Federico García Lorca’s play, La Casa de Bernarda Alba/The House of Bernarda Alba, can be considered a strong economic and political critique of the rise of the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco and the fascist movement in 1930s Spain. García Lorca’s play was not staged in Spain until 1950 after the eventual fascist victory; after the author’s death in 1936, his work was burned and banned (Columbia 250). Despite the fact that the Axis powers ultimately lost the Second World War, other Western powers, including the United States, continued to support Franco after World War II, ignoring his oppressive regime and allowing fascism to reign in Spain until the 1970s (Graham 166). As I elaborate below, this support may have been attributable to Franco’s steadfast anticommunist views and, perhaps in part, his political rhetoric that prized austere masculinity in leadership and that rejected progressive interpretations of gender roles, which his regime viewed as hostile to political and social stability.

​

Kristen Du Mez explores modern constructions of masculinity in her 2020 text, Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation. She deploys the concept of militant masculinity – “an ideology that enshrines patriarchal authority and condones the callous display of power” (9) – and suggests that when, combined with a nostalgia for a mythical past, it can define what is “good and true” (16). Christopher Forth in his 2008 text, Masculinity in the Modern West: Gender. Civilization, and the Body, suggest that “masculinity is an inherently unstable and even elastic cultural construction [. . .] capable of being disrupted as well as validated” (18). Additionally, Marxist economic theory shows how capitalism validates exploitation and inherently creates alienation from the self and other people, resulting in a destabilizing process of dehumanization. In an attempt to explain how Franco’s oppressive regime became “good and true” for modern Spain, this paper develops and applies a theoretical framework that applies Marxist theory with attention to the dehumanization process, builds on Du Mez’s concept of militant masculinity, and considers Forth’s assertions about masculinity as a social construction and its instability. Below, I read García Lorca’s play as an attempt to critique Francisco Franco’s Spanish fascist party and its consequential dehumanization of Republicans, those who supported the Spanish Republic. As Francoist rhetoric promoted the view that the proletariat were likened to a disease “infecting” Spain, and, by extension, the body politic, Franco’s position was that Spain needed to be saved by returning to the “traditional” values of the Spanish Empire. By enforcing these values with violence, Francoists created a rhetoric which alienated and dehumanized the proletariat, the working and laboring classes, allowing Francoists to justify their violence against those classes. Given this cultural and political backdrop, I will argue that La Casa de Bernarda Alba is intended to serve as a political and cultural allegory for the opposing ideological forces about order and political stability that led to the Spanish Civil War. Significantly, García Lorca prefaces his play with a statement that it should serve as a “photographic document” (García Lorca). This asserts his play’s validity, drawing an immediate connection to tensions between Francoists and the Spanish Republic in the summer of 1936. García Lorca strengthens this connection in his stage directions. By describing the house as “(bright white)”, he suggests a sense of sterility, perhaps a reference to the oppressive Francoist culture. Also, mentioning “(legendary kings)” and “(non-realistic landscapes)” could be a reference to the Francoist desire to bring back hierarchized rule of the Spanish Empire and monarchy, creating prosperity and providing order and stability.

​

Below, I provide a literary analysis that considers Garcia Lorca’s characterization of a “patriarch” with an authority similar to that of Francisco Franco. The author constructs Bernarda Alba as the despot ruler of the house. The consequences of her authority become clear: as Bernarda attempts to protect her patriarchal authority by rejecting modernity, she creates tension and division between herself, her servant La Poncia, and her five daughters, leading to alienation and dehumanization. Moreover, when considering the relationship between La Poncia and Bernarda, García Lorca could be critiquing the Francoist practice of valuing patriarchal authority and “traditional” values, which emphasizes property and ownership above compassion and familial harmony. For example, La Poncia's perspective about her value evolves from Act I to Act II. In Act I, she sees herself in a friendly relationship with the “patriarch”, Bernarda, but by Act III, she realizes her value lies in her productivity and relationship with the house itself. Finally, I suggest that García Lorca presents Adela’s death at the end of the play to symbolize the Francoist practice of recovering “traditional” values and installing authoritarian rule. Bernarda sacrifices harmony and family unity to exercise her patriarchal authority over her youngest daughter, Adela. As I explore below, Adela’s death and Bernarda’s treatment of her death may symbolize the conflict between the traditional and progressive identities evolving in modern Spain. Considering this multifaceted critique, La Casa de Bernarda Alba represents a sprawling examination of early 20th century modern Spanish fascism. On the surface level, García Lorca’s play criticizes the rise of fascism in Spain. However, upon a close textual analysis, the play criticizes the cycle of violence and oppression associated with “traditional” values and practices of militant masculinity. The play showcases the dehumanizing and alienating effects of the Francoist attempts to create a new Spanish identity by enforcing patriarchal authority and family values with violence in the face of modernity. Ultimately, they sacrifice harmony and family unity for masculine authority.

​

In the analysis that follows, first I will develop my theoretical framework that will inform my reading of this play, employing the concepts of militant masculinity from Du Mez as informed by theories of alienation and dehumanization from Marx and Forth. Next, I will provide a brief overview of the historical context surrounding the fascist movement and the rise of Francisco Franco in early 20th century Spain and discuss the culture of Franco-fascist party in opposition to that of the socialist-republican party and in doing so, I will provide biographical information that situates García Lorca’s political beliefs within the hostile social landscape curated by Francoists. Finally, I will provide a summary, close reading, and literary analysis of the play, in which I will reinterpret García Lorca’s allegory to incorporate Marxist economic philosophy. I will analyze attitudes and behaviors with regard to masculine norms promoted by Francoists that eventually spark the Spanish Civil War and cultivate an appeal to fascism after the rise of the Spanish Republic.\

​

To begin to explain why fascism would appeal to traditional Spanish society and the political climate of 1930s Spain, my analysis of Garcia Lorca’s play applies Marxist theory with specific attention to his concepts of alienation and dehumanization. Marxist theory suggests that capitalism inherently values property and possession over humanity, one’s sense of worth based on connection and emotional ties between themselves and others, and perpetuates this practice by creating two distinct classes: the bourgeoisie, the property and power holding members of society, and the proletariat, the poor and laboring class. Since the bourgeoisie own the means of production, that is, facilities which produce material goods, the proletariat is forced to participate in this system and sell their labor to the bourgeoisie. Marx describes the four characteristics of proletariat alienation, the state of being isolated from a group in which one feels they should belong. First, workers are alienated from the products of their labor; products which the worker produces now “constitute[s] a separate world of objects which is alien to [the worker]” (Petrović 421). Second, they are alienated from the process of the labor itself, as work becomes an “alien activity”. (Petrović 421). Third, from their human nature, as their life becomes dominated by the “maintenance of [the worker’s] individual existence” (Petrović 421). Finally, workers are alienated from their fellow human beings as relationships are primarily perceived as transactional (Petrović 421). In this way, human labor is seen as a commodity and human worth is reduced to a product, resulting in the perception of the laboring classes as sub-human. This dehumanizing process is intertwined with alienation, as workers are reduced to their ability to produce material goods. Prior to the rise of the Spanish Republic, especially in the south of Spain, tension between the wealthy and laboring class grew as landowners exploited the working class. Perhaps this contributed to the division between the fascist and socialist movements in Spain since, according to Marx, the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie creates division and alienation.

​

As I detail below, García Lorca’s play La Casa de Bernarda Alba is an allegory for the Spanish Civil War where the house represents the nation state or body politic; Bernarda symbolizes the fascists, specifically Franco; the daughters, except for Adela, represent the bourgeoisie class; Adela and the servants exemplify the proletariat. Below, I provide a literary interpretation, focusing on the last step that Marx describes in which the workers are alienated from each other, the dehumanization process. Francoists alienated Republicans by creating a new interpretation of what is “good and true” in Spain that opposed the progressive culture of the Republic and prioritized “traditional” values of patriarchal authority. To do so, they presented Republicans as a disease to Spain in order to “eliminat[e] [. . .] the industrial proletariat” (Graham 73) and “destroy the ‘alien’ Republican nation/culture therein” (Graham 84). This rhetoric both alienates and dehumanizes Republicans and the proletariat by characterizing them as a disease, implying that they are inhuman, but also that they are in need of a cure or “purification” (Graham 84). This dehumanizing portrayal perhaps contributed to the Francoist “loathing [. . .] for the Republic” as they rejected the Republican culture of “disordered modernity” (Graham 76) for their own “traditional” hierarchized culture. In doing so, Francoists follow Marx’s last step of alienation by isolating Republicans from their personhood, that is, the quality of being an individual, by both illustrating them as infectious and by rejecting their culture as dangerous to Spain, perhaps allowing Francoists to justify the repeated violence against them.

​

Du Mez discusses the intersection between violence and masculinity; she contends that militant masculinity is fueled by the nostalgic desire to return to traditional interpretations of gender in the face of modernity, as I outlined above. Here, I apply her concept alongside traditional Marxist economic theory to explain the violence of 1930s Spain that García Lorca criticizes in his play. As Du Mez contends, the prioritization of masculine authority is a response to modernity (9). This type of authority supports violent displays of power and has the ability to create constructions of goodness and truth (16). Francoists sought to deploy these constructions in 1930s Spain. The desire to return to “traditional” gender roles was fueled by a longing for the hierarchized Spain of the Empire that had been threatened by progressive interpretations of gender promoted by the Republic. Francoists supported their interpretation of gender with violent displays of power. By rejecting the Republican progressive interpretations of masculinity and representing them as an infection of Spain, Francoists created their own interpretations of “good and true” that follow their traditional interpretation of masculinity with militant authority. As I stated above, Forth contends that masculinity is not fixed and can be rejected or affirmed, thus I suggest that perhaps Francoists verified their militant masculine authority with “callous displays of power” against the Republic. Furthermore, Forth offers a perspective on the convergence between alienation and masculine violence. He observes that violent acts by one person unto another has an “undeniable individualizing (sic) effect by sharpening attention to the peripheries of the self” (119), and the development of the firearm brought with it a “new sense of physical detachment from the fight itself” (120). He suggests that as technology progresses and develops, it consequently creates an individualized effect which allows the perpetrator to distance themselves from the act of violence. This theory intersects with Marxist theory as it perpetuates an increasingly isolated state of the individual, alienated from their peers. I suggest that by overlaying Forth’s work onto Marxist concepts of alienation and dehumanization, and infusing this explanation with Du Mez’s term of militant masculinity, what emerges is a unique theoretical framework from which I will use to analyze García Lorca’s critique of the Spanish Civil War through his literary work, La Casa de Bernarda Alba.

​

As Francoists utilized violence in the Spanish Civil War to “purge” Spain, the theory presented by Forth could contribute to the sense of dehumanization attributed to the Republic by Francoists. Since Francoists culturally alienated Republicans, then perhaps their violence further contributed to this dehumanization as they were “physical[ly] detached from the fight” against the Republic and perhaps able to justify violence against the “disease” of Spain as they sought to install their version of a “good and true” Spanish culture. It was during this cultural debate on what was “good and true” for Spain that García Lorca came of age. The Spanish author was born in a rural Spanish town in 1898, the same year the Spanish Empire fell and Spain began to experience a sudden shift towards modernity, perhaps a jarring change after centuries of feudalistic monarchy. As discussed previously, following the fall of the Spanish Empire, polarization between the wealthy and poor classes over economically and socially modernizing Spain increased significantly. Therefore, the rise of the Republic in Spain rests on the rejection of the monarchy and traditional monarchist values by the proletariat. First, Republicans, including García Lorca who, perhaps having felt the power differential between the landed gentry and the working class, supported major social reform. Republicans intended to allow more economic power to the previously mentioned peasants of southern Spain, limit the power of the military while bringing it under civilian control, and separate the Catholic Church from the state to create a national system of secular education (Graham 7). On the 14th of April 1931, the Spanish King was replaced by a democratically elected republican-socialist government. Having grown up in an age of monarchy, García Lorca probably felt great hope for the new Republic and its desire to redress the misdeeds of the monarchy. However, the socialist-republican government suffered heavy criticism for failing to deliver the major societal reforms promised. Although the republican-socialist government was re-elected in 1936 after a brief period of conservative leadership in 1933, these reforms were never implemented. In July, a military coup began in North Africa against the Republic, effectively beginning the Spanish Civil War. After a brief moment of hope, García Lorca must have felt the loss of the Republic and was compelled to speak out against the rising movement of fascism that destroyed the potential for an inclusive state of government; he published La Casa de Bernarda Alba in June 1936. Ultimately, however, his outspoken protests over the fall of the Republic led to his arrest and murder by fascist forces in August, a month after the play was published. Having sacrificed his life for the hope of a new Spanish Republic, his literary work continues to inform readers about the dehumanization that follows militant masculinity and the consequences of militant leadership.

​

Combined with hostility and violence against clergy from Republicans, it is not surprising that the Spanish Catholic Church aligned itself with the new fascist government; their views intersected in many areas, including a strong stance against communism and socialism (Graham 82) and desire to enforce traditional gender roles, opposing the wishes of García Lorca and the Republic. Immediately after the election of the first Republic in 1931, the Church issued a letter which called for Catholics to protest the new Republic, describing the Republic as “the triumph of error and sin” (Graham 8-9). This could have contributed to García Lorca’s decision to represent the clash between the fascist party and the Republic in his play with women, perhaps in an attempt to point out the hypocrisy of the Church to support a violent fascist movement over the democratically elected Republic. This culture promoted by Francoists, with support from the Catholic Church, rested on the return of masculine values associated with the monarchy and Spanish Empire. First, Francoists held the philosophy that Spain was in need of saving, which, combined with the “patronizing colonial notion that the colonized were like children (or women) who needed a firm paternal hand”, gave way to a war against the Spanish Left that mimicked the conquest of another Spanish colony (Morcillo 31). Second, with the belief that Republicans were “infecting” Spain, Francoists justified their violence against Republicans with the belief that “the moral and spiritual decadence which characterized the Republican side of the Civil War was to be cleansed from Spain by force of arms and the cost of lives” (Vincent, “The Martyrs and the Saints” 74). With support and authority from the Spanish Catholic Church, Francoists often described the war as a crusade, seeing “[t]he rebel cause in Spain [as] nothing less than 'a crusade against communism to save religion, the fatherland and the family' (Vincent, “The Martyrs and the Saints” 73). This rhetoric allowed Franco to present himself as the savior of Spain and therefore granted him authority to “purify” Spain with violence and inspired a collective purpose within Francoists to reject modernity and restore “order and hierarchy” (Graham 76).

​

Further, especially after the war, Francoists alienated Republicans from Spanish culture and history. The Francoist government never referred to the conflict of the Spanish Civil War as a civil war, instead referring to it a “crusade” or “war of national liberation”, (Graham 138) and never allowed any public mourning of the Republican deaths. This appears to be directly related to the alienation García Lorca critiques in his play with his characterization of Adela and her death at the end of the play. The Francoist government successfully eliminated any opportunity for the development or expression of criticism and therefore alienated those opposing Francoism from the new post Spanish Civil War culture; similarly, the character of Bernarda Alba attempted to eliminate and control threats to her militant, masculine authority, creating “(shadowy silence)” (1.5) within the house as well as her affirming declaration about the false cause of Adela’s death. Considering this strong, Francoist culture, combined with support from fascist Germany and Italy and a refusal by Britain and France to support the Republic, it is not surprising that the war ended with a fascist victory in April 1939. Thus, it is this socio-historical and cultural backdrop that illuminates the larger socio-economic and political critique that García Lorca may have been elaborating as he wrote his play.

​

García Lorca’s play is set in the southern region of Spain in Andalusia; this region is known for its extremely traditional and religiously conservative values. The play is presented in three acts, which takes place entirely in a house with bars on the windows and locked gates. Over the course of the play, García Lorca presents various female characters at different ages and social classes, such as Maria Josefa, Bernarda’s mother, and La Poncia, the main house servant under Bernarda’s direct supervision. The play begins as the women are returning from the funeral of Bernarda’s second husband; Bernarda assumes control of the house following his death. The main conflict of the play revolves around the role of Pepe el Romano. Bernarda works to maintain the status quo, in which her eldest daughter must be the first to marry and secure the inheritance of her wealth and land to Pepe el Romano. However, as the play unfolds, we begin to see the various points of contention with this plan and the related consequences of Bernarda’s violent and oppressive control of the house and of her daughters, which culminates in her youngest daughter’s suicide as she attempts to escape from Bernarda’s oppression and violence. The play demonstrates how Bernarda utilizes violence to validate her authority and how, consequently, it isolates her from her daughters and isolates the daughters from one another, causing disharmony and eroding their humanity. García Lorca could be using Bernarda’s character to highlight and critique the Francoist attempts to validate their own traditional constructions of masculinity. By contrast, the daughters, which I suggest should be read as members of both the bourgeois and proletariat classes in the allegory, still display human connection and emotion. Ultimately, García Lorca critiques the patriarchal authority perpetuated by the Francoist regime as they sought to reinforce traditional gender roles as informed by the Catholic Church.

​

In the opening scene of La Casa de Bernarda Alba, tension between the daughters is clear as they all vie for the affection and attention of the only male character, who is never actually seen on stage, Pepe el Romano. He is described as “twenty-five years old” and the “handsomest man” (1.21), and is slated to marry Angustias, the oldest daughter, and who perhaps symbolizes the old conservative culture of the monarchy, as she is the daughter of Bernarda’s first marriage and has different father that Bernarda’s other daughters. Pepe el Romano perhaps is intended to serve as a representative of the idealized version of Spain, present but out of reach, yet desired by all. Throughout the play, he is a constant source of tension between the daughters and Bernarda, who likely represents the authoritative leadership of Francisco Franco. As revealed in Act II, Pepe el Romano is also secretly engaging in a relationship with Adela. Perhaps Adela represents the desire for social reform, as she is rebelling and threatening Bernarda’s authoritative leadership. Martirio, the second-youngest daughter, also appears to have an amorous connection with Pepe; after Angustias discovers that her keepsake photo of her betrothed is missing, Martirio admits to having stolen the photo to the dismay of both Angustias and Adela, and claims that she will “snatch [Pepe] from [Adela’s] arms!” (2.48). La Poncia attempts to warn Bernarda of the consequences of suppressing the freedoms of the daughters, perhaps the voice of warning from García Lorca and his Marxist beliefs about the threat of class division, but Bernarda refuses to listen, claiming that her daughters “have never gone against her wishes” (2.46). Again, in Act III, La Poncia attempts to warn Bernarda and observes that there is a “stor[m] brewing in each of these rooms” (3.60); still, Bernarda refuses to listen. The tensions between Angustias, Martirio, and Adela finally come to a head as Adela proclaims her love for Pepe el Romano to Martirio, who does the same. Their arguing attracts Bernarda, who, discovering that Adela has been engaging in a sexual relationship with Pepe el Romano, takes the shotgun and pursues him. A gunshot is heard and Martirio states, “That’s the last of Pepe el Romano” (3.67), and Adela rushes out. Bernarda reveals that he is alive and galloped away on his horse. However, Adela hangs herself, and Bernarda insists that she be buried as a virgin, commanding, “No one will dare say a word! She died a virgin!” (3.68). Although the play ends with Adela’s suicide, García Lorca appears to still indicate hope for the return of the Republic. Adela’s death could be interpreted as an act of defiance against Bernarda’s fascist authority, fighting for the hope of Pepe el Romano’s return and the rise of the Republic again.

​

Considering both the social culture of Spain leading up to the Spanish Civil War and the symbolism embedded within the play, I argue that García Lorca intended the play to be an allegory and critique of Francoism. First, the epigraph of the play reads, “El poeta advierte que estos tres actos tienen la intención de un documental fotográfico/ The poet advises that these three acts have the intention of a photographic document” (García Lorca). By using the verb “advertir/advise”, in this context indicating an official warning, García Lorca seems to suggest this play has the potential for danger in the political climate of 1936 Spain. Additionally, in writing “these three acts have the intention”, García Lorca uses the verb “tener/ to have”, which is used to indicate possession. In doing so, he states the play possesses this intention, distancing himself from the work by crediting the potential danger to the play itself, not him personally, suggesting it could represent a threat to fascist rhetoric. Further, referring to the play as a “photographic document”, he gives the play a sense of validity and truth, as a photograph is intended to capture a moment in time; similarly, a document is intended to serve as an official record of an event. By prefacing his play with this declaration, García Lorca intentionally draws an immediate connection between his work and the rising threat of fascism in Spain.

​

Within the play itself, Bernarda shares many characteristics with Franco; they both rule with a culture of fear and violence, which illustrates their alienation of the proletariat. Franco viewed the Left as an enemy which should “be eradicated by repression and terror” (Morcillo 31) and, as previously mentioned, he dehumanized Republicans by ostracizing them from the new Francoist Spain. This attitude, combined with the support and association with the Catholic Church, created the Francoist mission to reestablish the class-based hierarchy of the monarchy (Lorenz 223) which included the complete elimination of industry and the proletariat (Graham 73). Bernarda also demonstrates a disregard for the proletariat. This is explicitly illustrated when a beggar woman asks for scraps of food, Bernarda comments that “The poor are like animals. It’s as if they’re made of some other substance” (1.9). By stating the poor are “like animals”, Bernarda compares them to something subhuman; but using the preposition “like” suggests a relationship between the poor and animals, as if their identity still has some human qualities. However, as she claims they are “made of some other substance”, she completely rejects this earlier conclusion. Using the word “other” suggests a rift between her and the poor, similar to the class hierarchy encouraged by Francoism. Further, García Lorca uses the noun “sustancias/substance” with a scientific connotation, completely eliminating any humanity within the poor person that Bernarda references. This can be compared to the “purging” and alienation of the proletariat exercised by Francoists as a means of reestablishing the hierarchized version of Spain that fell with the Spanish Empire. Similar to Bernarda, by representing the proletariat as subhuman, Francoists are able to justify and perpetuate this alienation by representing themselves as superior and separate from the working class. Bernarda’s attitude towards the proletariat is exemplified in her relationship with Adela, who I equate to a symbol of the Spanish proletariat in García Lorca’s allegory. Bernarda’s authority contributes to Adela’s feelings of discontent and desire to reject Bernarda’s authority, eventually leading to the major conflict of Act III. This mirrors the conflict between the republican-socialist government and the Francoist government; the Republic rejected the fascist movement, which promoted a strictly hierarchical version of Spain in which the proletariat is under the authority of the wealthy, ruling class.

​

Finally, I interpret the house as symbolizing Spain itself. In the title of the play, La Casa de Bernarda Alba, García Lorca uses the Spanish preposition “de”, translating in English to “of”, which indicates Bernarda’s possession of the house. If Bernarda is a representation of Franco, then perhaps García Lorca is suggesting that Francoism has consumed and possessed Spain. He appears to be criticizing Franco’s possession of Spain; the stage directions opening Act I describe the house having a “(bright white interior)” with a “(shadowy silence)” (1.5). “Bright white interior” suggests a sense of sterility, as if the house is devoid of anything natural. This could be a reference to the oppressive culture of Francoism, which sought to repress any cultural heterogeneity to create a strictly dichotomized version of Spain (Morcillo 30). This could also underscore Bernarda’s possession of the house, as “alba” is translated as “white” and “dawn”, which could be a reference to the shifting values and power in Spain. The house is also described as having “(Paintings of non-realistic landscapes with nymphs and legendary kings)” (1.5). Specifically mentioning “legendary kings” paintings could be a reference to the history of authoritative monarchy in Spain and the Francoist desire to bring the return of the Spanish Empire and the traditional values associated with it; “non-realistic” could be a reference to the false belief that a fascist state will bring prosperity to Spain with the return of the monarchical culture. Further, García Lorca appeals to the imagery of heat: oppressive feelings are equated with responses to high temperatures several times throughout the play; the daughters and La Poncia all comment that the heat is making them uncomfortable. Heat can be interpreted as tension, as such, this could be a reference to the rising tensions between the socialist-republican government and the Francoist party leading up to the Spanish Civil War. By specifically writing that the heat makes Martirio ill (2.38) and disrupts the daughters’ sleep (2.28), the author could be referencing the growing threat of fascism in Republic Spain. Combined with Bernarda’s earlier comment that “not a breeze shall enter this house” (1.13), this could be a reference to the totalitarian nature of Francoism, that it has the ability to completely consume Spain.

​

As previously mentioned, Pepe el Romano appears to be a symbol of the idealized version of Spain, which represents a threat to Bernarda’s authority. Pepe el Romano is a source of tension throughout the entire play and seemingly appeals to the daughters for different reasons. He appeals to Angustias in that, if she is to be interpreted as the conservative culture of Spain, he represents an opportunity to reinforce the patriarchal authority of Bernarda and protect the money and land that she possesses. However, both Adela and Martirio desire him as an opportunity for freedom and to escape Bernarda’s authority. This contrast and tension between the daughters over Pepe el Romano could represent the clash between tradition and modernity in early 20th century Spain. Although Angustias believes that Pepe el Romano has fallen in love with her, Adela and Martirio believe that he simply wants her money and property (2.42-43). This could be a reference to the old Spanish monarchy, which valued possession and ownership. By contrast, Adela believes that Pepe el Romano truly loves her (3.64). This could be a reference to the modernization of Spain, as it begins to move away from a purely material-based value system to one of human connection. Adela’s and Pepe el Romano’s relationship challenges Bernarda’s authority as it creates a new definition of “good and true”, proposing a more egalitarian society, which appeals to emotion and humanity over traditional patriarchal authority. This creates a threat to Bernarda’s masculine authority and, although she attempts to kill Pepe el Romano, he instead simply gallops away on his horse (3.67). Considering Forth’s observation that the duel “gave men access to a more bellicose (yet imaginative) past” (119), then Bernarda’s failure to shoot Pepe el Romano could be a representation of the deteriorating power of patriarchal masculinity versus progressive interpretations of masculinity, which threatens the traditional Spanish construction of masculinity. Perhaps García Lorca is suggesting that the idealized and free Spain that the Republic represented is not dead, simply absent. In his personification of the character Pepe el Romano, the author appears to be demonstrating the power of the will for freedom against an oppressive ruler, like Bernarda or Franco, and the potential for the Republic to rise again through the desire for freedom against fascism.

​

García Lorca illustrates Bernarda’s militant authority through her violent actions; she strikes her daughters on several occasions. Forth observes that violent acts by one person onto another with a firearm has an individualizing effect, as it allows the perpetrator to distance and separate themselves from the act of violence (119-120). Although Forth is specifically referring to the tradition of dueling, I argue that a similar effect can be observed in the character of Bernarda Alba. Bernarda strikes one of her daughters on three occasions with a cane throughout the course of the play. I observe that, as the play progresses, the reaction by each daughter demonstrates an increasingly dehumanizing effect; García Lorca could be demonstrating the connection between dehumanization and repeated violent acts. On the first occasion, Bernarda refers to Angustias as a “Spineless, sickly creature!“ and as “([La Poncia] holds [Angustias]: Angustias weeps.)”, she commands that Bernarda “Be calm!” (1.15). Here, García Lorca details a human connection between La Poncia and Angustias: Angustias displays a show of emotion in weeping, and La Poncia demonstrates intimacy by holding her, presumably for comfort, but also a sense of protection, as she is willing to denounce Bernarda for her act. However, the language by Bernarda shows dehumanization: she refers to her daughter as “creature”, a noun with a scientific connotation which eliminates any human or familial connection. The next instance, in Act II, she advances to hit Martirio for stealing the picture of Pepe el Romano from Angustias and refers to Martirio as “good-for-nothing!”. According to the stage directions, Martirio responds angrily and commands, “Don’t you hit me, Mother!” (2.41). Again, the dehumanizing language by Bernarda is clear: she wishes harm to her daughter and demeans her personal value by referring to her as “good-for-nothing”. Unlike the previous incident, Martirio’s reaction demonstrates the dehumanizing effect of Bernarda’s authority. By referring to her as “Mother”, she uses a cold and formal term, despite their familial tie. In contrast to the previous incident, La Poncia does not interfere, instead simply saying, “Show your mother some respect” (2.42). Similar to Martirio’s reaction, La Poncia’s reaction demonstrates a progression between Act I and II, that the human connection and resistance to violence between the daughters and La Poncia is beginning to dissolve. However, Angustias restrains Bernarda and demands, “Leave her alone. Please!” (2.42), despite the fact that she accused Martirio first. This act of protest demonstrates the remaining sense of humanity between the daughters, strengthened as she cries “Please!”, suggesting a sense of desperation in her protest. Finally, in Act III, as Bernarda confronts Adela for seeing Pepe el Romano, she declares, “That’s enough of your gaoler’s voice! (She takes hold of her mother’s walking stick and breaks it in half.) That’s how I treat/ the tyrant’s rod.” (2.42). By breaking Bernarda’s walking stick in half, Adela completely rejects her authority over her. In referring to her as “gaoler” and “tyrant”, she suggests that their connection is that of jailer and prisoner, and that Bernarda’s authority is cruel and oppressive. Adela demonstrates a complete disregard for any familial connection, instead calling her “gaoler” and “tyrant”, despite the fact that she calls her “Mother” throughout the play. Moreover, Bernarda is characterized only by her voice in this instance. Since Adela only references Bernarda’s voice, and does not address her personally, she disregards her personhood, suggesting a complete lack of human connection between the two. Further, as Bernarda strikes her daughters with her stick, I argue this has a similar effect to that observed by Forth, that it allows Bernarda to detach herself from her daughters’ humanity, as she distances herself from the action and removes herself as the perpetrator by using a weapon.

​

García Lorca exemplifies the alienating consequences of Bernarda’s authority through the contrast between La Poncia and Bernarda. On one hand, La Poncia is characterized as rebellious, she allows other servants to sneak extra food at the risk of punishment from Bernarda (1.5), but also bitter and jaded: she wishes to “lock myself in a room with [Bernarda] and spit on her for a year” and claims that “one day I’ll have had enough” (1.7). On the other hand, Bernarda is characterized as cold and cruel, commanding a servant, “Less wailing and more work”, as she weeps in sorrow over the death of Bernarda’s husband. The contrast between them is perhaps best represented by closely reading an interaction between the two characters in Act I in which La Poncia states, “There’s no talking to you. Are we not friends?”, and Bernarda responds, “No, we’re not. You/ serve me, and I pay you.” (1.17). By using the pronoun “we”, which refers to La Poncia and Bernarda together, García Lorca may be underscoring that La Poncia feels a sense of familiarity between herself and Bernarda. Further, by referring to them as “friends”, La Poncia suggests a connection to Bernarda beyond monetary obligations, although Bernarda denies it. By contrast, however, in Act III, La Poncia attempts to inform Bernarda of the tumultuous climate of the house, yet Bernarda refuses to believe her. Bernarda claims: “Everything is as it should be in this house. My vigilance guards/ against all”. La Poncia disagrees, responding: “Nothing you can see, /that’s true. Your daughters live as though/ they were shut in a cupboard [. . .]”. La Poncia suggests an obligation to the house itself, stating that she has “enough to do looking after this house”, but denies any obligation to Bernarda herself. This could be a representation of the tension between the monarchy and the rise of the nation state. Bernarda, valuing conservative tradition, clashes with La Poncia, as she desires freedom for herself and the daughters.Considering the rise of the fascist movement in Spain rested on the rejection of modernity, this conflict between them could represent the shifting values of Spain as it moves toward modernity and the influence of the monarchy dissolves. Moreover, the importance placed on material possessions by both Bernarda and La Poncia could represent another layer of García Lorca’s multifaceted critique of Spain and its ruling classes; the emphasis of patriarchal authority from the Francoist government creates an emphasis on property and possession. By personifying these struggles with the relationship between La Poncia and Bernarda, García Lorca successfully points out the tension between the shifting values of what is considered “good and true” between the push for modernity and pull for tradition and the alienation that occurs in this strategy intended to “save” Spain from modernity.

​

In analyzing the evolving tension between La Poncia and Bernarda, it appears that La Poncia has transformed her personal connection to Bernarda into one with purely a material base. García Lorca could be demonstrating the consequential alienation associated with rejecting modernity to protect absolute patriarchal authority. In the previously quoted exchange from Act III, in which La Poncia attempts to inform Bernarda of the tumultuous climate of the house and Bernarda refuses to believe her, La Poncia goes on to claim that she has “enough to do looking after this house” (3.58). This dialogue reveals that, although Bernarda believes she has total control over the house, that is not true. The notion of Bernarda as a “guard” suggests a role of protection, which aligns with the Francoist notion of a “real man”, as “brave and strong” (Vincent, “The Reassertion of Masculinity”). Combined with “vigilance”, which implies a constant, continual effort, García Lorca seems to be suggesting that Bernarda is fulfilling, or attempting to fulfill, the role of the patriarch which, according to Du Mez, is to “provide” and “defend" (29). However, as La Poncia suggests, the house is not “as it should be”. Here, García Lorca could be troubling the fascist practice of valuing patriarchal authority as the ultimate authority through the conflict between La Poncia and Bernarda. Perhaps he is using this relationship as a vehicle to critique the inherent nature of violent rule as leading to instability and distrust within a body politic and nation state.

​

In conclusion, the consequences of Bernarda’s repressive, Francoist authority culminate at the end of Act III as the youngest daughter, Adela, hangs herself after she believes that Bernarda has killed Pepe el Romano. Remembering that, as previously mentioned, Adela has completely rejected Bernarda’s authority, it appears that Bernarda’s attempt to shoot Pepe el Romano is a final attempt to demonstrate her authority over Adela. However, instead of legitimizing her authority, this action leads to Adela’s death, perhaps as a final rejection of Bernarda’s authority. As I have argued, Adela’s death may represent García Lorca’s critique of the Francoist rejection of modernity and the Republic: that, by attempting to enforce superior paternal authority, they instead erode family values and facilitate family disunity. If Adela is to be interpreted as the progressive movement of Spain, then García Lorca could be critiquing the Francoist practice of sacrificing social progress for the sake of tradition, consequently also rejecting the traditional family unity that patriarchal authority should offer. After her death, Bernarda refuses to reveal Adela’s true identity, insisting that “My daughter died a virgin!” and to “dress her as a maiden” (3.68). By reinforcing the identity of a “traditional” woman, the role that Adela rejected, Bernarda continues to exercise her authority over her daughters, even in death. In doing so, Bernarda sacrifices actual “family harmony”, and enforces her will, dissolving Adela’s human connection with Pepe el Romano. Bernarda then creates a superficial image that she has upheld traditional family values but has actually violated these values by perpetually enforcing her paternalistic authority. This superficial image contrasts with the “photographic document” that García Lorca opens the play with; perhaps he criticizes the idealized version of the Spanish Empire that Francoists wish to restore, suggesting that such a version of Spain will not be unified as Francoists believe. García Lorca suggests that, although Francoists wished to create a new national identity (Morcillo 6), the perpetuation of paternal authority cannot create a true national identity, only the appearance of one. Especially considering that Adela attempted to create a new identity away from Bernarda with Pepe el Romano, García Lorca appears to be critiquing the Francoist practice of enforcing traditional values with paternalistic authority, demonstrating that the practice actually threatens paternalistic authority by creating division, leading to the facade of a unified family.