II Chaucer in Spain: The History of a Connection

 

      In this section we will indicate historical circumstances that prove a link between Chaucer and Spain, especially those which might have enabled Chaucer’s knowledge of the work of Don Juan Manuel. We pay particular attention to the English intervention in the Spain of the Trastámaras and their descendents. We will point out the events and persons, English as well as Spanish, that could have placed Chaucer in proximity to the work of Don Juan Manuel. We will trace the bonds of consanguinity, not only between the English, Castilian, and Portuguese royal houses, but also between the House of Lancaster and that of Don Juan Manuel. And, if historical circumstances were totally favorable at least to Chaucer’s reading a copy of El Conde Lucanor, no less favorable was the work’s widespread fame and availability. We base our arguments on the best available collections of biographical documents: Chaucer Life Records (Martin and Crow, eds., 1966) and Don Juan Manuel: Biografía y Estudio Critico (Giménez Soler, 1932). At the same time we will make use of such testimony as that provided by such a contemporary observer as Chancellor López de Ayala in his Crónicas (Juan Luis Martin, ed., 1991). Besides these sources we will use works dealing with biography, the historical period, and literary influences: Russell’s indispensable The English Intervention in Spain and Portugal at the Time of Edward III and Richard II (1955); Pearsall’s Life of Geoffrey Chaucer: A Critical Biography (1991); Goodman’s John of Gaunt: The Exercise of Princely Power in Fourteenth Century Europe (1992); and Amador de los Rios’s Historia Critica de la Literatura Española (1962).
      Moreover, while we will make use of other, more secondary, bibliographical sources in our study., we cannot forget that the texts of the works themselves are the most important sources.

1. Chaucer in Spain during the English intervention (1365-1367)

      As is well known, there are many documents relating to the life of the English poet, and these were compiled by Crow and Olson (1966). However, there is a period, 1360-1367, in his biography for which there is no documentation. These have been called the “empty years." The last item of information for 1360 is of a payment to Chaucer by Lionel, Count of Ulster, for carrying letters from Calais to England (“Extracts from an account of Ulster’s Mission to Calais, October 1360, including payment to Chaucer for Carrying Letters to England.” Crow and Olson (1966:19)). This service had to do with the negotiations being carried on in Brittany between France and England. Previously, in March 1960, Edward III had paid 16 pounds ransom for the poet who was being held prisoner in Reims. Nothing is known of him from October 1360 until September 12, 1366, when a document of a payment of an annuity indicates that Chaucer had married on or before that date. This appears in Crow and Olson (1966:67) as the payment of 10 marks:

   pro bono servicio quod dilecta nobis Philipa Chaucer una domicellarum camere Philippe regine Anglie consortis nostris carissime eidem consorti nostre impendit et impendet in futurum consessimus eidem Philippe decem marcas percipiendas singulis annis…

        The appearance of the name “Philippa Chaucer” denotes his marriage, unless there was a single woman named Chaucer.
       This gap in our knowledge of Chaucer’s life existed until 1955, when Suzanne Honoré-Duvergé (1955; 9-13) transcribed Chaucer’s name correctly as it appeared in a document of El Cartulario del Rey don Carlos II de Navarra. Jean-Auguste Brutails (1890:142) had written “Geoffroy de Sancerre” in place of “Chausserre.” The confusion between the n and the u had hidden a valuable bit of information: Chaucer was in Spain. It is a matter of a safe-conduct which King Carlos II of Navarre granted to Chaucer from February 22 to May 24, 1366. We reproduce that passage here, as it appears in Crow and Olson (1966:64):

Charles etc. A touz ceulx qui ces presentes lottres verrons salus. Savoir faisons que nous avons et donnons bon loyal sauf seur conduit et sauve garde jusques a la feste de Penthecoste prouchain venant a Geoffroy de Chausserre escuier englois en sa compagnie trios compagnons avec leurs varlez chevaux et bens quelconquers troussez on a trousser en males vou dehors pour aler venir demorer se remuer conversser et retorner par tout ou il lui playra par touz noz villes forteresses pors passages et destroiz tant de jour que de nuit Si donon en mandament a touz nos subgez requerons touz autres que le dit Gefroy acompaignie come dit est en alent venant demorierant se remuant conversant el retornant par nos diz lieux ne destourbent ou enpenchent [sic] ne seffrent destorber ou enpecher en corps ne en biens le dit temps durant en aucune maniere. Donne a Olit le xxii jour de Fevrier lan de grace mil CCIx et cinq. Par le roy.       (Cartulario del Rey don Carlos Segundo, p. 269)

     This document has to be placed in its historical moment: Enrique de Trastámara was allied with the King of France, Pedro IV of Aragon, and Carlos II of Navarre, along with the groups of mercenaries called “Compañias Blancas,”. Enrique’s object was to dethrone Pedro I and crown himself king of Castille. Pedro I sought the assistance of the English king. To this end he sent Martin López de Cordoba to England in November of 1365, asking that the terms of the Anglo-Castilian treaty of June 22, 1362, be enforced. This treaty specifically prohibited English knights from serving as mercenaries against the Castilians; and in addition it guaranteed English assistance against any enemy of Castille. As Baugh (1968:64) puts it:

It is almost entirely concerned with the promise of Edward to help the Castilian king toto posse against any “qui dictum Regum Castellae…terra marine offendere, invadere, impugnare, aut in ipsis guerram fecere presumserit.”

      Edward III, moreover, for reasons of kinship, as we will see later, reacted overwhelmingly in support of Pedro I. It was not in his interest that France, England’s enemy in the Hundred Year’s War, should have any influence on Castille with Trastámara as king. Garbaty (1967:82) describes this reaction:

Edward III sent a vigorous protest to the English and Gascon troops on 6 December 1365, threatening with summary punishment anyone who took part in the campaign.

     We reproduce an extract of this letter sent by the English king to the English mercenaries in the service of Enrique de Trastámara, to show he regarded Pedro I as his cousin. The letter also names the English knights. We use the text (which Baugh (1968:66) includes in his article) from Foedera (Record ed.) III, ii, p 779):

It is addressed to “noz cheres & foialx, Johan de Chandos, Visconte de Seint Salveur, Hughe de Calverle, Nichol de Dagworth, & William de Elmahan, Chivalers.” It reminds them of the alliance with Pedro; says that “we have heard” that certain men of arms and others of our allegiance are preparing to enter Spain to the damage of Pedro and his subjects – “Par quoi Nous vous Mandons & Comandons, et a Chescun de vous, sur la Foi & Ligeance que vous Nous devez, & sur peine de quantque vous presentes Lettres, vous treez envers les Marches, ou ailleurs, dedans noz Seignuries & Puisance, & les Amonestez & Charges, de par nous, sur leur ligiance, & sur la Peine dessusdite, que nul d’eulx entre le Roialme, páutre Seigiurie du Roi d’ Espagne, nuestra Cousyn susdit.”

     Whether this letter was effective is doubtful. Baugh (1968:67) summarizes: “Calveley, one of those to whom the letter is addressed, had arrived in Barcelona by November 4.” This fact is not the only thing that suggests that the letter failed in its purpose. Other events succeeded one another in rapid succession. Duguesclin, in command of the Compañias Blancas, reached Barcelona on December 25, 1365; on January 1, 1366, the companies were showered with gifts by Pedro IV; in February they were in Zaragoza; in March Calveley took Calahorra. There, on March 16, Enrique de Trastámara proclaimed himself king, and had it made official in the Monastery of las Huelgas on March 26. As López de Ayala tells it:

E luego que llegó allî en la ciudad de Calahorra a le nombraron rey e anduvieron por la ciudad llamando: “Real, real por el rey don Enrique (p 314)E luego fizo fazer el rey don Enrique en las Huelgas, que es un monasterio real de Dueñas, cerca de la ciudad de Burgos que ovieron fondado los reyes de Castilla, muy grandes aparejos, e coronóse allí por rey. (p 319).

     Meanwhile, Pedro I had fled to Seville, and from there to Portugal. There something occurred relevant to our study. Ayala informs us that

Después que el rey don Pedro partió de Albuquerque envió decir al rey de Portogal, su tio, que le enviase segurar que pudiese pasar por el su regno de Portogal, por quanto avía rescelo del infante don Fernando su hijo. E esto facía el rey porque se temía del dicho infante, por quanto era sobrino de la reyna doña Juana, mujer del rey don Enrique, que agora nuevamente entrara en Castilla, ca era fijo de doña Constanza, fija de don Juan Manuel, hermana de la reyna doña Juana. (p 324)

     In fact, farther on, we will verify the existence of very close bonds of kinship between the descendants of don Juan Manuel and the ruling house of Castile and Portugal, in the same way as with the descendants of John of Gaunt. This marriage, between doña Juana, daughter of don Juan Manuel, and Enrique de Trastámara took place –as Ayala tells it– at the suggestion of his mother, Leonor de Guzman, against the opposition of King Pedro I:

fablo doña Leonor de Guzman con el conde su fijo, diciendole que fiziese sus bodas con la dicha doña Juana su esposa. E así lo fizo él conde, e consumió con ella el matrimonia ascondidamente a el palacio do la dicha doña Juana estaba con doña Leonor, su madre. E desto pesó mucho al rey e a la reyna doña Maria su madre, e a don Juan Alfonso de Albuquerque... E a pocos dias después desto fue dicho al conde don Enrique que la quería el rey prender y fuyó de Sevilla para Asturias. (pp. 21-22)

      From Portugal Pedro I went to Galicia, and from there, with his three daughters, to Bayonne where the Black Prince, eldest son of Edward III, was. In Aquitaine, English territory at that time, the Prince of Wales was unconcerned, but only apparently so, for –according to Ayala– he was preparing his troops to go to Castile (p 331). This apparent inactivity on the part of the Black Prince was masking a deliberate preparation for an attack –of which Chaucer tells us in “De Petro Rege Ispannie” : “Out of thy land thy brother made thee flee.” (The Monks Tale, VII, 2378).
      It is in this context that we have to place the safe-conduct signed by the by the King of Navarre at Olite on February 22, 1366. The Prince of Wales was sending spies into the territory with the safe-conduct of the king, who –as is well known –was playing a double game. As Russell (1955:45) sums it up, the safe-conduct granted by Carlos II to one of the knights of the Black Prince, Jean Menait, on February 13, 1366, “venido en nuestro regno por algunos [negocios] del dicho princep.” Up till now there have been different theories about the purpose of Chaucer’s journey to Spain. Honoré-Duvergé (1955: 9-13) supposes that Chaucer was one of the English on the side of Enrique de Trastámara. Crow and Olson (1966:65) include the possibility that “they may have [been] taking the overland route from France on a pilgrimage to the famous shrine in Galacia.” Garbaty (1967:81-87) suggests two other possibilities in the title of his article “Chaucer in Spain 1366: Soldier of Fortune or Agent of the Crown?”
      We believe that Chaucer’s mission was to carry through with the aims pursued by the English king in his letters: to make the English knights and soldiers desist from supporting Enrique de Trastámara. If –as we have seen previously– the king’s first letter was unsuccessful, then, even though sent December 16, 1365, there had been a dangerous invasion, which had the effect not only of Enrique’s proclaiming himself king on March 16, 1366, but also of putting to flight Pedro I. In the face of these facts, we find ourselves in agreement with Derek Pearsall (1992:51) who entertains the possibility of “…[a] secret mission connected with the affairs of Pedro of Castile.” Ayala gives us a notion of what was taking place in Aquitaine, ,as it related to Edward III:

Envió sus cartas a todos los grandes condes e señores de Guiana e de Bretaña, e a todos los que el debía que por le facer placer acompañarian al principe e al duque de Alencastre, sus fijos, en tal priessa como ésta, por las cuales les envió rogar que fuessen con ellos. (p. 337)

       The purpose of the whole undertaking from 1365 on was none other than to amass a great army, more powerful than that of Enrique de Trastámara: the result would be the crushing victory of Nájera in 1367.

The only document, at this moment, that gives any information about Chaucer in 1366 is the safe-conduct from February 22 to May 24. The next documented information is the payment he received on June 20, 1367, according to evidence in Crow and Olson (1996:123). This means that the possibility of a sojourn not only can be supported, but that it makes sense that he was paid for it as “dilectus valletus”; which is to say for his good work as a member of the court. Goodman (1922:46) sums up the situation just before the battle:

In January 1367, Carlos allied with Enrique de Trastámara and closed the Pyrenean passes to the Black Prince. At the end of January the latter sent Gaunt to meet Carlos at St. Jean Pied de Port and to escort him to a conference with the prince and Pedro at Peyrehorade. There the king once more changed sides and the terms for an alliance were reaffirmed. Setting out in mid-February, the army struggled through the snow-covered passes till they reached the shelter of Roncevalles.

     This shelter, curiously, would be the one whose protector John of Gaunt would become, and also the “Rouncivale” (I:670) which appears as the place of origin of the Pardoner, one of the pilgrims and narrators in The Canterbury Tales.
      The facts cited above by Goodman we can corroborate with quotations from Ayala (pp 338-339), but we prefer to focus on the abandonment of Enrique de Trastámara by the most important English knight in his service, Hugh de Calveley:

Agora tornaremos a contra como fizo el rey don Enrique después que el rey de Navarra se partió del en Santa Cruz De Campezno. Después destas vistas tornóse el rey don Enrique para Burgos, temiendo que en ninguna manera por aquellas partidas de los pueblos de Roncesvalles non pasarían el rey don Pedro, nin el príncipe de Gales, nin aquellas. compañas que con ellos venían, ca que lo podia muy bien defender el rey de Navarra. E desque el rey don Enrique llegó a Burgos luego partió dende e vínose para Haro, e estuvo ende algunos dias ordenado sus gentes para la batalla. E mosén Hugo de Caureley, que era un caballero ingles, con quartocientos de caballo de su compaña, que tenía consigo de Inglaterra, partió del rey don Enrique , e fuesse para Navarra, por cuanto su señor el príncipe de Gales, venía de la otra parte, e non podia ser contra él. (pp. 340-341)

       Curiously, it seems Calvely was informed of the arrival of the English and the treachery of Carlos II even before Enrique de Tarastámara. Ultimately, Edward III’s goal of separating the English mercenaries from the Trastámara side was successful. As it turned out,this English nobleman would fight at the side of John of Gaunt at Nájera. Ayala tells us

en la avanguardia venía el duque de Alencastre, hermano del príncipe, que decían don Juan , e mosén Juan Chandos, que era condestable de Guiana, por el príncipe, e mosén Raul Camois e mosén Hugo de Caureley (p.314)

     Why did Calveley abandon Enrique de Trastámara at this time (1367), instead of earlier in 1366? If Chaucer’s safe-conduct extended from February 22 to May 24, 1366, it took a year for his mission to have a successful outcome. The explanation must be that there had to be many points of negotiation with Carlos II and especially with the English mercenaries. The reason is simple, as Baugh (1968:63) points out: “On January 1, 1366, Pedro IV feasted all the leaders of the Companies.” Suaréz Fernandéz (1970:44) says that “Pedro IV paid special attention to the British captains in order to maintain a bridge of friendship toward the English.” MacColley (1988:44) states that “Henry of Trastámara gave Calveley the County of Carrion and the title of Count of Carrion,” and further, “Calveley was such an important figure at the Aragonese court that he married an Aragonese princess, the Dóna Constánza.”
       That he was well compensated and bound with family ties seems the most important reason. Besides this, we think that his loyalty to his king could – in the moment of truth – tip the scales. But we also suspect that he knew what the French king knew and wrote to Enrique de Trastámara:

Ovo cartas mensajeres del rey don Carlos de Francia, por las quales le envió rogar e consejar que non pelease, e que excusase aquella batalla, ca él le facia cierto que con el príncipe de Gales venía la flor de la caballería del mundo e por ende que desmanase aquella pelea (p. 345).

     The superiority of Pedro I’s army, above all of that of the Prince of Wales, as we have said before, was not by chance; it took more than a year to arrange it. Perhaps Chaucer contributed something to this operation.
      Here we interrupt our overview of the English intervention in Spain from 1365 to 1367. It is a historical fact that Chaucer was present in Spain during that period. And we here consider the important possibility that Chaucer could have read El Conde Lucanor. The considerations set down below have reference to the history of the English intervention summarized previously.

A) Chaucer was in Spain in 1355, thirty-one years after the completion of El Conde Lucanor and eighteen years after the death of don Juan Manuel, the most important Spanish author of the fourteenth century, during the period his descendants ruled in Castile (his daughter Juana, married to Enrique de Trastámara) and Portugal (his daughter Constánza wed to Pedro I of Portugal). Of don Juan Manuel’s importance as a writer and noble of the time, there is no question. We think that this prominence as a nobleman would have encouraged the circulation of his work among the nobility and the clergy, as we will later demonstrate when we speak of the diffusion of El Conde Lucanor. It is this that makes it logical that any copy of a book finished in 1335 would have had a wide circulation – in the 31 years following – in the courts of the Peninsula. The earliest information we have that the book was read we learn from the great biographer of don Juan Manuel, Giménez Soler (1932:676):

The earliest notice that this book had been read is that recorded in the Register 3.168, Folio 139, in which Queen Doña Maria asked Ferrán López de Stuñiga for “los libros que se clamavan el uno Florenca, le otro el conde de Lucanor, el otró de las ystorias despaña.”

     Queen Maria of Portugal, wife of Alfonso XI, died at Evora in 1356. So the book was being read at that time. Other citations testify to the wide availability of El Conde Lucanor. It was a required book in the libraries of the nobility and the clergy. Amador de los Rios (1969:246) asserts that the work was “printed over and over again, in an irregular and incomplete manner.” Giménez Soler (1932:195) says:

For this is Don Juan’s most real and admired book, passed from hand to hand in the fifteenth century; it was the most often printed, and five manuscripts survive; while of his other works, the sisters of El Conde Lucanor, only one copy remains.

     So popular was El Conde Lucanor that, quite by chance, we have found evidence that shows, by the degree of interest that it awakened, how widely it was disseminated. It was read by some friars of the Monastery of Guadalupe in the fifteenth century, who were accused of being conversos, that is, Jews or Moslems converted to Christianity. We cite here Albert A. Sicroff (1965:104) in his curious article “Clandestine Judaism in the Hieronymite Monastery of Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe”:

Finally, aside from looking askance at their Bible reading, the Old Christians of Guadalupe also complained about Converso monks who read such books as the works of Boccaccio, the Libro de la disputación de judio, and peculiarly, El Conde Lucanor.

     Surely we ought to underline the word “peculiarly”; for how this work can be considered in any way sinful, contrary to Catholic belief, and how anyone reading it could be regarded “converso” seems strange indeed. Significant too is the fact that it is mentioned together with “the works of Boccaccio,” for it indicates how popular the work was. The source used by Sicroff is the “dossier de Fray Juan de Segovia, testimony of Fray Juan de Ziruela; dossier of Fray Diego de Segovia, testimony of Fray Pedro Aleman and Fray Alonso de Bejar,” inserted in the Codice Guadalupe del Perpetuo Socono de Madrid (fol. 76), in the Archives of the Monastery of Guadalupe, although the original belongs to the Biblioteca del Convento del Perpetuo Socorro in Madrid.
      The popularity of El Conde Lucanor leads England (1977:59) to say:

When one thinks of the scarcity of manuscripts of medieval Castilian literature, the survival of five in this case suggests that El Conde Lucanor was something of a “best seller.”

     And as a final confirmation of the circulation of the book, we offer an example of the fifteenth century, which indicates its presence in the court of Portugal, in the hands of descendants of don Juan Manuel and John of Gaunt, as we shall see later. The quotation is from Cidade (1975:93) and gives us information about the Bibliotéca de la Torre de Tombo, organized by Eduardo, King of Portugal (1391-1438) who was the son of Philippa, the daughter of John of Gaunt:

ainda constam do catálogo a Confessio Amantis de Gower en traducao de cónego do Arcipreste de Hita, o Livro del Conde Lucanor de D. Juan Manuel.

     B) With the English presence in Spain after 1365, if we take into account such English mercenaries as Hugo de Calveley, marked by continuous negotiations between the Black Prince, Carlos II of Navarre, Pedro I of Castile, and Pedro IV of Aragón, and the assured presence of a copy of El Conde Lucanor in the court libraries, it appears that there was a good possibility that Chaucer could have had access to the work.

      C) The possibility could have been enhanced if we consider that don Juan Manuel died in 1348, eighteen years before Chaucer’s arrival in Spain, and that many nobles and some kings were his direct descendants. For this reason, it is interesting to note that, if copies existed in the courts of the peninsular kingdoms, and further, that Chaucer, the Black Prince, John of Gaunt, Hugo de Calveley, and many other nobles had close and direct contact with these copies, the likelihood of access to one copy does not seem very far-fetched.
      C1. Juana Manuel, daughter of Juan Manuel, although married to Enrique de Trastámara, the enemy of the English, could not forget that from 1365 to January or February of 1367, Hugo de Calveley had been in the service of her husband. In spite of the initial enmity of those years, that very condition led to negotiations.
      C2. Hugo de Calveley married Constánza, daughter of Pedro IV. We recall that don Juan Manuel was married to Constánza of Aragón, daughter of Jaime II of Aragón, and that his son Fernando had also become related by marriage to the house of Aragón. Giménez Soler (1932:646) includes the letter which demonstrates the good relations between Pedro IV and Don Juan Manuel and their family ties: “Letter from Pedro IV to don Manuel on the marriage of Don Fernando, son of the latter, to the daughter of the king’s son (Infante) Ramón Berenguer, September 13, 1345.” This relationship of Hugo de Calveley and don Juan Manuel with the king of Aragón is clinched with the fact that – as mentioned before – Hugo de Calveley was granted the earldom of Carrión by Enrique de Trastámara, confirmed later by Pedro I, an earldom that belonged to Sancho Manuel, a bastard son of don Juan Manuel.
      C3. Pedro I, whose mother, Maria of Portugal (mentioned above, Giménez Soler (1932:676) possessed a copy of El Conde Lucanor. The relations of the English with Pedro I were important and continued from 1366 to August 1367, when the English left Castile.

      D) Although don Juan Manuel’s immediate descendants had family ties throughout the peninsular courts, we must also point out that both his forebears and progeny were linked to English royalty, in particular through the House of Lancaster, as we can see from the genealogical tree below. From Leonor of Cástile, don Juan Manuel’s aunt who married Edward I, to Enrique III of Castile who, in 1388, married Catherine, daughter of John of Gaunt, this important relationship continued in the family lines of don Juan Manuel and the House of Lancaster, a relationship not merely acknowledged, but assumed by both sides. In his letter to the English mercenaries (cited above), Edward III called Pedro I his kinsman; and, Ayala tells us, his son, the Prince of Wales, sent a letter on April 1, 1367, to Enrique de Trastámara – two days before the battle of Nájera with the following:

Eduarte, fijo primogénito del rey de Inglaterra, príncipe de Gales e de Guiana, duque de Cornualla e conde de Cestre: al noble e poderoso príncipe don Enrique, conde de Trastámara. Sabed que en estos días pasados el muy alto e muy poderoso príncipe don pedro, rey de Castilla e Leon, nuestro muy caro e muy amado pariente . . . (pp. 348-349)

     Further, historians recognize the importance of this connection. We cite Goldman (1997:137) which reflect not only this opinion but also recalls the Anglo-Castilian origin of “Charing Cross” erected in honor of Leonor of Cástile whom Chaucer – as we have said – evokes in reference to the Pardoner’s place of origin (Roncival):

A short distance from his house, the Savoy, was Charing Cross, one of three crosses set up by Edward I to commemorate her funeral procession, a unique iconographical reminder of the Anglo-Castilian alliance. Was Gaunt aware that his great-great-grandfather, Fernando III, was a saint and a hero of the Reconquista? The memory of Castile as the great crusading power had long persisted in English noble circles.

[Genealogical Chart, p 31]

     E) If Chaucer’s safe-conduct to come to Spain through Navarre was valid for about ninety days, it would seem that the language of El Conde Lucanor would have posed no problem for him. We will establish – in support of this – a comparison with Chaucer’s Italian journey from December 1, 1372, to May 23, 1373. As Crow and Olson maintain in Chaucer Life Records (1966:40):

Studies of the time required for such journeys in the Middle Ages indicate that Chaucer may have had about 100 days in Italy out of the 174 spent on the journey.

     We must deduce that between the period of his stay in Spain – taking into account what the documents tell us – and the period of his stay in Italy, there is a difference of only ten days, assuming that his visit to Spain did not include the travel to get there. Navarre and Aquitaine had a common border then; whereas in the case of the Italian journey – as we know from Crow and Olson (1966:40) -- the military situation in France at the time would have made Chaucer avoid the most direct route and “he might have gone from Calais by way of the Rhine, a journey of about 1000 miles. (Calais to Genoa)".
Martin Crow and Virginia Leland (1991:XV), in the section “Chaucer’s Life” in Benson’s Riverside Chaucer say

The hundred days allowed by the 1372-73 journey would hardly have given Chaucer time to learn a language. . . London in Chaucer’s youth provided better opportunities; many Italian families lived in London, some near the Chaucer house in Vintry; Chaucer’s father and grandfather had business dealings with Italians.

        With respect to the first affirmation we must say that, if in one hundred days he would have had time to learn a language (referring to the Italian) why wouldn’t the same be true in learning Castilian in ninety days? The difficulty in understanding both languages should be the same. Both have a strong resemblance to Latin, from which they derive. And at that time their evolution was at an earlier stage. Probably he was able to read both languages.
       As for the second claim, it seems very difficult to determine the degree of familiarity, not to mention the mastery of Italian that Chaucer might have attained, for we have only the fact that there were Italian tradesmen in his neighborhood and that his father did business with them. If, for the first claim, we have formed an alternative which makes clear that there was as much likelihood of Chaucer’s learning Castilian as of his learning Italian, moving from the argument of “the number of days in the country” to the second, his familiarity with Italian from contact in London, we could make the same claim regarding Castilian. For this we cite the communication of Elisa Maria Ferraira Priegue, entitled “El papel de Galicia en la redistribución de productos andaluces visto a través de los archivos ingleses [The Role of Galicia in the Redistribution of Andalucian Products as seen in the English Archives].” It is not by accident that the Spanish commercial products which appear in The Canterbury Tales are Andalucian: the wine from Lepe (“The Pardoner’s Tale,” 562-572), and the leather from Córdoba (“Sir Thopas,” 732). Although there is a dearth of documents relating to this commerce between Andalucia and England in the Spanish archives, the contrary is true of the English archives, as Ferreira Priegue (1982:242) tells us:

This lack [of documentation] is more than made up for, in part by the very abundant documentation of this kind that is preserved in the Public Records Office in London, and in the municipal archives of such ports as Bristol, Exeter, and Southampton. Through these customs records which cover almost all the English ports – some going back to the reign of John Lackland, although for the most part the series covers the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, for the Middle Ages – one can follow day by day and ship by ship the maritime traffic between England and the other countries of Europe.

This study indicates the existence of four routes taken by the products of Andalucía:
• “Andalucian craft which went directly to England. Though not many are noted as such, Ferreira assures us “it is possible that many of the ‘Spanish,’ were not identified as to their port of origin.” (p 33)
• English vessels which went to Audalucía . There were many more that carried English cloth (woolens) and brought back wine according to Ferreira (1982: 243), due to the tax privileges possessed by British merchants.
• The Italian run of “the West,” which carried a goodly amount of trade. Ferreira (1982:243) maintains that “together with Italian merchants figure the names of numerous “hispani” who sent to Southampton and London olive oil, wine, and received in return woolens and manufactured articles of English and Florentine Provenance.”
• The Galician shippers and merchants who – besides the Galicia-Audalucía run and the Galicia-Flanders run, made Galicia-England runs without ports of call. Ferreira (1982:246) emphasizes how very heterogeneous the cargoes were:

. . . among the products of Andalucía proper : hides, honey, figs, raisins, “sweet” wine, “non-sweet” wine, common wines from Romania, from Lepe, and Malmsley, olive oil and soap products grown on the Peninsula or brought there by Italians, red dye, indigo, and cotton. Finally it is clear – as the foregoing has shown – that there was a striking presence of Spaniards trading with the English.

     This leads us to think that Chaucer could have been exposed to Spanish as well as to Italian, and of course the two languages have many similarities. It goes without saying , it is very difficult to determine the degree of Chaucer’s knowledge without historical proof, but it is no more precarious to assume that he was in contact with Italians from his childhood than it is to assume that he was in contact with Spaniards (although to a lesser degree) and that that contact led him to a familiarity with either language.
    In support we must return of Ferreira’s (1982:243) remarks about the English ships that traded wool cloth for wine in Andalucía.” . . . the shipping of wine was done, wherever possible, in English ships because of the fiscal privileges enjoyed by British trades.” We cannot forget that Chaucer’s father, grandfather, and maternal family were wine merchants. Crow and Olson (1966: 2) have this to say about his father, grandfather,and great-grandfather:

John Chaucer, London vintner, who is named in the above record as the father of Geoffrey and Chaucer, was born probably in 1312 or 1313 and died in 1366. He was the son of Robert le Chaucer, known also as Robert Malin Chaucer, citizen and vintner of London, who was the son of Andrew de Dinnagton (Dyny[n] Dynineton), of Ipswich, sometimes known as Andrew le Taverner.

     On the same page Crow and Wilson tell us regarding Chaucer’s mother: “Her last two husbands and both her sons Thomas Heron and John Chaucer were vintners.”
      From all this we must deduce that there was a relationship with Spanish wine merchants. And our deduction gains more veracity when it takes into account Derek Pearsall’s words (1992:12) regarding Chaucer’s father: "John Chaucer was a figure of some prominence in London, a vintner and an active member of the London business community." If influences from Dante, Petrarch, and Bocaccio have been deduced from Chaucer’s sojourn in Italy, why can’t we deduce the influence of the Spanish author who was transcendent in both literature and politics in all the courts of the Peninsula at that time? Our investigation demands a positive response to this question. If the historical conditions surrounding Chaucer’s journey to Spain are no obstacle, but quite the contrary, to his knowing El Conde Lucanor, it is inconsistent to regard the language as a problem. Crow and Olson (1966:40) maintain that “it is more likely that Chaucer was chosen for this mission because he knew Italian already than that he first became acquainted with Italy on this journey.” If it follows that the business contacts of his family with Italians gave Chaucer knowledge of the language of Boccaccio, we can also say that contacts with the Spanish could produce the same result with respect to Castilián.

      F) With no intent to speculate, but to point the way for other possible investigations, we are going to show the events that lead us to think that the period in Chaucer’s biography referred to as “the empty years,” could be explained by the possibility that the poet was playing an important role in English-Spanish affairs, between the thirtieth of [?October? month missing], 1360 and February 22, 1366.
      On October 24, 1360, the Treaty of Bretigny was signed at Calais. As can be read in a document of the Count of Ulster, in whose service Chaucer seems to have been, “Galfrido Chaucer” received a payment, according to Chaucer Life Records (p 189) in October of 1360 “per perceptum domini eundo cum litteris in anglilam iii roiales precii ixs.” This would have been the first mission that Chaucer would undertake in the service of English diplomacy. Later, there would be other documented cases: June 20, 1370; November 12, 1372; May 23, 1372; etc.
      Further, as we focus on the period nearer his trip to Spain, we see that, from 1360 to 1367, what seems to be documented is that he participated in the war of 1359-60 against France, being taken prisoner at Rheims and set free after the payment of sixteen pounds by the King of England (Chaucer Life Records: p 23). Later, he took part – as we have already mentioned – in the negotiations of the Peace of Bretigny (p. 136), and still later he journeyed to Spain in 1366. In 1367 he received merit pay for his services as a squire (“dilectus vallectus” Chaucer Life Records, p 120). From all this it is deduced that his activities, from 1360 to June 20, 1367, were all related to the military, specifically military diplomacy. With this in mind, it is necessary for us to enumerate the important accords signed between Castile and England in the period from 1360 to 1367. This suggests the possibility of Chaucer’s participation in these and, therefore of a major, important connection with Spain and its language.

• The Peace of Terrer (May 13, 1361). An accord between Portugal, Pedro I of Castile, and England, against Aragon and France. This is when Enrique de Trastámara and his forces cross over to France to join with the Companies.
• The Anglo-Castilian treaty of June 22, 1362, in London. In this agreement, which we have already mentioned, Pedro I was laying foundations so as to demand English intervention in Castile. We must note what Baugh states (1968:64, n.16): “Edward III ratified the pact first (February 1, 1363), Pedro not until September 28, 1364.” This ratification took place in Calatayud. This activity indicates the existence of occasions for the exercise of diplomacy.
• The Treaty of Libourne, September 23, 1366. Pedro I agreed that Carlos II would receive 200,000 florins, the provinces of Alava, Guipúzcoa, Logróno, Calahorra, Navarrete; and the Black Prince the dominion of Vizcaya, including Castro Urdiales. It must be stressed that the greater part of the mercenaries under the command of Juan Chandos had gone over to the side of the Black Prince.
• May 1367. The Alliance between the Prince of Wales and Aragon, in view of the atrocities of Pedro I and his failure to make the promised payments. The Black Prince sent his ambassadors to Barcelona.

      Where was Chaucer and what was he doing from October 1360 to February 22, 1366? Perhaps the answer can be found in an archive dealing with key activities during the negotiations between the peninsular kings and England. We leave that task to others.

      G) It is interesting as well to note the presence of English knights, very close to Chaucer, during this period of the English intervention. There was John of Gaunt and Juan Chandós who Ayala’s Cronicas says (p 344) were in the order of battle at Nájera, “en la avanguardia venía el duque de Alencestre, hermano de príncipe, que decian don Juan, e mosén Juan Chandós. . .” We also mention Sir Guichard d’Angle who – according to Haldeen Braddy (1935:74)-- was Chaucer’s source for the composition of his two stanzas for Pedro I in The Canterbury Tales: “The solution which I wish to offer is that the story was transmitted to Chaucer through his friend Sir Guichard d’Angle.” And others cited by Braddy (1952:124), who “fought for the king’s cause at the battle of Nájera in 1367 – such noblemen, for example, as Thomas Percy, William Beauchamp… “ who would later go with Chaucer to carry out other missions outside of England. " (See Chaucer Life Records (pp. 44-45, 61-62,) respectively.)
      His friends’ stay in Spain could have provided another means of access to a copy of El Conde Lucanor. Some of them would return to Spain when John of Gaunt landed in Galicia in 1386 to claim the crown of Castile and Leon. Such was the case of Thomas Percy, whom we see even at that date as Amador de los Rios tells us (1984:329-30, n.3):

It is worth mentioning here that at that time in the kingdom of Galicia, Jews rarely fell victim to popular resentment. The famous expedition of the Duke of Lancaster was carried out to maintain the rights of his wife to the throne of Castile, as daughter of King Pedro. It had as a result brought about the marriage of Doña Catalina, granddaughter to the King, to the first born of Don Juan I and the creation of the Principality of Asturias. This expedition was undertaken in 1385 by the English under the command of Sir Thomas Percy and took the village of Rivadavia. Sacked, the worst misfortunes fell upon the Jews who were reputed to be rich, there as they are everywhere. Murder united with pillage, and the Jewish quarter was put to the torch – proof enough, our readers will see – that animus against the Hebrew race was not limited just to the Spanish.

     This shows not only the duration of Percy’s stay in Spain, but also the importance of his mission which must have involved not only a minimal knowledge of the language but an acquaintance with the culture and customs of Spain.

     H) Here we must diverge from our time-line of the English intervention to discuss an important, prior historical event – one mentioned in The Canterbury Tales. We refer to the siege of Algeciras (1342-1344). In that campaign the English participated, particularly Henry of Lancaster, Count of Derby, who would become the father-in-law of John of Gaunt. To be precise, at the death of Blanche, he would inherit the title of Duke of Lancaster, which later would fall to Constanza, daughter of Pedro I.
      Alfonso XI laid siege to the plaza of Algeciras which was held by Morrocans, in August of 1342. Its bay was already controlled by a powerful Genoese squadron, paid for with the spoils of Salado. Assisting at the siege were Aragonese ships, and the land forces were joined by English and German knights led by Henry, Count of Derby; by the Count of Salisbury; by Baron de Bearne, the Count of Foix; and by Felipe de Eureux, King of Navarre.
The Poema de Alfonso Onceno tells of the intervention mentioned above:

Por onrar las santa ley
ayuntóse gran compana
e por ver al noble rey
que regnara en España

llegaron (a) aquesta guerra
altas omnes sin dubdanca
el conde Arbit de Inglaterra
e el conde Fox de Francia
e aquel rey de Navarra
con sus gentes que tenía;
llegaron bien desde Sarra
romeros en romeria (2197-2199)

     And besides the Duke of Derby, father-in-law of John of Gaunt, another participant in the battle was one who had a great deal to do with a book entitled El Conde Lucanor, which he had completed in 1335:

El pendón de don Fernando
a los moros costó caro,
sus vasallos lo quardando
(qu)e llamando ivan “¡Faro!”
Con el don Tello van
bien lidiando sin dudança,
e con el de don Johan
fagiendo muy gran matança. (2411-2412).

     The author was himself at the battle. For this reason –during the twenty-month siege– a relationship between don Juan Manuel and Henry of Lancaster must have developed.
      As Alfonso XI says in his poem, don Juan Manuel carried the standard of Castile and the Admiral Don Pedro de Moncada that of Aragon. Don Juan Manuel wrote immediately to King Pedro IV of Aragon reporting the victory. Giménez Soler includes this letter in his work (1932:642) along with one from Mateo Mercer, as well, which bears witness to don Juan Manuel’s presence at these historic events:

Dvendes a xxvi dies de Mars en hora de tercia los estendarts vostre e del Rey de Castilla entraren en la vila nova de Agesira e don Johan Manuel e el vezcomt de Cabrera e Anrich Enriquez e lalmirate de Castilla e yo cascum ab certes companyes entram en la vila ab los dits estendarts e dema que sera disapte lo Rey de Castilla ab totes ses companyes entrara en la vila mayor.

     Regarding the presence of the Duke of Derby at this historic event, reports of which persisted in Europe for a long time, John Matthews Manly (1976:49) provides a bit of interesting information:

It is not strange, therefore, that when it [Algeciras] finally fell in the spring of 1344, King Edward of England sent to Alfonso a letter [sic] elaborate and jubilant congratulations, a copy of which is still preserved in the Archives of England and published in Ryme’s Foedera. That Englishmen took part in the siege and were present at the surrender we know to be a fact and not one of Chaucer’s poetic fictions. The collection of ancient documents just cited contains a letter of credence dated August 30, 1343, in favor of Henry, Earl of Derby, and William de Montawte, Earl of Salisbury, to Alfonso, king of Castile.

     Considering the demonstrated presence of these two important noblemen, the Earl of Derby and don Juan Manuel, together for at least a year, it is not unreasonable to arrive at the following: if, as we showed in the quotation from Giménez Soler (1932:676), Queen Maria of Portugal, wife of Alfonso XI, owned a copy of El Conde Lucanor, it could have been quite feasible that the Earl of Derby –model of knighthood throughout Europe and– according to Manly (1976) the source for Chaucer’s Knight; pilgrim and narrator in The Canterbury Tales – might have obtained a copy of that book. The siege of Algeciras caused a great stir throughout Europe, and its chief protagonists shared in that. Thus if the Earl of Derby had a copy of El Conde Lucanor in his hands, Chaucer could have had access to it in a number of ways:

a) The Earl of Derby took an active and prominent role in the Treaty of Bretigny of 1360, where Chaucer also played a role.

b) The Earl of Derby’s (after 1352, the Duke of Lancaster's) familial relationship with John of Gaunt assures us that there was a connection with Chaucer through Chaucer’s wife who served Derby’s second wife Constanza de Castile from 1372 to her death in 1387. Chaucer – as we shall see – had close ties with John of Gaunt, as demonstrated in the documents cited above.

c) Just as Manly’s article (1976) indicates, Chaucer’s admiration for Henry, Earl of Derby and Duke of Lancaster, caused him to attribute Henry’s characteristics to the Knight in The Canterbury Tales, even to the extent of placing his fictional creation in the very places that the Earl of Derby had served:

At Alisaundre he was whan it was wonne
Ful ofte tyme he hadde the bord bigonne
Aboven alle nacions in Pruce;
In Lettow had he juiped and in Ruce,
No Cristen man so ofte of his degree.
In Gernade at the seege eek hadde he be
Of Algezir, and ridden in Belmarie.
At Lyeys was he and al Satalye,
Whan they were wonne, and in the Grete See
At many a noble armee hadde he be.
At mortal batailles adde he been fifteen
And foughten for our feith at Tramyssene
In listes thries, and ay slayn his foo.
This ilke worthy knight hadde been also
Sometyme with the Lord of Palatye
Agayn another hethen in Turkye (I 51-67).

Besides these Spanish locations, Chaucer, - as António Leon Sendra and Jesús L. Surano Reyes (1992:106-141) show in their article “Spanish References in The Cantterbury Tales” – cites places linked to the Crusades – like those above, and places linked to maritime navigation: “Cartage” (l. 404), “Fynstere” (l. 408), “Strayte of Marrok” (ll. 464-65), “Jabaltare and Septe” (l. 945); with business, “Lepe” (VI, 563), etc.

2. – 1367-1388; John of Gaunt in Spain and Portugal.

    In August 1367 the Prince of Wales, as Ayala tells us in his Cronicas (p 395), lacking an agreement with Pedro I and distrustful of him, not only abandoned in Spain, but he also seems to have begun to conspire against him:

el rey don Pedro, despues que ficiera su pleytesia e juramento con el principe de Gales en Burgos, se fuera para Sevilla, e maguer el príncipe le avía atendido los cuatro meses que le pusiera de le pagar la primera paga de lo que debía a él e a sus gentes que con él vinieron, así de sus estados, como de los gajes qe las eran debidas, que nunca oviera dende recabdo, nin entregara a al príncipe a Vizcaya, nin a Soria a mosén Juan Chandós, e que el príncipe se quería partir de Castilla, e tornóse para su tierra desavenido del rey don Pedro. E ovo cartas el rey don Enrique de algunos caballeros ingleses sus amigos, que fueron en su servicio en la entrada que él ficiera en Castilla quando se llamara rey, e andaban en la compañía del príncipe agora, en que se le aconsejaban que fasta que el príncipe saliese de Castilla, él non viniese a ella, pero que luego que sopiese que era partido, que non se destoviese, a fuese cierto que el príncipe era del todo mal contento, del rey don Pedro, e que non tomaría a le ayudar más, min las companies que con él vinieran por cuanto non les pagara.

    Included among these “algunos caballeros ingleses sus amigos,” in all likelihood would have been Hugh de Calveley. Who brought these “cartas” which “ovo el rey don Enrique” in Seville? From this time on --concluding in 1367 with the departure from Spain of the Prince of Wales’ English troops-- the English intervention on the Peninsula would take a new turn, this time based on the claim of the Duke of Lancaster, John of Gaunt, to the crown of Castile and Leon because of his marriage in 1372 with Constánza, daughter of Pedro I. From 1372 on, John of Gaunt had himself called “par la grace de Dieu roy de Castille et de Leon, duc de Lancastre,” (Chaucer Life Records).
To sum up this second stage of the English intervention in Spain, we will generally follow Ayala’s Crónicas.

1) In 1378 a plan was made to recover Pedro I’s debt to England. The king of Navarre went to Madrid and informed Enrique II

que el rey de Inglaterra e le príncipe dexarian la guerra que avian con él, e non ayudarían a las fijas del rey don Pedro que estaban en Inglaterra, e para esto que el rey don Enrique diese al príncipe de Gales alguna suma de dineros por la debda que le debía el rey don Pedro de las gajes que ovieran de él e los otros señores e gentes de armas, los quales él pagara por venir con el rey don Pedro a Castilla. E que faziendo el rey don Enrique esto, el príncipe dexaria todas las otras demandas del regno de Castilla, e así lo fazía el duque de Alencastre que era casado con doña Constánza, fija del rey don Pedro.

(Crónicas p.466) Although the Duke of Lancaster would have attacked from Aguitaine carrying “armas de castillos e leones” (Crónicas p.475), he had to desist because, according to Ayala, “he had lost so many men in his expedition to France and was returning to England.” (p.476).

    2) In 1381, there was another invasion plan which would again be a resounding failure, this time under the direction of his brother Edmund, who was married to Isabel, daughter of Pedro I and sister of Constaniza. In the Crónicas (p.535) we read, that six months of that year were spent in preparation, and that in 1382 Juan I of Castile knew that the king of Portugal and Sir Edmund were preparing to invade Castile. But the invasion never took place because matters were settled by treaty. About this it is interesting to read in the Crónicas (p 537):

E el rey don juan envió al rey de Portogal sus embajadores, e trataron con él todo acuerdo e bien de paz que pudieron; ca estos dos reyes eran primos, fijos de hermanas, ca el rey don Juan era fijo de la reyna doña Juana de Castilla, el rey de Portogal don Fernando era fijo de doña Constanza, reyna de Portogal; e fueran estas dos hermanas de don Juan Manuel. In both courts, the Castilian and the Portuguese, two grandsons of don Juan Manuel ruled. Further, because of these negotiations (Crónicas, p.537)

     Edmund would return to England in ships that the king of Castile had given him. It was the second time that English intentions had come to naught, but they persisted in pursuing their objective so that their relations with Spain continued, from 1372-1388.

3) The Crónicas (pp. 542-543) tell us “how the wedding was arranged between King Juan and the Infanta Beatriz, daughter of the King of Portugal, and how the arrangements were sworn to and king Juan was married.” The death of King Fernando of Portugal led to an internal power struggle in that country. Among the noble partisans of Doña Beatriz we find someone directly related to Juan Manuel. (p.556)

El dia que se fizo el complimiento de los setenta dias por el rey don Fernando en Lisbona, luego despues de la misa, un conde de Sindra que y era e avía nombre don Enrique Manuel (que era fijo de don Juan Manuel, e tio del rey don Fernando de Portogal, e del rey don Juan de Castilla, ca era hermano de sus madres, era eso mesmo tio de la reyna doña Beatriz), tomó el pendón de Quinas, que son armas de Portogal, e algunos criados del rey don Fernando con él, e fueron por la rúa nova de Lisbona llamando “Real, Real, Portogal, Portogal por la reyna doña Beatriz”: e iban eso mesmo algunos otros con él.

    Juan Maestro de Davis, brother of King Ferdinand was proclaimed king of Portugal.

4) Maestre de Davis won out over Juan I of Castile at Albujerrota and in 1385 we see how he called upon the Duke of Lancaster to come to his aid and to recover what was his:

el maestre Davis, que se llamaba rey de Portogal, avía enviado sus mensajeros a Inglaterra, especialmente el duque de Lancaster, que era casado con una fija del rey don Pedro, que decían doña Constanza e por razon de ella se llamaba el duque de Alencastre rey de Castilla e de León, por los quales le facía saber cómo el rey de Castilla fuera desbaratado, e avía perdido muchas gentes surpass de las merjores que en el regno de Castilla avía, e que agora tenía tiempo de se venir el dicho duque para Castilla; ca con el títubo que él tenía en se llamar rey de Castilla e faltar a su adversario desbaratado e menguado de companyas, otros teniendo a él por ayadador con mucha gente que tenía podría acabar ser entención; e que no tardáse la su venida. (Crónicas, pp. 607-608)

And, in fact –as we have already cited Amador de los Rios (1983:329-330 n.3) to the effect that “under the command of Sir Thomas Percy, the villa of Rivadavia was taken by the English in 1385.”

5) The Duke of Lancaster disembarked in Galicia, and he didn’t come alone. He brought his whole household. The Crónicas (p 614) say

Dende a pocos dias llegarónle nuevas al maestre de Davis como el duque de Alencastre era aportado con pieza de navíos de gentes en la villa de la Coruña, que es en Galicia, dia de Santiago, e cómo tomara y algunas galeas que falló del rey de Castilla, e que la gente que el dicho duque traía eran mil e quinientas lanzas, e otros tantos archeros, e todo de muy buena gente. E traía consigo su mujer doña Constanza, que era fija del rey don Pedro, es una fija que avía della, que decian doña Catalina. E había otras dos fijas que el duque oviera primero de otra mujer con quien fuera casado antes, fija de otro duque de Alencastre e conde de Dervi, que era antes dél, a la mayor decian doña Phelipa, la qual casó entonce con el maestre Davis que se llamaba rey de Portogal, segund adelante diremos; e a la otra decían doña Isabel, la cual casó estonce con un caballero que venía con el duque, que decían mosén Juan de Holanda, que fuera el primer marido de la princesa; e era estonçe Juan de Holanda en la cabalgada, e le duque de Alencastre fizole su condestable.

     This arrival of the Duke of Lancaster with his family on July 25, 1386, is very significant insofar as it not only indicates his presence in Spain, but it also supports new family ties through the marriage of Felipa and the King of Portugal, with a descendant of don Juan Manuel, as well the marriage of Catalina with Enrique III, great-grandson of don Juan Manuel.
      We must also include, besides those already mentioned as accompanying the Duke of Lancaster, Philippa Chaucer, who, documents tell us, was in service to the Duchess of Lancaster from 1372 (Chaucer Life Records (pp. 85-86)):

Pur Philippe Chause.
Johan par la grace [de Dieu roy de Castile et de Leon duc de Lancastre] etc. a nostre trescher et bien ame clerc sire William de B[ughbrigg] nostre receyvour general saluz. Come nous de nostre grace especial et purle le bon et agreeable service que nostre bien ame damoysele Philippe Chauce and foit et ferra en temps avenir a nostre treschere et tresame compagne le roine avons grantez a li x livres par un apprendre annuelement tanque a nous plerra par les muines de nostres receyvour general que pur le temps serr sus temes de Saint Michel et aveles porcions: voulons et nous mandons que des issues de vostre receit paiez et deliverez au dit Philippe les ditz x livres…

     If Chaucer’s wife was in the service of Constanza, she must have accompanied her to Spain, the more so because all of John of Gaunt’s daughters came along and because Constanza, as Goodman afirms taking as a source the Chronicler of St. Denys, "was pregnant when she went to Spain". Perhaps the duke’s military operations were somewhat restricted by the need to transport his wife and daughters and their female attendants – all with the army in Léon, as well as by the fear that they might succumb to privation or the threat of disease. (Goodman 1992, 126).
      Regarding disease, Ayala tells us (Crónicas p 627) what befell the Duke’s troops which invaded Castile:

Después que entró en Castilla, siempre ovo grand mortandad en sus compañas, en guisa que perdió muchas gentes de las suyas; e segund se sopo por cierto morieron trescientos caballeros e escuderos, e muchos archeros e otras gentes.

And among “otras gentes” might have been included Philippa Chaucer, for it is known that she received her last payment – through her husband– on June 18, 1387. This has led Crow and Olson (1966: 329) to fix the possible date of her death between June 18 and November 7, 1387:

The normal implication of such a disappearance from the rolls is the death of the grantee. Because for several terms Philippa Chaucer had drawn her annuity through her husband and because Geoffrey Chaucer drew only his own Michaelmas instalments on 7 November 1387, it would appear that her death occurred sometime between 18 June 1387, when she drew her last payment, and 7 November of the year.

     Goodman (1992:126) speaking of the dangers of the plague, makes an interesting point:

Apart from personal considerations, the deaths of Constance and her daughter would have adversely affected his ability to make terms of settlement with Juan.

     And he notes this as well; “Sir John Holland took his wife Elizabeth and some of the duchess’s ladies through Castile on their way home before Gaunt re-entered Portugal.”
      Continuing with our hypothesis, Philippa Chaucer had already died or was among these duchess’s ladies, “which might explain the trip Chaucer made to Calais July 5, 1387, with William Beauchamp, as indicated by Crow and Olson (1966: 161-162 “Enrollment of Letters of Protection, 5 July 1387 ): for Chaucer was about to go to Calais in the King’s Service in the company of William Beauchamp, Captain of Calais.”

6) The peace treaties were completed, sealed by the marriage between Catalina and Enrique III. The basic accords were arrived at in Troncoso (Portugal) and in Bayonne, as the Crónicas tell us (p 631):
el rey don Juan envió sus embajadores al duque de Alencastre, e falláronle en una villa de Portogal que dicen Troncoso, e trataron con él en esta manera: Que el fijo primogénito del rey don Juan, heredero de Castilla e de León, que decían don Enrique, casase con doña Catalina, fija del duque de Alencastre e de la duquesa doña Constanza, fija del rey don Pedro de Castilla.

E porque este trato más complidamente se pudiese facer e ordenar los recabdos, que complía que el duque partiese luego de Portugal, e se fuese para Bayona, que es en el señorío de Portogal, e cerca de la comarca de Castilla, e que el rey de Castilla enviase allá sus procuradores, e que se pusiese todo este trato en la forma que complía.

     7) In 1388, the marriage between Catalina and Enrique III, great-grandson of Don Juan Manuel, whas performed. John of Gaunt and his wife, in exchange for a sum of money, renounced any claim to the kingdom of Castile. (Crónicas, pp. 634-639)
From that time on, the relations between Castile and England were peaceful. Thus we see that after the wedding “doña Constanza went to Medina del Campo, and Juan I gave her jewels and, in addition, the villa of Huete with all its taxes and rights as long as she might live. (Crónicas, p 642).” Ayala also tells us (Crónicas, p 644) how in 1389, doña Constanza was in Guadalajara and Juan I was in Burgos organizing preparations for a meeting in Bayonne with the Duke of Lancaster.

E estando en Burgos, llegaron y embajadores del duque de Alencastre, a los cuales decían mosén Tomás de Percy, un caballero camarero del duque, e otro caballero que decían mosén Guillen Port, e un letrado que decían maestre Guillen Remón, que era juez de Burdeos.

     The English Intervention was over. Relationships from that time on mainly centered on requests from John of Gaunt that Castile pay what was owing to him from his daughter’s wedding contract. Goodman tells us (1992:134) that “the duke complained about the non-payment for two years and more. When at last the Castilian government showed willingness to remedy this, Gaunt renounced the debt.”
      From the historical circumstances that we have summarized for the period 1367-1388, the following points suggest the possibility that Chaucer had access to El Conde Lucanor.

     a) We have seen that in the twenty-three years between 1366 and 1389 a relationship existed between England and the kingdoms of Castile, Aragon, Navarre, and Portugal, which indicate direct and constant contacts with people very close to Chaucer, including the author himself. The lengthy duration of this contact, taken in conjunction with the close and intense ties with persons close to Chaucer, persons who played leading parts in the actions, gives convincing support to our hypothesis: that the English had sufficient proximity to the Spanish culture of that period and that El Conde Lucanor was a widely circulated work.

     b) It is important to consider that from the first contact between England with Castile and Aragon, 1365-1367, there developed a very important connection between the House of the Duke of Lancaster and certain key Spaniards.
These persons went to England and were in service to John of Gaunt. We will mention three whom we consider the most important, not only because of their social status, but because of their possible connection with the work of don Juan Manuel.
      b.1) Constanza of Castile. We base the relationship of John of Gaunt’s wife with El Conde Lucanor on two historical circumstances.
      b.1.1) She was Castilian princess, who remembered Castile very well and surrounded herself with Spaniards in her court in Lancaster. Like all nobles of that time, it was normal for her to have a library and, perhaps among her books there was a copy of Don Juan Manuel’s work.
      b.1.2.) As we have alluded to in our citation of Giménez Soler (1932:676), “The oldest mention of this book’s having been read is that provided by the Register 3.1168, folio 139, where Queen Doña Maria ordered… El Conde Lucanor”; which is to say, Constanza’s paternal grandmother owned the book.

      b.2.) Juan Gutiérrez. Goodman tells us of the importance of this personage (1992:135):

The cleric Juan Gutiérrez (d.1393) became one of his [John of Gaunt’s] most valued councilors, staying high in his service after the Castilian claim had been relinquished.

       In 1386 we meet him as an advisor to John of Gaunt. In his Crónicas (pp. 621-622) Ayala confirms his partiality toward Pedro I saying that, as a native-born Castilian, this bishop always sided with Pedro and his daughter, the Duchess of Lancaster. He served John of Gaunt from 1372 to 1393, above all in diplomatic missions related to Spain. Prior to his elevation to bishop, he was a Dominican and Dean of Segovia. His connection with don Juan Manuel’s work we base on the fact that he was a Dominican, a member of an order to which don Juan Manuel had close ties; on the proximity of Segovia to Peñafiel, a location within his domain and influence; and on the fact that the bishop was a person of culture and knowledgeable about Castilian history.

      b.3) Fernando de Castro. As the brother of Juana of Castro, he was Pedro I’s brother-in-law. After Pedro’s assassination he was made prisoner, but managed to escape to Galicia, then to Portugal, and finally established himself in England. Savage (1949:372) thinks that he could have provided Chaucer with information for his stanzas on Pedro in "The Monk’s Tale":
For one who had beheld the events of the fatal night of 23 March was living in England and had close connections with John of Gaunt. This man was Don Fernando de Castro.His relation with don Juan Manuel’s work we base on the possibility that he owned a copy of El Conde Lucanor, among the other books that such an important nobleman would have had. The Castros were an ancient and distinguished family who took their name from Castillo de Castro Xeres (Castrojeriz) and had its origin in the eleventh century, in the second son of one of the two families which then ruled in Spain and who, probably, was Fernando, son of García, King of Galicia.
      The Spanish branch was represented by Fernández de Castro, lord of Lemos and senior steward to Alfonso I of Castile, which attests to the proximity to the copy of El Conde Lucanor which Queen Maria owned. Constanza, Duchess Lancaster, was born in Castrojeriz. Added to this fact about Pedro I’s daughter, we have to point out a significant piece of data which appears in the Spanish translation of the juridical compilation of Castronjeriz, endorsed on May 20, 1299, by D. Fernando IV in favor of the canons and clergy of the villa, Codice Q, n°9L of the Biblioteca Nacional, where in the list, at the end of the personages who approved the compilation was “Don Juan, son of the Infante Don Manuel promoted to the greatest of the kingdom of Galicia.”

     c. Among the English friends of Chaucer who remained in continuous contact with Spain after 1385, we must single out Thonias Percy because of his constant and outstanding role in both military and diplomatic missions. A note from Amador de los Rios (1984:329-30, n.3) verifies that he attacked the villa of Rivadiva in 1385, serving as an advance guard for the Duke of Lancaster. Percy, Earl of Worcester, also took an active part in the negotiations for the merriage of Catalina and Enrique III (Cronicas, pp. 624-5):
el duque envió un caballero que decían mosén Tomás de Persy al rey de Cstilla, e allí se trató el casamiento del infante don Enrique, fijo del rey don Juan, con doña Catalina, fija del duque de Alencastre e de doña Constanza, su mujer. In 1389, the wedding having been celebrated in 1388, Ayala (p 644) mentions that Percy had arrived in Burgos to arrange a meeting between the Duke of Lancaster and Juan I.
      The importance of his missions, along with the length of his stays in Spain leads us to believe that Thomas Percy must have had at least a small amount of knowledge of the culture and country that he visited so often for such long periods of time.
This connection with Chaucer is beyond doubt. They were companions on diplomatic missions (Chaucer Life Records pp. 44-45) “Issue Roll Entries, 17 February 1377, of Advances to Sir Thomas Percy and Geoffrey Chaucer, sent to Flauders on the King’s Secret Business.”
      Percy had to be well informed about Spain and the court of Juan I, for he was sent to Castile on various occasions by John of Gaunt. His ties to the latter must have become closer as the result of the death of his son during the pestilence of 1387, mentioned in the Crónicas (p. 627):

      E los capitanes mayorales que morieron fueron estos: el señor de Escala, e el señor de Polingas, e el señor de Astrugas, e mosén Juan de Astrugas, su hermano, e mosén Tomás Flechet, e mosén Tomás Simón, e mosén Recarte Burlay mariscal, e mosén Tomás de Persy, el mozo.

     d. Edmund of Langley, Earl of Cambridge and Duke of York, brother of John of Gaunt, called “Aymon” by Ayala, was married to Isabel of Castile, sister of Constanza, and daughter of Pedro I. Besides this familial tie with the Spanish royalty, we note that he was in the court of Portugal for at least six months in 1381, where the Crónicas (p 532) tell us “he demanded for the Duke of Lancaster, his brother, the rights that he held with regard to the kingdom of Castile on behalf of his wife Doña Constanza, daughter of King Pedro.”
      Such a stay is important to our basic hypothesis, as are the blood ties of the Portuguese court with Juan Manuel, and the important documents found there. King Fernando of Portugal, do not forget, was the grandson of don Juan Manuel. Fernando’s mother was the author’s daughter and had married Pedro I of Portugal. Moreover, at the time Edmund was in Portugal, Don Enrique Manuel was still alive; and as the Crónicas (p 556) tell us: “he was the son of Juan Manuel and uncle of King Fernando of Portugal and of King Juan of Castile, for he was their mother’s brother.”
      And if the ties of consanguinity are not enough to support our hypothesis, we also point out that King Duarte I (1391-1448) organized the Biblioteca de la Torre de Tombo, where among other works, according to Cidade (1974:93), there was “a Book of El Conde Lucanor.” Further, new information about confirming the importance of Juan Manuel in the Portuguese court is cited in Giménez Soler (1932:695):

In an Archive of Lisbon the diligent investigator Doña Mercedes de Gaibrois de Ballesteros was fortunate in discovering two wills of Juan Manuel’s; realizing the importance of such documents she announced that she possessed a copy of them on page 391 (note) of Volume II of her work Sancho IV de Castilla.

     The existence of these wills – along with a copy of El Conde Lucanor – in the Portuguese court, plus consanguinity, makes the possibility that a copy of the book might have reached English hands a strong likelihood, all the more so since not only was Sir Edmond in Portugal for half a year but John of Gaunt married off his daughter to King Juan I, brother of Fernando, and stayed several months in 1387.
      We emphasize the importance of this connection between the House of Lancaster and the royal houses of Castile and Portugal, where the descendants of Juan Manuel were on the throne. This is illustrated by a citation from Crónicas (pp. 536-7) telling how peace between Portugal and Castile came about in 1382:

E el rey don Juan envió al rey de Portogal sus embajadores, e trataron con él todo acuerdo e bien de paz que pudieron; ca estos dos reyes eran primos, fijos de hermanas, ca el rey don Juan era fijo de la reyna doña Juana de Castilla, e el rey do Portogal don Fernando era fijo de doña Juana de Castilla, e el rey de Portogal don Fernando era fijo de doña Constanza, reyna de Portogal; e fueron estas dos hermanas reynas fijas de don Juan Manuel.

     It is important –even if repetitious– to stress this which not only shows the importance of Juan Manuel but that his importance and fame must have attached itself to his work. Another piece of information endorses the transcendence of his position and the importance he held in the Spanish courts, especially in Castile, where his daughter was reigning queen. Giménez Soler (1932:653) tells us that in 1376 Juan Manuel’s remains were moved:

Et yo (Doña Juana) viendo la santa entención de don Johan mi padre que amo todos los Religiosos especialmente la Orden de los Frayres Predicadores en la qual Orden en el Monasterio de Sant Johan de la mi villa de Pennafiel escogió su sepulturado jase enterrado en el abito de los dichos freyres a los quales freyres e monesterio dexo rentas ciertas…
Oterdesiellas veynte e nueve dias de mayo era de mille e quatrocientos e catorce annos. Año 1376 (Privilegio rodado Arch. de San Pablo, de Peñafiel, Si. ant. Caxon 3°, n° 11).

      f) It is possible that Chaucer had access to El Conde Lucanor if not in the first phase of the English Intervention (1356-1367), during which he was present in Spain, then possibly during the next phase (1367-1389) by the various means we have noted.
      f.1) The Spanish who settled in with John of Gaunt and Constanza, and the latter herself.
      f.2) Isabel of Castile, married to Edmund, Duke of York, and Edmund himself as well, who was in Portugal for six months.
      f.3) John of Gaunt who, besides being in Portugal in 1387, arranged for the marriages of his daughters to Juan I of Portugal and Enrique II of Castile, both descendants of Juan Manuel. His stay in Spain had already begun at the time of the battle of Najera in 1367 and lasted to 1388, which presupposes not only a considerable period of time but also frequent contacts with the courts where present – both in Portugal and Castile.
      f.4) Philippa Chaucer herself, fifteen years in service to the Duchess of Lancaster, who thought of herself as a Spaniard and louged for her homeland, as Ayala showed in the narrative describing te wedding of Catalina and Enrique III.
      f.5) The English knights in service to John of Gaunt in Spain from 1385 to 1389 had close ties to Chaucer.
      f.6) Although such a likelihood might be considered remote, it seems fit to mention that Chaucer’s appointment in Customs could have afforded him access to Juan Manuel’s book.
      John of Gaunt’s interest in Spain, the motivation for his marriage to Constanza, could not have passed unnoticed by English society in general and by the court in particular – not to mention by Chaucer whose wife was in Constanza’s service. The interest in Castile and reports about it must have had an effect on him.
      As we see in Chaucer Life Records (pp. 230-233) in “Enrolled Account, by view of Chaucer, from Micaelmas 1382 to Michaelmas 1383 (No. XI, in Table2), payment of controller’s vadia,” the relation with Spain takes on importance:

Et Matheo Janyn Lumbardo attornato certorum mercatorum in quibus rex tenebat [sic] tam in tribus milibus marcorum regi per ipsum Matheum and receptam scacarii Regis de puro prestito liberates quam qui[n]gentis libris quas rex concessit solvere eidem Matheo ut attornato certorum mercatorum de Cateloigne et Aragon in partem satisfaccionis maioris summe ante hec tempora a rege exacte per ipsos mercatores de Catteloigne et Aragon pro restitucione certorum bonorum et mercandisarum suas [sic] qui per ligeros carissimi domini et avi Regis defuncti capta fuerunt.

     In conclusion, we call to your attention that the historical summary of the period of the connection between England and the peninsular courts from 1365 to 1389, has been based on documentary sources. We have tried to point out, to call attention to the considerable accumulation of historical facts and circumstances that might have made possible Chaucer's reading of El Conde Lucanor. Lacking documents which give unshakable proof of our hypothesis, these facts and circumstances only demonstrate a favorable situation. Our next contribution will be a comparative textual study which will entail a genuine proof and endorsement of such a hypothesis.

Translated by Professor Joe Monda.