Jesús L. Serrano Reyes

Introduction    

     Here lies a road upon which our first steps were taken some time ago. We hope that new feet will walk on it and open new pathways to a better understanding of European medieval literature. “Here” situates the reader so that he may see the description of our route and learn our motives, objectives, methods, and the overall organization of our undertaking.
We present this investigation so that the reader may gain a deeper knowledge of a segment of the literature of the medieval ages, obscure to us today largely through ignorance. There is a lack of clear understanding of many aspects of our literature, especially that of the Middle Ages.
      Our point of departure ?to begin this journey? is anchored in the bacchic and hedonistic component of our nature which by giving up pleasure eases our lives. Our love of literature, combined with the desire for knowledge, formed the arable lands we will till.. For our readings of El Conde Lucanor and The Canterbury Tales awoke in us a desire for a new enterprise: a comparison of the two works. The sensations first triggered by such a challenge were the same that emerge in us when we set out to explore a cave: great curiosity and a bit of fear.
      That both of authors represent a key epoch --not only in the political and economic spheres, but in the development of language as well-- increased our determination to know more about these beginnings.
      An obstacle to this stand --our sketchy knowledge of Middle English-- was overcome with the invaluable assistance of Professor Antonio Leon Sender. Once we had acquired sufficient skill, we went back to the original work of Geoffrey Chaucer, thanks to the magnificent edition of Larry Benson, so that we could grasp it in its original form, rather than in the words of translators.
      This overview helped us to focus our interest on the two authors’ best-known works. Once our field had been limited, further readings of the two works livened our enthusiasm to the point that the eagerness to know both works better brought us to an intense activity, both in English and Spanish, gathering and assimilating data and getting to know specialists in this field. From these initial activities have developed activities and connections which continue to be enriching elements in both our private and professional life. These activities included attendance at professional meetings and symposia, where we presented reports on our studies, and the publication of articles in specialized reviews. Among these new connections we wish to acknowledge our indebtedness to The New Chaucer Society and to La Sociedad Española de Lengua y Literatura Inglesa Medieval, which enabled us to make important and interesting contacts with outstanding Chaucerians who took an interest in our project. In this situation, when the enthusiasm was even more increased by the energy from these contacts, a deeper understanding --both literary and historical-- enables us to lay out the hypothesis of our undertaking.
      We think that we have enough elements (after a comparative textual analysis) to show not only that some tales of El Conde Lucanor are analogues to some of Chaucer’s but also that there may be a possibility that the Spanish author influenced The Canterbury Tales. Our objective focused on two channels of investigation: one, historical, to show the circumstances that might have made possible Chaucer’s reading El Conde Lucanor; two, textual, the most important, to show where and how the analogy can exist as an influence.
      One of the opinions we have received from such outstanding Chaucerians as Martin M. Crow, Derek Pearsall, Alfred David, Beryl Rowland, Derek Brewer, and Norman Blake is that --whatever the outcome of our investigation-- our comparison is worth the effort if only because of its novelty. Up to now, the only Spanish literature that Chaucer’s work has been compared to is El Libro de Buen Amor. No one has glimpsed similarities between the works of Don Juan Manuel and Chaucer which would suggest a comparison. The documented evidence that the English author was in Spain in 1366, gave rise to the possibility that Chaucer attained knowledge of Spanish literature, as Larry D. Benson points out. (1991:795):
The discovery that Chaucer visited Spain has led to speculation about his knowledge of Spanish Literature (e.g. Waller Spec 51, 1976, 292-306) and a renewal of interest in Juan Ruiz’s Libro de Buen Amor. The semblance of which has long been known. (George Ticknor, History of Spanish Literature. 1849, 184-86.)     The word “speculation” --up to now-- has been used by scholars to characterize any efforts to point out possible Spanish influence.
     The lack of a comparative study between two such collections of tales as El Conde Lucanor and The Canterbury Tales seems to be a significant omission in the field of literature, especially Comparative Literature. Possible explanation for the lack of such a study might include the general lack of knowledge on the part of foreign Chaucer scholars of Don Juan Manuel, his work, and his language. There is also the great difference in the styles of the two writers and the development of certain secular themes on the part of the English author. We think that these last two reasons, above all others, have discouraged any attempt at a comparative study.
      Our hypothesis --as our title states-- is based on an element common to both works: didacticism and morality. This is the crux of our comparative study. In their essence and environment our results are based on that. Whatever parallels or analogies we uncover will have didactics and moral teachings as their substrate. Although they had many important differences in their personal backgrounds, in their literary backgrounds there are interesting parallels which we will try to demonstrate. We do not intend to limit our study just to thematics nor to the intentionality of the authors in their texts. We will dwell as much on the themes as on their development, the functions of the characters, the structure of the works, and the use of repetition as a conscious strategy.
      The relationship between Chaucer and Boccaccio has been abundantly and masterfully expounded upon in the works of Piero Boitani (1977) and Havely (1992). It has been held (here we cite Crow and Leland (1991: xv) in their Chaucer’s Life, which appears in Benson’s edition that:
The hundred days allowed by the 1372-73 journey would hardly have given Chaucer time to learn a language.      In addition, speaking of the relationship of the Decameron and The Canterbury Tales, Helen Cooper (1983; 34) maintains that: Six of Chaucer’s twenty four stories- a full quarter of the total are paralleled in the Decameron. The proportion seems too high to be coincidence: none of the other story collection in circulation can provide anything approaching the same proportion of analogues.
      Besides the fact that the French and Italian languages, which Chaucer managed, have the same origin as the Castilian that Don Juan Manuel used, and that the languages have many similarities (perhaps even more in that age), it seems that no one has taken into account that the safe-conduct given by Carlos II of Navarre to Chaucer was from February 22 to May 24 of 1366, a period of nearly ninety days. Would this have been enough time “to learn a language”? We do not think the language would have been a problem for “Le Grant Translateur” had he encountered a Spanish literary text of that time. For the other part, we hope that the quantity of analogues which we present can fill under the same principle: the proportion seems too high to be coincidence.”
      Neither do we consider it a valid refutation of our hypothesis that Chaucer made no mention of Don Juan Manuel in his work; he made no mention of Boccaccio either. Havely (2992:12) states:
      And a further mystery is the absence in Chaucer’s work of any reference to the writer whose work influenced him, more obviously than that of any other ‘grand poete of Ytaille’.     So all three --Chaucer, Boccaccio, and Don Juan Manuel-- besides playing roles in the development of the languages of their respective nations, are the authors who laid the foundations of the modern novel. The words of J.B. Trend (1962: xxii) reaffirm this when he said of Don Juan Manuel and Boccaccio that they are “the inventors of the craft of fiction in Modern Europe.”
      The objectives we outline refer, basically, to the textual, although the historical is a necessary reference. We propose, above all, to be alert to the parallels and analogues existing between the two works, both in their general and particular aspects. Within this premise, our purpose is to demonstrate that an important parallel exists between the “didactic- moral” structure of some of Chaucer’s tales and that used by Don Juan Manuel in his. At the same time, we are trying to show that important analogies exist between certain tales of the two authors from the thematic and argumentative point of views. Our purpose to show analogies extends to the areas of sayings (sententiae) and proverbs which appear in both works. We will do an especially exhaustive analysis of the topic of Modesty as it appears in the Prologue to El Conde Lucanor and the Retraction of the Canterbury Tales. But our most ambitious objective will generate the greatest part of our work: we will attempt, through deep analysis, to reveal not only the existence of important analogies between Exemplo L and The Franklin’s Tale, and between Exemplo XX and the Canon’s Yeoman’s Tale, but also the possible influence of Don Juan Manuel on the works of Chaucer. The quantitative leap from analogy to influence depends –basically-- on the existence of something more than important parallels between themes and arguments: one can speak of influence when, over and above, there appear significant verbal, lexical, and structural parallels.
In our comparative analysis of these four tales, we will approach the following questions: how repetition is used according to the same structure; how the didactic-moral structure has the same components and organization; how important resemblances exist (in some cases, exact equivalences) between the lexicon, as well as entire phrases.
      From these objectives relating to the textual plan, we now turn the purpose of our section on the historical circumstances and facts of the age to illustrate --in synthesis-- how the circumstances of the English intervention in Spain during the fourteenth century were very favorable to our hypothesis.
      The methodological strategy we will use in our section on the historical circumstances of the period will be to seek out any circumstances that might have brought the works of Don Juan Manuel, especially El Conde Lucanor, into contact with Geoffrey Chaucer. As our chief sources, we use two works which give dependable documentary historical support: Chaucer Life Records by Martin Crow and Clair C. Olson (1966) and Las Crónicas de Ayala, as edited by José Luís Martín (1991). We will also use the best documented biography of Don Juan Manuel: Don Juan Manuel. Biografía y Estudio Critical by Andrés Jímenez Soler (1932). The association of facts and circumstances documented in these sources, coupled with the diffusion of El Conde Lucanor, and the prominence of this author both as writer and political personage offer possible ways that Chaucer might have had access to Don Juan Manuel’s book. At all times we will avoid the easy way that all speculation easily affords. We pledge to present the possibility of Chaucer’s access to El Conde Lucanor in the most convincing manner possible relying only on documented facts. Our section on the English intervention in Spain during the fourteenth century, Chaucer’s presence there at that time, with possible repercussions for Spanish and English literature has no greater aspiration than what has already been mentioned. For there is no known document --up to this time-- that confirms that Chaucer ever possessed a copy of the Spanish author’s work. This section on the historical background supports our hypothesis and is meant to focus the reader’s attentions on our textual analysis, the main thrust of this work. What is glimpsed as possibility in our section on the English intervention in Spain, owing to a lack of historical documentation as proof, can have no better guarantee than the outcome of the comparison of the two texts which is the object of this study.
      The methodology we will use for the textual analysis is diverse. Different approximations will arrive at the same positive results. The varieties of aspects of analysis require a variety of methods adapted to the specificity of each one. As a basic principle, we will apply the same analysis to both the English and Spanish texts.
      Although it is not a question of “method,” properly speaking, we have to make mention here that we will in El Conde Lucanor use the same basic criteria of analysis as that utilized by Kittredge to elaborate on his theory of the existence of the so called “marriage group” in The Canterbury Tales, with the aim of showing a unique parallelism, not known at that time. Not only will it be a question of establishing that there are tales in El Conde Lucanor whose theme is marriage, but also of discovering whether there is an interweaving of dialog or debate between the tales.
      As we said before, the part of our work where the heart of our comparative study resides is that dedicated to the textual comparison between Exemplo L “De lo que contesció a Saladín con una dueña, mujer de su vasallo” and The Franklin’s Tale; and between Exemplo XX “De lo que contesció a un rey con un omne quell dixo que foría alquimía” and the Canon’s Yeoman’s Tale. Here, too, we follow our strategy of analysis: going from the general to the particular. Thus we will begin both comparisons with a study of those tales which --aside from the two which are the objects of the study-- have the same topic or anecdote central to the narration. From this general comparison we will proceed, narrowing our field of investigation to the two tales which we wish to compare and, within those limits, from the most general aspects to the most concrete. Our objective will not be to discover the ultimate source of the topic, for as Propp says (1981:17):
      It is not possible and speak of the origin of a phenomenon, whatever is may be, before describing that phenomenon.
      Indeed, is will be Vladimir Propp’s method of structural analysis that will assist us, analyzing the functions of the character so as to be able to compare Exemplo L and The Franklin’s Prologue and Tale. As Propp (1981:29)) makes clear:
If we are not able to break down a tale into its component parts, we cannot establish any comparison which turns out to be justified.     And the task of analysis in none other than a “decomposition” (deconstruction) so as to observe what is not apparent and obvious, and to recompose with the obtained results, matching it with the hypothesis traced to its origin. The structure which gives backbone to the tale and which, after studying of the functions of the character, appears clearly, will allow us to appreciate the degree of parallelism in the compared tales. We will use the analysis that John England (1977: 69-85) performed on the structure in El Conde Lucanor, which is marked by repetition. This type of structure found by England in El Conde Lucanor we will try to find in The Franklin’s Tale and The Canon’s Yeoman’s Tale. England’s description (1977:71) reveals to us the uniqueness of the structure used by Don Juan Manuel:
      The structural technique which sets Juan Manuel’s Exemplos apart from other collections of short stories in Medieval Spain consists of a sequence of events repeated three or more times, with verbal similarities on each occasion, in which one element (frequently the last one) of the final sequence stands in direct contrast to the corresponding element in the preceding sequences.     Another of the methodological instruments which we will apply to the tales of Chaucer will be the semiotic method used by Romera de Castillo (1980) to analyze the work of Don Juan Manuel, keeping in mind that everything in the work is interwoven; this will help us to uncover and describe the structure which interests us. This will support our notion of the didactic/moral intentions of the two authors. We will apply the same method in the analysis of the two tales which we will analyze more broadly and deeply, attempting to evaluate the micro-components within each tale, so far as they are linked by a communicative intention. We will check the parallelism in the structures articulated by the English texts as it relates to the Spanish. We propose to demonstrate how El Conde Lucanor is-- in the words of Romera Castillo (1980:11):
     A conglomerate of communicative intention which possesses a textual coherence or a logical scaffolding with a particular construction.
      Our intention is also to show that both The Canterbury Tales and El Conde Lucanor can be seen as complete works with central organizing principles, based in textual time and space, while their tales are also complete units, taken separately. If El Conde Lucanor seems to peter out into monotony of real time when it returns form the fictional world produced in each tale, we will verify how, in Exemplo L, Patrocino reveals to us, in his words, the temporal perspective which spans, links, and justifies a linear, consecutive temporality which expands the time of the whole work toward the establishment of a limited beginning and end:
       Agora señor conde Lucanor, vos he respondido a esta pregunta que me feziestes et con esta respuesta vos he respondido a cinquenta preguntas que me avedes fecho. Et avedes estado en ello tanto tiempo, que só cierto que son ende enojados muchos de vuestras campañas (p. 267) All citations from El Conde Lucanor are drawn from the edition by José Manuel Blecua. Madrid; Castalia 1991).     These revealing words open for us the perspective on the work and make us transcend the dialog between Lucanor and Patronio as a unique spatial-temporal referent of each tale. The audience, the time, and the place now have their shape. The work of El Conde Lucanor is a complete unit, with its own unity. It has a unity like that of The Canterbury Tales so that it is not merely a collection of tales but contains the seeds of the genre of the novel.
      In our comparison between Exemplo XX and The Canon’s Yeoman’s Tale we will apply the findings of Esquer Torres (1964: 429-435), which consist in determining “Dos rasgos estilisticos en Don Juan Manuel (two stylistic features in Don Juan Manuel)”; the terminological and phraseological parallelism and the symmetry in terminological and phraseological distribution.
It is our purpose to show that these two lines meet in Chaucer’s text, just as Esquer Torres (1964:431) found them in Don Juan Manuel’s work:
      A deliberate design of rhythms and clear parallelisms on the basis of terms and construction repeated esthetically, and still other times include intelligent distribution of words in search of symmetry and extended equilibrium. For the textual analysis we will follow a strategy that will enable us to penetrate from the periphery to the center of our hypothesis. For our comparative textual study as a whole, we will apply the same strategy as for the different parts of the entire work: we will begin in general pruning, narrowing, and concentrating our analysis on the particular and the concrete. The distribution of the entire textual work responds to this line of action. We will establish, one after another, the following parts: a comparison of the didactic moral structure of the two works, in which we will analyze certain of Chaucer’s tales that share the same structural elements as those of Don Juan Manuel’s; following that, in a section entitled “Analogies,” we will show some tales of Don Juan Manuel which have enough common elements to be considered analogues to Chaucer’s, at the same time taking note of the “sententiae” and proverbs that appear in both works. Then increasing the precision of our textual analysis we will perform a detailed comparison of the use of the topic of modesty in the Prólogo to El Conde Lucanor and the Retraction of The Canterbury Tales. After this, we will compare Exemplo L and The Franklin’s Tales; and then we will do a comparative analysis of Exemplo XX and The Canon’s Yeoman’s Tale. We will conclude our work with our conclusions and our bibliography.
      The justification for this investigation of something not known underpins our entire introduction. We have sketched the history of its development, stated the overall objectives which govern it, and we have outlined the methodology and the parts that go into its making. These are the constituents of this presentation. We feel a sense of satisfaction, not because of the road traveled, but because what we have found along the way has enlivened our enthusiasm and spurred us on to new projects. We feel that our work may be a contribution to a better understanding of these two fundamental works and that in every rereading of them after making this journey, a new dimension will have been added.

  Translated by Professor Joe Monda