Note 23 in page 396 This may merely involve a transference of the author, as himself, to the scene of his own work, on the same plane of reality. This emerges very clearly in the discussion of Lope de Vega's practice of intervening in his plays in the guise of the character Belardo (José Maria de Cossio, Lope, personaje de sus comedias [discurso de ingreso], Madrid, Real Academia Espafiola, 1948). Cossio admits that Lope's projection of himself into his works involves no modification of his personality, that is to say, no conversion of himself into a literary character. (“No creo que se atribuya a Lope un solo papel ? accion que, de haber sido el suceso real, le hubiera parecido repulsivo ? desagradable” [p. 17], “Ciertamente, si entra Lope en este ajuste de cuentas con Belardo, no es dudoso que reconocerâ la fidelidad de su figuracion teatral a su autéhtica realidad humana” [p. 87].) Somewhat inappropriate, therefore, seems the statement attributing superiority on the part of Lope and his autoprojections to the technique of Renaissance painters who introduced self-portraits into their paintings (p. 2), particularly in view of the fact that Cossio's study does not (perhaps, by its very nature, cannot) include a consideration of Lo fingido verdadero, Lope's outstanding contribution to the play-within-a-play tradition. (See Roy Temple House, “Lope de Vega and ‘Un drama nuevo’,” RR, xin [1922], 84-87.) Moreover, Cossio's disparaging allusion to the Pirandello-Unamuno problem of the character in relation to his author establishes very definitely the disparity between Lope's technique and that of interior duplication (pp. 86-87). Since Lope and Belardo are on the same plane of reality, their “comun conciencia” can obviously involve no confrontation of reality with its other face, imagination.