[In the following essay, Hesse examines the possibility that the characters Don Juan and Catalinon in de Molina's El burlador de Sevilla may represent a single psychological entity.]

Some years ago Otto Rank studied the psychological interdependence of master and servant in Mozart's opera Don Giovanni.¹ He views the Don and his servant Leporello as a single psychological entity. In his role as confidant, companion and servant, Leporello makes all kinds of admonitions which Don Giovanni permits because he has need of him. What Rank has done for an understanding of the relationship between Don Giovanni and Leporello has prompted me to investigate whether a similar relationship exists between Don Juan and Catalinón in Tirso's El burlador de Sevilla.

Don Juan and Catalinón may be regarded as characters completely distinct one from the other as separate individuals (like Don Quijote and Sancho), or they may be considered from a psychoanalytic perspective as complementary parts of a unified whole. That is, they resemble two projections of the same human personage seen as two because they are out of focus, much like what happens when one looks through the lens of a camera and sees two images, images that have not been brought into focus as one. This concept is not made explicit by the author but is implied in the way each character reacts on the other. This reduction of two characters into one is therefore to be considered latent rather than manifest.

Don Juan represents the id, the instinctual, appetitive nature of man. Catalinón stands for the superego in both of its principal capacities, that of a censoring conscience dictating abstinence and the idealistic ego which imposes honorable duties and noble standards of conduct.² Don Juan and Catalinón thus may and do quarrel; in fact Don Juan strikes his servant across the mouth for his moralizing but nothing can undo the tie that binds them together. The burlador as protagonist, or as agonist, thus has his double in the person of the play's gracioso. As is conventional in the comedia, the gracioso is a subordinate character in some way attached to the protagonist as friend or attendant, one whose function it is, as a kind of double, to play a portion of the composite role of the protagonist. This role as double is, during the more serious conflicts, that of an ironical buffoon.

It is recalled that an oft-observed phenomenon of literature is its depiction of endopsychic conflict as of an interpersonal nature; the seemingly separate characters represent psychological forces at odds. There is apparent a kind of defense mechanism by which an individual separates a part of the self from that which he wishes to escape. Don Juan's refusal to accept an indivisible oneness of his personality may be a part of his attempt to flee that aspect of it that fears the consequences of his being caught and thereby of terminating his pleasure. This is part of the self in Don Juan which he finds detestable in Catalinón and which he tries to exclude from his own personality.

As Gerald E. Wade has pointed out in his edition of the play, the exact meaning of the name Catalinón has eluded commentators.³ It seems to connote a person lacking in courage, a fearful individual, a timid soul. It is an attribute which Don Juan detests, especially when Catalinón's warnings and advice would interfere with the master's pleasure. This gives rise to Don Juan's well-known response, “¡Qué largo me lo fiáis!” (905). Don Juan implies that he has no fear of carrying out his plan to seduce women because of his “condición,” and concludes that “Catalinón con razón / te llaman” (906-7). Catalinón timidly consents to his master's profligacy, but as for himself, “… en burlar mujeres / quiero ser Catalinón” (908-9).

Throughout El burlador de Sevilla one gets an impression of Don Juan's valor. Don Gonzalo too notices it, “valiente estás“ (2709), at a point near the crisis. But a closer scrutiny reveals that Don Juan's valor is merely a façade behind which lurks an inner fear common to all humankind. It is the manifestation of a defiance that essays an important role in compensating for that fear which seems almost indiscernible in the early part of the play but which becomes more evident in the latter reaches of the work. If Don Juan is as brave as he claims to be, then why does he refuse to identify himself in the first seduction? In reply to Isabela's query, “¿… quién eres, hombre?” he conceals his identity behind the mask of sexual anonymity, “¿Quién soy? Un hombre sin nombre” (14-15). Is it not fear which makes him respond in kind to the king's request for his identity? “… Quién ha de ser? / Un hombre y una mujer” (22-23). Another instance of his fear occurs as he again seeks refuge behind the mask of anonymity when Don Juan forbids Catalinón to disclose his identity to Tisbea, “Si te pregunta quién soy, / di que no sabes …” (681-2).

Fear is an unpleasant and often strong emotion caused by anticipation or awareness of danger. It implies anxiety and usually a loss of courage. The basic split in Don Juan's personality is caused by the desire to hide his fear and appear as a fearless and bold person contemptuous of danger. Before exploring the opposing self, let us consider some other factors.

Don Juan also suffers from a fragmented personality. There is a certain narcissistic tendency in his boasting, “… caballero soy” (42). As a caballero, he promises to keep his word and accepts the statue's invitation to supper (2442-4, 2458-9, 2669). Catalinón tags his master as “el burlador de España” (1488) to which Don Juan replies, “tú me has dado gentil nombre” (1489), probably because it titillates his ego.

Then there is a lack of sincerity in his false humility when he kneels before his uncle and surrenders his sword (102). Also, his confession of guilt, while true, serves to screen his hypocrisy (111). He adds an element of truth to convince Don Pedro of his contriteness when he confesses his seduction of Isabela by having posed as the Duke Octavio (71). Again, he masquerades as a repentant sinner asking for forgiveness on the pretext of his youth and reminding his uncle of his own youthful adventures (61-4). Don Juan's true feelings contradict his outward display of repentance and are found in the asides (115, 119-120).

Another element of his personality is his desire for power which in the play seems to be related to feelings of status and dominance. The male heterosexual, being under the influence of sexual-identity images, as we have observed above, is preoccupied with the opposite sex as a ‘sexual object’ to be dominated. Since Don Juan sees the other only in a generic context of sex object, he cannot relate to her as truly other, that is, as a person. He cannot consider her as an equal in a sexual sense any more than he can consider Batricio as his equal in a social sense. Don Juan conquers Batricio because the latter is of inferior rank, “con el honor le vencí” (1924). Don Juan accepts the statue's challenge to protect his standing as a “caballero.” This attitude establishes his male identity by means of domination, usually accompanied by violence. These components of Don Juan's personality, his narcissism, his lack of sincerity and his desire for power all are related to his display of “courage” or fearlessness and contrast sharply with Catalinón's fearfulness. Following Stoller, G. E. Wade has discussed Don Juan's fear of bisexuality, even if this means stooping to sexual perversion.⁴ We now turn to a more detailed scrutiny of the opposing self in Don Juan's personality, that facet which he tries to avoid and which the author represents in Catalinón, who serves as a kind of alter ego or superego to his master.

Catalinón disapproves of the new deceit already gestating in his master's mind. The servant fears that one day the burlador will be burlado. Don Juan will not heed Catalinón's admonition since he claims he is not a coward, “y al cobarde hace el temor” (1361). After he is stabbed and before he dies, Don Gonzalo accuses Don Juan of being a coward and a traitor, “… el que es traidor / es traidor porque es cobarde” (1586-7).

Don Juan's decision to consult Aminta's father regarding a marriage is highly ironic. It is a piece of bravado on Don Juan's part, designed to heighten the irony of his seduction of Aminta with the father's apparent approval. It is also a kind of defense mechanism that could be employed in case he were arrested later. Does not this desire for “security” arise from his fear of being caught? He knows beforehand of the damage to Aminta's reputation (“pero antes de hacer el daño / le pretendo reparar” [1922-23]), but he persists in his plan for the sheer sadomasochistic pleasure he intends to derive from his encounter. Don Juan is vexed by Catalinón's “temores extraños” (1999), and the threat of death and hell (1994). Don Juan cannot face the bad news of an impending disaster, and angered by Catalinón's admonition, he slaps his servant on the face (2221).

Don Juan begins to display outward signs of fear for the first time in Act Three. The stage directions (between 2334-35) indicate his mental state as “turbado.” Catalinón and the other servants exhibit a paralyzing fear in this scene and Don Juan reproves them several times for it. “¡necio y villano temor!;” “necio temblar;” and “necio temer!” (2351; 2360; 2364). When the statue indicates that all must leave, Catalinón warns Don Juan not to remain. But the latter with his customary bluster remarks, “¡A ser yo Catalinón … !” (2428), which again revives the notion of a timid and fearful person, perhaps even a coward. Don Juan will give his word as a caballero to accept the invitation to supper the next night. Testing Don Juan's courage, Don Gonzalo allays his fears with “no temas,” to which Don Juan in his egoism replies, “¿Yo temor?” (2445-6). After the statue leaves, the stage directions read, “… y queda D. Juan con pavor” (between 2464-65). Now D. Juan begins to feel the affects of fear, “¡Válgame Dios! Todo el cuerpo / se ha bañado de un sudor” (2465-66). He felt a cold chill in his heart when the statue took his hand and it burned like the fires of Hell (2469-72). Then he rationalizes that his fear is a product of his mind:

Pero todas son ideas
que da la imaginación,
el temor y temer muertos
es más villano temor;
que si un cuerpo noble, vivo,
con potencias y razón
y con alma, no se teme,
¿quién cuerpos muertos temió? (2477-84).

Don Juan, who hitherto had considered himself the epitome of courage, more and more exhibits the fear of danger in his confrontation with the unknown, and his behavior in these last scenes reveals a nervousness and an anxiety manifested earlier only by Catalinón. Don Juan accepts the challenge to bolster his ego and his narcissism, “porque se admire y espante / Sevilla de mi valor” (2487-8). If earlier he needed to prove his masculinity, now he needs to prove his valor in the face of a gnawing fear.

On meeting Don Juan in the chapel, the statue reassures him with, “… no te espantes” (2690). And when Don Juan inquires if Don Gonzalo considered him a coward, the latter answers in the affirmative. Don Juan as much as admits his fear, “hui de ser conocido” (2697). During the bizarre meal, Don Juan feels an icy chill in his heart (2740), which he admits in an aside, “(un hielo el pecho me parte).” Once again the statue seeks to reassure him, “no temas; la mano dame” (2750). Denying his fear to the last, Don Juan extends his hand in a display of daring that belies his true feelings, “¿Eso dices? ¿Yo temor?” (2751).

Don Juan and Catalinón are subject doubles who play a friendly role as secret sharers rather than that of bitter antagonists in spite of an occasional quarrel and a buffet. Nevertheless, a disharmony exists between them at the narrative level as Catalinón is constantly nagging his master about his sexual behavior. They are antithetical or opposing selves in that Don Juan does not share feelings of moral guilt expressed by Catalinón. Rather, it is a question of fearlessness versus fearfulness until events push Don Juan toward sharing some feelings of anxiety and fear that his servant had previously experienced. At that point in the play the double becomes a single as Don Juan gathers together, albeit too late, the opposing segments of his personality. Throughout, Don Juan employs a defense mechanism by which he attempts to segregate himself from that part of his personality that he loathes and which he finds in Catalinón. But Don Juan's fearlessness turns to fearfulness when he loses control of the action and, unable to cope with his problem, he calls for confession, “… deja que llame / quien me confiese y absuelva” (2770-1). Tirso's play read thus implies a psychological dimension hitherto unexplored.

Notes

1. Otto Rank, Don Juan. Etude sur le Double (Paris, 1932).

2. José F. Montesinos, “Algunas observaciones sobre la figura del donaire en el teatro de Lope de Vega,” in his Estudios sobre Lope de Vega, Nueva edición (Salamanca: Anaya, 1967), pp. 21-64, considers the “figura del donaire” as something akin to a voz in an opera to serve as a contrast to the galán. Montesinos specifically mentions our play, “Graciosos ha habido en el teatro español, como el Catalinón de Tirso, que por razones de contraste han tenido que ser voceros de la más acendrada moral católica.”

   Joaquín Casalduero, Contribución al estudio del tema de Don Juan en el teatro español (Madrid: Porrúa, 1975) points out the galán-gracioso duality in the play but neither he nor Montesinos was aware of the psychological dualism inherent in the play and which I intend to develop in this paper.

3. El burlador de Sevilla y convidado de piedra (New York: Scribner's, 1969), Note 880. All verse references are to this edition.

4. Gerald E. Wade, “The Character of Tirso's Don Juan of El burlador de Sevilla: A Psychoanalytic Study,” BCom, 31 (Spring, 1979), 33-42. Wade bases his study of Don Juan's character on Robert J. Stoller, M. D., Perversion: The Erotic Form of Hatred (New York: Pantheon Books, 1975). See also his study, “The Character of Don Juan in El burlador de Sevilla,” in Hispanic Studies in Honor of Nicholson B. Adams. J. E. Keller and K. L. Selig, eds. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1966), pp. 167-178.