Don W. Cruickshank and a number of other critics believe that the play can be dated around 1630, thus making Calderón's most famous work a rather early composition.

Basilio briefly frees Segismundo, but when the prince goes on a rampage, the king imprisons him again, persuading him that it was all a dream.

It remains one of Calderón's best-known and most studied works, and was listed as one of the 40 greatest plays of all time in The Independent.

[5] The Spanish Armada was defeated by England in 1588, however, while Spain was trying to defend the northern coast of Africa from the expansion of the Turkish Ottoman Empire,[6] and the gold and silver that Spain took from its possessions in the New World were not adequate to sustain its subsequent decades of heavy military expenses.

[10] Another current that permeated Spanish thinking was the departure from the idea that royal power resided in God's will, as noted in Machiavelli's The Prince (1532).

[12][page needed] Amidst these developments during the 16th and 17th centuries, Spain experienced a cultural blossoming referred to as the Spanish Golden Age.

[13][14] It saw the birth of notable works of art: Don Quixote, by Miguel de Cervantes (1605), played with the vague line between reality and perception.

[15] Lope de Vega, in his play Fuente Ovejuna (1619), talks about a village that rebels against authority.

After being abandoned by their horses, Rosaura, who is dressed as a man, and Clarín walk through the mountains of Poland without food or anywhere to go for the night.

Clotaldo, Segismundo's old warden and tutor, arrives and orders his guards to disarm and kill the intruders, but he recognizes Rosaura's sword as his own that he had left behind in Muskovy (for a favor that he owed) years ago for his child to bear.

If he finds him evil and unworthy, he will send him back to his cell, making way for Astolfo and Estrella to become the new king and queen.

When Segismundo is awakened and arrives at court, Clotaldo tells him that he is the prince of Poland and heir to the throne.

[16] After recriminating Astolfo for wearing another woman's portrait around his neck, Estrella commands Rosaura (still going by Astrea) to fetch this locket for her.

Estrella walks in and demands to see it immediately, but, afraid of being discovered, Rosaura says the locket in Astolfo's hand is actually her own, and that he has hidden the one she was sent to fetch.

As war nears, Segismundo sees Rosaura, who tells him that she was the youth who found him in his prison and also the woman who he tried to seduce in court.

[17] Key elements from the play may be derived from the Christian legend of Barlaam and Josaphat, which Lope de Vega had brought to the stage.

[18][failed verification] This legend is, itself, a derivation of the story of the early years of Siddhartha Gautama, which illustrates the Hindu–Buddhist concept of reality as illusion.

[19] This struggle is a typical representation of the opposition in baroque comedy between the values represented by a fatherly figure and those embodied by the son.

Motifs and themes derived from a number of traditions found in this drama include the labyrinth, the monster, free will vs. predestination, the four elements, original sin, pride and disillusionment.

Others compare her first appearance, falling from a horse/hippogriff to the plot of Ariosto's Orlando furioso where Astolfo (the name of the character who deceives Rosaura in our play), also rides the hippogriff and witnesses a prophecy of the return of the mythical Golden Age.

Many writers of the Renaissance and early modern periods used the figure of Astraea to praise the rulers of their times.

[29] There have been many different interpretations of the play's ending, where Segismundo condemns the rebel soldier who freed him to life imprisonment in the tower.

Others have pointed out that Calderón, who lived under the Spanish monarchy, could not have left the rebel soldier unpunished, because this would be an affront to royal authority.

Daniel L. Heiple traces a long tradition of works where treason seems to be rewarded, but the traitor or rebel is subsequently punished.

[31] It may well be that, rather than intending his audience to see this action as purely right or wrong, Calderón purposefully made it ambiguous, creating an interesting tension in the play that adds to its depth.