[434] See the Dedication of the “Francesilla” to Juan Perez de Montalvan, in Comedias, Tom. XIII., Madrid, 1620, where we have the following words: “And note in passing that this is the first play in which was introduced the character of the jester, which has been so often repeated since. Rios, unique in all parts, played it, and is worthy of this record. I pray you to read it as a new thing; for when I wrote it, you were not born.” The _gracioso_ was generally distinguished by his name on the Spanish stage, as he was afterwards on the French stage. Thus, Calderon often calls his _gracioso_ Clarin, or Trumpet; as Molière called his Sganarelle. The _simplé_, who, as I have said, can be traced back to Enzina, and who was, no doubt, the same with the _bobo_, is mentioned as very successful, in 1596, by Lopez Pinciano, who, in his “Philosofía Antigua Poética,” (1596, p. 402), says, “They are characters that commonly amuse more than any other that appear in the plays.” The _gracioso_ of Lope was, like the rest of his theatre, founded on what existed before his time; only the character itself was further developed, and received a new name. D. Quixote, Clemencin, Parte II. cap. 3, note. From this time the _gracioso_ is found in nearly all of his plays, and in nearly every other play produced on the Spanish stage, from which it passed, first to the French, and then to all the other theatres of modern times. Excellent specimens of it may be found in the sacristan of the “Captives of Algiers,” in the servants of the “Saint John’s Eve,” and in the servants of the “Ugly Beauty”; in all which, as well as in many more, the _gracioso_ is skilfully turned to account, by being made partly to ridicule the heroic extravagances and rhodomontade of the leading personages, and partly to shield the author himself from rebuke by good-humoredly confessing for him that he was quite aware he deserved it. Of such we may say, as Don Quixote did, when speaking of the whole class to the Bachelor Samson Carrasco, that they are the shrewdest fellows in their respective plays. But of others, whose ill-advised wit is inopportunely thrust, with their foolscaps and bawbles, into the gravest and most tragic scenes of plays like “Marriage in Death,” we can only avow, that, though they were demanded by the taste of the age, nothing in any age can suffice for their justification. The last among the circumstances which should not be overlooked, when considering the means of Lope’s great success, is his poetical style, the metres he adopted, and especially the use he made of the elder poetry of his country. In all these respects, he is to be praised; always excepting the occasions when, to obtain universal applause, he permitted himself the use of that obscure and affected style which the courtly part of his audience demanded, and which he himself elsewhere condemned and ridiculed.[435]