(Published in S.E.L.I.M 5, (Journal of the Spanish Society for Mediaeval English Language and Literature), A. Bravo & S.G. Fernandez-Corugedo eds., 1995: 29-45) 

Cordoba (Spain)

Now I beg all those who listen to this

little research, or read it,

that if there is anything in it that they like,

that they consider it as a starting point;

and if there is anything that they dislike,

I beg them to advise me and give me their

opinions to improve it.

A relationship between Chaucer's Canterbury Tales and some Spanish medieval authors has been habitually considered as a result of a community of ideas. The popular and traditional background, Latin translations and compilations could without any doubt well be a common source of inspiration. Chaucer and some Spanish authors may have shared some common characteristics, but there are many historical events and some textual evidence which can lead us to think that Chaucer was influenced by, at least, one Spanish author, Don Juan Manuel .

The method lies in the application of a literary analysis by taking into account the structure of the text, the morphosyntactic and lexical characteristics and applying Halliday's system to the extracts where the influence is supposed to exist. Afterwards it will be necessary to demonstrate non-evidence of a common formula in the medieval texts showing many examples which do not have a common formula but a common function: to preach to people or from another point of view, the "authorial ` captatio' device applied by writers in order to make the hearer-reader pay close attention to the author." Nevertheless I do not have enough time to show the examples of the mediaeval texts.

I.- Historical context

El Conde Lucanor was widely known in many Spanish courts. "Las copias manuscritas parecen haber sido abundantes: "La noticia mas antigua de ser lemdo este libro, es la que consta en el Registro 3.168, folio 139, en donde la reina Doqa Marma pide a Ferran Lspez de Stuqiga "los libros que se clamavan el uno Florenga el otro el conde Lucanor el otro de las ystorias despaqa"." As John England says: "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'".

Edward, king of Portugal, (1391-1438) who was Philippa of Lancaster's son, organized the famous library of "Tower of Tumbo " "ainda constam do catalogo a Confessio Amantis, de Gower, em tradugao do csnego lisbonense Roberto Paine, a obra poitica do Arcipreste de Hita, e o Livro del Conde Lucanor, de D. Jo`o Manuel."

We also already know that Chaucer was in Spain in 1366. Chaucer was in France and Italy and was influenced by authors from both countries . Was he influenced by any Spanish authors? Don Juan Manuel had died only eighteen years before Chaucer's stay in Spain.

This Spanish book may have come to Chaucer's hands in different ways:

* Through John of Gaunt's wife, Constance of Castile who was Peter's ("The Cruel") daughter or any of the Spaniards at the court of Leicester.

* Through Henry III of Castile, who married John of Gaunt's daughter Catherine, and was Don Juan Manuel's greatgrandson because his grandmother was Doqa Juana Manuela, Don Juan Manuel's daughter.

* Through Chaucer's friends who took part in the English intervention in Spain at that time.

* Through Henry of Lancaster, John of Gaunt's father in law, who took part in the siege of Algezir with Don Juan Manuel (August, 1342- March, 1344).

Were Don Juan Manuel and his El Conde Lucanor not famous enough as not to be known and read by a genius like Chaucer who was well aware of European culture, including Spanish culture? ("Senec, Piers Alfonce, Seint Ysidre, Averrois, Lepe, Gernade, Cartage, Fynystere, Spayne, Saint-Jame, Rouncivale, Jubaltare, Septe, tables Tolletanes, cordewane, Petro Rege Ispannie, Cataloigne, Aragon" are explicit references in Chaucer's poetry).

Don Juan Manuel had a strong and close kinship not only with the king Peter and his daughter Constance but with the Lancaster House:

* Don Juan Manuel's father was Edward I's brother in law.

* John I of Portugal, who married Philippa Lancaster, was Don Juan Manuel's grandson.

II.- Textual Analysis

Readers only have to look at the two texts and they can easily recognize the similarity. But a detailed analysis will show not only that they are the same words but that the words have the same word function, the same author's intention, the same literary effects, and the same structure to such an extent that I consider that Chaucer was quite clearly influenced by Don Juan Manuel.

1.- The structure of the message

Another powerful similarity lies in the structure. The equality of the sentence elements is so noticeable that anyone might suppose that it had been caused by chance, by the use of a common formula or by influence. The third possibility is proposed by this work. Let us look at the structure:

" Et lo que y fallaren que no es tan bien dicho, non pongan culpa a la mi entengisn, mas psnganla a la mengua del mio entendimiento. Et si alguna cosa fallaren bien dicha o aprovechosa, gradiscanlo a Dios, ca El es aquil por quien todos los buenos dichos et fechos se dizen et se fazen."

Yo digo I prye

et si that if

et que And if

fallaren ther be fallaren ther be

y in it lo any thyng

alguna cosa any thyng

que that

bien dicha o aprovechosa that liketh

non es tan bien dicho displese

gradescanlo they thanken

pongan arrette

a Dios oure Lord Jhesu Crist

la culpa it

por quien of whom

a la to the

todos los dichos al wit

mengua faute

et fechos and al godnesse

del mio of myn

se dicen et se fazen procedeth

entendimiento unkonnynge

non pongan nat

la culpa a la mi intencisn to mywyl

Both texts share the same structure. It is a dual structure, divided into two parts. The whole structure starts from the words "Yo digo"..."I preye". In the case of Don Juan Manuel these words are immediately before those I have cited (see appendix). After that a dichotomy follows: good (the column on the left) and evil (the column on the right). Each step in the structure shows a parallelism even in the connective elements like "et si"..."that if" or "que...that". So the authors are interested in shielding their works against accusations of immorality.

The message consists of a typical sermon ending. Duality is represented by a religious idea: good and evil. Good is represented by God and subtly connected with the authors' works. Evil is represented by mankind.

2.- Morphosyntactic and lexical approach

2.1.- Verbs

* Chaucer's verbs: * Don Juan Manuel's verbs:

ther be-ther be....................fallaren-fallaren

liketh-thanken.................... (bien) dicha-gradiscanlo

displese-arrette..................no es(tan bien) dicho-pongan

preye..............................

procedeth..........................es (aquel por quien)

...................................dizen-fazen

Repetition is another similarity. Both authors twice repeat verbs of similar meaning. The duality shown in "The structure of the message" is supported by the verbs "liketh/(bien)dicha" which implies one way (the way of good) and "displese/ (non bien) dicho" which implies the other way (the way of evil). Both implications are consequences of the readers' or hearers' perception of the works. This perception is expressed by couples of verbs: "ther be-ther be/fallaren-fallaren". So there is a clear parallelism in the strategy which is the basis of the logical argument in the texts. Chaucer wrote one verb ("procedeth") whose meaning has, seemingly, nothing to do with Don Juan Manuel's verbs ("es-es-dizen-fazen"), because "of whom procedeth" is equivalent to "El es por quien". This occurs according to the meaning but not to the subject or object involved, that is, the Spanish author's verbs are related to God like "procedeth" with "Lord Jhesu Crist". The verb "preye" has its parallelism in the preceding line of Don Juan Manuel's text, "digo" (see appendix).

The semantic fields show the typical terminology which can be used by preachers: "preye-herkne-rede-thanken/dizen-fazen-dicho-dicha-gradiscanlo".

2.2. Nouns

* Chaucer's nouns: * Don Juan Manuel's nouns:

thyng.......................................cosa

Lord Jhesu Crist.....................Dios

wit............................................dichos (se dizen)

goodnesse.................................fechos (se fazen)

dafaute.......................................mengua

unkonnynge...............................entendimiento

wyl..............................................entengisn

Don Juan Manuel's nouns have their equivalents in Chaucer's nouns, following the dual meaning of the sermon: good and evil. "Wit" may be understood as "intelligence", the capacity of speech and "goodnesse" may be understood as "deeds" to maintain the meaning which both authors meant to express, that is, the antinomy of "words and deeds". This antinomy is in the intention . This is a topic in religious speech (sermons), expressing this idea: words must be followed by deeds (works), faith without deeds is a dead faith.

The meaning of the most important nouns related to God implies a positive value: "goodnesse-wit/dichos-fechos"; and the meaning of nouns related to men implies a negative value ("mengua-culpa/defaute-unkonnynge").

2.3. Syntactical approach

Although the main clause is the same in both texts, Don Juan Manuel's text contains it in the preceeding line: "...yo, don Iohan," . It is "I preye" in Chaucer's text.

* Conditional clause: "et...fallaren"/ "And if...thyng"

* Relative clause: "que...dicho"/ "that ...them"

* Sustantive Direct Object clause : "non...entengisn"/ "that...unkonnynge

* Adversative clause: "mas ...entendimiento"/ "and nat...wyl"

* Conditional clause: "et si ...aprovechosa"/ "if ...it"

* Sustantive Direct Object clause: "gradiscanlo...Dios"/ "that ...hem"

* Relative clause: "por quien... fazen"/ "of whom...goodnesse"

* Causal clause: "ca... aquel"

This significant parallelism shows that both texts are supported basically by the same syntactical structure. The construction of the sentences followed the same steps. The introductory words in many clauses are the same but they are implied in other ones like before "gradiscanlo" where "que" is implicit or in "non...entengisn" where "que " is implicit too. Explicit "that" is characteristic of English syntactical rules.

3.- Halliday's system: Language functions into literary effects.

3.1. The text in its context

Chaucer's Retraction and Don Juan Manuel's Prologue share these characteristics:

* They are moral, didactic sermons with an explicit intention:

Chaucer

"For oure book seith: "Al that is writen is

writen for our doctrine"", and that is myn entente.

D. J. Manuel

"et entre las palabras entremetm algunos exiemplos de que se podrman aprovechar los que los oyeren."

* The authors' intention was that the books were to be read or heard:

Chaucer

"Now preye I to hem alle that herkne this

litel tretys or rede..."

D. J. Manuel

"...et entre las palabras entremetm algunos exiemplos de que se podrman aprovechar los que las oyeren."

"...et los que lo leyeren..."

* Both authors wrote about the salvation of the soul, but Chaucer about his own soul and the Spanish author for his readers' or hearers' salvation:

Chaucer

"...studie to the salvacioum of my soule,..."

D. J. Manuel

"... et para el salvamiento de sus almas et aprovechamiento de sus cuerpos."

* They wrote using the first person singular:

Chaucer

"Now I preye..."

D. J. Manuel

"...yo, don Iohan..."

* Both authors addressed God, although Chaucer wrote "God" and "Lord Jhesu Crist" and D. J. Manuel always wrote "Dios".

* Chaucer mentioned all his works and D. J. Manuel did not, although he cited all his works in The General Prologue .

Many other similarities can be found between the whole texts, but I have only highlighted the most evident ones. So there is a parallelism between the two texts, and especially in the parts I am going to analize applying Halliday's system.

3.2. Ideational Components: Transitivity functions

These are the two texts I shall analyze with the clauses numbered for easy reference and the processes underlined:

Don Juan Manuel's Prologue:

"...1 Et lo que y fallaren 2 que non es tan bien dicho, 3 non pongan culpa a la mi entengisn, 4 mas psnganla a la mengua del mio entendimiento. 5 Et si alguna cosa fallaren bien dicha o aprovechosa, 6 gradiscanlo a Dios 7 ca El es aquel 8 por quien todos los buenos dichos et fechos se dizen et se 9 fazen."

Chaucer's Retraction:

"...1 that if ther be any thyng

in it 2 that liketh hem, 3 that therof they thanken

oure Lord Jhesu Crist, 4 of whom procedeth al

wit and goodnesse./ 5 And if ther be any

thyng 6 that displese hem, 7 I preye hem

also 8 that they arrette it to the defaute of my unkon-

nynge and nat to my wyl."

PARTICIPANTS PROCESS CLAUSE N:

Ellos: senser (implicit) fallaren:mental,perception 1

lo: phenomenon fallaren:mental,perception 1

lo: carrier (implicit) es:relational,atributive,intensive 2

ellos: senser (implicit) pongan:mental,reaction 3

culpa: phenomenon pongan:mental, reaction 3

ellos: senser (implicit) psngan(la):mental,reaction 4

la: phenomenon psngan(la):mental,reaction 4

ellos: senser (implicit) fallaren:mental,perception 5

cosa: phenomenon fallaren:mental,perception 5

they: senser (implicit) gradiscan(lo):mental,reaction 6

lo: phenomenon gradiscan(lo):mental,reaction 6

El: carrier es:relational,atributive,equative 7

aquel: carrier es:relational,atributive,equative 7

ellos: senser (implicit) dizen:mental,verbalization 8

dichos: phenomenon dizen:mental,verbalization 8

ellos: actor (implicit) fazen:material,operative 9

hechos: goal fazen:material,operative 9

Chaucer's Retraction

PARTICIPANTS PROCESS CLAUSE N:

thyng: carrier ther be:relational,atributive 1

that: senser liketh:mental,reaction 2

hem: phenomenon liketh:mental,reaction 2

they: senser thanken:mental,reaction 3

oure Lord :phenomenon thanken:mental,reaction 3

whom: senser procedeth:mental,perception 4

wit-goodnesse: phenom. procedeth:mental,perception 4

thyng: carrier ther be:relational,atributive 5

that: senser displese:mental,reaction 6

hem: phenomenon displese:mental,reaction 6

I: senser preye:mental,verbalization 7

hem: phenomenon preye:mental,verbalization 7

they: senser arrette:mental,reaction 8

it: phenomenon arrette:mental,reaction 8

There are some interesting literary effects. I propose to look at those which imply a parallelism:

* There is no process of action in either texts, excepting "fazen" in Don Juan Manuel's Prologue. Nevertheless it may be considered necessary to support the sermonizer's argument trying to make a generalization: spiritual "dizen" implies words, intelligence) and material ("fazen" implies deeds). It is the unique material process to reinforce the idea of linking words and deeds: words are as vanishing without good deeds as is said in The Bible. So there is no direct action but an allusion to action. Mental and relational processes show the authors' intention by means of a sermon. The authors wanted the readers or hearers to perceive, to react and then to relate. These three actions are not material actions but intellectual or mental actions in the readers' or hearers' minds. The Spanish and English writer expected the addressees to perceive their works and then, depending on their perception ("liketh"- "displese") to react in a positive or negative way and to relate the positive reaction with God and the negative reaction with their ignorance. So, mental-perception, mental-reaction and relational processes are suitable for a moral, didactic speech.

* The possible negative perception by the hearers or readers is hidden in our two authors. Namely, Don Juan Manuel wrote the phenomenon "lo" with the relational process "es" and Chaucer wrote the phenomenon "it" which has the same equivalence. It does not introduce an explicit word to mention the dislike of the addressees.

* The verbs are all transitive except "to be". This implies the necessary existence of goals which lead us to a purpose. All goals are explicit, which means explicit purposes. So, the authors' intention is explicit, too. Transitive verbs, except "procedeth" can be classified as inherently goal verbs. Therefore, the explicit meaning in the message runs from the root to the branches. This characteristic involves a clear plain language and, hence, plain hearers and readers.

* Implicit sensers imply that the author cannot control the readers' or hearers' reaction after the perception of his text. It shows the alternative "to be or not to be", that is, to like or dislike. The authors had to give a solution to this dilemma in the hearers' and readers' reaction.

All sensers in Don Juan Manuel's text are implicit ("ellos") and they are the readers and the hearers. Chaucer wrote explicit senser "they" with mental-reaction process ("thanken" and "arrette"). It is significant because it may show that Chaucer knew his possible audience, although explicit can be a grammatical characteristic in the English language.

When Chaucer wrote "hem" with the mental process "liketh" and "displese" its real function is more of an actor than of a goal.

* The apparent difference between "fallaren" and "ther be" is just because they are different words but not different meanings. Both words imply the description of the same idea: there is something for the readers and hearers (the work) which can be evaluated. The difference lies in the author's implication in this evaluation. Chaucer wrote a relational process which was repeated twice ("ther be"), the first one related to the mental process "liketh" and the second one to the mental process "displese". So, the real implication is the same as in Don Juan Manuel's text when he wrote "fallaren" twice.

* There is a repetitive process :

hem: phenomenon...........Crist: phenomenon

they: senser......................whom: senser

Readers or hearers of Chaucer's work are situated at the same level as God. There is a succesive exterchange of roles between men and God, a sort of dialogue: men receive good (pleasure) through Chaucer's work and they thank God who is now the receiver (phenomenon) and then He gives "wit and goodnesse" to men. The same idea is brought out by this device: Chaucer's work implies holy indulgences. So Chaucer's intention in his Retraction appears to be to try to save his moralism and didacticism . The same occurs with D. Juan Manuel's intention.

* A mere reading is enough to notice the similarity between the two texts.

* Historical events, circumstances and royal bonds offered fitting conditions for a Spanish influence at that time.

* The textual analysis gives clear proof of the equality of both texts: the dual structure of the message, meaning good and evil and the same morphosyntactic and lexical characteristics.

* Halliday's system shows the identity in the process system used by the Spanish and English authors, revealing the existence of mental-perception-reaction process to strengthen the power of the sermon language.

* The non-existence of a mediaeval common formula used in the prologues and epilogues demonstrates that the similarity of both texts are not by chance, and the suspicion of a common formula is changed into a suspicion of a "copy" or a source of inspiration. I trust this analysis has turned this suspicion into a certainty.

* The topic of modesty was widespread in the Middle Ages and its source dates from the rhetorical system in the Classical Period: the forensic speech. Nevertheless, mediaeval authors used different words to express the same ideas. Chaucer and Don Juan Manuel are the two authors who, to my knowledge, share the same or similar words, when they use the topic of modesty. Don Juan Manuel used similar words to express modesty in: El Conde Lucanor, El Libro de los Estados, Libro Enfenido and Crsnica Abreviada.

APPENDIX

The bold letters show the texts which share the similarity.

CHAUCER'S RETRACTION

" Heere taketh the makere of this book his leve

Now preye I to hem alle that herkne thi litel tretys or rede, that if ther be any thyng in it that liketh hem, that therof they thanken oure Lord Jhesu Crist, of whom procedeth al wit and al goodnesse./ And if ther be any thyng that displese hem, I preye hem also that they arrette it to the defaute of myn unkonnynge and nat to my wyl, that wolde ful fayn have seyd bettre if I hadde had konnynge./ For oure book seith, "Al that is writen is writen for oure doctrine", and that is myn entente./ Wherefore I biseke yow mekely, for me that Crist have mercy on me and foryeve me my giltes;/ and namely of my translacions and enditynges of wordly vanitees, the whiche I revoke in my retracciouns:/ as is the book of Troilus; the book also of Fame; the book of the Duchesse; the book of Seint Valentynes day of the Parlement of Briddes; the tales of Caunterbury, thilke that sownen into synne;/ the book of the Leoun; and many another book, if they were in my remembrance, and many a song and many a leccherous lay, that Crist for his grete mercy foryeve me the synne./ But of the translacion of Boece de Consolacione, and omelies, and moralitee, and devocioum,/ that thanke I oure Lord Jhesu Crist and his blisful Mooder, and alle the seintes of hevene,/ bisekynge hem that they from hennes forth unto my lyves ende sende me grace of verray penitence, confessioun and satisfaccioun to doon in this present lyf,/ thurgh the benigne grace of hym that is kyng of kynges and preest over alle alle preestes, that boghte us with the precious blood of his herte,/ so that I may been oon of hem at the day of doom that shulle be saved. Qui cum Patre et Spiritu Sancto vivit et regnat Deus per omnia secula. Amen.

Heere is ended the book of the tales of Canterbury, compiled by Geffrey Chaucer, of whos soule Jhesu Crist have mercy. Amen."

En el nombre de Dios: amin. Entre muchas cosas estraqas et marabillosas que nuestro Seqor Dios fizo, tovo por bien de fazer una muy marabillosa; ista es [que] de quantos [ommes] en el mundo son, non a uno que semeje a otro en la cara; ca commo quier que todos los ommes an essas mismas cosas en la cara, lo unos que los que los otros, pero las caras en sm mismas non semejan las unas a las otras. Et pues en las caras, que son tan pequeqas cosas, ha en ellas tan grant departimento, menor marabilla es que aya departimiento en las voluntades et en las enteciones de los ommes. Et assm fallaredes que ningzn omme non se semeja del todo en la voluntad nin en la entengisn con otro. Et fazervos he algunos enxiemplos porque lo entendades mejor.

Todos los que quieren et desean servir a Dios, todos quieren una cosa, pero non lo sirven todos en una manera: que unos le sirven en una manera et otros en otra. Otrosm, los que sirven a los seqores, todos los sirven, mas non los sirven todos en una manera. Et los que labran et crman et trebejan et cagan et fazen todas las otras cosas, todos las fazen, mas non las entienden nin las fazen todos en una manera. Et asm, por este exienplo, et por otros ayan voluntades et entengiones, que atan poco commo se semejan en las caras, tan poco se semejan en las entengiones et en las voluntades; pero todos se semejan en tanto que todos usan et quieren et aprenden mejor aquellas cosas de que se mas pagan que las otras. Et porque cada omme aprende mejor aquello de se mas paga, por ende el que alguna cosa quiere mostrar [a otro], divegelo mostrar en la manera que entendiere que sera mas pagado el que la ha de aprender. Et porque [a] muchos ommes las cosas sotiles entienden bien, non toman plazer en leer aquellos libros, nin aprender lo que es escripto en ellos. Et porque non toman plazer en ello, non lo pueden aprender nin saber asm commo a ellos cumplma.

Por ende, yo don Johan, fijo del infante don Manuel, adelantado mayor de la frontera et del regno de Murgia, fiz este libro compuesto de las mas apuestas palabras que yo pude, et entre las palabras entremetm algunos exiemplos de que se podrman aprovechar los que los oyeren. Et esto fiz segund la manera que fazen los fmsicos, que quando quieren fazer alguna melizina que aproveche al fmgado, por razsn que naturalmente el fmgado se paga de las cosas dulges, mezcla[n] con auquella melizina que quiere[n] melizinar el fmgado, agzcar o miel o alguna cosa dulgce; et por el pagamiento que el fmgado a de la cosa dulge, en tirandola para sm, lieva con ella la melezina quel a de aprovechar. Et esso mismo fazen a qualquier miembro que aya mester alguna melizina, que siempre la dan con alguna cosa que naturalmente aquel miembro la aya de tirar a sm. Et a esta semeianga, con la merged de Dios, sera fecho este libro, et los que lo leyeren [si por] su voluntad tomaren plazer de las cosas provechosas que y fallaren, sera bien; et aun los que lo tan bien non entendieren, non podran escusar que, en leyendo el libro, por las palabras falagueras et apuestas que en il fallaran, que non ayan a leer las cosas aprovechosas que son y mezcladas, et aunque ellos non lo des[e]n, aprovecharse an dellas, asm como el fmgado et los otros miembros dichos se aprovechan de las melizinas que son mezcladas con las cosas de que se ellos pagan. Et Dios, que es complido et complidor de todos los buenos [fechos], por la su merged et por la su piadat, quiera que los que estte libro leyeren, que se aprovechen dil a servigio de Dios et para salvamiento de sus almas et aprovechamiento de sus cuerpos; asm commo El sabe que yo, don Iohan, lo digo a essa entengisn. Et lo que y fallaren que non es tan bien dicho, non pongan culpa a la mi entengisn, mas psnganla a la mengua del mio entendimiento. Et si alguna cosa fallaren bien dicha o aprovechosa, gradiscanlo a Dios, ca El es aquil por quien todos los buenos dichos et fechos se dizen et se fazen.

Et pues el prslogo es acabado, de aqum adelante comengari la manera del libro, en manera de un grand seqor que fablava con un su consegero. Et dizman al seqor, conde Lucanor, et al consegero, Patronio.

ADAMS, K. ed. 1993: Rimado de Palacio. Madrid: Catedra.

ALVAR, Carlos ed. 1984: Demanda del Santo Graal. Madrid: Editora Nacional.

BAUGH, Albert C. 1968: "The Background of Chaucer's Mission to Spain", Chaucer und seine

BENSON, L. D. ed. 1991: The Riverside Chaucer. Oxford: O.U.P.

BIRCH, David 1989: Language Literature and Critical Practice. Ways of Analysing Text.

London: Routhledge.

BLECUA, A. ed. 1976:El Libro de Buen Amor. Madrid: Espasa y Calpe.

BLECUA, J.M. ed. 1982: Don Juan Manuel. Obras Completas. I, II. Madrid: Gredos.

BLECUA, J.M. ed. 1991: El Conde Lucanor. Madrid: Castalia.

CACHO BLECUA, J. M. ed. 1987: Amadis de Gaula. Madrid: Catedra.

CAQAS, Jeszs ed.1988:El Libro de Alexandre. Madrid: Catedra.

CARDONA DE GIBERT, A.,GUARNER, L., RAFEL, L. eds.1973:Mio Cid. Zaragoza: Ediciones Aubi.

CARTER, R.1982: Language and Literature. London: George and Unwin Ltd.

CIDADI, H. 1975: Ligoes de Cultura e Literatura Portuguesas.I. Coimbra.

CORBELLA, D. ed.1992: Libro de Apolonio. Madrid: Catedra.

CORTINES, J. ed. 1984: Cancionero I, II.Madrid: Catedra.

CURTIUS, E.R. 1976: Literatura Europea y Edad Media Latina.I, II. Madrid: Fondo de Cultura Econsmica.

DAVIDSE, C.1987: "M. A. K. Halliday's Functional Grammar and The Prague Scholl",. Functionalism in Linguistics, ed. by Reni Dirven and Vilem Fried. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company

DEYERMOND, A. D. 1979: Historia de la Literatura Espaqola 1. La Edad Media. Barcelona: Ariel.

GARBATY, T. J. 1967:"Chaucer in Spain, 1366: Soldier of Fortune or Agent of the Crown?", English Language Notes 5: 81-87.

GARCIA G., A., NIETO C., M. 1976:Catalogo de los manuscritos e incunables de la catedral de Cordoba. Csrdoba: Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros de Cordoba.

GARZANTI, A. ed.1980: Decameron, vols. I, II. Italy: Garzanti.

GIMENEZ S., A. 1932: Don Juan Manuel. Biografia y Estudio Critico. Zaragoza: Tipografia La Academica de F. Martinez, 1932.

GONZALEZ, C. ed. 1983: Libro del Caballero Cifar. Madrid: Catedra.

HALLIDAY, M. A. K. & HASAN , R. 1976: Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

HALLIDAY, M. A. K. 1985: A Short Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

HALLIDAY, M. A. K. 1985: "Dimensions of Discurse Analysis: Grammar", Handbook of Discourse.

Analysis, vol. 2. London: Academic Press London.

HALLIDAY, M. A. K. 1986: Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.

HONORE-DUVERGE, S. 1955:"Chaucer en Espagne? 1366", Recuil deTravaux offert a' M.Clovis Brunel. Paris.

 KRESS, G. 1976: Halliday:" Systemic and Function in Language". London: O.U.P.

LANGLAND, J. 1977:"?Et non el dma del lodo?: The Structure of the Short Story in El CondeLucanor", in I. Macpherson ed. Juan Manuel Studies. London: Tamesis.

LACARRA, M. ed. 1989: Sendebar. Madrid: Catedra.

LACARRA, M. J. ed. 1980: Disciplina Clericalis. Zaragoza: Guara Editorial.

LUACES, J. G., ed. 1973: El Decamersn. Barcelona: Plaza & Janis.

MACPHERSON, I., TATE, B., eds. 1991: El Libro de los Estados. Madrid: Castalia.

MARTIN, J. L. ed. 1991: Crsnicas. Barcelona: Planeta.

MORLEY, G. D. 1985: An Introduction to Systemic Grammar. London: Macmillan.

MUIR, J. 1972: A Modern Approach to English Grammar: an Introduction to Systemic Grammar. Batsford: London.

PUJALS, E.1982: Drama, Pensamiento y Poesma en la Literatura Inglesa. Madrid: Rialp.

RUSSEL, P. E.1955:The English Intervention in Spain and Portugal in the Time of Edward III and Richard II. Oxford.

SERRANO REYES, J.L. 1996: Didactismo y Moralismo en Geoffrey Chaucer y Don Juan Manuel: un.

Estudio Comparativo Textual. Cordoba: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cordoba.

VICTORIO, J. ed. 1983: Cantar de Roldan. Madrid: Catedra.

VICTORIO, J. ed. 1990: Poema de Fernan Gonzalez. Madrid: Catedra.