Ca. 143 6353-81 73/24-25 50.08
Caimán Ca. 235 10157-81 73/24 50.08
Adaptations
Hamlet Aga 14.164 5148-62 21/9-15 50.05
Aga 14.884 6842-63 21/9-15 50.05
Madre Coraje y sus Aga 18.346 6641-67 21/15-25 50.06
hijos
270 APPENDIX I

Collections
Años difíciles Ca. 146 4215-77 73/17 50.08
Teatro selecto de ABV Aga 17.262 2699-66 21/20 50.06
Obras II Aga 19.080 5937-68 21/24 50.06
Tres Maestros ante Ca. 170 2848-73 73/9-12 50.07
el público
Teatro: Ca. 153 6809-80 73/23-24 50.08
(Hoy es fiesta, Las
Meninas, El tragaluz)
[T] texto
[F] falta
[PR] por restaurar
Appendix II
Appendix III
APPENDIX III 273

274 APPENDIX III

Appendix IV
Appendix V
Appendix VI
Appendix VII
APPENDIX VII 279

Appendix VIII
APPENDIX VIII 281

Appendix IX
APPENDIX IX 283
Appendix X
APPENDIX X 285
286 APPENDIX X
Appendix XI
Appendix XII
APPENDIX XII 289

Appendix XIII
Appendix XIV
292 APPENDIX XIV

APPENDIX XIV 293

Appendix XV
APPENDIX XV 295
Appendix XVI
Appendix XVII
298 APPENDIX XVII

Mono213_Bibliography.qxd 3/8/05 5:48 PM Page 299
Bibliography
PRIMARY SOURCES
Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte Archivo General de la

Administración (AGA) Sección/grupo de Fondos: Cultura
IDD 36: Dirección General Seguridad. Censura de teatro de la II República
(1931–36)
IDD 42: Ministerio de Información y Turismo (hereafter MIT) – Ministerio
de Cultura. Expedientes de censura de libros (1938–77)
IDD 44: Dirección General de Música y Teatro. Censura de teatro (1939–85).
Índice de títulos
IDD 46: Dirección General de Música y Teatro. Censura de teatro (1939–85).
Índice de autores
IDD 48: MIT. Prensa. Propaganda y Espectáculos (1936–51)
IDD 49: MIT – Ministerio de Cultura (1928–79)
IDD 50: MIT – Ministerio de Cultura. Expedientes de censura de libros
(1938–82)
IDD 52: MIT – Ministerio de Cultura (1943–85)
IDD 104.04: MIT. Gabinete de enlace (1962–77)
Legislation
Ley 22 abril 1938 (Mº. del Interior). PERIÓDICOS. Ley de Prensa, Boletín Oficial del
Estado (hereafter BOE ), no. 549 (23 April 1938), pp. 6915–17
Orden 15 julio 1939 (Mº. Gobernación). CENSURA. Crea una Sección de Censura
encargada de llevarla a cabo, BOE, no. 211 (ref. 916, 30 July 1939), p. 553
Orden 30 noviembre 1954 (MIT). ESPECTÁCULOS PÚBLICOS. Clasificación a afectos
de asistencia de los menores, BOE, no. 348 (ref. 1842, 14 December 1954),
pp. 1422–3
Orden 16 febrero 1955 (MIT), por la que se regulan las autorizaciones y licencias para
la representación de revistas y espectáculos arrevistados, BOE, no. 67 (8 March
1955), p. 1562
Orden 9 febrero 1963 (MIT), por la que se aprueban las «Normas de censura
cinematográfica», BOE, no. 58 (8 March 1963), pp. 3929–30
Orden 16 febrero 1963 (MIT), por la que se constituye una Junta de Censura de Obras
Teatrales, BOE (16 March 1963). (AGA/IDD 52.22 Topogr. 83-51 Ca. 71.779
Exp. 147-64)
Orden 6 febrero 1964 (MIT), por la que se aprueba el Reglamento de Régimen
Interior de la Junta de Censura de Obras Teatrales y las normas de censura, BOE,
no. 48 (25 February 1964), pp. 2504–6
300 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Orden 6 febrero 1964 (MIT). JUNTA DE CENSURA DE OBRAS TEATRALES. Reglamento

de Régimen Interior y Normas de Censura. Rectificación de errores en la Orden,
BOE, no. 61 (ref. 573, 11 March 1964), p. 541
Ley 18 marzo 1966, no. 14/66 (Jefatura del Estado). PRENSA. Ley de Prensa e
Imprenta, BOE, no. 67 (ref. 519, 19 March 1966), pp. 479–86
Orden 27 octubre 1970 (MIT), por la que se reorganiza la Junta de Censura de Obras
Teatrales, BOE, no. 275 (17 November 1970), pp. 18612–13
Orden 30 octubre 1971 (MIT), por la que se deroga la de 16 de febrero de 1955, sobre
autorización y licencias para representaciones de revistas y espectáculos arrevis-
tados, BOE, no. 285 (29 November 1971), p. 19241
Real Decreto 27 enero 1978, no. 262/78 (Mº. Cultura). TEATRO, CIRCO Y VARIEDADES.
Libertad de representación de espectáculos, BOE, no. 53 (ref. 481, 3 March 1978),
pp. 496–7
Orden 7 abril 1978 (Mº. Cultura), por la que se dictan normas sobre calificación de
espectáculos teatrales, BOE, no. 89 (ref. 9621, 14 April 1978), pp. 8611–13
Constitución española, ed. by Luis López Guerra, 9th edn (Madrid: Tecnos, 1997)
Orden Ministerial de Ayudas al teatro, reproduced in Cuadernos el Público, no. 6
(1985), 42–7
Real Decreto 24 abril 1985, no. 565/1985 (PRESIDENCIA DEL GOBIERNO), por el que se
establece la estructura orgánica básica del Ministerio de Cultura y de sus organ-
ismos autónomas. Articles 8 to 16 are reprinted in ‘El INAEM: partida de
nacimiento’, Cuadernos el público, no. 6 (1985), 15–16
The Theatre of Antonio Buero Vallejo

Principal editions
Buero Vallejo, Antonio, Obra Completa, ed. by Luis Iglesias Feijoo and Mariano
de Paco, Clásicos Castellanos Nueva Serie, 2 vols (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe,
1994)
____ Aventura en lo gris, Teatro, no. 10 (1954), 59–76*
____ Las trampas del azar, intro. by Virtudes Serrano, Colección Austral, no. 364
(Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1995)•
____ Misión al pueblo desierto, ed. by Virtudes Serrano and Mariano de Paco,
Colección Austral, no. 488 (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1999)•
Other editions
[Listed in order of composition]
Buero Vallejo, Antonio, En la ardiente oscuridad, ed. by Mariano de Paco, Colección
Austral, no. 124, 12th edn (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1991)
____ En la ardiente oscuridad; Madrugada, Hoy es fiesta, Las cartas boca abajo, in
Teatro, I, Colección Gran Teatro del Mundo (Buenos Aires: Losada, 1959)
____ Historia de una escalera; La tejedora de sueños; Irene, o el tesoro; Un soñador
para un pueblo, in Teatro, II, Colección Gran Teatro del Mundo (Buenos Aires:
Losada, 1962)
* This version is not contained in the Obra Completa.

•
Las trampas del azar and Misión al pueblo desierto are not contained in the Obra
Completa.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 301
____ Historia de una escalera; Las Meninas, prologue by Ricardo Doménech,

Selecciones Austral, no. 3, 10th edn (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1986)
____ El terror inmóvil, ed. by Mariano de Paco, Cuadernos de la Cátedra de Teatro
de la Universidad de Murcia, no. 6 (Murcia: Murcia University Press, 1979)
____ Aventura en los gris, prologue by Ricardo Doménech, Colección Novelas y
Cuentos, no. 158 (Madrid: EMESA, 1974)
____ La detonación; Las palabras en la arena, ed. by Ricardo Doménech, Colección
Austral, no. 315, 3rd edn (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1993)
____ La tejedora de sueños; Llegada de los dioses, ed. by Luis Iglesias Feijoo, Letras
Hispánicas, no. 45, 9th edn (Madrid: Cátedra, 1990)
____ Casi un cuento de hadas, ed. by Carmen González María, Bitácora, no. 74
(Madrid: Narcea, 1981)
____ Jueces en la noche; Hoy es fiesta, prologue by Luis Iglesias Feijoo, Selecciones
Austral, no. 88 (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1981)
____ Caimán; Las cartas boca abajo, Colección Austral, no. 1622, 2nd edn (Madrid:
Espasa-Calpe, 1984)
____ Un soñador para un pueblo, ed. by Luis Iglesias Feijoo, Colección Austral,
no. 75, 11th edn (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1989)
____ El concierto de San Ovidio, ed. by David Johnston, Colección Austral, no. 82,
9th edn (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1991)
____ El tragaluz; El sueño de la razón, Colección Austral, no. 1496, 14th edn
(Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1992)
____ La doble historia del doctor Valmy; Mito, intro. by Carlos Álvarez, Colección
Austral, no. 280, 3rd edn (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1992)
____ La Fundación, ed. by Francisco Javier Díez de Revenga, Colección Austral,
no. 114 (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1989)
____ Diálogo secreto, intro. by Luis Iglesias Feijoo, Colección Austral, no. 1655
____ Lázaro en el laberinto, ed. by Mariano de Paco, Colección Austral, no. 29
____ Música cercana, intro. by David Johnston, Colección Austral, no. 132 (Madrid:
Espasa-Calpe, 1990)
Translations
Buero Vallejo, Antonio, The Shot (La detonación), ed. and trans. by David Johnston,
Hispanic Classics: Modern Drama (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1989)
OTHER SOURCES
Abellán, José Luis, ‘El tema del misterio en Buero Vallejo. (Un teatro de la realidad
trascendente)’, Ínsula, no. 174 (1961), 15
Abellán, Manuel L., ‘Censura y práctica censoria’, Sistema, no. 22 (1978), 29–52
____ ‘Análisis cuántitativo de la censura bajo el franquismo’, Sistema, no. 28 (1979),
75–89
____ Censura y creación literaria en España (1939–1976) (Barcelona: Península,
1980)
____ ‘Censura y autocensura en la producción literaria española’, Nuevo
Hispanismo, 1 (no. 1, 1982), 169–80
302 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abellán, Manuel L., ‘Literatura, censura y moral en el primer franquismo’, Papers:

Revista de Sociología, no. 21 (1984), 153–72
____ ed., Censura y literaturas peninsulares, Diálogos Hispánicos de Amsterdam, 5
(Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1987)
____ ‘La censura teatral durante el franquismo’, Estreno, 15 (no. 2, 1989), 20–3
____ ‘Problemas historiográficos en el estudio de la censura literaria del último
medio siglo’, Revista canadiense de estudios hispánicos, 13 (no. 3, 1989), 319–29
____ ed., Medio siglo de cultura (1939–1989), Diálogos Hispánicos de Amsterdam,
9 (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1990)
‘Al margen del teatro: la noticia y su eco. A vueltas con la crisis’, Yorick, no. 21
(1967), 2
‘Al margen del teatro: la noticia y su eco. Arrabal, siempre Arrabal’, Yorick, no. 23
(1967), 2
Alfaya, Javier, ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo: en la ardiente lucidez’, La calle,
25 September–1 October 1979, pp. 42–4
Althusser, Louis, ‘Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses: Notes towards an
Investigation’, in Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, trans. by Ben Brewster
(London: NLB, 1971), pp. 121–73
Alvar, Manuel, and others, El teatro y su crítica. Reunión de Málaga de 1973
(Málaga: Instituto de Cultura de la Diputación Provincial de Málaga, 1975)
Álvaro, Francisco, El espectador y la crítica. El teatro español en 1958, prologue by
Alfredo Marquerie (Valladolid: Sever-Cuesta, 1959)
____ El espectador y la crítica. El teatro en España en 1959, prologue by Francisco
de Cossio (Valladolid: Edición del autor, 1960)
Amell, Samuel, ‘Conversación con Antonio Buero Vallejo’, España Contemporánea,
1 (no. 1, 1988), 119–41
Anderson, Farris, Alfonso Sastre, TWAS, 155 (New York: Twayne, 1971)
____ ‘From Protest to Resignation. The Recent Evolution of Spain’s Theatre of
Social Concern’, Estreno, 2 (no. 2, 1976), 29–32
____ ‘The Madrid Theatre Season, 1976–77: Problems of Transition’, Estreno, 4
(no. 1, 1978), 8–11
Anderson, Reed, ‘Tragic Conflict and Progressive Synthesis in Buero Vallejo’s En la
ardiente oscuridad ’, Symposium, 29 (nos 1–2, 1975), 1–12
Anthropos, Monograph no. 10 (no. 79, 1987): ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo: la tragedia,
transparencia y cristal de la palabra’
Anthropos, no. 148 (1993): ‘Guerra Civil y producción cultural’
Anuario teatral (El Público), 1985 (Madrid: Centro de Documentación Teatral del
INAEM, Mº de Cultura, 1986)
Aragonés, Juan Emilio, Teatro español de posguerra, Temas españoles (Madrid:
Publicaciones Españolas, 1971)
____ ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo, académico’, Nueva Estafeta, no. 462 (1971), 4–11
____ ‘Buero Vallejo, sin tapujos’, Nueva Estafeta, n.s. no. 30 (May 1981), 52–61
____ ‘El pato silvestre de Henrik Ibsen’, Nueva Estafeta, n.s. no. 39 (February 1982),
121–2
Arias Salgado, Gabriel, Política española de la información: antología sistemática
(Madrid: MIT, 1958), II
____ Textos de doctrina y política española de la información, 6th edn, 3 vols
(Madrid: MIT, 1960), I
BIBLIOGRAPHY 303
Aristotle, Aristotle’s Poetics, intro., notes and trans. by James Hutton, preface by
Gordon M. Kirkwood (New York: W. W. Norton, 1982)
Arrabal, Fernando, ‘Objeciones de Arrabal al artículo de Dowling’, Estreno, 1 (no. 3,
1975), 5
____ ‘Contesta Arrabal’, Estreno, 2 (no. 1, 1976), 4–5
____ ‘La alienación franquista’, Estreno, 2 (no. 1, 1976), 9–10
____ ‘Arrabal escribe al Rey’, Estreno, 3 (no. 1, 1977), 7
Ashworth, Peter P., ‘Silence and Self-Portraits: The Artist as Young Girl, Old Man
and Scapegoat in El Espíritu de la Colmena and El sueño de la razón’, Estreno,
12 (no. 2, 1986), 66–71
Atlee, Michael A. F. ‘Las cartas boca abajo: clave del teatro de Buero’, Papeles de
Son Armadans, 59 (no. 175, 1970), 91–112
____ ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo y Dios’, Hispanófila, 15 (no. 44, 1972), 53–7
____ ‘Actitudes religiosas de Cervantes reflejadas en unas obras de Buero Vallejo’,
Papeles de Son Armadans, 76 (no. 228, 1975), 196–210
Barthes, Roland, Mythologies (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1957)
Bejel, Emilio, ‘Catarsis y distanciación en Buero Vallejo’, Hispanófila, 16 (no. 48,
1973), 37– 46
____ ‘Buero Vallejo en busca de la verdad’, Hipanófila, 19 (no. 57, 1976), 57–60
Benavente, Jacinto, ‘Prehistoria del problema: Benavente y el año 1909’, Primer
Acto, no. 49 (1964), 5–6
Benedetti, Mario, Pedro y el Capitán, 4th edn (Madrid: Alianza, 1996)
Beneyto, Antonio, Censura y política en los escritores españoles (Barcelona: Plaza
y Janes, 1979)
Benítez Claros, Rafael, ‘Buero Vallejo y la condición humana’, Nuestro Tiempo, 19
(no. 107, 1963), 581–93
Bentley, Eric, The Theatre of Commitment (And Other Essays on Drama in Our
Society) (London: Methuen, 1968)
Berenguer, Ángel and Manuel Pérez, Tendencias del teatro español durante la tran-
sición política (1975–1982), Historia del teatro español del siglo XX (Madrid:
Biblioteca Nueva, 1998), IV
Bilbatúa, Miguel, Teatro de agitación política 1933–1939 (Madrid: Cuadernos para
el diálogo-Edicusa, 1976)
Blanco Aguinaga, Carlos, Julio Rodríguez Puértolas and Iris M. Zavala, Historia
social de la literatura española, 3 vols (Madrid: Castalia, 1983), III
Borel, Jean Paul, El teatro de lo imposible: ensayo sobre una de las dimensiones fun-
damentales del teatro español contemporáneo, trans. by G. Torrente Ballester
(Madrid: Guadarrama, 1966)
Bravo, Julio, ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo: “A pesar de los años que han pasado, todavía
me siento un vencido” ’, ABC, 24 January 1999, pp. 100–1
Brines, Rafael, ‘Buero Vallejo: “Para estar en la Academia no he tenido que renun-
ciar a nada” ’, Hoja del lunes (Valencia), 22 March 1982, p. 41
Brown, Gerald G., A Literary History of Spain: The Twentieth Century, 2nd edn
(London: Ernest Benn, 1974)
Brown, Kenneth, ‘The Significance of Insanity in Four Plays by Antonio Buero
Vallejo’, Revista de estudios hispánicos, 8 (no. 2, 1974), 247–60
Brustein, Robert, The Theatre of Revolt: Studies in Modern Drama from Ibsen to
Genet (Chicago: Elephant Paperbacks, 1991)
304 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bryan, Avril T. Censorship and Social Conflict in the Spanish Theatre. The Case of
Alfonso Sastre (Lanham: University Press of America, 1982)
Burke, Redmond A., C.S.V., Ph.D., What is the Index? (Milwaukee: The Bruce
Publishing Co., 1952)
Busha, Charles H., Freedom vs. Suppression and Censorship (Colorado: Libraries
Unlimited, 1972)
____ ed., An Intellectual Freedom Primer (Colorado: Libraries Unlimited, 1977)
Camus, Albert, L’Homme Révolté (Paris: Gallimard, 1951)
____ Les Justes (Paris: Gallimard, 1977)
Cañagueral, Alberto, ‘Entrevista con Manuel L. Abellán: “He bajado a los sótanos
de la censura y lo he fotocopiado todo” ’, Actual, 8 October 1982, pp. 78–83
Carr, Raymond, Spain 1808–1939 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966)
____, and Juan Pablo Fusi, Spain: Dictatorship to Democracy, 2nd edn (London:
George Allen & Unwin, 1981)
‘Cartelera’, Estreno, 2 (no. 2, 1976), 50
Casa, Frank P., ‘The Problem of National Reconciliation in Buero Vallejo’s El tragaluz’,
Revista Hispánica Moderna, no. 3 (1969), 285–94
____ ‘Theatre after Franco: The First Reaction’, Hispanófila, 22 (no. 66, 1979),
109–22
Castellet, José María, ed., Literatura, ideología y política (Barcelona: Anagrama,
1976)
____ ed., La cultura bajo el franquismo, Ediciones de Bolsillo (Barcelona:
Anagrama, 1977)
Cazorla, Hazel, ‘El retorno de Ulises: dos enfoques contemporáneos del mito en
el teatro de Buero Vallejo y Antonio Gala’, Hispanófila, 29 (no. 87, 1986),
43–51
Cebrián, Juan Luis, ‘La Prensa en crisis’, Tiempo de Historia, 4 (no. 72, 1980),
173–9
Celaya, Gabriel, ‘Penúltimas noticias del Madrid teatral: Las cartas boca abajo de
Buero Vallejo’, Primer Acto, no. 6 (1958), 52
Chambordon, Gabriela, ‘El conocimiento poético en el teatro de Antonio Buero
Vallejo’, Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos, 85 (nos 253–4, 1971), 52–98
Chandler, Calvin Curtis, ‘Spanish Underground Drama: A Weapon for Changing
Man and the Society in which He Lives. (Buero Vallejo, Sastre)’ [unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Saint Louis University, 1990; abstract in Dissertation
Abstracts International, DAI – A 51/08 (February 1991), p. 2762]
Chomsky, Noam, and others, ‘The Legitimacy of Violence as a Political Act?’ (Parts
1 and 2), 15 December 1967, in Bad News: Noam Chomsky [Online] Available:
http://www.geocities.com Directory: CapitolHill/Senate File: 3761/violence.html;
3761/violence2.html [first publ. in Dissent, Power, and Confrontation, ed. by
Alexander Klein (McGraw-Hill, 1971)]
Chomsky, Noam, ‘The Propaganda System’, 24 October 1986, in Bad News: Noam
Chomsky [Online] Available: http://www.geocities.com Directory: CapitolHill/
Senate File: 3761/prop.html [first publ. in Chronicles of Dissent (Common
Courage, 1992)]
____ ‘Manufacturing Consent’ (excerpts), 1988, in Bad News: Noam Chomsky
[Online] Available: http://www.geocities.com Directory: CapitolHill/ Senate
File: 3761/consent.html [first publ. in Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent
(Pantheon, 1988)]
BIBLIOGRAPHY 305
____ ‘Media Control’ (excerpts), MIT, 17 March 1991, in The Noam Chomsky
Archive [Online] Available: http://www.zmag.org Directory: chomsky File:
talks/9103-media-control.html#apr [first publ. in Alternative Press Review,
autumn 1993]
____ ‘A Propaganda Model’, in The Noam Chomsky Archive [Online] Available:
http://www.zmag.org Directory: chomsky File: mc/mc-supp-053.html Chomsky,
Noam, ‘Force and Opinion’, 1991, in The Noam Chomsky Archive [Online]
Available: http://www.zmag.org Directory: chomsky/articles File: z9107-force-
opinion.html [first publ. in Z Magazine, July–August, 1991]
Cierco, Eduardo, ‘La Ley de Prensa y las Leyes Fundamentales: un problema de
interpretación de leyes’, Cuadernos para el diálogo, no. 31 (1966), 11
‘Cinco preguntas a los autores que estrenaron’, Primer Acto, nos 170–1 (1974) 13–23
Clapp, Jane, Art Censorship: A Chronology of Proscribed and Prescribed Art
(New Jersey: Metuchen-The Scarecrow Press, 1972)
Clemente, Josep Carlos, ed., Una cultura en crisis, Testigos de España (Barcelona:
Plaza y Janes, 1973)
‘Con Mario Antolín, nuevo Subdirector General de Teatro’, Yorick, no. 49–50 (1971),
63–5
Cornago Bernal, Óscar, ‘Historia del teatro en España: la escena madrileña 1969–70’,
Anales de la literatura española contemporánea, 22 (no. 3, 1997), 405–48
Cortina, José Ramón, El arte dramático de Antonio Buero Vallejo (Madrid: Gredos,
1969)
Cramsie, Hilde F., Teatro y censura en la España franquista: Sastre, Muñiz y Ruibal,
American University Studies series II, Romance Languages and Literature,
9 (New York: Peter Lang, 1984)
____ ‘Charlando con Alfonso y Eva’, Estreno, 15 (no. 1, 1989), 13–18
Cross Newman, Jean, Conciencia, culpa y trauma en el teatro de Antonio Buero
Vallejo (Valencia: Albatros-Hispanófila, 1991)
____ ‘Traumas de conciencia en el teatro de Antonio Buero Vallejo’, Estreno, 17
(no. 2, 1991), 15–19
Cuadernos de Ágora, nos 79–82 (1963): Monograph on Antonio Buero Vallejo
Cuadernos de Aldeeu, 1 (no. 1, 1983): Monograph on Twentieth Century Spanish
Theatre
Cuadernos el Público, no. 13 (1986): ‘Regreso a Buero Vallejo’
Cuadernos para el diálogo, Monograph no. 3 (June 1966)
Cuenca Toribio, José M., ‘Relaciones Iglesia y Estado en la España del siglo XX
(1931–1980)’, Hispania. Revista español de historia, 40 (no. 144, 1980), 153–76
____ ‘Franco y el franquismo’, Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos, no. 511 (1993), 79–96
Cuevas García, Cristóbal, ed., El teatro de Buero Vallejo: texto y espectáculo, Actas
del III Congreso de Literatura Española Contemporánea, Universidad de Málaga,
14, 15, 16 y 17 de noviembre de 1989, Ámbitos Literarios-Ensayo, 34 (Barcelona:
Anthropos; Málaga: Servicio de Publicaciones e Intercambio Científico de la
Universidad de Málaga, 1990)
Davies, Catherine, ‘The Civil War in Selected Spanish Texts (1950–1970)’, Vida
Hispánica, no. 5 (1992), 47–54 (contd in no. 6, pp. 11–15)
Delgado, Fernando, G., ‘Cuando la obra y el testimonio van juntos. Antonio Buero
Vallejo: “Todos hemos sido víctimas” ’, Ínsula, no. 361 (1976), 4
Delibes, Miguel, La censura de prensa en los años 40 (y otros ensayos) (Valladolid:
Ambito, 1985)
306 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Delwiche, Aaron, Propaganda Analysis (all files), Propaganda Analysis Home Page
[Online] Available: http://carmen.artsci.washington.edu Directory: Propaganda
File: home.htm
Devoto, Juan Bautista, ‘La vivencia dramática de Buero Vallejo’, Teatro, no. 10 (1954),
55–6
Dixon, Victor and David Johnston, eds, El teatro de Buero Vallejo: homenaje del
hispanismo británico e irlandés, Hispanic Studies Textual Research and Criticism
(TRAC), 9 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1996)
Documentos inéditos para la historia del Generalisímo Franco, Fundación Nacional
Francisco Franco, Colección de Estudios Contemporáneos, 3 vols (Madrid: Azor,
1992), I, II.I
Doménech, Ricardo, ‘Primer encuentro con el drama de acción social’, Primer Acto,
no. 8 (1959), 6–10
____ ‘El concierto de San Ovidio, o una defensa del hombre’, Primer Acto, no. 38
(1962), 14 –17
____ ‘Reflexiones sobre la situación del teatro’, Primer Acto, no. 42 (1963), 4–8
____ El teatro de Buero Vallejo: una meditación española, Biblioteca Románica
Hispánica, 2nd edn (Madrid: Gredos, 1993)
Dowling, John, ‘Buero Vallejo’s Interpretation of Goya’s “Black Paintings” ’,
Hispania, 56 (no. 2, 1973), 449–57
Eagleton, Terry, Ideology: An Introduction (London: Verso, 1991)
____ Criticism and Ideology. A Study in Marxist Literary Theory (London: Verso, 1998)
Edwards, Gwynne, Dramatists in Perspective: Spanish Theatre in the Twentieth
Century (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1985)
‘El perfil de los públicos y sus actitudes respecto al teatro’, Cuadernos el Público,
no. 1 (1985), 50–1
Elizalde, Ignacio, ‘Buero Vallejo’, Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos, 87 (no. 261,
1972), 432– 49
Embeita, María, ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo: el teatro de la verdad’, Cuadernos
Hispanoamericanos, 92 (no. 275, 1973), 243–57
‘Encuesta al teatro independiente: Vicente Olivares, Ricardo Salvat, Pablo
Zabalbeascoa, Santiago Sans’, Yorick, no. 12 (1966), 8–10
‘Encuesta (sobre el teatro)’, Primer Acto, nos 29–30 (1961–62), 5–15
Estreno, 5 (no. 1, 1979): Monograph on Antonio Buero Vallejo
Fernández Armesto, Felipe, ‘Rewriting History’, Index on Censorship, 24 (no. 3,
1995), 25–32
Fernández Cuenca, Carlos, ‘Crítica de Madrugada’, Teatro, no. 10 (1954), 6
Fernández Insuela, Antonio, ‘Encuesta: la Generación Realista ante el teatro español
de 1985–1990’, Estreno, 17 (no. 2, 1991), 5–9, 42
Fernández Santos, Angel, ‘Sobre Llegada de los dioses, una entrevista con Antonio
Buero Vallejo’, Primer Acto, no. 138 (1971), 27–38
____ ‘La Fundación de Antonio Buero Vallejo’, Ínsula, no. 328 (1974), 15
____ ‘La doble historia del doctor Valmy de Antonio Buero Vallejo’, Ínsula, no. 352
(1976), 15
Fernández Torres, Alberto, ‘La detonación de Antonio Buero Vallejo’, Ínsula, no. 372
(1977), 15
____ ‘Jueces en la noche de Antonio Buero Vallejo’, Ínsula, nos 396–7 (1979), 15
____, and Moisés Pérez Coterillo, ‘Quince y muchos más títulos de autor para una
crónica del teatro de la transición’, Cuadernos el Público, no. 9 (1985), 11
BIBLIOGRAPHY 307
Ferreiro, Cristina, ‘La mujer, víctima del hombre en Música cercana’, Estreno, 16
(no. 1, 1990), 2
Foucault, Michel, ‘Las Meninas’, Revista de Occidente, 18 (no. 52, 1967), 34–52
Fraga Iribarne, Manuel, Memoria breve de una vida política (Barcelona: Planeta, 1980)
Freeman, E., The Theatre of Albert Camus: A Critical Study, (London: Methuen &
Co., 1971)
Fusi, Juan Pablo, Franco: autoritarismo y poder personal (Madrid: El País, 1985)
Gabriele, John Philip, ‘Death and Dying in En la ardiente oscuridad’, The USF
Language Quarterly, 26 (nos 1–2, 1987), 13–16, 19
____, and Candyce Leonard, ‘Perspectivas sobre el teatro español a los quince años
de la democracia’, Anales de la literatura española contemporánea, 15 (nos 1–3,
1990), 253–73
____ ‘Entrevista a Antonio Buero Vallejo’, Estreno, 17 (no. 2, 1991), 20–4
____, and Laura L. Kenreich, ‘De Dulcinea del Toboso a Melania de Salignac: El
arquetipo cervantino en El Concierto de San Ovidio’, Neophilologus, 80 (no. 3,
1996), 417–24
Gadea-Oltra, Francesc, ‘Fondo y forma en dos dramaturgos españoles contemporá-
neos, Alfonso Sastre y Antonio Buero Vallejo’, Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos,
no. 311 (1976), 427– 40
Gagen, Derek, ‘The Germ of Tragedy: The Genesis and Structure of Buero Vallejo’s
El concierto de San Ovidio’, Quinquereme, 8 (no. 1, 1985), 37–52
____ ‘ “Veo mejor desde que he cegado”: Blindness as a Dramatic Symbol in Buero
Vallejo’, Modern Language Review, 81 (no. 3, 1986), 633–45
Galán, Diego, and Fernando Lara, ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo: ¿un tigre domesticado?’,
Triunfo, 13 February 1971, pp. 32– 4
García Escudero, José María, ‘Censura y libertad’, Arbor, 23 (no. 83, 1952), 177–97
García Lorenzo, Luciano and others, Antonio Buero Vallejo: Premio ‘Miguel de
Cervantes’ 1986, Ámbitos literarios/Premios Cervantes, 12 (Barcelona: Anthropos-
Ministerio de Cultura, 1987)
____ ‘Buero Vallejo: conciencia crítica y testimonio intelectual’, Ínsula, no. 503
(1988), 26–7
García Ruiz, Víctor, ‘ “La Guerra ha terminado”, Empieza el teatro. Notas sobre el
teatro madrileño y su contexto en la inmediata posguerra. (1.IV–31.XII.1939)’,
Gardiner, Harold C. (S.J.), Catholic Viewpoint on Censorship (New York: Hanover
House, 1958)
Geldrich-Leffman, Hanna, ‘Vision and Blindness in Durrenmatt, Buero Vallejo and
Lenz’, Modern Language Notes, 97 (no. 3, 1982), 671–93
Gil, L., ‘Mito griego y teatro contemporáneo’, Estudios clásicos, 13 (no. 58, 1969),
181–202
Giuliano, William, ‘The Role of Man and Woman in Buero Vallejo’s Plays’,
Hispanófila, 13 (no. 39, 1970), 21–8
____ Buero Vallejo, Sastre y el teatro de su tiempo (New York: Las Americas, 1971)
____ ‘The Theater of Buero Vallejo’, Modern Drama, 13 (1971), 366–73
____ ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo, la necesidad de una dramaturgia’, Cuadernos
Hispanoamericanos, no. 381 (1982), 627–33
Gómez García, Manuel, ‘1971: así piensan 40 profesionales de nuestra escena sobre
censura, teatro social y teatro político en España’, Primer Acto, no. 131 (1971),
8–24
308 BIBLIOGRAPHY
González-Cobos Davila, Carmen, Antonio Buero Vallejo: el hombre y su obra

(Salamanca: Salamanca University Press, 1979)
González de Zarate, Jesus María, Goya: de lo bello a lo sublime (Vitoria-Gasteiz:
Diputación Foral de Alava-Banco Bilbao Vizcaya-Instituto de Estudios
Iconográficos EPHIALTE del Ayuntamiento de Vitoria-Gasteiz, 1990)
Goytisolo, Juan, El furgón de cola (Paris: Ruedo Ibérico, 1967)
Gubern, Román, La censura: función política y ordenamiento jurídico bajo el
franquismo (1936–1975) (Barcelona: Península, 1981)
Habegger, Kimberly Anne, ‘The Historical Drama in Spain during the Postwar and
the Transition to Democracy’ [unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State
University, 1989; abstract in Dissertation Abstracts International, DAI–A 50/12
(June 1990), p. 3946]
Halsey, Martha T., ‘Esquilache, Velázquez and Quevedo: Three Historical Figures in
Contemporary Spanish Drama’, Kentucky Romance Quarterly, 17 (no. 2, 1970),
109–26
____ ‘El tragaluz: A Tragedy of Contemporary Spain’, The Romanic Review, 63
(no. 4, 1972), 284–92
____ ‘Larra, The Tragic Protagonist of La detonación’, Estreno, 4 (no. 1, 1978), 14–15
____ ‘Landscapes of the Imagination: Images of Hope in the Theatre of Buero
Vallejo’, Hispania, 68 (no. 2, 1985), 252–9
____ ‘Writers and Their Critics: Buero’s La detonación’, Hispanic Journal, 8 (no. 1,
1986), 47–60
____ ‘Reality, Illusion and Alienation: Buero Vallejo’s La Fundación’, Hispanófila,
30 (no. 90, 1987), 47–62
____, and Phyllis Zatlin, eds, The Contemporary Spanish Theatre. A Collection of
Critical Essays (Lanham: University of America Press, 1988)
____ ‘Introduction to the Historical Drama of Post Civil War Spain’, Estreno, 14
(no. 1, 1988), 11–12, 17
____ ‘Dramatic Patterns in Three History Plays of Contemporary Spain’, Hispania,
71 (no. 1, 1988), 20–30
Halsey, Martha T., From Dictatorship to Democracy: The Recent Plays of Buero
Vallejo. (From La Fundación to Música Cercana), Ottawa Hispanic Studies, 17
(Ottawa: Dovehouse Editions, 1994)
____ ‘Music as Sign and Symbol: Buero’s Lázaro en el laberinto and Música
Cercana’, Hispanófila, no. 120 (1997), 47–55
Halsey, Martha T., ‘Vigencia y universalidad de Antonio Buero Vallejo y su gen-
eración’, Ínsula, nos 601–2 (1997), 26–8
____ ‘Women as Author Surrogates in Four Tragedies of Antonio Buero Vallejo’, in
Spanish Theatre: Studies in Honour of Victor F. Dixon, ed. by K. Adams,
C. Cosgrove and J. Whiston (London: Tamesis, 2001), pp. 41–55
Haro Tecglen, Eduardo, ‘Introducción a Alfonso Sastre’, Primer Acto, no. 6 (1958),
16–18
Harrington Bethune, Jane, ‘A Comparative Study of Antonio Buero Vallejo and
Alfonso Sastre’ [unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tulane University, 1982;
abstract in Dissertation Abstracts International, DAI–A 43/03 (September 1982),
p. 818]
Härtinger, Heribert, Oppositionstheater in der Diktatur. Spanienkritik im Werk des
Dramatikers Antonio Buero Vallejo vor dem Hintergrund der franquistischen
Zensur, Studia Litteraria, Band 8 (Wilhelmsfeld: Gottfried Egert, 1997)
BIBLIOGRAPHY 309
Henriques, ‘Entrevista con Arrabal’, Yorick, no. 15 (1966), 6

Herzberger, David K., ‘The Painterly Vision of Buero Vallejo’s El sueño de la razón’,
Symposium, 39 (no. 2, 1985), 93–103
Hierro Pescador, José, ‘Ideología, lenguaje y clases sociales’, Sistema, no. 23 (1978),
3–18
Higgenbotham, Virginia, Spanish Film under Franco (Austin: University of Texas
Press, 1988)
Hobsbawm, E. J., Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality,
Canto, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992)
____, Hugh Trevor-Roper and others, The Invention of Tradition, ed. by Eric
Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, Canto (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1992)
Homer, The Odyssey, trans. by Walter Shewring, The World’s Classics Series
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980)
Hooper, John, The New Spaniards (London: Penguin, 1995)
Hopewell, John, Out of the Past: Spanish Cinema after Franco (London: British Film
Institute Books, 1986)
Hormigón, Juan Antonio, ‘Índice de problemas de infraestructura teatral’, Yorick,
no. 46 (1971), 71–6 (contd in no. 47, pp. 73–8; no. 48, pp. 67–74; nos 49–50,
pp. 87–95)
Hutchinson, John, and Anthony D. Smith, eds, Nationalism (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1994)
Iglesias Feijoo, Luis, La trayectoria dramática de Antonio Buero Vallejo (Santiago
de Compostela: Santiago University Press, 1982)
____ ‘Circunstancia y sentido de El concierto de San Ovidio (con ocasión del nuevo
montaje teatral de Miguel Narros)’, Estreno, 14 (no. 1, 1988), 18–21
Ilie, Paul, ‘Larra’s Nightmare’, Revista Hispánica Moderna, 38 (nos 1–2, 1974–75),
153–66
Informe sobre la censura cinematográfica y teatral. Dirección General de
Cinematografía y Teatro (Madrid: MIT, 1963)
Iniesta Galván, Antonio, Esperar sin esperanza. El teatro de Antonio Buero Vallejo
(Murcia: University of Murcia, 2002)
Isasi Angulo, Armando Carlos, ‘El teatro de Antonio Buero Vallejo: entrevista’,
Papeles de Son Armadans, 67 (no. 201, 1972), 281–320
Jerez-Farrán, Carlos, ‘Decadencia y revitalización en el teatro español de los años
20’, Estreno, 17 (no. 2, 1991), 25–33
Jiménez, Salvador, ‘En París, con Fernando Arrabal, español traducido a 20 idiomas’,
Yorick, no. 15 (1966), 9–10
____ ‘A los 40 años del estreno de Historia de una escalera de Antonio Buero
Vallejo’, Neophilologus, 74 (no. 1, 1990), 156–9
Jiménez-Vera, Arturo, ‘La sociedad española vista a través de El tragaluz de Antonio
Buero Vallejo’, Hispanófila, 27 (no. 81, 1984), 35 – 42
Johnston, Anita L., ‘El teatro español: 1985–90 (Presencias y ausencias en un lustro
teatral)’, Estreno, 17 (no. 1, 1991), 7–8, 10–11
Johnston, David, ‘Posibles paralelos entre la obra de Unamuno y el teatro histórico
de Buero Vallejo’, Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos, no. 386 (1982), 340–64
____ ‘Entrevista a Antonio Buero Vallejo’, Ínsula, no. 516 (1989), 25–6
____ ‘Las terribles aduanas: The Fortunes of Spanish Theatre in English’, Donaire,
no. 1 (1993), 18–24
310 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Johnston, David, ‘Buero Vallejo: más allá del azar’, Donaire, no. 2 (1994), 30–6
Jones, Margaret E. W., ‘The Modern Spanish Theater: The Historical Perspective’,
Revista de estudios hipánicos, 9 (no. 2, 1977), 199–218
____ ‘Psychological and Visual Planes in Buero Vallejo’s Diálogo Secreto’, Estreno,
12 (no. 1, 1986), 33–5
Jordan, Barry, ‘Blindness and Insight: A Re-reading of Buero Vallejo’s En la ardi-
ente oscuridad’, Modern Languages, 64 (no. 3, 1983), 185–92
____ ‘Patriarchy, Sexuality and Oedipal Conflict in Buero Vallejo’s El concierto de
San Ovidio’, Modern Drama, 23 (no. 3, 1985), 431–50
____ Writing and Politics in Franco’s Spain (London: Routledge, 1990)
Justi, Carl, Velázquez y su siglo (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1953)
Kaye, Harvey J., ‘Why do Ruling Classes Fear History?’, Index on Censorship, 24
(no. 3, 1995), 85–98
Komla Aggor, Francis, ‘Derealizing the Present: Evasion and Madness in El tra-
galuz’, Revista Canadiense de Estudios Hispánicos, 18 (no. 2, 1994), 141–50
Kronik, John W., ‘Cela, Buero y la Generación de 1936: raigambre de una visión
histórica’, Symposium, 22 (no. 2, 1968), 164–71
____ ‘Buero Vallejo y su sueño de la razón’, El Urogallo, nos 5–6 (1970), 151–6
____ ‘Buero Vallejo’s El tragaluz and Man’s Existence in History’, Hispanic Review,
41 (no. 2, 1973), 371–96
____ ‘The Arrabal–Buero Polemic’, Estreno, 2 (no. 1, 1976), 4–5
____ ‘Puntos de contacto dramático: epistolario Jacinto Grau–Antonio Buero
Vallejo’, Anales de la literatura española contemporánea, 19 (no. 3, 1994),
467–91
Labanyi, Jo, Myth and History in the Contemporary Spanish Novel (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1989)
Ladra, David, ‘Reflexión, aquí y ahora, sobre el teatro español comprometido’,
Primer Acto, no. 51 (1964), 18–24
Lamartina-Lens, Iride, ‘Myth of Penelope and Ulysses in La tejedora de sueños,
¿Por qué corres Ulises?, and Ulises no vuelve’, Estreno, 12 (no. 2, 1986), 31– 4
Larra, Mariano José de, Artículos, ed. by Enrique Rubio, 9th edn (Madrid: Cátedra,
1990)
Larrain, Jorge, Ideology and Cultural Identity: Modernity and the Third World
Presence (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994)
Leyra, Ana María, co-ordinator, Antonio Buero Vallejo: literatura y filosofía
(Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1998)
Lindenberger, Herbert, Historical Drama. The Relation of Literature and Reality
(Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1975)
London, John, Reception and Renewal in Modern Spanish Theatre: 1939–1963,
MHRA Texts and Dissertations, 45 (London: W. S. Maney & Son, 1997)
____, William Niven and others, Theatre under the Nazis, ed. by John London
(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000)
López Mozo, Jerónimo, ‘El dramaturgo y su compromiso’, Yorick, no. 25 (1967),
12, 17
____ ‘¿Dónde está el nuevo teatro español?’, Estreno, 12 (no. 1, 1986), 36–7
____ ‘Breve panorama del teatro español durante el postfranquismo’, Estreno, 13
(no. 2, 1987), 25–7
Lott, Robert E., ‘Functional Flexibility and Ambiguity in Buero Vallejo’s Plays’,
Symposium, 20 (no. 2, 1966), 150–62
BIBLIOGRAPHY 311
Lyon, John, ‘History and Opposition Drama in Franco’s Spain’, in Spanish Theatre:
Studies in Honour of Victor F. Dixon, ed. by K. Adams, C. Cosgrove and J. Whiston
(London: Tamesis, 2001), pp. 91–109
Lyon Haight, Anne, Banned Books: Informal Notes on Some Books Banned for
Various Reasons at Various Times and in Various Places (London: George Allen
& Unwin, 1955)
Macklin, John J., ‘Tragedy and Politics in Jueces en la noche’, Neophilologus, 77
(no. 4, 1993), 587–600
Magaña de Schevill, Isabel, ‘Lo trágico en el teatro de Buero Vallejo’, Hispanófila,
3 (no. 7, 1959), 51–8
Mangini, Shirley, Rojos y rebeldes: la cultura de la disidencia durante el franquismo
(Barcelona: Anthropos, 1987)
Marcus, Maury Hal, ‘Freedom and Tyranny in the Theater of Late Franco Spain’
[unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale,
1981; abstract in Dissertation Abstracts International, DAI–A 42/10 (April 1982),
p. 4203]
Marrast, Robert, ‘El teatro durante la guerra civil española’, Cuadernos el Público,
no. 15 (1986), 19–31
Marsillach, Adolfo, ‘Cinco años de teatro: 1975–1980’, Tiempo de Historia, 4
(no. 72, 1980), 215–29
Martí Gómez, José, ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo: “Mi concepción de la vida es trágica
pero no pesimista” ’, La Vanguardia Magazine, 5 December 1999, pp. 23–6
Martín, Sabas, ‘Teatro de autor y teatro de grupo: Buero, Nieva, el TEI y La Cuadra’,
Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos, no. 317 (1976), 434–43
Martín Iniesta, Fernando, ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo: “Mi posibilismo fue el de todos” ’,
El socialista, 1 October 1978, p. 20
____ ‘Teatro español en la democracia’, Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos, no. 572
(1998), 95–8
Martínez de la Vega, Juan, ‘Foro Teatral: ¿qué y cómo es el público español?’,
Primer Acto, no. 128 (1971), ii–v
Mayo, Luis, ‘Entrevista con Antonio Buero Vallejo, el más discutido de nuestros
dramaturgos actuales’, El Noticiero Universal, 28 April 1955, pp. 7–8
Máximo, Carta abierta a la censura (Madrid: Ediciones 99, 1974)
‘Mesa Redonda’, Estreno, 1 (no. 3, 1975), 6
‘Mesa Redonda 1’, Cuadernos el Público, no. 9 (1985), 15–39
‘Mesa Redonda 2: Escribir en España’, Cuadernos el Público, no. 9 (1985), 40–63
Miralles, Alberto, ‘Hombres de teatro: Alfonso Sastre’, Yorick, no. 11 (1966), 11
Miras, Domingo, ‘Las trampas del azar: una vez más, el gran Buero Vallejo’, Primer
Acto, no. 257 (1995), 24–32
Mizrahi, Irene, ‘Razón y sensibilidad en la obra En la ardiente oscuridad de Buero
Vallejo’, Revista Hispánica Moderna, 46 (no. 1, 1993), 117–30
Molero Manglano, Luis, Teatro español contemporáneo (Madrid: Editora Nacional,
1974)
Molina, Ida, ‘Truth versus Myth in En la ardiente oscuridad and in San Manuel
Bueno, Martír’, Hispanófila, 18 (no. 52, 1974), 45–9
____ ‘Vita Activa & Vita Contemplativa: Buero Vallejo’s El tragaluz and Hermann
Hesse’s Magister Ludi’, Hispanófila, 18 (no. 53, 1975), 41–8
____ ‘Authority versus Truth in Las Meninas and in Galileo’, Hispanófila, 19 (no. 57,
1976), 61–4
312 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Molina, Ida, ‘Truth and Compassion: Aventura en lo gris and La maison de la nuit’,
Revista de estudios hispánicos, 11 (no. 3, 1977), 339–46
Monleón, José, ‘Nuestra Generación Realista’, Primer Acto, no. 32 (1962), 1–3
____ Treinta años de teatro de la derecha (Barcelona: Tusquets, 1971)
____ ‘Llegada de los dioses de Antonio Buero Vallejo’, Primer Acto, no. 137 (1971),
57–9
____ ‘El mono azul’: Teatro de urgencia y romancero de la guerra civil (Madrid:
Ayuso, 1979)
____ ‘Historia y drama histórico durante la dictadura’, Estreno, 14 (no. 1, 1988),
5–6
____ ‘El Lope de Vega: las subvenciones y la política teatral’, Primer Acto, 3
(no. 259, 1995), 23–5
Montero, Rosa ‘The Silent Revolution: The Social and Cultural Advances of Women
in Democratic Spain’, in Spanish Cultural Studies: An Introduction, ed. by Helen
Graham and Jo Labanyi (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995)
Muñiz, Carlos, ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo: ese hombre comprometido’, Primer Acto,
no. 38 (1962), 8–10
Navas Ruiz, Ricardo, ‘La Detonación o El carnival y las máscaras: una introducción
histórica’, Estreno, 4 (no. 1, 1978), 12–14
Neuschäfer, Hans Jorg, Macht und Ohnmacht der Zensur: Literatur, Theater und
Film in Spanien (1933–1976) (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche, 1991)
Nicholas, Robert L., The Tragic Stages of Antonio Buero Vallejo, Estudios de
Hispanófila, Dept of Romance Languages, University of North Carolina (Madrid:
Castalia, 1972)
____ ‘Illusions and Hallucinations (Antonio Buero Vallejo: Three Recent Plays)’,
Estreno, 12 (no. 2, 1986), 63–5
____ ‘History as Image and Sound: Three Plays of Antonio Buero Vallejo’, Estreno,
14 (no. 1, 1988), 13–17
____ ‘Repitiendo la visión irrepetible: Antonio Buero Vallejo’, Hispania, 72 (no. 2,
1989), 241–6
Nonoyama, Minako, ‘La personalidad en los dramas de Buero Vallejo y Unamuno’,
Hispanófila, 17 (no. 49, 1973), 69–78
O’Connor, Patricia W., ‘Government Censorship in the Contemporary Spanish
Theatre’, Educational Theatre Journal, 18 (no. 4, 1966), 443–9
Nonoyama, Minako, ‘Premio Lope de Vega 1969: A Devious Form of Censorship?’
Hipanófila, 15 (no. 44, 1972), 59–63
____ ‘Torquemada in the Theatre: A Glance at Government Censorship’, Theatre
Survey, 14 (no. 2, 1973), 33–45
____, and Anthony M. Pasquariello, ‘Conversaciones con la Generación Realista’,
Estreno, 2 (no. 2, 1976), 8–28
____, and others, ‘Postura de Estreno . . .’, Estreno, 3 (no. 1, 1977), 7, 22
____ Plays of Protest from the Franco Era (Madrid: Sociedad General Española
de Librería, 1981)
____ ‘Una conversación con Antonio Buero Vallejo sobre Música cercana’, Estreno,
16 (no. 2, 1990), 18–22
____ ed., Plays of the New Democratic Spain (1975–1990) (Lanham: University
Press of America, 1992)
____ ‘Las trampas del azar: ¿unas coincidencias significantes?’, Estreno, 21 (no. 2,
1995), 5–6
BIBLIOGRAPHY 313
____ Antonio Buero Vallejo en sus espejos, Colección Espiral Hispano-Americano,

no. 31 (Madrid: Fundamentos, 1996)
Oliva, César, Disidentes de la Generación Realista (Introducción a la obra de Carlos
Muñiz, Lauro Olmo, Rodríguez Méndez y Martín Recuerda) (Murcia: Murcia
University Press, 1979)
____ ‘Breve itinerario por el último drama histórico español’, Estreno, 14 (no. 1,
1988), 7–10
Owen, Ursula, ‘All Change on the History Train’, Index on Censorship, 24 (no. 3,
1995), 3
Paco, Mariano de, ed., Estudios sobre Buero Vallejo (Murcia: Murcia University Press,
1984)
____ ed., Buero Vallejo: cuarenta años de teatro (Murcia: CajaMurcia, 1988)
____ ‘La verdad, el tiempo y el recuerdo: Lázaro en el laberinto y Música cercana’,
Estreno, 17 (no. 2, 1991), 43–5
____ De re bueriana (Murcia: Murcia University Press, 1994)
____ Memoria de Buero (Murcia: CajaMurcia, 2000)
____, and Francisco Javier Díez de Revenga, eds, Antonio Buero Vallejo, dramaturgo
universal (Murcia: CajaMurcia, 2001)
Pajón Mecloy, Enrique, ‘La ardiente claridad de Antonio Buero Vallejo: entrevista’,
Quimera, no. 65 (1987), 59–63
____ El teatro de A. Buero Vallejo: marginalidad e infinito, Colección Espiral
Hispano–Americana (Madrid: Fundamentos, 1991)
Paniker, Salvador, Conversaciones en Madrid (Barcelona: Kairós, 1969)
Parker, Jack Horace, Breve historia del teatro español, Manuales Studium, 6
(México: Ediciones de Andrea, 1957)
Paso, Alfonso, ‘Autores inéditos’, Primer Acto, no. 6 (1958), 45–6
Paulino, José C., ‘Ulises en el teatro español contemporáneo. Una revisión panorámica’,
Pennington, Eric, ‘Entrevista con Antonio Buero Vallejo’, Hispania, 64 (no. 1, 1981),
136–8
____ ‘La doble historia del Doctor Valmy: A View from the Feminine’, Symposium,
40 (no. 2, 1986), 131–9
____ ‘La ceguera del crítico: Re-examining Buero’s Premise in Diálogo Secreto’,
Estreno, 12 (no. 2, 1986), 2–3
____ ‘Buero Vallejo’s Diálogo secreto: The Masks of Mortals’, Hispanófila, 35
(no. 103, 1991), 17–32
____ ‘La doble historia del Doctor Valmy as Subjective Drama’, Revista Hispánica
Moderna, 45 (no. 1, 1992), 96–105
Pérez, Manuel, El teatro de la transición política (1975–1982): Recepción, crítica y
edición (Kassel: Reichenberger, 1998)
Pérez de Olaguer, Gonzalo, ‘Hoy nos visita Víctor Aúz Castro, Comisario de los
Teatros Nacionales’, Yorick, no. 12 (1966), 13
____ ‘García Escudero, habla para Yorick’, Yorick, no. 16 (1966), 15–16
____ ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo: nuevo Académico de la Lengua’, Yorick, no. 46 (1971),
5–10
Pérez Henares, Antonio, Antonio Buero Vallejo: una digna lealtad, Imágenes y
palabras, 26 (Toledo: Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha, 1998)
Pérez-Stansfeld, María Pilar, Direcciones de teatro español de posguerra (Madrid:
José Porrúa Turanzas, 1983)
314 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Perri, Dennis, ‘Las Meninas: The Artist in Search of a Spectator’, Estreno, 11 (no. 1,
1985), 25–9
Perriam, Chris, Michael Thompson, Susan Frenk and Vanessa Knights, A New History
of Spanish Writing 1939 to the 1990s (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)
Podol, Peter L., ‘The Theme of Honor in Two Plays of Buero Vallejo: Las palabras
en la arena and La tejedora de sueños’, Hispanófila, 23 (no. 68, 1980), 39–46
____ ‘Reality, Perception and Stage Setting in Griselda Gámbaro’s Las Paredes and
Antonio Buero Vallejo’s La Fundación’, Modern Drama, 24 (no. 1, 1981), 44–53
____ ‘El estado actual del teatro en España: entrevista con Antonio Buero Vallejo’,
Estreno, 17 (no. 1, 1991), 9
Preston, Paul, ed., Spain in Crisis: The Evolution and Decline of the Franco Regime
(Sussex: Harvester Press, 1976)
____ Franco: A Biography (London: Harper Collins, 1993)
Primo de Rivera, Pilar, Cuatro discursos de Pilar Primo de Rivera (Madrid: Editorial
Nacional, 1939)
Puente, Pilar de la, ‘El teatro histórico de Buero Vallejo’, El Urogallo, no. 2 (1970),
90–5
Puente Samaniego, Pilar de la, A. Buero Vallejo: proceso a la historia de España
(Salamanca: Salamanca University Press, 1988)
Ragué Arias, María José, Lo que fue Troya: los mitos griegos en el Teatro español
actual, Colección Damos la palabra (Madrid: Asociación de Autores de Teatro,
1992)
____ El teatro de fin de milenio en España: de 1975 hasta hoy (Barcelona: Ariel, 1996)
Ramoneda, Arturo, ed., Antología de la literatura española del siglo XX (Madrid:
Sociedad General Española de Librería, 1988)
Reboiras, Ramón F., ‘Entrevista a Buero Vallejo: “Somos una especie lamentable,
sin porvenir” ’, Cambio 16, 16 January 1995, pp. 70–2
Reyes, Gabriel de los, ‘Comentarios de Buero Vallejo sobre su teatro’, Estreno, 10
(no. 1, 1984), 21– 4
Rico, Francisco, and Domingo Ynduráin, Historia crítica de la literatura española,
VIII: Época contemporánea, 1939–1980 (Barcelona: Crítica, 1981)
Ridley, Alison J., ‘Goya’s Rediscovery of Reason and Hope: The Dialectic of Art and
Artist in Buero Vallejo’s El sueño de la razón’, Bulletin of Hispanic Studies
(Glasgow), 73 (no. 1, 1996), 105–15
Rivera, Amador, and Santiago de las Heras, ‘Encuesta sobre la censura. 25 autores
cuentan sus experiencias con la censura’, Primer Acto, no. 165 (1974), 4–14
(contd in no. 166, pp. 4–11)
Rodríguez, Miguel Luis, ‘Las cartas boca abajo de Antonio Buero Vallejo’, Índice
de artes y letras, 12 (no. 111, 1958), 10
____ ‘Diálogo con Antonio Buero Vallejo’, Índice de artes y letras, 12 (nos 116–17,
1958), 21–2
____ ‘Diálogo con Antonio Buero Vallejo: algo más sobre el realismo escénico y la
“infalibilidad” del público’, Índice de artes y letras, 12 (no. 118, 1958), 22–3
____ ‘Diálogo con Antonio Buero Vallejo: nos ponemos “casi” de acuerdo sobre
los deberes del dramaturgo’, Índice de artes y letras, 12 (November 1958),
19–20
Rodríguez Celada, Antonio, ‘Buero, Miller y el “common man” ’, Estreno, 10 (no. 1,
1984), 25–8
BIBLIOGRAPHY 315
Rogers, Elizabeth S., ‘Role Constraints versus Self-Identity in La tejedora de sueños

and Anillo para una dama’, Modern Drama, 26 (no. 3, 1983), 310–19
Rojas, Carlos, Retratos antifranquistas, Colección Textos (Barcelona: Planeta, 1977)
Romero, Vicente, ‘El teatro de la extrema derecha’, Estreno, 1 (no. 3, 1975), 11–12
Rotert, Richard W., ‘Monster in the Mirror’, Estreno, 17 (no. 2, 1991), 39–42
Ruiz Ramón, Francisco, Historia del teatro español, Siglo XX (Madrid: Cátedra, 1981)
____ ‘Pasado/Presente en el drama histórico’, Estreno, 14 (no. 1, 1988), 22–4
Ruple, Joelyn, Antonio Buero Vallejo: The First Fifteen Years (New York: Elises
Torres, 1971)
Rushdie, Salman, ‘Censorship’, in Imaginary Homelands, Essays and Criticism
1981–1991 (London: Granta, 1991), pp. 37–40
Said, Edward, Culture and Imperialism (London: Vintage, 1994)
Sainz, Tina, ‘Antonio Buero Vallejo: un intelectual que nunca dio la espalda al com-
promiso’, Mundo obrero, 20–26 February 1981, pp. 26–8
Sainz de Robles, Federico Carlos, Teatro español 1969–1970 Colección Literaria
(Madrid: Aguilar, 1971), Reviews of El sueño de la razón, pp. 149–56
Salazar López, José María, Diccionario legislativo de cinematografía y teatro, pro-
logue by Fernando Vizcaíno Casas, Mundo Científico, Serie Jurídica (Madrid:
Editora Nacional, 1966)
Salvat, Ricard, ‘Entrevista a Buero Vallejo’, Estreno, 4 (no. 1, 1978), 15–18
Sánchez, Roberto G., ‘Buero Vallejo y la sensibilidad histriónica’, Cuadernos
Hispanoamericanos, no. 414 (1984), 73–83
Sangián, J., ‘El teatro de Buero Vallejo’, Arbor, 111 (no. 433, 1982), 85–99
Santorio, Cristina, ‘Entrevista a Antonio Buero Vallejo’, Cambio 16, 26 September
1994, p. 87
Sanz Villanueva, Santos, Historia de la literatura española, 6/2, Siglo XX, Literatura
actual, Letras e Ideas (Barcelona: Ariel, 1984)
Saña, Heleno, El franquismo sin mitos. Conversaciones con Serrano Suñer, prologue
by Hugh Thomas, Colección 80 (Barcelona: Grijalbo, 1982)
Sartorius, Nicolás and Javier Alfaya, La memoria insumisa: sobre la dictadura de
Franco, 3rd edn (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 2000).
Sartre, Jean-Paul, ‘Mythe et réalité du théâtre’, in Un théâtre de situations, ed. by
Michel Contat and Michel Rybalka (Paris: Gallimard, 1973), pp. 169–94
____ Politics and Literature, trans. by J. A. Underwood, Signature Series (London:
Calder & Boyars, 1973)
Sastre, Alfonso, ‘Teatro imposible y pacto social’, Primer Acto, no. 14 (1960), 1–2
____ ‘Teatro para el año nuevo’, Primer Acto, nos 29–30 (1961–62), 26–7
____ Anatomía del realismo, Biblioteca Breve, 2nd edn (Barcelona: Seix Barral,
1974)
____ ‘Teoría del teatro: el estado de la cuestión’, Gestos, no. 4 (1987), 37–46
Schwartz, Kessel, ‘Tragedy and the Criticism of Alfonso Sastre’, Symposium, 21
(no. 4, 1967), 338– 46
____ ‘Posibilismo and Imposibilismo. The Buero Vallejo–Sastre Polemic’, Revista
Hispánica Moderna, 34 (nos 1–2, 1968), 436–45
Seis autores para una crónica del teatro español, Primer Acto, Separata del no. 238
(1991)
Seis dramaturgos españoles del siglo XX, 2 vols (Madrid: Edición Primer Acto-Girol
Books, 1988–89)
316 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sheehan, Robert Louis, ‘Censorship and Buero Vallejo’s Social Consciousness’,

Aquila, 5 (no. 1, 1968), 121–37
____ ‘Buero Vallejo as “El médico de su obra” ’, Estreno, 1 (no. 2, 1975), 18–22
____ ‘Tres generaciones miran la época postfranquista: Buero, Gala, Cabal’,
Estreno, 13 (no. 1, 1987), 26–35
Sollish Sikka, Linda, ‘Buero’s Women: Structural Agents and Moral Guides’,
Estreno, 16 (no. 1, 1990), 18–22, 31
____ ‘Cain, Mario and Me: Interrelatedness in El tragaluz’, Estreno, 16 (no. 2,
1990), 29–32
Sordo, Enrique, ‘Hoy es fiesta: Un Buero Vallejo de su etapa “esperanzada” ’, Yorick,
no. 14 (1966), 17
Soto, Vicente, ‘Un personaje en busca de obra’, Ínsula, nos 260–1 (1968), 25
Steiner, George, The Death of Tragedy (London: Faber & Faber, 1961)
____ Language and Silence: Essays 1958–1966 (London: Faber & Faber, 1985)
Szanto, George H., Theater and Propaganda (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1978)
Teatro breve contemporáneo, I, Primer Acto, Separata del no. 239 [1991(?)]
Therborn, Göran, The Ideology of Power and the Power of Ideology (London: Verso
and NLB, 1980)
Torrente Ballester, Gonzalo, ‘Estreno de Las cartas boca abajo de Buero Vallejo en
el Reina Victoria’, Primer Acto, no. 6 (1958), 52
____ ‘Nota de introducción al teatro de Buero Vallejo’, Primer Acto, no. 38 (1962),
11–14
Valbuena Prat, Angel, Historia del teatro español (Barcelona: Noguer, 1956)
Vázquez Montalbán, Manuel, Los demonios familiares de Franco. (Los tics
obsesivos que configuraron la ‘ideología’ franquista), Colección Documento
(Barcelona: Planeta, 1987)
Vázquez Zamora, Rafael, ‘En el Goya, los trágicos ciegos de Buero Vallejo, El
Concierto de San Ovidio’, Ínsula, no. 193 (1962), 16
Vicente, Arie, ‘Convergencia y divergencia de lo esperpéntico y lo trágico en Las
palabras en la arena, de Antonio Buero Vallejo’, Estreno, 13 (no. 2, 1987), 28–31
Vicente Mosquete, José Luis, ‘El mapa teatral cambia de piel’, Cuadernos el público,
no. 2 (1985), 4–5
____ ‘Alfonso Sastre: un largo viaje desde Madrid a Euskadi’, Cuadernos el Público,
no. 38 (1988), 5–27
Villanueva, Dario, ‘Las posibilidades del análisis teatral (Notas a un estudio sobre el
teatro de Buero Vallejo)’, Ínsula, no. 469 (1985), 15–16
Villegas, Juan, ‘La sustancia metafísica de la tragedia y su función social: Escuadra
hacia la muerte de Alfonso Sastre’, Symposium, 21 (no. 3, 1967), 255–63
Vogeley, Nancy, ‘Alfonso Sastre on Alfonso Sastre: Interview’, Hispania, 64 (no. 3,
1981), 459–65
Welles, Benjamin, Spain: The Gentle Anarchy (London: Pall Mall, 1965)
Wellwarth, George, The Theatre of Protest and Paradox: Developments in the
Avant-Garde Drama (London: MacGibbon & Kee, 1965)
____ Spanish Underground Drama (University Park and London: The Pennsylvania
State University Press, 1972)
Williams, Raymond, Marxism and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1977)
Zatlin Boring, Phyllis, ‘Encuesta sobre el teatro madrileño de los años 70’, Estreno,
6 (no.1, 1980), 11–22
BIBLIOGRAPHY 317
____ ‘Agitprop from the Right: The Theater of Eloy Herrera’, Estreno, 6 (no. 2,
1980), 18–21
____ ‘Theatre in Madrid: The Difficult Transition to Democracy’, Theatre Journal,
32 (no. 4, 1980), 459–74
____ ‘Expressionism in the Contemporary Spanish Theatre’, Modern Drama, 26
(no. 4, 1983), 555–69
Mono213_Index.qxd 3/8/05 5:52 PM Page 318
Index
For ease of consultation, an index of Antonio Buero Vallejo’s plays has been listed separately
from the rest of the index. The titles of plays by other authors are listed under authors’ names,
except in the cases of some plays of the Second Republic and the Civil War where the author
has not been identified in the text.
Index of Plays by Antonio Buero Vallejo (in order of composition)
En la ardiente oscuridad, 8, 66, 73, 92, 104, 173, 176, 177, 180, 182, 185, 186,
121, 122, 133, 134, 135, 139, 145, 163, 187, 188–9, 192, 193, 195, 199, 222,
165–6, 168, 172, 176, 177, 178 n.18, 252
185, 187–8, 194, 196, 198, 199, 238 n.33 La doble historia del doctor Valmy, 8, 61,
Historia de una escalera, 54–5, 65, 70–1, 62, 66, 76, 81–4, 88, 90, 100, 104, 109,
73, 76, 113, 114, 127, 132, 154, 156, 113, 121, 122, 123, 124, 134, 138, 139
162, 173, 175 n.63, 166 n.78, 168, 172, 176, 177,
Las palabras en la arena, 8, 62, 73, 74, 92, 183–4, 188, 194, 198, 199, 203–5, 224,
133, 142, 162, 170, 178, 179, 195, 196 251, 253
La tejedora de sueños, 62, 92, 142, 156, El tragaluz, 66, 75, 84, 103, 104, 120, 122,
158–62, 180, 188 n.35, 197, 222 134, 143–4, 146, 154, 156–7, 163, 164,
La señal que se espera, 1 172, 176 n.15, 185, 191, 194, 198, 199,
Casi un cuento de hadas, 133, 168, 238 n.33 223, 235, 240
Madrugada, 1, 133 Mito, 1 n.2, 87, 163, 168, 179, 198
El terror inmóvil, 1, 157 El sueño de la razón, 8, 62, 76–7, 87–9,
Aventura en lo gris, 77–8, 104, 134, 153, 114, 121, 122, 123, 133, 136, 142, 145,
156, 162, 184, 188 n.35, 198–9 146, 152–3, 156, 163, 167, 169, 170,
Irene, o el tesoro, 1, 133, 157, 185 176, 178, 179, 195, 197, 198, 199, 222,
Hoy es fiesta, 1, 92, 132, 157, 163, 169, 230, 252 see also Goya
175, 185 Llegada de los dioses, 76, 89, 116,
Una extraña armonía, 1, 76 122, 124, 136, 139, 157, 162, 165, 167,
Las cartas boca abajo, 62, 66, 92, 157, 183, 184, 185, 188, 194 n.52, 199, 223,
199 242
Un soñador para un pueblo, 8, 20 n.34, La Fundación, 8, 77, 90–1, 119 n.18, 122,
71–2, 79, 81, 104, 120, 132, 134, 142, 123, 135, 136, 137, 146, 155 n.43, 157,
145–6, 147, 163, 168, 169, 175, 179, 163, 164, 166 n.78, 168, 170–1, 172,
181, 182–3, 190, 192, 227, 252 175, 176, 177, 179, 182, 184, 185, 186,
Las Meninas, 8, 62, 68, 70, 74, 79–80, 81, 187–8, 190, 199, 222
104, 114, 120, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, La detonación, 14, 23, 36, 66, 131, 132,
137, 142, 146, 148–9, 152, 161, 165, 142, 148 n.26, 151, 165, 175, 178, 181,
166–7, 168, 169, 175, 179, 181, 189–90, 188, 190, 191, 218, 222, 223, 225–33,
192, 195, 196, 197, 198, 222, 230, 244, 235, 238, 240, 252, 257
255 see also Velázquez Jueces en la noche, 139 n.63, 174, 197, 219,
El concierto de San Ovidio, 92, 104, 120, 222, 223 n.5, 224, 225, 228, 233, 235,
121 n.20, 122, 124, 133, 134, 135, 136, 238, 240, 242, 243, 246, 247
139, 142, 143, 145, 150, 162, 163, 172, Caimán, 120, 163, 234, 243
INDEX 319
Diálogo secreto, 62, 136, 162, 163, 222, Misión al pueblo desierto, 120, 175,
225, 233, 235, 236, 244 182 n.24, 220, 238, 241, 248, 256
Lázaro en el laberinto, 139, 224, 225, 234, Adaptations:
242 El Puente, 70, 75
Música cercana, 139, 154, 162, 174, 216, Hamlet, 73, 76, 81, 154
222, 233, 236, 240, 241, 242, 244 Mother Courage and her Children (Madre
Las trampas del azar, 154, 162, 174, 185, Coraje y sus hijos), 72, 73, 80–1, 92,
219, 222–3, 234, 235, 238, 242 115, 154, 170
Abad, Francisco, 148 Repressive State Apparatuses under

Abellán, José Luis, 151, 172 Ideology
Abellán, Manuel, 17, 31, 36, 51–2 n.3, 57, Arniches, Carlos, 53
102, 107, 108, 110, 201, 207, 215 Arrabal, Fernando, 56, 58, 65, 67, 69, 70,
Accountability, 133, 155–7, 175, 181, 183, 99–101, 107, 109, 117, 125, 129–31,
185, 188, 189, 191, 194, 219, 220, 221, 138, 219, 230, 231
222, 223, 233, 234, 235, 236, 243, 251, Carta de amor (como un suplicio chino),
256 219 n.62
Activos and Contemplativos, 132, 135, Ciugrena, 100, 130
144 n.16, 148, 155, 156, 163, 164, El cementerio de automóviles, 99, 134
165 n.73, 186, 237, 238 n.35 El gran ceremonial, 100
Alberti, Rafael, 45–6, 49, 50, 64, 218 La Juventud Ilustrada, 100
Cantata de los héroes y la fraternidad de Los dos verdugos, 99
los pueblos, 49 Los hombres del triciclo, 131
El cerco de Numancia, 49 Arrarás, Joaquín, 29
El hombre deshabitado, 45 Art, 122–3, 134, 135, 136, 137, 148, 166–7,
Los salvadores de España, 50 189–93, 197, 238 n.35, 244
Noche de Guerra en el Museo de Prado, influence on Buero, 55, 136
218 and truth, 135, 136, 153, 167, 190–2
Radio Sevilla, Cuadro Flamenco, 49 Arte Nuevo, 93, 126 n.29,
Teatro de urgencia, 49 Artists,
Alos, Concha, 110 role in society, 3, 122, 135, 136, 148,
Alsonso de los Ríos, César, 104 n.78 150, 172–6, 189–93, 221, 229, 230,
Alonso de Santos, Luis, 213 239, 243, 248, 250
Althusser, Louis, 5–6, 20, 22, 52, 137, 192 El Greco, 238 n.35
Altolaguirre, Manuel, 49 Goya, 88, 114, 123, 134, 136, 145, 146,
Alvar, Manuel, 160 152–3, 156, 167–8, 170, 178, 189,
Álvarez, Carlos, 179 190, 191, 192, 195, 198, 230
Amell, Samuel, 69 n.4 Turner, 137
Anderson, Farris, 84, 218 Velázquez, 62, 68–9, 70, 74, 79–80, 134,
Andrade, Jaime de see Franco 135, 145, 146, 148–9, 166–7, 168–9,
Antolín, Mario, 44 175, 179, 189–90, 191–2, 195, 196,
Apathy, 45, 123–4, 132, 133, 138, 140, 146, 197–8, 230, 231, 244, 253
155, 156–7, 176, 185, 253 Ashworth, Peter P., 121
Apertura, 14 n.23, 19, 20–1, 31, 32, 37, 78, Aub, Max, 46, 48, 49
108, 110, 151, 200, 202, 233, 235–6 Azaña, Manuel, 12, 47
Arconada, César M., 49
Arias Navarro, Carlos, 37 Barraca, La, 46
Arias Salgado, Gabriel, 12 n.17, 13 n.20, Barreiro, Enrique, 206
14 n.21, 20, 25, 27, 29 n.64, 34, 35, Muñecas, 206
36, 37 Barthes, Roland, 19 n.31
Aristotle, 119, 120, 144–5 n.18 Bascompte Cirici, Ramiro, 74
Armed Forces, 6–7, 49, 50, 109, 179, 194, Bautista, Aurora, 105
199, 204, 208, 227, 233 see also Benavente, Jacinto, 48, 51 n.3, 53, 54
320 INDEX
Benedetti, Mario, 177 n.16, 185 n.31 and style, 116–24, 138
Beneyto, Antonio 3 n.5, 21 n.37, 32, 104 n.76 and theatre reform, 55, 129
Beneyto Pérez, Juan, 30 n.65, 110 and transition, 200, 203–5, 208, 212–6,
Benítez Claros, Rafael, 182 n.27 218, 219, 220
Bentley, Eric, 44, 63, 253 Buho, El, 46
Berenguer, Ángel, 57 n.18, 218, 256 Burke, Redmond A., 14 n.22
Bergamín, José, 49, 103
Bilbatúa, Miguel, 45, 46, 59 n.27, 69, 105 Cabal, Fermín, 212, 213, 220, 247
Bleiberg, Germán, 49 Cabanillas, Pío, 37
Blindness, 84, 90, 121–4, 148, 150, 151–2, Café Teatro Stefanía, 201
159 n.53, 163, 166, 167, 187–8, 189, Cain and Abel, 119, 132, 155, 162, 164
190, 198, 199, 222, 223 n.3, 244, 245 Calvo Sotelo, Joaquín, 51–2 n.3, 53, 54, 106
see also Madness La muralla, 53, 107
Brecht, Bertolt, 59, 64 n.37, 72, 80–1, 99, Campmany, Jaime, 64 n.35
101, 115, 119, 120, 121 n.20, 256 Camus, Albert, 56, 59–60, 101, 119, 134,
Antigone, 101 135, 144, 152, 180, 182, 186, 187, 250
Mother Courage and her Children, 72, Les Justes, 144, 187
73, 80–1, 92, 115, 154, 170 Candel, Francisco, 20
The Caucasian Chalk Circle, 98, 101 Cano, José Luis, 110
Yo, Bertolt Brecht, 99 Caracol, El, 45
Breuilly, John, 21, 22, 24 Carlos III, 72, 79, 146 n.22, 147, 148, 182–3
Brown, Gerald G., 250, Carr, Raymond, 200
Brustein, Robert, 119, 253 Carrero Blanco, Admiral Luis, 37
Buero Vallejo, Antonio, Casa, Frank P., 217
adaptations, 59–60, 70, 73, 75, 76, 80–1 Casas del pueblo, 46, 48
appearance of, 54–6 Casona, Alejandro, 46, 54
and commitment 2, 44, 55, 56–67, 69, Castellet, José María, 15 n.24, 157
117, 119, 120, 125, 131–9, 172–6, Catharsis, 120, 121, 173
233, 246, 249–57 Caudillo, See Franco
and compromise 1, 2, 56, 58–9, 63–4, Cazorla, Hazel, 159 n.52, 161
69–70, 72, 111, 112–39, 149, 190, Cebrián, José Luis, 207
233, 249–57 Celaya, Gabriel, 117
and critical reception of theatre, 55, 149, Censored plays and the transition, 217–9
220, 223–5, 231, 244–5, 246–8, 250, Censorship, 2, 8, 28, 29–41, 51, 52, 53 n.8,
252–3, 254, 257 57, 61, 63, 68–111, 119, 136, 148,
death of, 1 149–50, 183, 197, 199, 207, 215, 218,
and demystification, 140–69 220, 221, 225, 227, 231, 244, 246–7,
and environmental censorship, 101–8, 111 249, 252, 256
and family, 55, 118, 151, 255 of anti-militarism, 47–50, 52, 70, 71, 72,
and ideology, 55, 60, 172–99 73, 77–93, 94, 97, 98, 101
and negotiation with censors, 70, 71–2, of art, 74, 79–80, 134, 148–50, 167 n.83,
73–4, 79, 85–6, 89 190, 195, 197–8
and official censorship 3, 35, 58, 61, 65, of film, 18, 33, 38, 39
68–111, 112, 113–6, 117, 124–39, of morals and bad taste, 36, 70, 71,
169–71, 203–5 72–7, 77, 81, 82, 91, 97, 98, 99–101,
and post-Franco theatre, 4, 36, 117, 142, 108, 115, 129, 133, 170
154, 156, 174, 182 n.24, 214, 216, of politics, 47–50, 52, 70, 71, 72, 73,
219, 221–48 77–93, 95, 97, 98, 99–101, 108, 114,
and prizes, 105–6, 130 129, 170–1, 198, 203–5
and protests and petitions, 102–03, 115 of press, 18, 34, 63
and Real Academia, 115–6, 130, 255 of theatre, 14, 18, 33, 35, 38–41, 55,
and religion and god, 74, 133–4, 163–4 68–111, 138, 169–71, 209–10
and Republican allegiance, 1, 3, 55, 113, arbitrary application of, 68, 78–9, 93, 95,
118 98, 102, 108, 125, 198
INDEX 321
and the Civil War, 9, 17, 48–50 Communism, 173–4, 241, 243
and the Second Republic, 17, 47–48 Communists, 22, 23, 24, 62, 152 n.35
and the transition to democracy, 200, Communist threat, 11, 16, 17
207–11, 213–16, 242 Anti-Communism, 21, 36, 54, 93, 95
effects of, 108–11 Communist literature, 45–50, 54, 95
environmental, 101–08, 190, 203, 204, See also Political Parties
215, 224, 232 ¡Comunista!, 48
evasion of, 67, 75, 77, 87, 114, 119, 127, Contemplativo see under Activos and
169–71, 226, 251 Contemplativos
Junta de Censura, 38, 39, 40, 72–3 Consejo Central del Teatro, 48
justification of, 30, 31, 34, 84 Cooper, Norman, 9
legislation 3, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 21, 25, Cramsie, Hilde, F., 44 n.102, 65
26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 38–41, 42, 43, Critics, 223–4, 247 n.50
68, 75, 83, 84, 91, 100, 207–12 in the plays, 244–5
preventative, 13–14, 30, 31, 34, 214 See also critical reception of theatre under
procedures, 39, 40–41, 209–10 Buero Vallejo, Antonio
punitive, 14 Cross Newman, Jean, 162
sanctions, 31, 32, 34 Cuenca Toribio, José María, 9 n.8, 12 n.16
self-censorship 3, 93, 109–10, 127, 128,
138, 197, 213, 230, 232 De Beauvoir, Simone, 97
silencio administrativo, 39, 80, 90, 98, 200 De Diego, Fernando, 161
Special Reports: Moral, 73, 74, 80–1, De la Cierva, Ricardo, 107
95, 98, 170 De la Fuente, Pablo, 49
Special Reports: Political and Military, De la Fuente Ballesteros, Ricardo, 144
73, 95 De la Puente, Pilar, 141, 227
voluntary, 31, 32, 87, 108 De los Reyes, Gabriel, 127–8
See also Ministries, posibilismo, Roman De los Ríos, Fernando, 46
Catholic Church De Paco, Mariano, 55 n.14, 15, 103 n.73,
Censors, 12 n.17, 13 n.20, 14 n.21, 20, 21, 174, 190, 191
22, 25, 27, 29 n.64, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, De Quinto, José María, 51, 52, 53
83, 89, 102–3, 108, 114, 115, 205 n.19 Deafness, 152 see also Blindness, Madness
in the plays, 134, 183, 184, 191, 195, Death Threats, 202, 204, 256
198, 226–7, 231, 232, 244–5 Del Amo, Álvaro, 59 n.27
Centro Dramático Nacional (CDN), 207, Della Costa, Cardinal, 14
211, 219 n.62 Delibes, Miguel, 31
Centro Nacional de Teatro Clásico (CNTC), Democracy, 11, 15, 25, 27, 31, 193 n.51,
211 200, 206, 207, 208, 216, 217, 220, 221,
Centro Nacional de Nuevas Tendencias 241, 244, 247
Escénicas (CNNTE), 211, 214 Democrats, 26, 29
Cervantes, Miguel de, 49, 135 Organic democracy, 11, 19
El cerco de Numancia, 49 See also Transition Period
El retablo de las maravillas, 99 Destape, 201, 205, 207, 219
Civil War, 6, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17, 29, 30, 48, Deutscher, Isaac, 136
50, 51, 53, 65, 71, 78, 84, 91, 98, 119, Díaz Plaja, Guillermo, 116
132, 134, 141, 142, 144, 154, 156, 160, Dictatorship, 12, 13, 25, 28, 34, 60, 78,
162, 179, 199, 217, 220, 235, 238, 241, 112, 154, 182 n.27, 183, 186, 217, 226,
243, 249, 256 See also Roman Catholic 233
Church Dieste, Rafael, 49, 50
Class Struggle, 151–2, 174 Al almanecer, 50
Classification of Drama, 14, 38, 209 Dixon, Victor, 120 n.19, 192, 248
Cold War, 16 Doménech, Ricardo, 54, 151, 162, 188, 223
Common Good, 8, 10, 12, 13, 19, 22, 34, Domingo, Marcelino, 46
35, 52, 60, 82, 93, 110, 133, 134 n.48, Don Quijote, 87, 123, 149, 162, 163, 168
168, 179, 183, 187, 195, 245 Dowling, John, 129
322 INDEX
Dreams (& nightmares), 78, 137, 150, 153–4, Fraga Iribarne, Manuel, 20–1, 22, 31, 36, 37,
158, 163, 167–8, 185, 188 n.36, 190, 197, 38, 83, 89, 102–3, 108, 115, 205 n.19
223 n.4, 228, 240 n.41 Fraile, Medardo, 253
Dreamers, 71, 135, 145 Franco Bahamonde, Francisco, 5, 6, 9, 10,
Durán, Franco, 160 12, 16, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 36,
45, 51, 61, 72, 80, 84, 90, 109, 146, 161,
Eagleton, Terry 2, 22, 41, 118, 173, 179, 200, 215, 216, 219, 226, 227, 228
192 Franco regime, 1, 2, 3, 5–29, 42, 43, 51, 58,
Education system, 12, 14–17, 21, 52, 152, 59, 66, 69, 79, 91, 99, 100, 101, 106,
153 n.37, 198, 213 110, 117, 118, 119, 137, 141, 142, 146,
Federación Universitaria Escolar (FUE), 150, 151, 152, 155, 158, 170, 179, 184,
15, 141 n.4, 173 185, 208, 213, 215, 218, 220, 227, 232,
Sindicato Español Universitario (SEU), 233, 234, 235, 245, 249, 252
15, 16, 94 Honours and Awards, 1, 106–7, 116,
student unrest 6, 15, 16, 151, 224, 233, 130, 138, 221
237 See also Francoist Ideology under
university police, 15, 16 Ideology
See also Roman Catholic Church and See also post-Franco Society
Ideological State Apparatuses under Francoism, 1, 2, 5, 16, 24, 27, 42, 55, 68,
Ideology 112, 118, 134, 144, 146, 158 n.49, 162,
Eisenhower, Dwight D., 20 211, 215, 220, 221, 227, 238, 246
Escobar, Luis, 48, 114 Freedom, 27, 91, 119, 123, 136, 179, 206,
Esslin, Martin, 44 210, 215, 217, 222, 241
Establishment Figures, 126, 132, 134, 135, and creation 1, 34, 58–67, 69, 116, 126–7,
148, 155, 176, 177, 179, 190, 192, 193, 136, 150, 207, 220, 247, 249
194, 196 of the press, 14, 31, 38
Ethics, 135, 136 See also Censorship, Media
Euripides, 97 Freemasonry, 15, 16, 29, 178
Exile, 58, 99, 101, 125, 129–30, 131, 134, Fusi, Juan Pablo, 9, 12 n.16, 20, 200
135, 153, 181, 190, 197, 217, 231, 232,
249 Gagen, Derek, 151 n.33, 152, 180, 189,
Existentialism, 56, 91 223 n.5
Gala, Antonio, 69, 201, 206 n.22, 212
Facio, Ángel, 205 ¿Por qué corres, Ulises?, 201
Falangism, 5, 7, 15, 18, 26–7, 140 Galarza Morante, Colonel Valentín, 36
Falangists, 19, 36, 96 García Escudero, José María, 34, 37, 115
Falcón, Irene de, See Garfias, César García Lorca, Federico, 46, 47, 49 n.112
Family, 15, 33, 152, 162, 196–7, 243 Bodas de sangre, 47
Fascism 5, 10, 15, 26 La casa de Bernarda Alba, 205
Fascist, 51 García Lorenzo, Luciano, 3 n.6, 121, 125,
Felipe IV, 75, 80, 148, 168–9, 190, 191, 132, 143, 247
197, 222 Garciasol, Ramón de, 105 n.82
Fernán Gómez, Fernando, 217 Gardiner, Harold C., 13 n.18
Las bicicletas son para el verano, 217 Garfias, César, 47
Fernández Insuela, Antonio, 212 La peste fascista, 47
Fernández Torres, Alberto, 229, 256 Gateway Theatre, 84
Fernando VII, 88, 114, 134, 135, 136, Gellner, Ernest, 25
147 n.25, 152–3, 167–8, 178, 189 n.39, Generalísimo see under Franco
192 n.46, 195, 222, 226, 227–8 Generation of ’98, 52, 62, 175
Ferreiro, Cristina, 139 Giménez Arnau, José Antonio, 53, 106
Film, 29, 142, 213 see also NO-DO under Murió hace quince años, 53
Media Giner, Salvador, 16
Folklore, 27, 47, 52, 53 Gomá y Tomás, Cardinal, Spanish Primate, 9
Forest, Eva, 105 Gómez García, Manuel, 69 n.2
INDEX 323
González Rendón, Aurelio, 49 and literature 2, 256

Ya están de pie los esclavos sin pan, 49 and myth, 19, 136, 140–70
González Ruiz, Nicolás, 35 and theatre, 1, 8, 43–50, 51–4, 56,
González Vergel, Antonio, 204 57–67, 90–1, 93, 94–7, 135, 137,
Gorostiza, Carlos, 75 139, 152, 159–61, 172–99, 186, 220,
El Puente, 70, 75 227
Goytisolo, Juan, 18, 41 n.90, 157, 165, 228 dominant ideology, 4, 6, 11, 16, 19, 22,
Grau, Adriá, 45 23, 24, 35, 51, 52, 55, 56, 62, 63, 70,
Grupo de Teatro Realista (GTR), 93, 128 90, 93, 118, 126, 132, 139, 141, 145,
Guardia Civil see Armed Forces 151, 152, 162, 172, 173, 176, 177,
Gubern, Román, 8 n.4, 9, 17 n.28, 32, 37 179, 182, 193, 194, 196, 198, 232,
Guerra a la Guerra, 47–8 239, 243, 244, 246
Guerrillas del teatro, 49 end of ideology, 214, 220, 221, 239–45
Gutiérrez, Ángel, 128 ideological crisis, 4
ideological battle, 201, 206, 207
Halffter, Cristóbal, 87 ideological state apparatuses, 5–29, 52,
Halsey, Martha T., 139, 141, 156, 174 n.13, 72, 100, 101–4, 112, 119, 137, 196,
177, 229, 236 n.29, 240 n.41 198, 199, 226
Haro Tecglen, Eduardo, 65, 214, 245 n.46 repressive state apparatuses, 6–7, 9, 23,
Härtinger, Heribert, 79, 104, 158 n.50 72, 119, 179, 180, 227
herencia proletaria, La, 48 capitalist ideology, 241
Hernández, Miguel, 49, 64 Francoist ideology, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6–29, 33,
Pastor de la muerte, 49 36, 53, 55, 68, 82, 87, 119, 134, 137,
Teatro en la Guerra, 49 138, 139, 142, 158, 160, 162, 196,
Herrera, Leon, 38 197, 199, 240, 246, 250, 254
Herrera Petrere, José, 49 nationalist ideology, 60, 61, 71, 199
Herrera Santos, Eloy, 117, 206, 247 n.50 post-Franco ideology, 212–16, 221
Que Dios os lo demande, 206 Republican ideology, 48, 71
Un cero a la izquierda, 206 Roman Catholic ideology, 73, 75, 164,
Hierro Pescador, José, 165 243
Higgenbotham, Virginia, 29 See also Communism, Nationalism,
History, 1, 56, 61, 221, 224, 233, 234, 235, Socialism
236, 241, 248, 250–1, 253, 256 Iglesias Feijoo, Luis, 151, 223–4, 238
historical drama, 3, 4, 62, 79, 93, 96–7, Ilie, Paul, 142, 228, 229, 255
117, 120, 122, 133, 140–57, 169–70, Immersion Effect, 82, 120, 150, 154, 176,
191, 226, 228, 230 177, 238 n.35
official history, 3, 10, 15, 25, 26, 28, 29, Imposibilismo (See under Posibilismo)
140–2, 145 Imprisonment, 55, 90–1, 176, 185, 187–8,
repetition of errors of history, 153, 155, 190, 198–9, 234, 235
156, 199, 219, 222, 225, 226, 236, Instituto Nacional De las Artes Escénicas y
237–8, 248 de la Música (INAEM), 211
Hobsbawm, Eric, 26 Ionesco, Eugene, 54
Homer, 159 Rhinocéros, 54
Hope, 20, 119–20, 132, 135, 137, 143, Isasi Ángulo, Armando Carlos, 103 n.73, 115
144 n.16, 145, 150, 156, 158, 166 n.77,
174, 177, 179, 183, 185, 187, 188, 192, Jérez-Farrán, Carlos, 46 n.108
223, 228, 240, 243, 247, 248, 256 Joglars, Els, 201 n.4
Hopewell, John, 29, 37 La torna, 201 n.4
Hormigón, Juan Antonio, 46 n.109 Johnston, David, 147, 151 n.31, 228, 229,
235, 245
Ibsen, Henrik, 59, 120, 144, 173 Jones, Margaret E., 149
Ghosts, 173 n.7 Jordan, Barry, 57 n.21, 65, 152, 182, 189,
Ideology, 193
and artistic integrity, 58, 63–7, 172–6, 192 Juan Carlos I, 174, 211
324 INDEX
Kaye, Harvey J., 155 Marrast, Robert, 45, 48

Kronik, John W., 154, 155, 157 Marsillach, Adolfo, 206, 207, 246
Kundera, Milan, 250 Martín Iniesta, Fernando, 214, 219, 224
Martín Recuerda, José, 57, 98, 130, 138,
Labanyi, Jo, 23, 26, 27, 142, 158 141, 212, 213, 218
Ladra, David, 63 El engañao, 98, 218
Laiglesia, Juan Antonio de, 53 La llanura, 98
El vicario de Dios, 53 Las arrecogias del Beatario de Sta.
Laín Entralgo, Pedro, 105 María Egipciaca, 98, 218
Lamartina-Lens, Iride, 161 Martín Santos, Luis, 157, 165
Language, Martínez Mediero, Manuel, 202
manipulation 2, 3, 13, 30, 41–3, 62, Las hermanas de Búfalo Bill, 202
165–7, 168, 198–9, 242, 244 Marxism, 25, 30, 57, 60, 80, 81, 95, 105,
of commitment, 61–3, 165 151, 152, 172
and silence 2, 24, 30, 41, 50, 51, 58, Maulnier, Thierry, 78
62, 66–7, 117, 121, 165, 187, 188, La maison de la nuit, 78
231, 232, 246–8, 249, 251, 254–5, Media,
256 as ideological state apparatus, 17–18, 20,
See also Censorship 21, 25, 34, 103, 215–6, 244
Larra, José Mariano, 145, 181, 190, 191, news agencies, 17, 18, 208
225–33, 235, 237, 255, 256 NO-DO, 18
Larrain, Jorge, 11 RTVE, 104, 216
Legislation, 7–8, 9 n.8, 19, 32, 207, 208, exclusion from, 103, 104
210–11 See also Legislation under See also Ideological State Apparatuses
Censorship under Ideology
Liñán, Fernando de, 37 Memory (and Remembering), 15, 214, 233,
Literature, 248
avant-garde literature, 28 and accountability 4, 156–7, 220, 221,
escapist literature, 28, 45, 52 238, 240, 251, 256
European literature, 52 wilful, voluntary amnesia, 45, 142,
Republican, 45–50, 51 156–7, 234, 235, 238
Romantic literature, 28 see also Pacto de olvido
See also Theatre; See also literature Mihura, Miguel, 51 n.3, 54, 59
under Communist, Socialist Military, see under Armed Forces
Llopis, Carlos, 59 Millán Astray, General, 30
London, John, 51, 54 n.11, 56, 58, 59 Miller, Arthur, 144
López Mozo, Jerónimo, 213 The Crucible, 144
López Rubio, José, 54 Ministerio de Cultura, 209
López Sánchez, Lorenzo, 105 Ministerio de Educación, 46
Luca de Tena, Cayetano, 114 Ministerio de Educación y Cultura, 211
Luca de Tena, Juan Ignacio, 53, 106 Ministerio de Gobernación, 38
Lukács, Georg, 65 Ministerio de Información y Cultura, 107
Lyon, John, 143, 148, 172 n.1, 179, 185, Ministerio de Información y Turismo (MIT),
197 14, n.23, 16, 18, 20, 22, 27, 32, 36,
38–9, 41, 78, 88, 90, 102, 108, 114, 138,
Madness, 62, 82, 90, 121–2, 144 n.16, 153, 205, 208
155 n.43, 176, 177, 184, 188, 190, 192, Ministerio de Instrucción Pública y Bellas
195, 228 see also manipulation under Artes, 46
Language; see also Blindness Ministerio de Interior, 17, 24, 30, 36, 41
maja desnuda de Cáceres, La, 201 Miralles, Alberto, 129
Mangini, Shirley, 57, 65, 102 Monarchy, 5, 15, 88–9, 133, 141, 208, 210
Mañas, Alfredo, 105 Monarchists, 19, 174
María Cristina, Infanta, 226 Anti-Monarchist, 88–9
Marquina, Eduardo, 53, 250 Franco’s Royal Pretensions, 28
INDEX 325
Monarchs, 10, 27, 72, 75, 79, 80, 88, 114, Nationalist Victory, 17, 23, 24, 51
134, 135, 136, 146 n.22, 147, 148, 152–3, Nationalism and Theatre, 45, 48, 50, 53,
167–9, 174, 178, 182–3, 189 n.39, 190, 56–7, 94–6, 158–62, 206–7
191, 192 n.46, 197, 211, 222, 226, 227–8 Nationalization, 18, 19, 20, 29, 32, 36
Monleón, José, 44, 52, 53, 54 n.10, 105, Nationhood, 24, 42
214, 252, 253 Navarro, Leandro, 47
Morals, 52, 53, 56, 60, 119, 120, 136, 139, Nazi, 58, 179, 183
148, 223, 243, 250, 253 Neville, Edgar, 54
moral dilemmas, 53, 187, 233, 240, Nietzsche, Friedrich, 11, 21
241 n.43, 256 Nosotros, 47
morality of violence, 172, 176–84 Nueva Escena, 49
Moreno, Manuel de Jesús, 47
De muy buen barro, 47 Odysseus, See Ulysses
Moreno Gómez, Armando, 84 Oficina Nacional Permanente de Vigilancia
Movimiento Nacional, 5, 31 de Espectáculos, 14
Muñiz, Carlos, 57, 97–8, 105, 130 n.40, Olano, Antonio D., 206
138, 212, 214, 218 Cara al sol… con la chaqueta nueva, 206
El grillo, 105 Madrid, pecado mortal, 206
El tintero, 98 Olmo, Lauro, 56 n.16, 57, 99, 105, 212,
Lola, espejo oscuro, 97 214, 218
Tragicomedia del serenísimo príncipe El retablo de las maravillas y olé, 99
Don Carlos, 97–8, 218 El milagro, 99
Muñoz Seca, Pedro, 48, 53, 214 La camisa, 99
Mussolini, Benito, 78 La condecoración, 99, 218
Mussot, Luis, 49 La niña, el raterillo y la cajita de
¡No pasarán!, 49 música, 99
Myth, 1, 4, 44, 87, 117, 133, 142, 157–69, Magdalena, 99
169–71, 221, 241 Mare Nostrum S.A., 99
demystification 3, 44, 61–2, 63, 65, 92, Junio, siete stop, 99
136, 140–2, 154, 157–8, 161, 162–4, Yo, Bertolt Brecht, 99
165–69, 171, 191, 194, 222, 228, Onetti, Antonio, 220
235, 254, 256 O’Casey, Sean, 59
mystification, 124, 136, 177, 221, 224, Red Roses for Me, 59
226, 229, 236, 239, 241, 242 O’Connor, Patricia W., 55 n.13, 56 n.16,
official myth, 5, 15, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 58 n.25, 71 n.6, 72 n.7, 76 n.17, 79, 80,
87, 134, 140–2, 146, 155, 158, 159, 86, 106, 176 n.15, 185 n.32, 201, 205,
160, 161–2, 163, 167, 178, 179, 188, 223, 230, 241, 245, 252
191, 194, 198, 252 O’Neill, Carlota, 47
Biblical mythology, 162, 164 see also Al rojo, 47
Cain and Abel O’Neill, Eugene, 113 n.3
Greek mythology, 158, 162 Opus Dei, 12, 240 n.41
See also Myth under Ideology; See also Osuna, José, 75, 88, 93, 103, 104 n.79, 114,
Raza 115
Nairn, Tom, 23 Pacto de olvido, 4, 156, 217, 219–20, 221,

National Identity, 5, 19, 23, 24, 27, 51, 142, 223, 224, 234, 236, 238, 241, 248, 256
155 Pajón Mecloy, Enrique, 104
National Theatre, 48 Paniker, Salvador, 174
Nationalism, 9, 13, 20–27, 140, 158, 245 Paso, Alfonso, 83, 125–6
Nationalists, 6, 10, 17, 21, 25, 29, 30, Paso, Antonio, 47, 54
114, 146, 181, 195 Los mártires de Alcalá, 47
Nationalist-Catholic, 10, 13, 23, 24, 162–3 Pasquariello, Anthony M., 56 n.16, 106, 107
Nationalist Rising, 8 Patriotism, 29 n.63, 62, 81
Nationalist State, 9, 118 Paulino, José C., 158 n.49
326 INDEX
Payeras Grau, María, 175 See also Roman Catholic Church,

Pemán, José María, 47, 48, 51–2 n.3, 54, Roman Catholicism
106, 250 Religious tolerance, 9, 24, 25
Cisneros, 47 Renan, Ernest, 24
Pena Nalda, Julia, 105 Republic (Second), 6, 10, 12, 15, 24, 45, 46,
Pérez de la Ossa, Huberto, 77, 114 50, 118, 148, 161
Pérez Stansfield, María Pilar, 205 theatre of, 45–50, 65
Pétain, Henri-Philippe, 97 Republicans, 21, 23, 24, 27, 29, 42, 43, 54,
Piscator, Erwin, 46, 59 118, 146, 181, 237, 238
Pla y Deniel, Enrique, Bishop of Republican Zones, 30
Salamanca, 8 Responsibility see Accountability
Podol, Peter L., 162 Reyes Católicos, Los, 10, 27
Political Parties, 7, 173–4, 218, 222, 240 Riaza, Berta, 105
Pombo, Pilar, 213 Rivas Cherif, Cipriano de, 45
Poncela, Jardiel, 254 Robles Picquer, Carlos, 114
Popular Front, 48, 49 Rodríguez, Miguel Luis, 117
Pornography, 30, 88, 137, 202, 207 Rodríguez Méndez, José María, 57, 98, 141,
Posibilismo (and imposibilismo), 3, 60, 212, 214, 218
64 n.35, 65, 66, 67, 83, 96, 101, 111, Bodas que fueron famosas del Pingajo y
112–39, 142, 145, 169–71, 185, 186, la Fandanga, 98, 218
188, 190, 221, 225–33, 243, 249–57 El Ghetto, o la irresistible ascención de
Post-Franco Society, 1, 4, 38, 98, 117, 142, Manuel Contreras, 98
174, 200–20, 221, 222, 227, 228, El milagro del pan y de los peces, 98
233–48, 256 Flor de otoño: una historia del barrio
Preston, Paul, 9, 20, 27, 28 chino, 98, 218
Propaganda, 18, 20, 26, 36, 44, 52, 64, 82, Los quinquis de Madriz, 98
84, 88, 141, 153 n.37, 154, 168, 174, Vagones de Madera, 98
184, 194, 196, 198, 199, 244 see also The Caucasian Chalk Circle, 98, 101
Manipulation under Language; see also Rodríguez Sanz, Carlos, 51
Theatre of agitation propaganda Rogers, Elizabeth S., 140
Public see Spectators Roman Catholicism, 5, 7, 8, 12, 15, 27, 36,
Pueblo, in theatre, 132, 146, 147–8, 151, 37, 42, 142
153, 174–5, 179, 181, 183, 190, 192, Roman Catholic Church,
194, 225, 226, 227 and censorship, 7, 11, 12, 13–14, 30, 33,
34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 72–3, 106, 108,
Quintero, los hermanos Serafín y Joaquín 133, 195, 197, 198
(Álvarez Quintero), 46, 53 and civil war, 8–9
and education, 12, 196
Ragué Arias, María José, 158, 160, Church-state alliance, 8–14, 29, 52, 72,
214, 217 133, 146, 243–4, 256
Raza, 10, 18, 22–4, 27–29, 30, 199 Concordat, 12
Film, 29 Vatican, 9, n.8, 10, 36
Realist Generation, 55, 57–67, 109, 154, Roman Catholic Hierarchy, 8, 9, 14
158, 212, 217, 247 Ruíz Giménez, Joaquín, 36
Rebels and Rebellion, 2, 3 n.6, 42, 48, 60, Ruiz Iriarte, Victor, 54
80, 135, 136, 145, 149, 150, 152, 169, Rushdie, Salman, 109–10
172, 177, 180, 186–90, 191, 192, 193,
195, 237, 241 Said, Edward, 60, 137, 142
Reds, see Communists Sainz, Tina, 75 n.15
Religions, 9, 10, 15 Sainz de Robles, Federico Carlos, 113
Representation of in theatre, 62, 74, 80, Salom, Jaime, 214
81, 92, 96, 98, 99, 106–7, 133, 146, Salvador, Diego, 107
150–1, 152, 162–3, 178, 179, Los niños, 107
195–6 Salvat, Ricard, 104 n.78, 160, 217, 224
INDEX 327
Sánchez Bella, Alfredo, 37 Spectators, 44 n.101, 53, 61, 66, 71, 76, 77,
Sánchez Silva, José María, 29 81, 82, 96, 113, 117, 119, 120 n.19, 122,
Sanchis Sinisterra, José, 53, 214 131, 132, 135, 137, 141, 142, 148, 150,
Saña, Heleno, 42 n.95 152, 154, 156, 158, 163, 164, 176, 177,
Santo Oficio, 148, 195, 197, 198 202, 205, 212, 219, 222, 223, 250, 251,
Sartre, Jean Paul, 44, 56, 59–60, 65, 97, 252–4, 255–6
101, 253 State Apparatuses see under Ideology
Huis clos (El infierno, A puerta State of Emergency, 16, 23, 151
cerrada), 97 Steiner, George, 42, 58, 64, 66, 143, 188 n.36
Morts sans sepulture (Muertos sin Strindberg, August, 97
sepultura), 97 Creditors, 97
Sastre, Alfonso, 2, 56–7, 59, 60, 65, 66, 70, Suárez, Adolfo, 208, 216
73, 93–7, 98, 101, 102, 104–5, 109, 117, Surelia, 79, 82, 83, 153, 177, 184, 198, 199
125–30, 135, 138, 141, 207, 218, 230, Szanto, George H., 45, 52, 56, 61, 63, 137,
231, 247, 252 143, 254
Cargamento de sueños, 95
Escuadra hacia la muerte, 56, 93, 94–5 Talavera, José María, 47
El pan de todos, 73 Alma charra, 47
En la red, 96, 128, 135 Tamayo Rivas, José, 76, 79, 80, 114, 115, 252
Guillermo Tell tiene los ojos tristes, 96 Teatro Arlequin, 206
La mordaza, 96 Teatro Bellas Artes, 231 n.25
La sangre y la ceniza: Diálogos de Teatro Benavente, 203, 204
Miguel Servet, 218, 231 Teatro Candilejas, 74
Prólogo patético, 95, 96 Teatro de agitación, 48
Tierra roja, 96 Teatro de Agitación Social (TAS), 65, 93
Adaptations, 59, 97, 102 Teatro de arte y propaganda, 49
Creditors (Los acreedores), 97 Teatro de circunstancias, 49
Huis clos (El infierno, A puerta Teatro de Misiones Pedagógicas, 46
cerrada), 97 Teatro de la Zarzuela, 45, 49
Medea, 97 Teatro del pueblo, 46
Morts sans sepulture (Muertos sin Teatro en la calle, 49
sepultura), 97 Teatro Español, 45, 76, 79, 106
Red Roses for Me, 59 Teatro Igualada, 231 n.25
Science Fiction, 84, 87 Teatre Intim, 45
Schaffer, Peter, 201 Teatro Lírico Nacional, 211
Equus, 201 Teatro María Guerrero, 77, 94
Self-delusion see Madness Teatro Nacional de la Falange, 48
Sender, Ramón J., 49, 50 Teatro para el frente, 49
La llave, 50 Teatro para el pueblo, 46
Serrano, Julieta, 105 Teatro Reina Victoria, 83, 88
Serrano Suñer, Román, 30, 36, 42 Teatro Unitario de la Revolución Socialista,
Shakespeare, William, 59 207
Hamlet, 73, 76, 81, 154 Teatros Nacionales, 207
Sheehan, Robert Louis, 69 n.3, 130 n.40 Theatre,
Sloterdijk, Peter, 21 of agitation propaganda (agit-prop),
Smith, Anthony D., 10 45–50, 51, 52, 56, 64, 135, 206, 247
Social Class, 75, 173 of dialectical propaganda, 56, 61, 254
Socialism, 45, 172, 174, 239, 241, 242, of integration propaganda, 51–54, 56,
243 114, 135, 206, 249–50
Socialist, 55, 212, 216, 221 avant-garde drama, 54
Socialist literature, 30, 45 bourgeois, 46, 53, 54, 102, 109
Sollish Sikka, Linda, 139, 163, 164 classical, 119, 120, 205, 213, 214, 215
Sophocles, 122 commercial, 1, 55, 56, 69, 70, 78, 99,
Antigone, 101 101, 102, 112, 113, 114, 119, 129,
328 INDEX
137, 138, 192, 207, 231, 249–50, 160, 164, 166, 167, 168, 170, 173, 177,
252, 253 187–8, 189, 191, 192, 194, 195, 196,
erotic, 201 197, 220, 229 n.18, 230, 234, 235, 245
escapist, 46, 47, 48, 52, 53, 54, 55, 217, Tuñón de Lara, Manuel, 15, 26
250
foreign, 54, 57 n.18, 101, 214, 254 Ulysses, 158, 159–62, 166 n.49, 180, 222
Golden Age, 48, 54, 207 Unamuno, Miguel de, 47, 144, 195, 235
independent, 212, 213, 217 El otro, 47
proletarian, 45, 46 Unity, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 42, 52,
right-wing, 117, 206, 207, 214, 247 n.50 140, 142, 197
sainete, 54, 119
social realism, 1, 53, 54, 57, 84, 109 Val, Delfín, 47
zarzuela, 47, 211 Alma charra, 47
Theatre Crisis, 205 Valle-Inclán, Ramón, 46, 47, 218
Theatre Directors, 48, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, Divinas palabras, 47
83, 84, 88, 93, 103, 104 n.79, 114, 115, Los cuernos de don Friolera, 218
128, 204, 205, 252 Vázquez Montalbán, Manuel, 7 n.3, 10,
Theatre Groups, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 65, 93, n.10, 11, n.12, 28 n.60, 61, 42 n.92,
126 n.29, 128, 207 246 n.48
Theatre of Commitment, 48, 54, 55, 56–67, Vicente Mosquete, José Luis, 65 n.40,
87, 101, 119, 125, 202, 217, 218, 220, 75 n.15, 103
225, 232–3 Victims, 184–5, 186, 235, 237, 243
Theatre Organizations, 46, 48, 211 Vidal i Barraquer, Francesc, Cardinal
Theatre Prizes, 46, 55, 99, 105–7, 204, 212, Archbishop of Tarragona, 9
214, 217, 218, 219 n.62 see also Honours Villapecellin, José Martín, 47
and Awards under Franco Regime R.I. (República Inmoral), 47
Theatre Reform, 45–6, 48, 55, 93, 129, 207, Violence, 151, 175
211 in drama, 56, 71, 82, 90, 96, 97, 119,
Theatre Venues, 45, 49, 74, 76, 77, 79, 83, 134, 135, 153, 156, 159, 180, 184
84, 88, 94, 106, 201, 203, 204, 206, 207, justification of, 60, 186, 195
211, 214, 219 n.62, 231 n.25 see also morality of violence under
Therborn, Göran, 20 n.35 Morals
Torrado, Adolfo, 47, 48, 53 Viva la República (o, el ultimo traidor), 49
Torture, 60, 66, 76, 81–2, 90, 91, 97, 119, Voloshinov, Valentin, 165
123, 135, 156, 166 n.77, 167 n.81, 177,
180, 183, 184, 194, 210, 224
Trade Unions, 7, 24–5, 48, 71, 234, 243 War, 160–1, 190, 225–6 see also Civil War,
Tragedy, 1, 54, 55, 119–20, 124, 133, 135, World War II
139, 143, 156, 162, 166 n.77, 172 n.1, Weiss, Peter, 59
175, 187, 222 Williams, Raymond, 3, 5
Transition Period, 4, 200–20, 221, 222, 224, Williams, Tennessee, 113 n.3
225, 226, 227, 228, 233, 234, 235–8, World War II, 10, 17, 26, 36, 78
239, 240, 247 Writers’ Organizations, 32, 38, 45, 48–9
Truth, 5, 12, 17 n.29, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26,
27, 29, 31, 34, 37, 42, 44, 59, 66, 82, Zatlin Boring, Phyllis, 206
103, 116, 119, 122, 123, 124, 135, 136, Zorilla, José, 55
140, 141, 142, 153 n.37, 157, 159, Don Juan Tenorio, 55, 106

Catherine O'Leary - The Theatre of Antonio Buero Vallejo - Ideology, Politics and Censorship (Monografias A) (2005)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Catherine O'Leary - The Theatre of Antonio Buero Vallejo - Ideology, Politics and Censorship (Monografias A) (2005)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mono213_FM.

qxd 3/8/05 5:53 PM Page i

THE THEATRE OF ANTONIO

This monograph examines the complex relationship between Antonio

THE THEATRE OF ANTONIO

© Catherine O’Leary 2005

The right of Catherine O’Leary to be identified as

All Rights Reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation

First published 2005 by Tamesis, Woodbridge

ISBN 1 85566 111 X

Tamesis is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

O’Leary, Catherine, 1971-

This publication is printed on acid-free paper

Printed in Great Britain by

List of Plays 259

I am indebted to Dr Philip Johnston (University College, Dublin) and Prof.

Ofendería, insultaría a los conocimientos y a la inteligencia de ustedes si

Language, that most innocent and spontaneous of common currencies, is in

un arma del poder político que pretende manipular y restringir la información

Verso, 1998), pp. 54, 55.

5 Quoted in Antonio Beneyto, Censura y política en los escritores españoles (Barcelona:

Truth and Distortion

1 In this sense it is similar to Raymond Williams’s definition of hegemony: ‘It is a lived

2 Louis Althusser, ‘Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses: Notes towards an

THE IDEOLOGY OF FRANCOISM 7

ideas mientras no atente a los principios fundamentales del Estado.’4 Article 22

The Role of the Ideological State Apparatuses

4 Román Gubern, La censura: función política y ordenamiento jurídico bajo el franquismo

(1936–1975) (Barcelona: Península, 1981), p. 82.

THE IDEOLOGY OF FRANCOISM 9

as a ‘movimiento “cívico–militar” en defensa de la religión’.5 In 1937, the

Franco could be classed as what Anthony D. Smith called a neo-traditionalist

Nosotros, todos los que combatimos, cristianos y musulmanes, somos soldados

9 Anthony D. Smith, ‘The Crisis of Dual Legitimation’, in Nationalism, ed. by J. Hutchinson

THE IDEOLOGY OF FRANCOISM 11

Ahora se habla de la democracia. Nosotros, los españoles, ya la hemos

The Franco regime claimed to be defending an essential Catholic Spain from a

Se puede decir que el principio inspirador de esta Ley lo constituye la idea

dar un nuevo paso en la labor constante y cotidiana de acometer la edificación del

Franco defined Spain as a Catholic state, as opposed to the definition of the

Ley 18 marzo 1966, de Prensa e Imprenta, p. 480.

por el Estatuto jurídico del gobierno provisional la separación de la Iglesia y el Estado, el

THE IDEOLOGY OF FRANCOISM 13

Authority, therefore, is to be respected and loved, not only because it comes,

CALOMARDE He mandado cerrar todas las Universidades. No eran más que

Another important ideological state apparatus was the educational system.

Arias Salgado, Política española, pp. 190–1.

Co., 1952), p. 24.

THE IDEOLOGY OF FRANCOISM 15

indoctrination of future generations. Its significance changed from the late

La escalada del desorden universitario culminó en las últimas jornadas en

1939–1975’, in Spain in Crisis, pp. 183–211 (p. 184).

THE IDEOLOGY OF FRANCOISM 17

27 From the ‘Normas Generales confeccionadas por la Delegación Provincial de Huesca

para las Delegaciones Comarcales dependientes de la misma regulando sus actividades

Frente a la media docena de revistillas independientes (y escasamente leídas)

By mid-July 1939, censorship had extended to theatre, cinema, public speaking,

Manufacturing Consent: The Mythology of the Raza

THE IDEOLOGY OF FRANCOISM 19

by the regime’s propagandists and mythmakers as an overwhelming demonstration

explained by the regime as the result of ‘voters in transit’. Franco, p. 730.