She was a ghost for centuries. Or rather, history treated her like one. While names like Lope de Vega or Calderón de la Barca are plastered across every Spanish literature textbook, Ana Caro de Mallén—a woman who was literally paid by the government to write—slipped through the cracks of the canon. It’s weird, honestly. She wasn't some hobbyist writing in a dark corner. She was a professional. A celebrity.
If you were in Madrid or Seville in the 1630s, you knew her name. She was "la décima musa," the tenth muse. But then, the doors shut. For a long time, scholars acted like she was a fluke or a footnote. They were wrong.
Who Was the Real Ana Caro de Mallén?
The paper trail is messy. We know she was born around 1590, probably in Granada or Seville. There’s a catch, though. Some records suggest she might have been born into slavery, the daughter of "moriscos" (Moors who had converted to Christianity), and later adopted by the wealthy Caro family. This isn't just a "maybe" detail; it changes how we look at her entire career. Imagine a woman of color in 17th-century Spain, not just surviving, but dominating the competitive world of the corrales de comedias.
She was a hustler. That’s the only way to put it. Unlike many of her contemporaries who relied on family wealth, Ana Caro made a living through her pen. She wrote relaciones, which were basically the breaking news pamphlets of the day. If there was a royal festival or a big religious event, she was the one hired to document it. She was a journalist before the job really existed.
The Play That Flipped the Script
Her most famous work is Valor, agravio y mujer (Courage, Offense, and Woman). If you haven't read it, the plot feels surprisingly modern. It’s a "cloak and sword" play, but with a sharp feminist bite. The protagonist, Leonor, gets ghosted by a guy named Don Juan (yes, that Don Juan archetype). Instead of sitting around crying or entering a convent—which was the standard "disgraced woman" move back then—she puts on pants.
🔗 Read more: Chuck E. Cheese in Boca Raton: Why This Location Still Wins Over Parents
Leonor disguises herself as a man, Leonardo, and heads to Flanders to get her revenge.
What makes Ana Caro's writing stand out is how she handles the "cross-dressing" trope. Usually, when women dressed as men in Golden Age plays, it was for laughs or a quick plot device. In Caro's hands, Leonor is more competent than any of the men around her. She mocks the "code of honor" that men used to justify their bad behavior. She basically deconstructs the fragile masculinity of the 1600s while the audience is busy cheering for her.
It’s bold. It’s funny. And it worked.
Working in a Man’s World
The literary scene in Madrid was a shark tank. You had Lope de Vega, the "Phoenix of Wits," who wrote hundreds of plays. You had Góngora and Quevedo constantly insulting each other in verse. Where did a woman fit in?
💡 You might also like: The Betta Fish in Vase with Plant Setup: Why Your Fish Is Probably Miserable
Surprisingly, she was respected. She was close friends with María de Zayas, another powerhouse writer of the era. They formed a sort of literary sisterhood, pushing back against the idea that women’s brains were "too soft" for complex poetry. Caro was even commissioned by the city of Seville to write plays for the Corpus Christi festivals—a massive honor that came with a significant paycheck.
We have the receipts. Literally. Documents show she was paid for her work, which proves she was a recognized professional. She wasn't writing for "self-expression" in a vacuum; she was writing for a market.
The Disappearance and the Re-emergence
So, if she was so famous, where did she go?
The 18th and 19th centuries weren't kind to female intellectuals. As the Spanish canon was being solidified, women were systematically left out. Their plays weren't reprinted. Their names weren't taught in schools. By the time 20th-century scholars started looking back, many of Caro’s works were lost.
📖 Related: Why the Siege of Vienna 1683 Still Echoes in European History Today
We only have two of her full-length plays today: Valor, agravio y mujer and El conde Partinuplés. That’s it. A fraction of what she actually wrote. El conde Partinuplés is wild, by the way—it’s a fantasy play involving magic, invisible servants, and a woman who refuses to marry until she finds a man who meets her standards. It reads like a high-budget Netflix series from 400 years ago.
Why You Should Care Today
Ana Caro de Mallén isn't just a "diversity pick" for a syllabus. Her work is genuinely sharp. She understood the power of branding. She knew how to navigate a patriarchal system by being better, faster, and more clever than the guys next to her.
She died in the mid-1640s, likely during a plague outbreak in Seville. She died as she lived—a working writer.
If you're interested in how she flipped the script, start by looking into the "mujer varonil" (masculine woman) archetype in Spanish theater. It explains a lot about why her characters resonated then and why they still feel radical now.
How to Explore Ana Caro de Mallén’s Legacy
Don't just take a history book's word for it. The best way to understand her impact is to see the work in context.
- Read the scripts: Look for bilingual editions of Valor, agravio y mujer. Pay attention to how Leonor talks about her "honor" compared to the male characters. The difference is staggering.
- Check the archives: Digital libraries like the Biblioteca Nacional de España have digitized some of her relaciones. Even if you don't speak 17th-century Spanish, seeing her name on a government-commissioned document from 1637 is a trip.
- Watch a performance: Modern theater troupes in Spain, like the Compañía Nacional de Teatro Clásico, have started reviving her plays. If you can find a filmed version or a local production, go. Her dialogue was meant to be heard, not just read.
- Study the "sisterhood": Research her connection to María de Zayas. Seeing how these two women supported each other's careers provides a blueprint for professional networking that still applies today.
The real "hidden" history isn't that she existed, but that we were told she didn't matter. Correcting that starts with actually engaging with her words. She didn't write to be a footnote; she wrote to be the main event.