No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
Scholars are generally agreed that the three main extant manuscripts of the Libro de buen amor represent two redactions of the poem: MSS.G and T are derived from the original version of 1330, and MS.S from the author's revised version of 1343. Evidently the revision effected in 1343 consisted of adding considerable material to the original version and eliminating a lesser amount. However, because the extant MSS are incomplete, it is impossible to ascertain precisely what material was eliminated and what was added in the revision. This revised text of 1343 can indeed be established with almost complete accuracy by taking the whole of S and supplying the contents of pages torn out of S or its ancestors, by means of G and T, which fortunately preserve substantially all the missing material. But unfortunately this procedure cannot be reversed to establish the contents of the 1330 version. To be sure, the lacunae in G-T can be identified, partly by the examination of the MSS and partly by comparison with S; and in certain cases, where material identifiable as a fraction of an episode is wanting, we can safely restore the gap with the text of S. But this procedure is not reliable where there is a major lacuna in G–T. One of these is the gap from st. 139b to st.329. In this paper I hope to shed possible light on the problem by putting forth the hypothesis that, where this gap occurs in MS.G, eleven stanzas from S (140–150) could not have figured in the 1330 version, but are rather an interpolation of the 1343 revision.
1 MS.5 (Salamanca) is nearest to being complete. T (Toledo) is quite mutilated, but what material it does contain accords in all essentials with G (Gayoso). For the development of scholarly opinion regarding the two redactions, see [Gottfried Geist] in Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, ii (1878), 41; Menéndez y Pelayo, Antología de poetas lirícos castellanos (Madrid, 1892), ii, lxvii; R. Menéndez Pidal, “Sobre: Libro de buen amor, ed. Ducamin,” Romania, xxx (1902), 439–440; and especially G. B. Gybbon-Monypenny, “The Two Versions of the Libro de buen amor. The Extent and Nature of the Author's Revision,” BHS, xxxix (1962), 205–221.
2 According to the composite numbering of Jean Ducamin, ed., Libro de buen amor (Toulouse: Privat, 1901), the following passages are in S but not in G: sts. 1–10, a prose passage, sts. 75, 90–92, 99b–125c, 139b–329, 452, 476c–489b, 575, 624–659, 766–794b, 872d–880, 910–949, 983–984, 1007, 1016–20, 1318–31, 1423–34, 1472, 1591c-1604, 1635–47, 1655, and 1660–1709. Of these it may be supposed that sts. 1–10, the prose passage, and sts. 75, 575, 910–949, 983–984, 1318–31, 1472, 1635–47, and 1660–1709 are interpolations. See Gybbon-Monypenny, “Two Versions,” p. 212, fora more detailed summary. I cannot agree with him regarding st. 1472 (ibid., p. 208), since “al non sé que (me) vea” (1471d) seems to mean: “As for the rest, I do not know what it is that I see.” Cf. Elisha Kane, tr., The book of Good Love (New York, 1933), p. 267: “and something I don't know.” G-T contains the following stanzas which are absent from S: sts. 436–451, 548–563, 580–595, 660c-691, 756–765, 1656, and 1710–28. This absence can reasonably be accounted for, on the most part, by the hypothesis that a prudish hand had ripped out of an ancestor of S whole pages, containing an average of eight stanzas on a side. The two “cantares de ciegos” (1710–28), however, do not fall into this category.
3 The substance of a few lacunae can also be found in such sources as the Pamphilus.
4 E.g., 99b-125c, 872d-880.
5 MS.T does not begin until st. 367. The limits of the gap are not clearly indicated in the edition of Cejador (Madrid: “La Lectura,” 1913), p. 62, note. Nevertheless, I shall quote from this text (which is itself based on Ducamin) in order to avoid the unnecessary typographical complications that would arise if the reproduction of Ducamin's paleographic text were attempted.
6 Unfortunately the precise number of lines missing in G cannot be established because the folios of this MS were numbered after it was mutilated, and therefore there is no discontinuity in the numbering of the assembled sheets (although these were reassembled out of textual order). We thus cannot theoretically match the number of lines of text provided by S with physical space known to be missing in G, in order to determine whether there is an excess of lines, and presumably an interpolation, in S. As a consequence we must examine internal evidence in order to establish or disprove the presence of added material in S at this point.
7 Nonetheless there is the possibility of alteration in sts. 247–249, 256, and 316, but this is merely a supposition on my part and cannot be corroborated; a discussion of it would be futile.
8 It may be said in very general terms that the 1343 revision tends to reduce the feeling of joyful vitality perceived in the 1330 version. Indicative of this tendency are the pseudo-moralizing prose prologue, preceded by the mournful ten-stanza invocation; st. 75, which moralizes about sin in the midst of a humorous passage; st. 575, by which the cautious author clarifies the difference between his poetic and outward nature; sts. 910–949 moralizing on sudden death; some of the more touching implorations to the Virgin (1660–1709); and the rather realistic and sardonic “Cántica de los clérigos de Talavera,” which deals with a real threat to the possibility of clerical courtship and thus to the way of life of which the Libro de buen amor is a poetization. Such a tendency is not present in sts. 166–180.
9 The sudden death of the prince is but the climax of an enxienplo, and not an event of personal import in the protagonist's life like the unexpected death in st. 943.
10 MS.G takes up again at st. 330, in the middle of the lawsuit between the wolf and the fox, which is one of the Archpriest's metaphorical enxienplos against Don Amor.
11 Félix Lecoy, Recherches sur le “Libro de buen amor” (Paris, 1938), p. 193.
12 Ulrich Leo, Zur dichterischen Originalität des Arcipreste de Hita (Frankfurt-am-Main, 1958), p. 115.
13 Professor Raymond Willis, to whom I am indebted for several suggestions, has pointed out to me that, in any case, the criticism of Lecoy and Leo is not to the point. Juan Ruiz clearly shows that man does indeed have free will, given to him by God if he is willing to attain it through prayer. Thus he is exonerated from his fate.
14 Before this is attempted, however, it must be assumed that G definitely contained the rest of st. 139. This is a logical assumption, for the rhyme scheme must be continued within the stanza, and the very end of the story could not be otherwise than it appears in S.
15 This occurs in the following instances: (88d) castigué (89d) castiga, (205d) premias (206c) premia, (227c) cobdiçiar (228a) cobdiçioso, (227b) perdióla (228b) pierde, (244d) sobervia (245c) sobervios, (272a) Cató (273a) cata, (272d) De mí mesma salyó quien me tiró la vida (273d) Que de sy mesmo sale quien su vida desata, (302b) mucho (303b) mucha, (302c) mucho (303b) mucho, (315b) yra (315d) yra, (467b) vilesa (467d) vylesa, (484c) petid (485a) pides, (543a) el vyno (543d) el bever, (753a) peláronle (754d) pelarvos, (1352d) venino (1354a) venino, (1361a) juventud (1362a) mançebez, (1361c) viejo (1362c) viejo, (1383c) pobresa (1384a) pobresa, (1389d) entiendes, sabes (1390b) saben, entienden, (1406d) fesyeron (1407a) faser, (1419c) catedes (1421a) catar, (1433d) aprovechar (1434b) provecho, (1441d) daño, entristecer (1442b) tristesa, dapno, (1474a) garavatos (1475b) garavato, (1474c) travadas (1475c) trával, (1475b) mal (1475d) mal. Professor Raymond Willis points out that this is also characteristic of Arabic poetry.
16 This occurs in the following instances: (64a) Por esto diz la pastraña de la vieja fardida, (88d) Por ende yo te digo, (101a) Bien ansí acaesçió a munchos, (178c) Así contesçió a mi, (196d) Ansy su devaneo al garçón loco domó, (245a) Aquí tomen ensyenpro e lyçión, (255a) Bien ansy tú lo fazes, (268a) Ansy por la loxuria, (289a) Ansy con tu envidia ffazes muchos sobrar, (302d) Anssy mueren los locos golosos do tú yvas, (372a) Tal eres como el lobo, (467c) Por ende, mi amigo, (904a) Assy, señoras dueñas, entended el rromançe, (1354d) Así derechamente a mi de ty me vino, (1449c) En tal manera tema el que bien quiere bevir.
17 Corroboration of the pattern of stylistic linkage is found in every fable except De lupo pedente (or rather sternuente) (766–781); but then some stanzas are apparently missing from the latter. None of the foregoing proves, of course, that st. 140 itself, which follows st. 139 in MS.S, fails to fit it stylistically. On the contrary, Juan Ruiz, in the 1343 version, would have been careful to re-create a link (in this case the cognate eslrólogos.)
18 In the edition of Cejador y Frauca (Madrid: “La lectura,” 1913), p. 59, there are commas after ser and cursso, which I have omitted here, as they may be misleading to a proper understanding.
19 Signo is here used loosely, as Venus is not one of the signs of the Zodiac but a planet in ascendance.
20 If we exclude the aforementioned eleven stanzas (140–150) from the passage (sts. 123–165), we shall find in it only one mention of God (136c), and here only to emphasize that the stars, on which immutable decrees are read, were created by Him. The author would thus have avoided bringing into the discussion the staying hand of God, the more easily because the illustrating fable is about a Mohammedan, for whom imploration would be of no avail.
21 As a counter-argument, Professor Willis points out that the catechistical simplicity of st. 149,
Ansy que por ayuno, lymosna e oraçión,
E por servir a Dios con mucha contfiçión,
Non ha poder mal segno nin su costellaçión;
El poderío de Dios tuelle la tribulaçión.
could very well be used as a basis for humor, considering the poet's fluidity. Against such a counter-argument, however, my recourse is to suggest the possibility that sts. 140–150 were interpolated by Juan Ruiz d contre-cœur and that any touch of humor is for ironic requital. Sts. 140–150 have an effect on the passage in which they are found similar to that of st. 75 on the passage in which it is found; st. 75 is in S only, though in the midst of stanzas common to both MSS:
Como dize Aristótiles, cosa es verdadera:
El mundo por dos cosas trabaja: la primera,
Por aver mantenençia; la otra cosa era
Por aver juntamiento con fenbra plazentera. (71)
Sy lo dexies' de mío, sería de culpar;
Dízelo grand filósofo: non so yo de reptar;
De lo que dize el sabio non devedes dudar,
Ca por obra se prueba el sabio e su fablar.
Que diz' verdat el sabio claramente se prueva:
Omes, aves, animalias, toda bestia de cueva;
Quiere, segunt natura, conpaña sienpre nueva;
E munchos más el ome, que toda cosa que s'mueva.
Digo muy más el ome, que de toda criatura:
Todas a tienpo çierto se juntan con natura;
El ome de mal sseso todo tienpo syn mesura,
Cadaque puede e quier' facer esta locura. (74)
El ffuego ssienpre quiere estar en la çeniza,
Comoquier que más arde, quanto más se atiza:
El ome, quando peca, bien vee que desliza;
Mas non se parte ende, ca natura lo enriza. (75)
E yo, porque so ome, como otro, pecador,
Ove de las mugeres a vezes grand amor:
Provar ome las cosas non es por ende peor,
E saber bien e mal, e usar lo mejor. (76)
Gybbon-Monypenny speaks of “the pains [Juan Ruiz] took when revising his work to reiterate and emphasize its moral purpose” (“Two Versions,” p. 221). Whether we agree or not about the didactic goal of the work as a whole, we can see that st. 75 is an example of such emphasis. The formal balance between the didactically used vs. 74 c,d and the casuistically used vs. 76, c,d is upset by the moralizing reiteration of st. 75.
22 Cf. María Rosa Lida, “Nuevas notas sobre el Libro de buen amor,” NRFH, xiii (1960), 17–82.
23 See above, n. 8.