126.

1  ]

theories  and ​
methodologies

Thine and Mine: The

Spanish “Golden
Age” and Early
Don Quixote, having shared the goatherds’ rustic meal on his
second sally, takes up a handful of acorns and launches into
Modern Studies
his lecture on the Golden Age: “Dichosa edad y siglos dichosos
aquellos a quien los antiguos pusieron nombre de dorados, y no
porque en ellos el oro, que en esta nuestra edad de hierro tanto se margaret r. greer
estima, se alcanzase en aquella venturosa sin fatiga alguna, sino
porque entonces los que en ella vivían ignoraban estas dos palabras
de tuyo y mío” ‘Blessed the time, and blessed the centuries, called by
the ancients the Golden Age—and not because, then, the gold which
we in our age of iron so value came to men’s hands without effort,
but because those who walked the earth in that time knew nothing
of those two words, thine and mine.’1 Bewildering as his harangue
was for the listening goatherds, Don Quixote’s introduction invites
consideration of the location, ownership, and definition of the Span-
ish “Golden Age.” These aspects illuminate the challenge the period
presents to early modern studies and vice versa.

Location
There is, strictly speaking, no way to locate the classical Golden Age
in time and space. The mythical age of original human innocence that
Don Quixote lauds, an inheritance passed from Hesiod, Ovid, Vergil,
Seneca, and Boethius to the European Renaissance, was a nostalgic
ideal imagined to have existed in some other, better time and place.
This golden age was an ingredient in the writings of Spanish human-
ists like Juan Luis Vives, in the moralizing chronicles of Antonio de Margaret R. Greeris professor of Span-
Guevara, and in the Jesuit historian Juan de Mariana’s philosophy of ish in the Department of Romance Studies
history (Maravall 132–33). Its natural literary habitat was the pasto- at Duke University, where she has a sec-
ondary appointment in the Department
ral romance, the genre of Cervantes’s first novel, La Galatea (1585),
of Theater Studies. Her principal current
which, like Philip Sidney’s Arcadia (1590), seeks to inject realism in
projects are a book on early modern
the discourse of idealized shepherd-­lovers. Cervantes insisted until his Spanish tragedy and Manos teatrales, a col-
death that he would write a second part of it to complete their story. laborative, Web-published database dedi-
The discovery of America and of its indigenous people lent a cated to early modern Spanish theatrical
new cogency to the concept of a prehistoric golden age. Historians manuscripts (www.manosteatrales.org).

[  © 2011 by the moder n language association of america  ] 217

 218 Thine and Mine: The Spanish “Golden Age” and Early Modern Studies
and chroniclers writing from and about the
theories  and  methodologies
Indies, from Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo,
Bartolomé de Las Casas, and José de Acosta to
the Inca Garcilaso de la Vega and the Merced-
erian friar Martín de Murúa, painted the early
stage of America’s native peoples as one of a
“golden, primeval happiness” (Maravall 133).
That discovery also gave a new consistency to
a forward-­looking face of the Golden Age, as
a model for a reconstructed ideal society like
that envisioned in Thomas More’s Utopia.
More’s intent may have been a satirical critique
of the corruption of his own society rather
than a viable construct, but some Spanish re-
formers took it seriously; Vasco de Quiroga,
the first bishop of Michoacán, Mexico, took
More’s Utopia as his model for the indigenous
hospital towns he established in Michoacán
and elsewhere in Mexico (Serrano Gassent).
Cervantes, whose attempt to secure a post in
America and approval to emigrate to the New
World failed, never wrote that continuation
of La Galatea; instead, argues José Maravall,
he crafted the Quixote as an ironic “counter­
utopia” to banish the dream of (re)‌creating a
golden age in an “iron age.” The first challenge
the Spanish Golden Age presents early mod-
ern studies, then, is dealing with the formu-
lation of that dream and the obstacles to its
realization on either side of the Atlantic.
Since the 1992 quincentennial com-
memoration of the Old World–New World
encounter, such a transatlantic view has
gained adherents, among historians as well
as scholars and students of literary and art
historical studies, as Gauvin Alexander Bai-
ley, Carla Rahn Philipps, and Lisa Voigt’s
review of recent work demonstrates. Pedro
Lasch staged an effective artistic approach in
his installation Black Mirror / Espejo negro, in
dialogue with the 2008 exhibition El Greco to
Velázquez: Art during the Reign of Philip III
at Duke University’s Nasher Museum of Art
(Schroth and Baer). He organized it around a
beautiful obsidian mirror that evokes “Smok-
ing Mirror,” as the Aztec god Tezcatlipoca
[  P M L A
was called, and mirrors that were used in
ritual for divining the past and the future and
for speaking with the dead.2 Around the mir-
ror sat a series of pre-­Columbian figures, each
in front of its own black mirror, back turned
to approaching viewers, as if ignoring their
view. But as visitors drew nearer, the figures’
faces appeared in the mirrors, more captivat-
ing in that luminous, two-­d imensional self-
­regarding than in a standard museum display.
Drawing closer yet, visitors saw the shadowy
image of a thematically related Spanish paint-
ing in the reflecting glass, and then, standing
by the pre-­Columbian figures, they discovered
their own images too, reflected back at them.
Viewers reacted diversely. Some complained
that the Spanish paintings were too shadowy,
perhaps seeking familiar grounding in the Eu-
ropean side of the dialogue. Others reported
discomfort with seeing their own gaze in the
mirrors. Visiting the exhibit revealed dramat-
ically how hard it is, as Foucault, Lacan, and
Agamben point out, to see oneself seeing the
other, how evanescent is the illusion of mak-
ing an imaginative leap to join the other at the
point from which that other might see me, my
gaze, the biases of my worldview.
Ownership
As Don Quixote said, his age was obsessed
with the words thine and mine; it was truly
an age of gold in its global pursuit of wealth
in precious metals, spices, pearls, and power
over the lands and peoples that possessed
them.3 Because Spain took an early lead in the
competition for empire and for the wealth to
be acquired in the capitalistic exploitation of
the newly “discovered” lands, it also drew the
lion’s share of condemnation for that exploi-
tation. Key voices in the condemnation were
Spanish, from Antonio de Montesinos’s 1511
sermon denouncing the encomienda system
and the conquerors’ oppression of the Taino
peoples in Santo Domingo (Las Casas xx–xxii)
to Las Casas’s impassioned 1552 Destrucción
126.1   ] Margaret R. Greer
de las Indias (“Destruction of the Indies”),
repeatedly translated into French, Dutch, and
En­glish beginning in 1578. Thus, Spain’s self-
­critique fueled the development of what would
come to be known as the Black Legend, the
accusations of uniquely Spanish perfidy.4
Eric Griffin argues persuasively, how-
ever, that the abundant anti-­Spanish mate-
rials published in En­g land following Spain’s
1580 annexation of Portugal and the Armada
crisis served En­g lish national and imperial
objectives and appeared with the approval
of the Crown and support of Elizabethan
elites. Hispanophobic pamphlets, says Grif-
fin, “projected upon the people of Iberia by
competitor states that lagged nearly a century
behind them in the era of European colonial
expansion . . . often worked to provide a mor-
alistic smokescreen behind which imperial
rivals of a quite similar temper could oper-
ate with relative impunity. This was certainly
the case for the En­glish” (19). Barbara Fuchs
suggests that critics should move beyond na-
tional boundaries in an approach she calls
“imperium studies,” using the polysemy of
imperium to indicate both internal control
and external expansion. This would better re-
flect the “cultural mimesis” whereby emerg-
ing nation-­states drew on a shared European
heritage and on repeated confrontations with
Islam as they constructed their imperial ide-
ologies. The Spanish Hapsburgs were the first
monarchy to pursue those external and inter-
nal drives simultaneously, but other emerging
nation-­states with imperial ambitions would
follow (“Imperium Studies” and Mimesis 1–7).
The gold and silver from New Spain and Peru
that first seemed to Spaniards to be proof of
God’s providential design for their Catholic
monarchy would, however, prove a long-­r un
liability. As inf lation took effect, a poorly
understood credit economy grew up, and
nascent Spanish industries dissolved. That
wealth flowed through Spain only en route to
other European coffers provoked consterna-
tion and frustration among its scholastic and
219
mercantilist thinkers and a crisis of faith in
t h e o r i e s   a n d  m e t h o d o l o g i e s
monetary and social values, as Elvira Vilches
documents in New World Gold.
Two other major issues for early modern
studies that are best illuminated transnation-
ally are religious difference and the emergence
of modern, color-­coded racism, which inter-
twined with European empire building and
colonization with devastating results. The dis-
courses of religio-­racial difference stretch back
far before the early modern era. Geraldine
Heng locates in the twelfth century an emerg-
ing grammar of religio-­racial classification
and “national” identity formation in Geof-
frey de Monmouth’s first formulation of the
legend of King Arthur of En­g land. Geoffrey
transforms a painful memory of Christian
cannibalism in the first Crusade, medieval
Europe’s initial transnational imperial proj-
ect, into a fantastic tale of two anthropopha-
gus giants from Hispania, thus distancing that
cannibalism from En­gland by projecting it on
a Muslim Iberia (5, 68). En­g land and France
expelled the Jews at the end of the thirteenth
century, well before Spain, but religio-­racial
discrimination in Spain cut wide and deep in
the medieval–early modern transition. At the
same time that Iberian kingdoms sought to
consolidate their unity by defeating, forcibly
converting, or expelling non-­Christians, their
European neighbors could point to Spain’s
historically large Muslim and Jewish popula-
tions to orientalize Spain.
Early definitions of race are genealogi-
cal: raza in the 1611 Covarrubias dictionary
is first defined as a breed of thoroughbred
horses, and the OED cites two sixteenth-
­century En­g lish usages parallel to Covarru-
bias’s, followed by the word’s application to
a group of people of common descent, from
a house to a tribe, nation, or people. But Co­
var­ru­bias, in citing this use, gives it a religio-
­ethnic slant: “Raza, en los linajes se toma en
mala parte, como tener alguna raza de moro
o judío” ‘Race in (human) lineages is under-
stood pejoratively, as having some Moorish
 220 Thine and Mine: The Spanish “Golden Age” and Early Modern Studies
or Jewish race’ (my trans.). As Protestant-
theories  and  methodologies
­Catholic conflict in Europe increased, similar
blood-­impurity definitions would be used to
condemn Spain. William of Orange, in the
impassioned Apology of 1580 with which he
denounced Philip II’s tyrannous denial of re-
ligious liberty and the right to secede to the
Dutch Protestants, also painted the Spanish
majority pejoratively as being of Moorish and
Jewish blood. Thus, he moved from denounc-
ing the atrocities visited on his people by the
duke of Alba to denouncing Iberian cultures
as religiously and racially corrupt (Griffin 46–
47). In the wake of the Armada crisis, En­gland
was flooded with similar ethnically loaded
typologies of Spanish and Catholic depravity,
with the approval of a Protestant ruling class
that was not unlike the Hapsburg monarchy
in pursuing religious uniformity as impor-
tant to national unity (42, 48). Translated into
popular drama by dramatists ranging from
hacks to Marlowe, Webster, and Shakespeare,
the fictive ethnicity attributed to Spain be-
came a successful propaganda campaign, in
both the short and the long run (10).5
Medieval formulations in Europe of a ra-
cialized religious difference among Christians,
Jews, and Muslims mutated into the color-
­coded racism of the modern era through a
conjunction of three primary factors: (1) early
modern European expansion in Africa, (2) the
conquest of the indigenous populations of the
Americas and their exploitation as virtual
slave labor or their displacement, and (3) the
transformation of the practice of slavery,
widely used in ancient societies, by the hugely
profitable transatlantic slave trade (Greer, Mi­
gnolo, and Quilligan, Introduction 2). The
economic motor driving that trade was plan-
tation agriculture, first of sugar, initiated in
the Portuguese and Spanish Atlantic islands,
Ma­deira and the Canaries, then massively de-
veloped in Brazil and the Caribbean by Portu-
gal, Spain, and France (Phillips 152–53). The
Portuguese led the slave trade before 1650,
but by 1700 the British dominated it (Eltis
[  P M L A
1–40). Scholars debate how rapidly the muta-
tion from religious to color-­coded racism oc-
curred. Emily Bartels notes the difficulty of
balancing color prejudice against economic
considerations and the war between En­gland
and Spain as motivations for Elizabeth’s or-
ders between 1596 and 1601 to deport certain
“Ne­g ars and Blackamoors” from En­g land
(100–17). In 1747, however, British and French
military commanders negotiating in New
York said that “every negro is a slave wherever
he happens to be” and should be confiscated as
merchandise rather than exchanged as a pris-
oner (Eltis 17). Cervantes, who had suffered
five years of slavery in Algiers, ironized that
mercantile racism through Sancho’s words.
Contemplating the possibility that he might
rule over black subjects should Don Quixote
marry Princess Micomicona, Sancho vows to
turn black into gold and silver: “¿Qué se me da
a mí que mis vasallos sean negros? ¿Habrá más
que cargar con ellos y traerlos a España, donde
los podré vender y adonde me los pagarán de
con­tado, de cuyo dinero podré comprar algún
tí­tulo o algún oficio con que vivir descansado
to­dos los días de mi vida? . . . que por negros
que sean, los he de volver blancos o amaril-
los” ‘What difference does it make to me if my
subjects are black? Do I have to do any more
than load them up and bring them to Spain,
where I can sell them and get paid in cash, and
then I can use that money to buy myself a title
or some post that’ll support me happily ever
after? . . . maybe they’re black, but I’ll turn ’em
into silver and gold!’ (340; 346; pt. 1, ch. 29).
Cer­van­tes thus shows us how Don Quixote’s
ideal golden age has degenerated into one of
iron, in which even Sancho thinks in terms
of “thine” and “mine” and dreams of turning
human beings into silver and gold.
Definitions
As new-­h istoricist and cultural studies ap-
proaches to literature have prospered, usage
of the label Golden Age or Siglo de Oro has de-
126.1   ] Margaret R. Greer
clined in favor of early modern, at least among
Anglo-­American Hispanists. In Spain the term
de la primera modernidad, equivalent to early
modern, is felt to be linguistically awkward and
less appropriate for literary scholars than histo-
rians. Whether we choose Golden Age or early
modern, our view should include both the Re-
naissance incorporation of Italian literary mod-
els and the baroque development of a uniquely
Spanish response (Robbins; see also Parr).
The term golden age only began to be ap-
plied to the literary and artistic production of
that era in the latter half of the eighteenth cen-
tury. Like the classical dream of an innocent
golden age, it was a nostalgic formulation, by an
emerging critical tradition, for a time gone by.
The initial corpus of works only gradually ex-
panded to include those it usually encompasses
today. The story of this limitation and expan-
sion demonstrates the importance of consider-
ing how changes in global power and aesthetic
modes affect our literary canons and histories.
Golden age was first applied to Spanish
Renaissance poetry. During the Bourbon
regime, when French influence and neoclas-
sic aesthetics were in ascendance, Luis José
Velázquez introduced it in his 1754 Origenes
de la poesía castellana (Rozas, unit 19, 1).
Comparing the development of Spanish po-
etry to the four ages of man, he set its matu-
rity between the reign of Charles I (1506–56)
and Philip IV (1621–65) and, contradictorily,
limited it to the sixteenth century. Along with
Juan Boscán and Garcilaso de la Vega, who
are regularly considered the starting point of
Golden Age poetry, Velázquez named Diego
de Mendoza, Gutierre de Cetina, Fray Luis
de León, Fernando de Herrera, and other
sixteenth-­c entury poets but not Lope de
Vega or San Juan de la Cruz; he specifically
excluded Francisco de Quevedo and Luis de
Góngora and other baroque poets of their
conceptista and culterana “sects,” which he
considered the poetic equivalent of heresy.
He says, “[F]‌ue el siglo de oro de la poesía
castellana” ‘It was the golden age of Castilian
221
poetry,’ in which “se leían, se imitaban y se
t h e o r i e s   a n d  m e t h o d o l o g i e s
traducían los mejores originales Griegos y La-
tinos, y los grandes maestros del arte Aristóte-
les y Horacio lo eran asimismo de toda la
nación” ‘the best Greek and Latin originals
were read, imitated, and translated, and the
great teachers of the art, Aristotle and Horace,
were also those of the whole nation’ (58–59;
my trans.). As Boscán defends his introduc-
tion of the new Italianate style of poetry by
tracing its pedigree back from Dante and Pe-
trarch to Latin and Greek hendecasyllables, so
the Enlightenment statesman Gaspar Melchor
de Jovellanos praised the “golden sixteenth
century,” in which Spanish poets imitated and
often equaled those Italy had produced in the
ages of Horace and Vergil and of Petrarch and
Tasso.6 Once Baldassare Castiglione’s courtier
had provided the discursive and ethical model
for the courtly subject that replaced medieval
chivalry and the feudal knight, Garcilaso and
fellow poets shaped the Spanish language and
the Petrarchan sonnet to voice the rising im-
perial subject (Helgerson; Middlebrook).
Although Lope, Góngora, and Quevedo
earned widespread popularity and imitation in
their own era, eighteenth-­century neoclassic
aesthetics only admitted Góngora’s simplest
verse and also discounted late-­s ixteenth-
and seventeenth-­century epic poetry (Rozas,
unit  19, 3–7). Nevertheless, Gón­gora and
Bal­ta­sar Gra­cián’s baroque aesthetics served
the cultural and courtly political elite of
seventeenth-­century Spain (Beverley, Against
Literature 47–65), and gongorismo and the ba-
roque mode found enduringly fertile soil in
Spain’s American colonies, becoming an aes-
thetically dominant colonial discourse.7 Yet
not until the generation of 1927 would their
poetics regain wide appreciation.
The path by which certain prose writers
and genres came to be included in the canon
of Golden Age literature—chroniclers of the
Indies from Columbus and Hernán Cortés to
the Inca Garcilaso de la Vega and Bernal Díaz,
Cervantes, picaresque fiction, Teresa of Ávila
 222 Thine and Mine: The Spanish “Golden Age” and Early Modern Studies
and other mystics, Gracián, Sor Juana Inés de
theories  and  methodologies
la Cruz and María de Zayas—is too complex
to trace here. Rapid translation and imitation
in other languages, particularly French and
En­g lish, played a part in their acceptance as
classics, as did editing practices that helped fit
those authors to shifting aesthetic tastes and
emerging publics.8
The history of the canonization of Golden
Age drama was less convoluted than that of
prose but today presents a larger challenge for
early modern studies, I believe. Like Spanish
poetry, Spanish theater was originally inter­
twined with Italian models, in its early theori­
zation, the emergence of court drama, and the
influence of the traveling commedia dell’arte
troupes. By the time its formative genius Lope
de Vega declared that he had locked away the
theorists with Terence and Plautus and wrote
for his paying public, however, Spanish theater
had found its own voice and a cultural central­
ity equaled only by Athenian and Elizabethan
theater. Like those great traditions, it played
to a broad public, literate and unlettered,
explaining the culture to itself and shaping
it in so doing. From the 1570s on, scores of
dramatists wrote nearly ten thousand plays
for a dense network of corrales (public the­
aters) throughout the peninsula and in the far
reaches of the empire. Translated to other lan­
guages, it influenced their theater and prose,
most famously in provoking the querelle du
Cid and the new French Academy’s imposi­
tion of classical rules for drama. Enlighten­
ment critics, in Spain as elsewhere in Europe,
either banished Spanish baroque drama or
reshaped it to suit their demands for the uni­
ties and separation of tragedy and comedy.
The Romantic movement, however, brought
renewed appreciation of Golden Age theater,
particularly in Germany.9 Adolf Friedrich
von Schack opened his multivolume history
(1845–46) of what he called “el teatro más
rico y brillante de Europa” ‘the richest and
most brilliant theater of Europe’ by noting
that “muchos dramas muy célebres italianos,
[  P M L A
ingleses y especialmente franceses, son imita­
ciones totales o parciales de otros españoles”
‘many very famous Italian, En­glish, and espe­
cially French dramas are partial or complete
imitations of Spanish ones’ and extended its
“Edad de Oro” from 1590 to the beginning of
the eighteenth century (31; my trans.).
Schack ’s judgment notwithstanding,
much needs to be done to restore that drama
to the place it merits in early modern Euro­
pean literary history and on the contemporary
stage. It has not had the continuous perfor­
mance tradition that has enabled Elizabethan
theater to maintain a public educated in the
conventions of verse drama; once classical
drama in Spain was banished from the boards
by Enlightenment ideals, attempts to revive it
were sporadic and often troubled by political
divisions, well past the death of Franco. Major
gains have been made since the 1980s, how­
ever, including the establishment of the Com­
pañía Nacional de Teatro Clásico and regular
theater festivals and progress toward pub­
lication of good complete editions of all the
major dramatists. To multiply in other lands
and languages the recent success of Golden
Age plays in Spain, many more good, actable
translations are needed (Paun de García and
Larson). Equally great is the need for com­
parative interpretative work. For despite the
inviting parallels of early modern En­glish and
Spanish theater, a tendency to view historical
events and cultural productions ethnocentri­
cally has too generally prevailed on both sides
of the En­glish Channel (Cruz xviii). The rela­
tively small corpus of Elizabethan drama has
been intensely studied from a great variety
of theoretical approaches; the immense cor­
pus of early modern Spanish drama offers a
treasure trove for scholars, but its size makes
theoretical generalization problematic.
In sum, the challenges of the Spanish
Golden Age for early modern studies are
large, too vast to take on without collabora­
tion across disciplines and national bound­
126.1   ] Margaret R. Greer
aries. It is time to grow past the age of “mine”
and “thine,” to shake off the lingering habits of
Black Legend thinking and cultural isolation­
ism; we have much to learn from one another.
Notes
I am grateful to Laura Bass, Eric Griffin, and Elizabeth
Wright for their help in improving a draft of this essay.
1. Cervantes, Don Quijote de la Mancha 121; Don Qui­
jote 59; pt. 1, ch. 11.
2. Fuentes eloquently explores Latin America’s past
and present through this mirror.
3. Oviedo’s La Edad del Oro is a richly illustrated ac­
count of that pursuit in the conquest of Peru.
4. On the Black Legend, see Maltby; García Carcel; De­
Guz­mán; and Greer, Mignolo, and Quilligan, Rereading.
5. On Spain’s own ambivalence regarding its Moorish
heritage, see Fuchs, Exotic Nation.
6. Rozas, unit 19, 3; my trans. Navarrete, however,
views Petrarchism as a double-­edged sword.
7. Beverley, “Barroco.” For arguments that the ba­
roque remains a defining Latin American mode, see
Gon­zález Echevarría; Zamora.
8. For suggestive starting points in En­glish, see Dunn;
Rhodes; Schmidt; and Sieber.
9. Sullivan gives a detailed account centered on Pedro
Cal­de­rón de la Barca.
Works Cited
Bailey, Gauvin Alexander, Carla Rahn Philipps, and Lisa
Voigt. “Spain and Spanish America in the Early Mod­
ern Atlantic World: Current Trends in Scholarship.”
Renaissance Quarterly 62.1 (2009): 1–60. Print.
Bartels, Emily C. Speaking of the Moor: From Alcazar
to Othello. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2008.
Print.
Beverley, John. Against Literature. Minneapolis: U of
Min­ne­sota P, 1993. Print.
———. “Barroco de estado: Góngora y el gongorismo.” Del
Lazarillo al Sandinismo. Estudios sobre la función ide­
o­ló­gica de la literatura española e hispanoamericana.
Min­ne­a­po­lis: Prisma Inst., 1987. 77–97. Print.
Boscán, Juan. Preface. Las obras de Boscan y algunas de
Gar­ci­lasso de la Vega repartidas en quatro libros. Bar­
celona: Amoros, 1543. 19r–22v. Print.
Cervantes, Miguel de. Don Quijote. Trans. Burton Raffel.
Ed. Diana de Armas Wilson. New York: Norton, 1999.
Print.
223
———. Don Quijote de la Mancha. Francisco Rico, gen.
t h e o r i e s   a n d  m e t h o d o l o g i e s
ed. Vol. 1. Barcelona: Instituto Cervantes & Crítica,
1998. Print. 2 vols.
Cruz, Anne J. “Crossing the Channel.” Introduction.
Material and Symbolic Circulation between Spain and
En­gland, 1554–1604. Ed. Cruz. Burlington: Ashgate,
2008. xvii–xxvii. Print.
DeGuzmán, María. Spain’s Long Shadow: The Black Leg­
end, Off-­W hiteness, and Anglo-­A merican Empire.
Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2005. Print.
Dunn, Peter N. Spanish Picaresque Fiction: A New Liter­
ary History. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1993. Print.
Eltis, David. The Rise of African Slavery in the Americas.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000. Print.
Fuchs, Barbara. Exotic Nation: Maurophilia and the Con­
struction of Early Modern Spain. Philadelphia: U of
Pennsylvania P, 2009. Print.
———. “Imperium Studies: Theorizing Early Modern
Expansion.” Postcolonial Moves: Medieval through
Modern. Ed. Patricia Clare Ingham and Michelle R.
Warren. New York: Palgrave, 2003. 71–90. Print.
———. Mimesis and Empire: The New World, Islam, and
European Identities. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,
2001. Print.
Fuentes, Carlos. El espejo enterrado. Mexico City: Fondo
de Cultura Económica, 1992. Print. Trans. as The Bur­
ied Mirror: Reflections on Spain and the New World.
Boston: Houghton, 1992.
García Carcel, Ricardo. La leyenda negra: Historia y opi­
nion. Madrid: Alianza, 1992. Print.
González Echevarría, Roberto. Celestina’s Brood: Conti­
nuities of the Baroque in Spanish and Latin American
Literature. Durham: Duke UP, 1993. Print.
Greer, Margaret R., Walter D. Mignolo, and Maureen
Quilligan. Introduction. Greer, Mignolo, and Quil­
ligan, Rereading 1–24.
———. Rereading the Black Legend: The Discourses of Re­
ligious and Racial Difference in the Renaissance Em­
pires. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2007. Print.
Griffin, Eric. En­glish Renaissance Drama and the Specter of
Spain. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2009. Print.
Helgerson, Richard. A Sonnet from Carthage: Garcilaso de
la Vega and the New Poetry of Sixteenth-­Century Eu­
rope. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2007. Print.
Heng, Geraldine. Empire of Magic: Medieval Romance
and the Politics of Cultural Fantasy. New York: Co­
lumbia UP, 2003. Print.
Las Casas, Bartolomé de. An Account, Much Abbrevi­
ated, of the Destruction of the Indies. Ed. Franklin W.
Knight. Trans. Andrew W. Hurley. Indianapolis:
Hackett, 2003. Print.
Lasch, Pedro, ed. Black Mirror / Espejo negro. Durham:
Duke UP, 2010. Print.
Maltby, William S. The Black Legend in En­g land: The
Development of Anti-­Spanish Sentiment, 1558–1600.
Durham: Duke UP, 1971. Print.
 224 Thine and Mine: The Spanish “Golden Age” and Early Modern Studies
Maravall, José Antonio. Utopia and Counterutopia in
theories  and  methodologies
the Quixote. Trans. Robert W. Felkel. Detroit: Wayne
State UP, 1991. Print.
Middlebrook, Leah. Imperial Lyric: New Poetry and New
Subjects in Early Modern Spain. University Park:
Pennsylvania State UP, 2009. Print.
Navarrete, Ignacio Enrique. Orphans of Petrarch: Poetry
and Theory in the Spanish Renaissance. Berkeley: U of
California P, 1994. Print.
Oviedo, José Miguel. La Edad del Oro: Crónicas y testi­
monios de la conquista del Perú. Barcelona: Tusquets;
Círculo de Lectores, 1986. Print.
Parr, James A. “A Modest Proposal: That We Use Alter-
natives to Borrowing (Renaissance, Baroque, Golden
Age) and Leveling (Early Modern) in Periodization.”
Hispania 84.3 (2001): 406–16. Print.
Paun de García, Susan, and Donald R. Larson. The Come-
dia in En­g lish Translation and Performance. Wood-
bridge: Tamesis, 2008. Print.
Phillips, William D., Jr. Slavery from Roman Times to the
Early Transatlantic Trade. Manchester: Manchester
UP, 1985. Print.
“Race.” Oxford En­glish Dictionary Online. 2nd ed. Oxford
UP, 2009. Web. 15 Mar. 2010.
“Raza.” Tesoro de la lengua castellana o española. By
Se­bas­t ián de Covarrubias Orozco. Madrid: Turner,
1984. Print.
Rhodes, Elizabeth. “Mysticism in History: The Case of
Spain’s Golden Age.” Approaches to Teaching Teresa
of Ávila and the Spanish Mystics. Ed. Alison Weber.
New York: MLA, 2009. 47–56. Print.
Robbins, Jeremy. “Renaissance and Baroque: Continuity
and Transformation in Early Modern Spain.” The Cam­
bridge History of Spanish Literature. Ed. David T. Gies.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004. 137–48. Print.
[  P M L A
Rozas, Juan Manuel. “El Siglo de Oro. El teatro en tiem-
pos de Lope de Vega.” Historia de literatura de la edad
me­dia y siglo de oro. By Miguel Angel Pérez Priego,
José Rico Verdú, and Rozas. 4th ed. Madrid: U Nacio-
nal de Educación a Distancia, 1989. 361–93. Print.
Schack, Adolf Friedrich von. Historia de la literatura y del
arte dramático en España. Trans. Eduardo de Mier.
Vol. 1. Madrid: Imprenta y Fundición de M. Tello,
1885. Print. 5 vols. Trans. of Geschichte der dra­ma­ti­
schen Literatur und Kunst in Spanien. 5 vols. Berlin:
Dun­ker und Humboldt, 1845–46.
Schmidt, Rachel. Critical Images: The Canonization of Don
Quixote through Illustrated Editions of the Eighteenth
Century. Montreal: McGill-­Queen’s UP, 1999. Print.
Schroth, Sarah, and Ronnie Baer, eds. El Greco to Ve­láz­
quez: Art during the Reign of Philip III. Boston: MFA,
2008. Print.
Serrano Gassent, Paz, ed. Vasco de Quiroga. La Utopía en
América. Madrid: Historia 16, 1992. Print.
Sieber, Harry. “Literary Continuity, Social Order, and
the Invention of the Picaresque.” Cultural Author­
ity in Golden Age Spain. Ed. Marina S. Brownlee and
Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
UP, 1995. 143–64. Print.
Sullivan, Henry W. Calderón in the German Lands and
the Low Countries: His Reception and Influence, 1654–
1980. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983. Print.
Velázquez, Luis José. Orígenes de la poesía castellana. 2nd
ed. Málaga: F. Martínez de Aguilar, 1797. Print.
Vilches, Elvira. New World Gold: Cultural Anxiety and
Monetary Disorder in Early Modern Spain. Chicago:
U of Chicago P, 2010. Print.
Zamora, Lois Parkinson. The Inordinate Eye: New World
Baroque and Latin American Fiction. Chicago: U of
Chicago P, 2006. Print.