Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The biographers and critics of Juan de Mena
(USC Thesis Other)
The biographers and critics of Juan de Mena
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE BIOGRAPHERS AND CRITICS OF JUAN DE MENA
Ralph Anthony DiFranco
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Spanish and Portuguese)
May 1978
Copyright Ralph Anthony DiFranco 19 78
UMI Number: DP31612
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
DissMtaîieri PuwistAig
UMI DP31612
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
T H E G R A D U A T E S C H O O L
U N IV E R S IT Y P A R K
LO S A N G E L E S , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7
' P k . 0 ,
5
D
This dissertation, w ritte n by
Ralph Anthony DiFranco
under the direction of Dissertation C o m
mittee, and approved by a ll its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Graduate
School, in p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t of requirements of
the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y
Dean
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
ChafPm
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my gratitude for the invaluahle assistance of
j Christine "Kippy" Gladish of the University of Southern California
jInterlihrary Loan Department without whose aid in locating and
obtaining materials I would have been unable to include important
pieces of criticism in this review of research, which would have
placed severe limitations on its attempts at completeness. I would
I
I
also like to thank the various members of my Dissertation Committee
for their guidance, helpful comments and constant encouragement. i
I Finally, special thanks are in order to my family and to a few friends j
i . '
; for their moral support provided throughout the researching and |
writing of my dissertation.
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ..................................................... .1
NOTES........................... 5
Chapter
I. BIOGRAPHY................................................. 6
The F a c t s ........................................... 6
Family ............................................... 9
Marriage............................... 12
The Converso Question .............................. 15
Travels and Studies................................ 20
D e a t h ............................................... 2k
About Biographical Sources ......................... 27
NOTES..................................................... 29
II. EDITIONS AND EDITORIAL COMMENTARY ....................... 35
What Editors D o .......... 35
1. Laberinto.................................. 35
2. Prose and minor poetry..................... k2
Textual Studies .................................... 5^
NOTES..................................................... 62
III. SOURCES........................................ 66
Classical and Early Medieval Latin ................. 6T
Dante ........................................ 92
Other Medieval Sources .............................. 113
Conclusions and Observations ....................... 121
NOTES........................................................126
111
IV. LANGUAGE AND STYLE...........................................137
Early Humanists.........................................137
Casticistas y Modernos ............................... 139
Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century
Language-Style Negative Criticisms .............. lU2
General Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century
Language-Style Commentary ...................... lUU-
The Hyperhaton, Precursor of Gongora ................ l46
Eighteenth Century.....................................1^+8
Nineteenth Century ................................... 1^9
Arte M a y o r ............................................. 15^
Maria Rosa Lida............................ l6l
Modern Editors ........................................ l66
Other Pertinent Studies ............................... 169
Summary................................................. 170
N O T E S ........................................................174
V. STRUCTURE AND THEMES.........................................I80
Structure............................................... 181
Themes................................................. 193
1. Fortune and Divine Providence ................ 19^
2. The national ideal: reconquest versus
civil war, criticism, and protest...........198
3. The king and Alvaro de Luna: a lesson .... 20U
U. Moral considerations ......................... 207
Other Commentary.......................................208
Summary..................................... 211
N O T E S ........................................................212
VI. FAME AND INFLUENCE...........................................215
Popularity: The Poet’s Fame............................2l6
Imitation: The Poet’s Influence ...................... 233
Summary................................................. 250
N O T E S ........................................................252
IV
VII,;' A POLEMIC: MARIA ROSA LIDA AND RAFAEL LAPESA.......... 257
The Essentials^ .............................. 258
Pregnntas y Respuestas............... 263
La Coronacion...................................... 265
Influence...................................... 266
Other Critics......................... 267
Reviews............................................. 270
Summary............................................. 273
N O T E S ................................................... 275
CONCLUSIONS ............................................... 278
N O T E S ................................................... 285
ABBREVIATIONS IN BIBLIOGRAPHY . ................................ 286
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................... 288
V
INTRODUCTION
j Literary criticism has been defined in the following manner:
' "Criticism is a form of studied discourse about works of art. It is a
I
j use of language primarily designed to facilitate and enrich the under-
i
{standing of art. Involved in its practice are highly developed sets of
vocabularies5 various sorts of procedures and arguments, broad assump
tions, and a vast diversity of specific goals and purposes."^ In
recent times there has been a significant amount of attention devoted
to the survey and analysis of literary criticism, the secondary sources
of information. An inquiry into the aims and approaches of critical
■ writings of both the past and present reveals much information about
{critics’ concerns and perspectives as well as those of the authors and
Î . 2
,periods they study. This dissertation explores the secondary sources
i
I of Juan de Mena; a desire to organize the entire corpus of writings
about Mena into a coherent compendium of research led to its writing.
Juan de Mena was less prolific than many of his fifteenth century
contemporaries; but his works, perhaps more than those of any other
writer of his period, have occasioned a vast amount of critical dis
course during their five hundred year history and have attracted the
interest of some of the keenest minds of Spanish literature and
Hispanic scholarship. The Laberinto de Fortuna, Mena’s best known
work, has always occupied a central position in Spanish letters.
I - ■ !
j Nearly every school of criticism is represented in the history
of critical studies on Mena. The organization of this dissertation is
divided into seven chapters in order to accommodate a separate review
of each. In their order of appearance they include: biography,
I editions of Mena's works and editorial concerns, sources, language and
style, structure and themes, fame and influence. A seventh chapter
traces the scholarly polemic between Maria Rosa Lida and Rafael !
I I
;Lapesa, which places Mena and Mena criticism into a larger, comparativei
.perspective. With the exceptions of chapters I and VII, the présenta- !
:
;tion of the material in each chapter follows an essentially chronolo-
: I
igical order. !
Special attention is given to an objective presentation of each j
; I
critic's opinions. In most cases I attempt to summarize accurately the
■writer's ideas, only quoting directly from the critical text when it
I «
is necessary to preserve the exact wording of a statement, or when
I
{paraphrasing would render a passage awkward. Such a preservation of
{wording is indispensable, for example, in reviewing the debate
■presented in chapter VII. No attempt is made to analyze or interpret
I
{Mena's works nor to evaluate those of his critics beyond whatever
Ievaluative process is implied in categorization. The critical texts
are corrected only in situations of a gross error or misrepresentation,
i.e., a mistaken attribution of a quotation or a work, plagiarism.
'Conflicting viewpoints are simply presented as such.
I It is hoped that the organization of this corpus of criticism into
a concise compendium will aid the task of students and scholars
interested in studying Juan de Mena and in better appreciating his
i contributions to the language and literature of Spain. It is further
I
hoped that this review of research will encourage the exploration of
previously neglected or newly suggested areas of inquiry. In preparing
this dissertation, I have become acutely aware of a genuine need for
^the collection and organization of the research conducted by all
{critics who, throughout the centuries, have devoted patience and energy{
{to the elucidation of the life and works of Juan de Mena and to en- j
i
jriching the understanding of his literary art. |
! Concern for the work of my predecessors is reflected in my |
I
I
,complete agreement with Wellek and Warren when they write: "The total !
! . . ;
^ meaning of a work of art cannot be defined merely in terms of its i
i I
,meaning for the author and his contemporaries. It is rather the j
result of a process of accretion; i.e. the history of its criticism by ;
3
■many of its readers in many ages." In part, this dissertation pre- ^
I
sents an accurate demonstration of the validity of this statement. ,
I do not profess to be the first researcher to undertake the task
Îof recording the criticism about Juan de Mena. In this introduction, '
i ^ i
^I wish to acknowledge Maria Rosa Lida’s contribution to this field of i
study. In a chapter of her monograph Juan de Mena,_ poeta dèl |
prerrenacimiento espahol, titled "Critica," she reviews, in chronolo
gical order, the opinions of poets, commentators, and critics from the
fifteenth century to the end of the nineteenth century. In most
instances, she traces the composite opinions of writers ; many study
! various aspects of Mena's works and life. She offers philological
and cultural explanations for some outstanding judgements, e.g., the
vehemently negative criticism of sixteenth century Italian critics,
jand always points out critics' shortsightedness and failings. This is
jespecially true of her presentation of the nineteenth century writers, j
In surveying this material, Lida supplies future researchers with j
,a firm basis from which to proceed to a more detailed study and
I
{supports her individual thesis regarding Mena's importance as a writer
! and his popularity among later generations of authors. Her monograph
I is, perhaps, the single most ambitious contribution to the overall
i presentation and understanding of the concerns of Mena and his critics.
It has been my further intention in writing this dissertation to
expand the scope of Lida's now out-dated survey in order to include the
numerous articles and several monographs devoted to Mena which have
i appeared since the publication of her study in 1950.
NOTES
INTRODUCTION
^ Morris Weitz, Hamlet and the Philosophy of Literary Criticism
(Chicago; University of Chicago Press, I96U), p. vii.
’ 2
I Throughout this dissertation I have employed the words "critic"
; and "scholar" interchangeably. Modern theories of literary criticism
isolate scholars from critics: the scholar approaches literature from
,historical, extra-literary perspectives of biography, politics, socio-
'logy, theology and even the history of tastes. The critic is concerned
I with the systematic study and elucidation of the literary works them-
iselves. For a further discussion see Northrop Frye, "Polemical Intro
duction," in Anatomy of Criticism (1957; rpt. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1973), pp. 3-29.
3
■ Rene Wellek and Austin Warren, Theory of Literature, 3rd ed.
'(New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1956), p. h2.
CHAPTER I
I BIOGRAPHY
I
I
: The Facts
The early biographies of Juan de Mena were written by Hernân
I
I Nunez and his disciple Valerio Francisco Romero. Nunez published his
{work in the 1^99 Seville edition of the Laberinto, but it was sus-
Ipended in later editions. Francisco Romero’s composition is entitled
i
I"Epicedio" and was published in Refranes, Salamanca, 1555. This second
j
biography is repeatedly referred to and quoted by critics and literary
historians who include a discussion of biographical data as part of
1
their studies of Mena. The information contained therein, aside from ;
being practically all that is known about Mena’s life, has also been ^
disputed and re-evaluated in the light of other historical documents.
^Firstly, a presentation of the facts commonly accepted without debate.
There is no doubt among critics concerning the place of Mena’s
'birth, Cordoba. The poet himself alludes to it both in the Laberinto,
jstrophe 12^, "Oh flor de saber e de cavalieria/C6rdova madre, tu fijo
jperdona" and in the Yliada en romance, "Vengo yo, vuestro umill siervo
I ^ 2 . .
|y natural . . . de aquella vuestra cavallerosa Cordoba." It is said
that he was left an orphan at an early age. Critics generally concede
that he studied first in Cordoba, then in Salamanca and Rome, although
they differ on points of chronology and details. Upon his return to
Spain, he occupied the posts of court chronicler, secretary of
Latin letters, awarded him because of his humanistic training in
3 ^
Italy, and Veinticuatro de Cordoba, an honorific position awarded
; by that city to its outstanding citizens. The chronology and details
h
: are here, too, disputed. Writers affirm that he stood in good favor
{with the king, Juan II, and his advisor, Alvaro de Luna. He exchanged
; verses with the first, dedicated the Laberinto to him, and was his com-
I
' . 5
panion on journeys. Mena much admired the second and was an avid
[supporter of Luna’s political policies. He dedicated "Memoria de
; algunos linajes" to him along with verses commemorating a battle wound
received by Luna at Palenzuela. Furthermore, Alvaro de Luna is the
ideal example set before the king in the Laberinto.^ Mena enjoyed
^ T
^ close personal and literary relations with the Marques de 8antiliana.
He dedicated the Coronacion,to the Marques in 1U38, commemorating his
\
victory over the Moors at Huelma, and probably visited him in
; Guadalajara and worked in the library there. They exchanged verses
I
! and Santillana, it is generally said, paid for Mena’s burial. Mena
'also engaged in literary activity with Pedro de Portugal, Anton de
,Montoro, Juan Agraz, and Pedro Tafur, although the exchanges were not
! . 8 .
'always cordial according to some critics. He possibly knew Alonso de
Cartagena and they shared common literary interests. Mena has been
viewed as a professional man of letters since the time of Juan de
[Lucena, who presents him as such in the Vita Eeata (1^63), a work in
which Mena, Santillana, and Alonso de Cartagena discuss the meaning of ■
9
a happy life. Mena's death was lamented hy contemporaries, both
Gomez Manrique in "Planto de las virtudes e poesia por el magnifico
{senor don Inigo Lopez de Mendoza" and Anton Montoro mourned him. Fray
I
{Jeronimo de Olivares, Pedro Guillen de Segovia, and Manrique completed
{his "Copias contra los pecados mortales." Diego de Burgos pays homage
■to him in the "Triunfo del Marques."
I In affirming these facts, critics customarily appeal to literary
-evidence: information extracted, for the most part, from Mena's works
jand those of his contemporaries. The mode of procedure brings into
{question the validity of such writings as sources of factual, his-
I
[torically valid information. However, because of the scarcity of
,official records, such as public or private documents, literature
; becomes the primary data source.
Aside from mentioning the general aspects of the poet's life,
{critics devote significant efforts to the investigation of particular
I areas of Mena's biography. It is the research on these areas that has
I given rise to disputes and a diversity of critical opinions. I have
'divided the polemical material into five categories based on the
! particular topics of disagreement : Mena's family, name, and lineage;
! his marriage; the converso question; the chronology of the poet's
I
'studies ; and his death. The starting point for investigators in these
,areas has been the "Epicedio." To the basic information presented by
[Francisco Romero in his poetic biography, critics add data, and alter
and delete it in accord with recent discoveries among’the documents in
: the various archives at Simancas, Cordoba, Seville, and Madrid.
Family
Menendez y Pelayo laments the fact that little is known about
, Mena’s life and that which is known is represented in an inferior poem,
the "Epicedio." Of Mena’s family Francisco Romero says:
I Nieto de un hombre, senor principal,
j Della Regente y su publica cosa,
Rui Fernandez llamado Pehalosa,
; Senor de Almenara, de estima y caudal,
j Eue hijo de Pedrarias llamado
De estado mediano, de buena nacion. . . .
Although Menendez y Pelayo judged these verses as quite poor, he
! nevertheless uses their content as factual information, considers the
'lineage question solved, and proceeds to discuss other aspects of
Mena’s biography and works. For other critics and historians, however,i
the question is open to debate. ^
Florence Street reconstructs Mena’s family tree following the i
research of Alonso Garcia de Morales who wrote in 1672.^^ The follow- j
I
ing is a schematic representation of the descendency: I
Ruy Fernandez de Pehalosa y Mena
Sr. de Almenara, Veinticuatro
Pedrarias de Mena (murio joven)
J Ruy Fernandez de Pehalosa Juan de Mena
Veinticuatro
I The scheme expands on the information provided hy Francisco Romero hut,
iaccording to Street, it is not entirely accurate. There is some doubt
as to whether the first Ruiz Fernandez de Pehalosa is Mena's grand
father or uncle, depending upon whether his sister or daughter married
Pedrarias. Furthermore, Morales replaces Mena’s sister, as listed in
^"Epicedio," with a brother who, before the poet, held the Veinti
cuatro title. Mena himself in "Memoria de algunos linajes" describes
I
the family’s original homestead and its participation, along with the
12
jtroops of Fernando III, el Santo, in the capture of Baeza. j
I I
1 Miguel Muhoz Vazquez is interested in establishing the origin of
I '
; the last name "Mena." He determines that it derives either from the
!
I occupation of Mena’s childhood guardian, the early Latin poet Flavio
I
I Mena or the name of the street on which Mena lived while in Cordoba, {
I I
{Artera, also called "La Hoguera" which, according to Munoz Vazquez,
' I
jmeans mena or luminaria. The last possibility seems attractive enough
I . I
jthat the researcher concludes: "Es casi seguro que el apellido que i
Iadopto el Poeta tuvo por origen el toponimico de la calle o casa de su j
jmorada."^^ ;
Muhoz Vazquez traces other data about Mena's relatives from the
,information contained in the "Archive"; Mena's sister changed her name i
I from Mena but her descendants preserved it. His maternal grandfather
I
I was Ruiz Fernandez de Pehalosa, whose daughter, Maria Fernandez,
! according to a 1^408 document, married Pedrarias. The son of Ruiz I
; Fernandez is another of the same name, who was also Veinticuatro de
10
Cordoba and Senor del Castillo y Heredamientos de Almenara. He
received the castle from the city of Cordoba in lUU6.^^ Mena's
paternal family had land holdings in Ecija and they descend from a
certain Pedrarias de Ecija, who was mayor of the town in 1352.^^
Miguel Angel Orti Belmonte points out that according to a lUll
document, the Castle of Almenara did not yet belong to Ruiz Fernandez
I de Pehalosa and, thus, Juan de Mena never was the son of the "Sehor de
Almenara" because, during most of Mena’s life, Almenara was a town.
He then traces Mena’s family tree according to the poet's alleged
'"Memorias de algunos linajes," and the studies of Padre Francisco
Ruano, an historian of Cordoba. He reproduces the following lineage
I tree :
Alfonso Fernandez de Mesa — Beatriz Gonzalez de Quiros
Catalina Fernandez de Mesa— Ruiz Fernandez de Pehalosa
Pedrarias- ■Se desconoce el nombre
de la madre
Juan de Mena
,As in previous cases, the information basically follows the notes of
! Francisco Romero.
; José Maria de Mena traces Mena's family tree to the reconquest of
the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries: Fernando de Mena, Comendador
11
de Calatrava; Alfonso Fernandez de Mena, advisor to Pedro I; Ruy de
Mena, treasurer of the kingdom.In the fourteenth century, the
family moves to Cordoha. The first relative we have information about
there is Ruiz Fernandez de Mena y Pehalosa, Sehor de Almenara. His
I son, Pedrarias, is Mena’s father.
j Rafael Fuentes Guerra, in Juan de Mena, alludes to the confusion
I surrounding the question of Mena’s family tree, especially that in-
I ' I
volving the name "Mena." In "Fiestas de amor" of Pedro Manuel Jimenez [
i
I de Urrea "Mena" is written together with Pedrarias. According to
;Fuentes Guerra, from the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries_ittwas
customary to adopt a last name which had only minor relation with the
one adopting it. Such is the case with "Mena." The critic also !
■alludes to Mena’s antecedents, Ruiz Pehalosa, Sehor de Almenara, Mena’sj
I grandfather, who owned the castle and lands of strategic importance ,
'near the Guadalquivir. According to the Provincial Archives of Cordoba,
I !
^the Almenara lands belonged to others during most of Mena’s lifetime
I and the poet adopted the name "Mena" in memory of the past glory of
his family; "Mena" is a reduction of the word "Almenara."
All of these investigators basically rely on the information
given by Francisco Romero. They attempt to prove its historical
validity and also hypothesize about details not mentioned in the
Epicedio" passage.
[Marriage
There is a significant diversity of opinion regarding Mena’s
marriage. The point of departure for all investigators is the
12
"Epicedio":
Caso con la hermana de dos ciudadanos,
Garcia de Vaca j Lope de Vaca. . , .
Florence Street claims that Mena was married twice and hoth times
'to women of respectable Cordovan families: to the sister of Garcia
, and Lope de Vaca and, according to a 1^56 document, to Maria Mendez de
1 Biedma j Sotomayor. In the document, dated in Ecija, Mena and his
I
I wife renounce their rights to a land parcel in Villareal in favor of
: Maria’s uncle Arias Biedma
Muhoz Vazquez claims that Mena was married in Cordoba sometime
between the years ikkQ and IU50 to the daughter of Fernando de
Sotomayor and Costanza Fernandez de Aguilar, and maternal
! grand-daughter of Gonzalo Gonzalez Fernandez de Biedma and Maria
jMendez de Sotomayor, Maria Mendez. In a IU30 document, Maria Mendez
I(grandmother) claims Maria Mendez, her grand-daughter, as a legitimate !
' heir to her estate. In another document of ih'pG, found in the Archives
of Ecija and published in Ensayo de un catâlogo biografico de los
;escritores de la provincia y diocesis de Cordoba, Mena and Maria
I Mendez sign as husband and wife and renounce their right to land in
I
I Villareal. He traces the tree of the Sotomayor family to the time of
I Fernando III. Mena’s great-grandparents through marriage, donated a
jchapel in their honor in the Cathedral of Cordoba. Muhoz hypothesizes
I that perhaps Mena’s wife is buried there, and indicates that the des
cendent s of Maria Alfonso de Sotomayor, Maria Mendez’s
great-grandmother, are the founders of the del Carpios.
13
Orti Belmonte asserts that Mena married twice, once as according
to the "Epicedio," and again to Maria Mendez. He gives no further
details except that perhaps through his first marriage he is related
to the seventeenth century Cordovan historian, Vaca de Alfaro.
José Maria de Mena, though following the information given hy
I Francisco Romero, expands the data to the point of hypothesis hy
■ . 18
; writing a biographical romance. In a section of his generally
I
romanticized essay, the critic discusses the circumstances surrounding
Mena’s marriage and bases his opinions on the effects of the poet’s
trip to Italy, contact with Dante’s work, and the Dolce stil nuovo
poetry. I quote several passages :
Ella— isabe alguien como se llamaba ella?— , la her
mana de los dos ciudadanos don Lope y don Garcia. . . .
Para Juan de Mena y para nosotros no necesita nombre ni
familia. Es, ella, sin que se pueda confundir con
otra. Ella va a cogerle de la mano como Beatriz al
maestro de Alighieri para conducirle a la gloria. . . .
Las manos blancas, finas, acariciantes, tan débiles y
que sin embargo por milàgro de amor tienen firmeza y
pulso para guiar . . . para enderezar la vida del
varon cuando la derecha senda esta perdida. (p. 130)
He dramatizes and recreates the scene of the encounter: "Y una tarde—
6en Cordoba, en Montoro?— encuentra en su camino a una mujer. . ."
(p. 129), and "Ella esta alii. IEllaI, prisionera entre afanes
domésticos y escrituras de casas, de olivares, de tierras de labor"
(p. 130).
Fuentes Guerra points to the discrepancy between the information
contained in the manuscript of the Biblioteca Nacional and that given
by "Epicedio." The investigator selects the first option as the
lU
correct information, cites the 1U56 Ecija document and establishes the
marriage as having taken place between 1UU8 and 1^50. He also hypo
thesizes on how the poet and his wife met. A IU38 document assigns
Costanza Fernandez custody of her children, Gonzalo and Maria, upon
the death of her husband. It also affords information regarding the
area in which Costanza and her family lived, Collacion de Santa Maria
o Catedral. This area of Cordoba was frequented by Mena because of his
friendships with ecclesiastic authorities who also lived near the
Cathedral through obligation. Fuentes Guerra refers to the documents
published by José Maria Aguado that are the last will and testimony of
Mena’s grandparents (Gonzalo Biedma and Maria Méndez de Sotomayor)
through marriage. The will requests that Gonzalo and Maria Méndez
be buried in the family chapel in the Cathedral.
The Converso Question
Probably the most significant biographical dispute, in terms of
overall ramifications, surrounds the question of Mena’s alleged social
status of converso. The controversy stems from the interpretation
of the verses of the "Epicedio" that describe Mena’s lineage:
Nieto de un hombre, senor principal,
Della Regente y su püblica cosa,
Rui Fernandez llamado de Pehalosa,
Sehor de Almenara, de estima y caudal
Fué hijo de Pedrarias llamado
De estado mediano, de buena nacion. . . .
Maria Rosa Lida notes the disparity between the social status of
Mena’s grandfather and his father according to the "Epicedio" passage.
15
Given this fact, she deems it necessary to rely on the one document
that, according to her, affords a clear picture of Mena's social con
dition. She refers to a poem included in the Cancionero castellano
del siglo XV written hy Inigo Ortiz de Stuhiga in which he insinuates
through the use of certain phrases, that Mena was, in fact, a
19
converso. The passage of particular interest to Lida is "pues yo os
Juro al que mataste" as is the word "Baraha," which in Hebrew means
I benediction, and in the Romance languages has come to mean babble: a
i
language not spoken or understood by Christians. Such is its usage in
numerous examples cited by Lida from the Picara justina, "Danza de la
muerte," and the "Disparates" of Juan del Encina. The implications of
converso status are clear : it derives from Menais father, Pedrarias,
who is "de estado mediano" and who also has the last name of a
well-known converso, Diegarias, servant in the court of the Reyes
^ 20
Catolicos and relative of another converso, Rodrigo Cota.
In a subsequent addition to this hypothesis, Lida argues that
Mena’s attitude toward true nobility, his adhesion to the king and
Luna against the rebellious nobles, and his criticism of the minor
orders and praise of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, all reflect a
21
typical converso point of view. She affirms that Mena’s status as
such explains why so little is known about his life after his death,
while during his lifetime he was well-known and respected.
The opinion of Maria Rosa Lida is shared by Americo Castro, whose
converso theory pervades all his interpretations of Spanish life.
.16.
22
culture;ahd literature. He relates Mena’s alleged status to the
so-called "deheria ser de la vida espahola" and cites the Laberinto de
Fortuna as an example of literature written to influence the king and
his political activities by stressing those qualities needed for just
23
war and good government. The converso needed to feel influential;
I he associated with kings and nobles and he delved into the problems
I
^of Spain. From this, Castro concludes: "La condicion del converso no
es un detalle de erudicion soslayable, sino un elemento funcional que
ha de incorporarse al proposito mismo de la creacion artistica"
(p. 82). Another reason for assuming Mena’s social status to be that
of a converso is represented in the Vita Beata, written by a converso,
Juan de Lucena, in which Mena is depicted in conversation with another
converso, Alonso de Cartagena.
In response to this assertion, Francisco Cantera Burgos writes :
"En la Vita Beata . . . se hace intervenir a Alonso de Cartagena como
juno de los dialogantes, siendo curiosa la respuesta que da a una
alusion mortificante de Mena: ’No pienses correrme por llamarlos
ebreos mis padres. Sonlo por cierto y quiérolo; ca si antigüedad es
nobleza, 6quien tan lexos? Si virtud, 6quien tan cerca? . . .’ La
I cita sirve, ademâs, para comprobar cuân sin razon algunos eruditos,
Icomo D. Américo Castro . . . incluyen al famoso cordobés entre los
I ^ 2k
j ’conversos desesperados’ sin comodo asiento en este mundo."
I
i Florence Street, in her extensive research into Mena’s biography,
finds no evidence that Mena was a converso or that he had any Jewish
IT
blood, and challenges the hypotheses of Lida and Castro: "Ninguna de
las fuentes que he examinado para la biografia de Mena ofrece la
25
menor evidencia de que hubiera sangre judia en la familia." The
insults of Stuhiga reflect the fact that he and Mena were of different
political persuasions and, furthermore, Stuhiga probably thought that
j Mena was a converso because he exchanged verses with Anton de Montoro.
! Francisco Romero in "Epicedio" referred to Pedrarias as "de estado
mediano" and from this Lida deduces that he might have been a converso.
The entire line, however, is "de estado mediano, de buena nacion."
Mena’s expressed hostility to the lesser orders of the clergy is not
proof enough either, because he is hostile to all clergy in the
j Laberinto and "Decir sobre la justicia." Street considers Lida’s
I thesis an interesting one but one that remains to be proven.
I
j Eugenio Asensio has re-evaluated the entire question of attribut- I
iing specific ideologies, points of view, and ways of life to persons
I 26 • !
I based on their social status of conversos. In his study of the issue,'
I
jhe uses Juan de Mena and the controversy surrounding his social back-
! ground as a test case. He challenges Castro’s generalizations about
converso status and the method of stereotyping general characteristics
about conversos, excluding those that do not conform to the precon
ceived pattern. He reviews, and attempts to refute, Castro's arguments
I
I regarding Diego de Valera, Luis Vives, Teresa de Jesus, the author of
1
; Lazarillo, and Quevedo. He dedicates particular attention to the
i
I polemic surrounding the allegations about Mena’s family heritage.
i
18
After siunmarizing the positions of previous authors, both pro and
con, regarding Mena’s status, Asensio; concludes that Stuhiga’s accusa
tion is only "un ruido ofensivo, un desahogo de la colera" (p. 3^8)
and this description of his poem to Mena is proven to be correct when
the few other poems written by him are taken into consideration.
Montoro’s verse, "al tiempo que fuistes compuesto, con gana/estaba el
que loa la vieja sinoga" (both Stuhiga’s and Montoro’s poems are
central to Lida’s arguments), was written in response to a question by
Mena and those answering it needed to encounter a word to rhyme with
"toga" in the question, according to the rules of the pregunta y
respuesta. "Sinoga" is one such word. Santiliana, who also answered
the question, chose "retroga." Furthermore, on a stylistic and con
ceptual level, Montoro, in his answer, reflects the preference of the
cancionero poets for the theological, sacred hyperbole since he was
probably referring to Genesis (creation) and simply meant that God of
both Jews and Christians had special delight in creating Mena. The
fact that in the Vita Beata Mena insinuates about the Jewish back-
27
ground of Alonso de Cartagena, prompts Asensio to ask: why did Lucena
give Mena those lines and why did the bishop fail to reply accusing
; Mena of the same fault? He answers simply that both author and charac
ter were well aware of Mena’s cristiano viejo status. Mena’s attitude
toward life and politics has little or nothing to do with his alleged
Jewish origin. His vision of a united Spain was a dream common to
many Castilians of his time. In fact, the ideal of an empire is not
19
exactly new with conversas nor due to their particular social position,
28
hut, is as least as old as the Old Testament..
This polemic is another example of how literature is used as
historical data and how it is interpreted to reflect certain bio
graphical characteristics of its authors; in this case, a world
view is due to a peculiar social status.
Travels and Studies
There is general agreement among critics and biographers that
Mena was well educated and studied in as many as three different
places. The "Epicedio" says of his education:
De veinte y très ahos ya siendo se dio
Al dulce trabajo de aquel buen saber:
En Cordoba empieza primero aprender.
De alii â Salamanca, do esta, y se pasô. . . .
The key points of the dispute concern Mena’s age when he began his
studies, how much time he spent in the various places, and what he
actually did in each. Besides the disagreements over the "Epicedio"
information, critics include a third area to which Mena had travelled
29
to study, Rome. The facts and allegations concerning his travels
and stay in Italy are perhaps the most controversial of all. Moreover,
critics interpret differently the motives for Mena’s trip to Italy.
For example, Frederick Bouterwek comments: "But in order more nearly
to approach the source of ancient literature, he undertook a journey
; to Rome, where he zealously prosecuted his studies.
20
Why and how Mena went to Rome is a disputed issue indeed. As
previously mentioned, Menendez y Pelayo sees his travels to Italy as
a realization of his desire to study the classics and these studies
were to bring him renown upon his return to Spain. Concerning how he
I travelled to Rome, Menendez y Pelayo believes that Mena was under the
I
jpatronage of a Church official. For Blecua, Mena's trip to Rome
I helped to decide his vocation to humanistic study and greatly in- '
jfluenced his literary preferences. Florence Street has investigated
the details of Mena's education at Cordoba, Salamanca and Rome and has
hypothesized on what he studied in each place and the titles he
received. From Cordoba he was granted a Maestro de artes title.
Little is known, however, about his stay in Salamanca, but Street
I assumes that he studied classics there. Street, referring to the
I
jverses of "Epicedio," points out the confused nature of the data con-
I cerning Mena's education. She affirms that age twenty-three is late
to begin studies, when in the fifteenth century it was common to start
at age fifteen. Nunez, in his "Discurso acerca de la vida," claims
that Mena went to Salamanca at age twenty-three but Gallardo asserts
31
that by that time he had achieved fame as a writer. Men's return
from Rome is dated around 1^3^ and, according to Morales, he held the
post of “ Veinticuatro de Cordoba in lU35. Early biographies agree
that Mena was in Rome and was associated with the humanists there. How
Mena could afford the trip to Italy is another issue that Street
attempts to solve. She argues that he received patronage from
21
Cardinal Juan de Cervantes and the ambassador to Rome, Luis Mendez de
Sotomayor, although it is not certain whether either of these two was
32
in Rome during 1^33-3^, the presumed dates of Mena's stay there.
Vicente Beltran de Heredia, who has searched the Vatican Archives
for information, challenges Street's presentation of the chronology of
; 3 0
j Mena's stay in Rome. He refers to the data supplied by the
I "Discurso" and "Epicedio" and argues that Mena was at Salamanca after
lU3^, when he was already twenty-three years old, the date assigned by
Street for his return from Rome. In complete divergence with all
previous claims, Beltran de Heredia asserts that during the years lhh2
and 1^-43, Mena was at the papal court in Florence as a priest with
minor orders. He was a recipient of ecclesiastical benefits until
1^50. Beltran de Heredia agrees with Street that Mena probably re
ceived patronage from Cardinal Cervantes, but contends that he was also
i assisted by Cardinal Juan de Torquemada. A 1^31 document signed by
Torquemada asks favors in Mena's name, but, it does not signify that
, he was already in Italy. A lhk2 document produces evidence that Mena,
I after having been in the papal curia, left it, then later returned
seeking favors. In February, lhk2 he asks for pardons and spends the
rest of that year and part of the next in Florence. Although the
starting date of his stay in Italy is not certain, the end is dated in
l443. Mena, through the intercession of Cardinal Torquemada, asks the
pope for a three month leave of absence. It is granted and he returns
; to Spain, where he spends the remainder of his days and thereby for-
'feits all claims to ecclesiastical benefits.
2 2
A ikkk document alleges that since the position occupied hy Mena
in the Church of San Lorenzo in Cordoba had been vacated, the patronage
and benefits should be conferred on a certain Pedro Sanchez. In IU50,
Rodrigo Lopez asks for the benefits left unclaimed due to the death of
I Pedro and the marriage of Mena. A certain Diego Rodriguez also
jpetitions for the benefits upon Mena's marriage. The pope confers them
I
I on both petitioners and Mena definitively looses his claim. Beltran de
, Heredia concludes that Mena leaves Italy in 1^-43, much later than
customarily thought; the Laberinto was written in Italy and presented
to Juan II in lUi^-U. The information regarding Mena's minor orders and
the patronage of Cardinal Torquemada, which are both in clear contrast
to Mena's criticism of the church, is completely new. According to the I
1
legal suits filed in order to obtain the ecclesiastical benefits, |
Mena's marriage can be dated 1^50. Mena's hostility toward the clergy j
I
in the Laberinto and "Decir sobre la justicia" are, according to j
Street, due to the feud at the royal court between clergy and laity. t
I
^For Beltran de Heredia, it stems from Mena's visit to the papal court
I where he witnessed injustices and inequities and from the results of
I the unfair system in the curia for awarding benefits,
j Orti Belmonte also deals with the problems surrounding Mena's
jeducation. He asserts that Mena first studied in Cordoba where he
ilearned Greek and Latin. He points out that although it is commonly
thought that Mena studied in Salamanca, there is no evidence from
contemporary authors to support this claim. Mena does not mention
23
Rome or the papal problems in his works and he probably visited Italy
as part of a pilgrimage. Both the author of the "Discurso" and Garcia
de Morales write that Mena had contact with important people in Rome
but do not cite their source of information.
Fuentes Guerra, through literary references, is able to add
I
j details to the basic outline of the years Mena spent as a student. He
I studied in Salamanca and Valladolid and served as mediator at
Salamanca on several occasions. There is no documented evidence, how
ever, of Mena’s ever having been there; the official registers were not
begun until much later.
Both literary and official documents are consulted in an attempt
to trace Mena’s movements and to reconstruct his life as a student.
Several theories are offered.
Death
There is common agreement on the date of Mena's death, lk'^6, but
opinion varies regarding its circumstances, where he died, and the
I
,location of his remains. The "Epicedio" serves again as point of
departure;
Murio de un rabioso dolor de costado
Y fue sepultado en Tordelaguna.
Y junto al altar mayor, por mandado
En la memorable Diocesis toledana,
Y a costa del Principe de Santillana,
Don Inigo Lopez por el tan cantado.
2k
Ticknor, in disagreement with "Epicedio" says that Mena’s death
came suddenly as a result of a fall from his mule. He claims that the
epitaph and monument in Torrelaguna dedicated to Mena hy Santillana,
"are still to he seen.
j Amador de los Rios points to the discrepancies in opinion regard-
I
ing Mena’s death and to the literary evidence that the monument
erected hy Santillana had already been destroyed in the sixteenth
century. He quotes Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo: "Yo espero en Dios
de ir pronto a Espaha, y le tengo (a Juan de Mena) ofrecida una piedra,
con este epitafio. . ." (p. 95) and from this literary source he
deduces that by 1555, the year Fernandez de Oviedo writes, the stone,
i monument, and inscription had disappeared.
' 35
Menendez y Pelayo transcribes both versions of Mena’s death. He
suggests that the fall from his mule could have been a popular anecdote
based on Mena's poem "Sobre un macho que compro de un arcipreste." The
I circumstances surrounding his burial are also confused. The "suntuoso
1
sepulcro" built by Santillana had disappeared by the sixteenth century,
at least Fernandez de Oviedo had no information of it. Ponz, in 1T81,
gives notice of a stone and epitaph at the altar rail of the Church of
jSanta Magdalena, Torrelaguna.
! Blecua reviews the various opinions, the two versions of Mena's
death, the costing of the burial. In addition he provides more
detailed information regarding the present day whereabouts of Mena's
remains. In the nineteenth century, they were brought to the Church
25
of San Sebastian in Madrid and placed in the Capilla de actores y
comediantes. In 19^1, they were transferred to the Museo Arqueologico
Wacional.
Fuentes Guerra poses the question: why did Mena die so far from
i Cordoba in the town of Torrelaguna? He answers it by referring to
! Mena’s friendship with Alonso de Cartagena, Pérez de Guzman, and
Santillana, who all had land holdings and lived in the general area of
Torrelaguna, suggesting that he was probably visiting one of them when
he died. The critic proposes that the "rabioso dolor de costado,"
alluded to by Francisco Romero, was actually pneumonia and calls the
fall from a mule simply a literary reference. Fuentes Guerra expresses
doubt that the sepulcher paid for by Santillana was ever finished but
affirms that the Marques' son, Pedro, built the Castle of Real de
Manzanares that today contains Mena's remains.
José Maria de Mena affords us with additional information regard
ing the history of the poet's fragments. In I869 they were taken to
the National Pantheon and in 1936 transferred to the Museo Arqueologico.
In 1939 they were returned to Torrelaguna and in 19^5 given a wall
burial by the Real Academia Espahola. In his commemorative essay, he
indicates that the Real Academia de Cordoba has been unsuccessful in
its attempt to have the remains returned to Mena's native city and
asserts its claim to them. The critic also speculates on the causes
of the poet's death; he had written a poem about a mule and perhaps
he fell to his death from this very mule or it could have been the
26
satirical poem that cost him his life. In any case, Santillana is
silent about its possible causes.
Finally, Munoz Vazquez claims that Mena died of pneumonia during
a trip to Ecija.^^
j About Biographical Sources
I
j Biographical critics ask questions that require factual and
I
' objectively demonstrable answers: when was Mena born? What was his
family heritage? Where did he study? Whom did he marry? And so
forth. Even these straightforward questions have produced a variety
of answers that are at times mutually exclusive, thus contradictory.
A case in point is the debate surrounding the chronology of Mena's
trip to and studies in Rome. Furthermore, because of the absence of
both private and public documents associated with Mena's biography,
; much of the information employed in writing a biography and in :
! answering biographical, factual questions is derived from subjective,
i
I literary sources. It should be remembered that the early biographies
I themselves were poems. Works such as the Vita Beata and the poems of
I Montoro and Stuhiga are essential to Lida's defense of a converso
•theory. Vital information is also extracted from Mena's own works,
jHis praise of Cordoba, condemnation of the clergy, and even his
j satirical poem "Sobre un macho que compro de un arcipreste" are
! accomodated as elements of the biography. In these cases, the bio
graphy attempts to aid in the comprehension of the literary source.
This is also true regarding the poetic exchanges between Mena,
Santillana, Montoro, and Pedro de Portugal. Wellek and Warren agree,
along with Mena critics, that "biography accumulates the materials
for other questions of literary history, such as the reading of the
poet, his personal associations with literary men, his travels . . .
all of them questions which may throw light on literary history, i.e.
the tradition in which the poet was placed, the influences by which
he was shaped, the materials on which he drew" (pp. T9-8o) . The bio
graphical studies on Juan de Mena have afforded much, although
divergent, information about these specific topics. In Mena criticism
the factual, historical inquiry is completed through literary
references.
y
MOTES
CHAPTER I
Alfredo Carballo Picazo, in "Juan de Mena: un documento
I inedito y una obra atribuida," Revista de Literatura, 1 (1952),
t 269-299, refers to both early biographies and is of the opinion that
I Valerio Francisco Romero plagiarized the majority of information
! presented by Muhez.
2
George Ticknor, History of Spanish Literature (Mew York: Harper,
18^9), I, 379; Comte de Puymaigre, La Cour littéraire de don Juan
roi de Castille (Paris, 1873), II, 59-60; Marceline Menendez y Pelayo,
Historia de la poesia castellana en la edad media, ed. Adolfo Bonilla
y San Martin (Madrid, 191^), II, 1^3; José Manuel Bl.ècua, éd., El
Laberinto de Fortuna o Las Trescientas (19^3 ; rpt. Madrid: Espasa
Calpe, 1973), p. viii; and Florence Street, "La vida de Juan de Mena,"
Bulletin Hispanique, 55 (1953), IU9-I5O ail make reference to these
lines.
Menéndez y Pelayo, Historia de la poesia, p. l44, writes of
Mena's trip to Rome : "Hubo de contribuir mucho a la estimacion con que
fué recibido en la corte de Castilla y al cargo de secretario de car-
tas latinas que desde su regreso obtuvo, seguramente por su crédito
de-humanista, puesto que la celebridad poética vino después." Critics
have established, with more or less certainty, according to documents
preserved at Simancas, that Mena occupied the post of chronicler after
1^44. They have also been able to determine Mena's salary as
• secretary of Latin letters. See Florence Street, "La vida," pp.
i 16J+-I65, Miguel Angel Orti Belmonte, "Aportaciones a la vida y obras
! de Juan de Mena y su época," Boletin de la Real Academia de Cordoba
de Ciencias, Bellas Letras y Nobles Artes, 28 (1957), 66, and Rafael
Fuentes Guerra, Juan de Mena poeta insigne cordobés modesto (Cordoba:
Tipografia Artistica, 1955), pp. 72, 87-88.
k ,
Louise Vasvari Fainberg, éd., Laberinto de Fortuna (Madrid:
Alhambra, 1977), pp. ^-5, reaffirms a thesis offered since Ticknor
that although Mena held the position of court chronicler, he had no
direct part in writing the Cronica de Juan II. Narciso Alonso Cortes
sustains that Mena did, in fact, actively participate in the writing
29
of the Cronica. See "Juan de Mena y la Cronica de Juan II, " in
Anotaciones literarias (Valladolid, 1922), pp. 5-13. Regarding the
Veinticuatro de Cordoba, Street, "La vida," pp. 155-156 indicates
that the title was awarded to Mena's father and grandfather; upon the
early death of his father,'the title passed on to the son. An
opposing view is that of Orti Belmonte, "Aportaciones," pp. 72-73. He
claims that the Veinticuatro position was not a significant one
during the time of Mena.
^ Carballo Picazo, "Juan de Mena," pp. 27^-277, cites the refer
ence to Mena's arrival at the royal court and presentation of the
Laberinto to the monarch, Juan II, found in the Prospéra fortuna de
don Alvaro de Luna y aduersa de Ruy Lopez Davalos, act II, scenes vii
j and ix, attributed to Tirso de Molina. This reference is an example
• of how literary works are used as biographical data in lieu of
historical documentation.
^ Carballo Picazo, "Juan de Mena," pp. 281-285, reproduces the
document in which Juan II bestows on Mena a portion of the benefits
confiscated from Luna's estate upon his execution. He interprets the
reason given in the document for the endowment to mean that even after
Luna's death, Mena was in good faith with the monarch. Street, "La
vida," p. 171, and Orti Belmonte, "Aportaciones," pp. 69-70, also
comment on this information. Both Street, "La vida," p. 171, and
Carballo Picazo, "Juan de Mena," p. 282, n. 28, allude to the existence
of a copy of the document in the library of the Real Academia de la
I Historia, Coleccion Salazar, vol. fUi, fols. 179-18U.
j
I Carballo Picazo, "Juan de Mena," pp. 279-280, quotes the des-
jcription of Mena’s first encounter with Santillana found in the
IFloreta de anecdotas y noticias diversas que recopilo un fraile
!dominico residente en Sevilla a mediados del siglo XVI, ed. F.J.
I Sanchez Caton (Madrid, 19^8), but doubts its worth as historical
documentation.
^ Street, "La vida," pp. 158-159. Maria Rosa Lida, Juan de Mena,
poeta del prerrenacimiento espanol (México, Colegio de Mexico, 1950),
p. 93, n. 6, comments on the exchange of verses between Mena and
jMontoro. She uses Montoro's reply to Mena's question as proof to
I support her thesis of Mena's converso social status.
' 9 ^
! Critics refer to the passages "principe de poetas de Castilla"
iand "mas en esta nuestra edat, ni conoscemos poeta mayor de ti. . . ."
Menendez y Pelayo, Historia de la poesia, p. 1^2, rejects the Vita
Beata as historical evidence because it was modeled after the De Vitae
30
Felicitate of Bartoloiiie Fazzio; Lucena simply substitutes the Italian
characters with Spanish personalities. See also Margherita Morreale,
"El tratado de Juan de Lucena sobre la felicidad," Nueva Revista de
Filologia Hispanica, 9 (1955), 1-21. Fuentes Guerra, Juan de Mena, pp
75-77, maintains that the work holds historical validity.
Menendez y Pelayo, Historia de la poesia,cpp. lUS-l^^. All
quotations are from his reproduction of the poem.
I
I Street, "La vida," p. 150. Historia y nobiliaria de Cordoba,
, Ch. 7, Bk. 8, fol. 315v; Archivo Municipal de Cordoba, I, Ch. 53^,
;Bk. 1, fol. 229r.
i
I 12
Street, "La vida," p. 151. Menendez y Pelayo is uncertain of
the authorship of this work, MS.K-I61 of the Biblioteca Nacional.
Carballo Picazo, "Juan de Mena," pp. 287-299, studies the authorship
question of the "Memorias" and hesitates in accepting its attribution
jto Mena. Following his discussion, he reproduces the document. ' t:
I Street, writing her "La vida de Juan de Mena" at the same time as
j Carballo Picazo was researching the "Memorias" was apparently unaware
! of Carballo Picazo's findings and opinions because.-she makes ho refer-
: ence to his article in her study.
' 13 ^
Miguel Munoz Vazquez, "Aportacion documental a la biografia de
Juan de Mena," Boletin de la Real Academia de Cordoba de Ciencias, j
; Bellas Letras y Nobles Artes, 28 (1957), 150-151. Munoz Vazquez bases I
'his arguments on information gathered at the Archivo del Excmo. ^
Cabildo de Cordoba. Regarding the occupation of Mena's protector, j
'Juan Arias, and the poet's name he writes: ". . ..tenia unas tiendas j
. . . en las pescaderias cuyas tiendas de pescado pudieron haber sido 1
'del llamado 'Menas'— pez de medio pie de largo.. . .— y de este Juan j
:. . . y de la tienda de 'menas' pudo tomar el segundo nombre." The i
critic affirms his contentions about the name because he informs us |
that he has found no other reference to a person before Mena's time j
with the same name in Cordoba. I
ih 1
I Munoz Vazquez, "Aportacion," p. I56, suggests that these lands j
I had an influence on Mena's literary production: "Acaso, aquellas I
Idelatadas tierras de Almenara . . . sirvieron de inspiracion a nuestro •
jJuan de Mena en algunas de sus composicionès'literarias." In pointing j
I out this possible influence, the critic relates his historically [
'oriented biography to the literature composed by the poet.
Munoz Vazquez, "Aportacion," p. I56. In attempting to relate
< these holdings to the poet's life and works, Munoz Vazquez plagiarizes
the words of José Amador de los Rios, Historia critica de la literatura
31
espanola (1865; facs. rpt. Madrid: Gredos, 1969), VI, 93. Given this
fact one wonders how and hy what criteria this essay received an award
in the Certamen literario organized hy the Ayuntamiento de Cordoba
commemorating the fifth centennial of Mena's death,
José Maria de Mena, "Recordacion de un cordobés enterrado en
Castilla," Boletin de la Real Academia de Cordoba de Ciencias, Bellas
Letras y Nobles Artes, 28 (1957), 128-138.
17 ^
Street, "La vida," pp. 156-157* Also, José Maria Aguado,
"Descripcion y vicisitudes de unas heredades y casas que pudieron
pertenecer al poeta Juan de Mena," Boletin de la Real Academia
Espanola, 19 (1932), U99-508; 55^-565 and (1935), U9-80. In this
collection of legal documents Mena's wife appears as Maria Méndez.
Maria Rosa Lida, in Juan de Mena, p. 93, n. 6 points out the dis
crepancy between the information in this document and the verses of
Francisco Romero and those of the poem "Fiestas de amor," that follows
him. Neither Aguado, nor Blecua who quotes him, are aware of this
difference according to Lida.
For a discussion of biographical criticism and one of its
shortcomings, the biographical romance, see René Wellek and Austin
Warren, Theory of Literature, 3rd ed. (New York: Harcourt. Brace,
1956), pp. 75-80.
Mafia Rosa Lida, "Notas para la ‘ biografia de Juan de Mena,"
Revista de Filologia Hispanica, 3 (l9^l), 150-15^, and Juan de Mena,
p. 93, n. 6. The text of Stuhiga's poem says:
Hanme dicho, Juan de Mena,
quen copias mal me tratastes,
pues yo os juro al que matastes
que no os me vayais sin pena.
Saluo si lo desordena
por punto de Baraha
a quel que libro a Jona
del vientre de la ballena.
Anton de Montono and Gomez Manrique use similar terminology in refer
ring to conversos.
20
Lida, "Notas," p. 15^. The last association ties Mena to
Rodrigo Cota and both to the authorship of the Celestina, according to
Lida. The Celestina, as a work written by an alleged converso is of
principle importance in Americo Castro's presentation of the peculiar
characteristics of the converso. Carballo Picazo, "Juan de Mena,"
pp. 273-27U, n. 15, summarizes Lida's arguments.
32
21
Lida, Juan de Mena, p. 93, nr. .7.
22
Americo Castro, La realidad historica de Espaha, 5th ed. rev.
(Mexico: Porrua, 1973), p. 82.
23
Castro cites Rafael Lapesa’s study of the Laberinto, "El
I element o moral en el Laberinto de Juan de Mena : su inf lu jo en la
! disposicion de la obra,^' Hispanic Review, 27 (1959), 257-266, in sup-
I port of his thesis.
: Francisco Cantera Burgos, Alvar Garcia de Santa Maria y su
I familia de conversos: historia:de la Juderia de Burgos y sus conversos
I mas egregios (Madrid: Arias Montano, 1952), p. ^92, n. 59*
25
Street, "La vida," p. 151, refutes Castro's arguments regard
ing the Vita Beata as proof of Mena’s status by saying that Santillana,
the other participant in the dialogue, was certainly not a converso.
She also attributes the critical tone of Mena’s works, signs of the
poet’s converso status according to Lida and Castro, to a normal
reaction to the insecurity of the times during which Mena lived.
! Eugenio Asensio, "La peculiaridad literaria de los conversos,"
I Anuario de Estudios Medievales, h (1967), 327-351-
I 27
' Asensio, "La peculiaridad," p. 350. The exact words are,
i"Dize a tu Job Eliphat" and "tus ancianos padres . . . desde’1 padre
I de Isach fasta el fijo de Isay fueron pastores. . . ."
1 28
j See John G. Cummins, ed., Laberinto de Fortuna (Salamanca:
,Ediciones Anaya, I968), pp. 8-9 and Louise Vasvari Fainberg, ed.,
'Laberinto de Fortuna, p. U, for succinct summaries of the controversy.
29
See Carballo Picazo, "Juan de Mena," p. 27^, for a reproduction
of Muhez’s opinion. He says, "Segund dizen fue a Roma y alia también
aprendio algu[n]d tie[m]po." Carballo Picazo comments : "No es
necesario ponderar la importancia de la ida de Mena a Roma para su
formacion."
F. Bouterwek, History of Spanish and Portuguese Literature,
trans. and ed. Thomasina Ross (London: Boosey and Sons, l823), I,
90-91.
I Street, "La vida," pp. 152-153.
33.
32
Street, "La vida," pp. 15^-155* She cites "Memorias" as
evidence that Mena not only knew Cervantes hut also researched histo
rical documents in his library.
33 ^ ^
Vicente Beltran de Heredia, "Nuevos documentes inédites sobre
el poeta Juan de Mena," Salamanticensis, 3 (1956), 502-508.
Ticknor, History, p. 38l, derives his information from the
,written testimonies of Ponz, Viage de Espaha (Madrid, 1T8T), X, 38, and
I Clemencin's note to Don Quixote, II, v, 379 -
I
* 33 ^
I Menéndez y Pelayo, Historia de la poesia, p. lU6, cites
Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo, Quincuagenas, II, "de su muerte hay
diversas opiniones, é los mas concluyen que una mula lo arrastro, é
cay6 della de tal manera, que murio en la villa de Torrelaguna."
3 6
I take this opportunity to once again correct Muhoz Vazquez in
his erroneous attribution of the verses:
Esta muerte que condena
^ a buenos e comunales
I me llevo a Juan de Mena
I cuya pluma fué tan buena
j que VI pocas sus iguales.
I to Nicolas Antonio HispalensisI They are taken instead from Gomez
j Manrique, "Planto de la virtudes e poesia por el magnifico sehor don
Ihigo Lopez de Mendoza." See Cancionero castellano del siglo XV, ed.
iRamon Foulche-Delbosc (Madrid: Bailly Bàilliere, 1915), II, 79-
CHAPTER II
EDITIONS AND EDITORIAL COMMENTARY
What Editors Do
1. Laberinto
The first annotated edition of the Laberinto was produced in 1^99
by Hernân Nunez, el Comendador OriegoIn writing the notes to the
edited text, Nunez performs several tasks that could be classified
under the headings explanation, interpretation, identification
!(remission to a source), and linguistic commentary. Each group con-
I
tains a series of subdivisions. He generally explains through para- |
phrasing, reproducing in prose what the poet has written in verse. The,
; paraphrase usually takes the form of a plot prefiguring or summary as
i
; in the following example: "Desde aqui comienza el auctor su ficcion,
■como rogo a là Fortuna que le mostrasse su casa; y como diosa Bellona ^
‘le arrebato, y le llevo en su carro a ella; y relata por estenso todas '
I
jlas cosas que vio en ella . . . iremos declarando segûn el auctor fuere i
procediendo" (p. 26). Nûhez’s explanations are, furthermore, dual in \
nature because some are presented in layman’s terms while others, the
great majority, are presented with a classical reference in mind; an
allusion, image or metaphor is explained through reference to its use
Iby a classical author or in Latin literature in general, or it is
35
reproduced in everyday prose, thus rendering a difficult passage
clear.
Interpretations are related primarily to the allegorical signifi
cance of a passage or allusion. Nunez frequently indicates to the
reader what the allegorical interpretation consists of.
f
I Identification is closely associated with the presentation of
; sources and is probably the most common technique employed by Nunez in
i
I his annotations. He constantly attempts to identify places and names,
1 both historical and mythological, and events alluded to in the verses.
The procedure followed is that the editor identifies an allusion in
terms of a classical precedent by referring to the classical Latin
[ authors who have written about the word or passage in question and
I finally, using a variation of the formula, "La fabula es esta,....."
!
' he proceeds to present the long version or history of the name or
place. The following is a common example repeated numerous times
throughout the annotations : "La diosa Bellona es diosa de la guerra.
; Fue horrada en Roma. . ." (pp. 26-27). Perhaps the most character-
fistic aspect of Nunez’s annotations, representative of his particular
'literary and cultural interests, is the constant and deliberate
remission to classical, Latin examples and authors. Included among
the authors mentioned are Virgil, Ovid, Lucan, Pliny, Titus Livius,
Statius, Seneca, Valerius Maximus, Isidore, Anselm, Augustine, and a
number of lesser.known Latin writers. Nunez’s interest in the classics
is clearly perceived in the amount of space devoted to identifying the
36
people of the past and present who appear in the circle of Mars, the
warriors. Roman and Carthaginian history occupy pp. 313-336 and the
presentation of Spanish history and more contemporary personages is
dispatched in one paragraph on p. 3^3. Another example of Nunez’s
attraction to and veneration of the classics is the case in which he
supports the validity of a saying or a verse in Mena through appeal to
I
; one or more classical authorities.
I
I Finally, Nunez produces linguistic commentary that is in the form
of word definitions, variants, and especially etymologies. These also
are indications of Nunez’s saturation with classical, humanist culture.
The extreme confidence of the editor in his abilities, especially in
! dealing with the classics, leads Nunez to correct Mena for improperly
using a term, an image, or for taking too many "poetic licenses."
In summary, Hernân Nunez’s annotations to the Laberinto and the
Coronacion of Mena attempt to explain, identify, and interpret.
Classical references abound and determine the importance and length of
the explanatory or interpretative notes that accompany the poetic text.
Hence, they emphasize both Mena’s and Nunez’s enthusiasm with the
writers and works of venerated classical antiquity.
Nunez’s work seems to have been well received because in a rela
tively short period of time numerous editions were reprinted. In 1^82,
another humanist and disciple of Nunez, Francisco Sanchez de las Brozas,
el Brocense, undertook the project of producing a second annotated edi-
2
tion of Mena’s works. In many instances and in specific examples el
37
i
Brocense follows Nunez. The emphasis or focus of the notes is for el j
Brocense, as it was for Nunez, classical learning, both the poet's and
the editor's. Explanation, identification, and interpretation are
characteristic of el Brocense's procedure and in all three, the clas-
j sical element is foremost. There are, however, differences between
jthe works produced by these early editors.
I Firstly, el Brocense, with the hindsight that Nunez could not
(
j have, is able to refer to earlier editions and present variations in
I the texts found in the editions. In many cases he disagrees with
these readings and proceeds to offer his own. Second, el Brocense
expands the rather brief language commentaries of Nunez and, thus, not
only defines terms in relation to their etymological origins but also
•attempts to classify them (something later editors devote entire
I studies to) in relation to their use in the language as either poetic, \
i
; modern or archaic. Latinized or vernacular. The final area that
i I
i reflects a difference between the products of the two editors is the i
1 . I
I reference to classical and contemporary, Peninsular, medieval history, j
! . ^ . . . I
Unlike Nunez, in el Brocense's annotations the history of Spain, its
' I
'loss to the Moors and the reconquest, are studied and commented upon
, with the same interest in and devotion to Latin, Roman, and mytho-
ilogical history.
!
' El Brocense also includes a discussion of the final twenty-seven
I
j strophes appended to the Laberinto. He concludes that they were not
I written by Mena because, contrary to the descriptions within the poem,
I
I these latter verses present Juan II in an unfavorable light.
18
In general, el Brocense seems to follow the annotations of Nunez
in producing his own critical edition of the Laberinto and Coronacion |
printed along with the minor poetry. There are to be found, however, !
important differences in the two works that represent a change in
I direction of thought and perhaps even suggest the course to be pursued
I by later editors.
! Several centuries pass before a new edition of the Laberinto is
I
j reproduced. Early in this century, 1902, Ramon Foulche-Delbosc
I announced his intentions to publish an annotated edition of Mena’s
ILaberinto. Two years later, in 1904, he printed a limited number of
I copies of the poem entirely lacking a critical apparatus, as well as
, indications of how he came to edit the work and what manuscript he
I
I 3
j used.
I The next critical edition of the Laberinto was produced in 194-3
I by José Manuel Blecua. It includes a preliminary study of Mena’s life
'and works that focuses on themes, sources, linguistic, and stylistic
considerations. Blecua explains that his edition is based on that of
IFoulché-Delbosc, 1904, and compares it against the earlier editions of
Nunez and el Brocense. Whenever a discrepancy or variation occurs
among these works, Blecua presents the variant in the notes. His
edition includes the modernization of orthography and phonetic elements.
Most of the critical apparatus consists of the reproductions of
I
'the commentaries (explanations, identifications) of Nunez and el
IBrocense, indicated by Blecua with the abbreviations HN and B.
i
Blecua’s own commentary is limited to linguistic information, for
example, the identification of Batinisms, archaisms, definitions of
terms in modern Spanish, and the presentation of examples and their
use in other fifteenth century authors. He expands the historical
commentary hy writing about contemporaries slighted by both Nunez and
el Brocense and presenting historical and cultural data about the
fifteenth century in Castile.
The appendix of the edition includes an alphabetical list of
proper names cited in the Laberinto as well as another list of the
^words commented by Blecua, both with indications of strophe and verse j
'locations. i
! In 1968 John G. Cummins printed his edition of the Laberinto,
i
which includes a biographical sketch of Mena, a discussion of Mena’s j
; works, a brief summary of critical opinions about the author, a study ‘
'of the Laberinto as an allegorical, political-didactic work, its lan-
4 I
:guage and style. A list of available manuscripts and printed editions,
along with a selected bibliography are also included in the preliminary '
! study. j
I I
Cummins bases his edition on the Paris MS.229 primarily because |
1
■of the incomplete textual commentary contained therein, alleged to be,
at least in part, that of Mena. He corrects errors in the manuscript
against versions of Foulche-Delbosc and Blecua designated respectively
■with the initials FD and JMB and explains the corrections in the foot
notes. Apart from these explanations, the notes contain language com-
'mentary as well as modern Spanish definitions of archaic. Latinized
'terms .
I 4o
t Finally, in 197T, Louise Vasvari Fainberg published, her annotated,
i edition of the Laberinto. The preliminary study to the edition is
divided into seven chapters : life, prose works, minor poetry,
Laberinto, arte mayor, style and language, and thematic, generic
commentary. All contain extensive bibliographical information in the
^ footnotes. In the discussion of how she came to edit the Laberinto,
^ Fainberg lists all the previous editions of the work that she is aware
,of, twelve in number, and refers to Mena as the most commentated poet
I of the fifteenth century. She includes information about textual
{studies, recent editions, or references to editions: Foulche-Delbosc,
!i904, Blecua, 19^3, and Florence Street, 1958 (never published).
Fainberg states that her edition follows MS.P and is compared with and
; corrected against the edition of Foulche-Delbosc and the Laberinto
printed in the Cancionero de Ixar, which represents a divergent manu- ,
I
script tradition. She modernizes both orthography and phonetic elementsi*
; Fainberg’s notes to the text are similar to those of Blecua and j
I
I even the early editors, as she seeks to identify proper and place I
I !
■names (geographical, literary, historical, and mythological). She |
defines terms and identifies the erudite, archaic and Latinate forms. i
I She expands previous language-oriented commentaries and reproduces
Maria Rosa Lida’s views of Mena’s language. She also transcribes the i
judgements of other editors regarding sources and allusions and ;
presents bibliographical information pertinent to certain references
not previously mentioned. The variants found in MS.P, and the
_4l.
I
I editions of Foulche-Delbosc, Blecua, Ixar, and Cummins are indicated
in the footnotes.
The appendix includes the first three strophes of the "Flaca
barquilla" poem and a discussion concerning its author, and an alpha-
: betical list of words commented upon by the editor with their modern
^ meanings, strophe, and verse locations.
I Fainberg's edition represents a trend toward emphasis upon the
; explanation of linguistic-stylistic aspects of the Laberinto, although
the identification of allusions and sources is also a part of the
critical concern. i
i
The Laberinto has been edited numerous times since the fifteenth
I century and has enjoyed extensive reprinting. Although each editor
has focused on particular aspects of the work, according to each one’s
persuasions and interests, they all coincide in their aims and to a ,
I ‘
I lesser degree procedures. Editors of the Laberinto are interested in
I explaining allusions and images in relation to their sources. They
I
: interpret the meaning of a given passage, image, or word and attempt
to define, classify, and reproduce the etymological history of much of
the poet’s vocabulary. Besides preparing the edition through careful
comparison of manuscripts and previous editions, the critics have
attempted to clarify the text’s meaning.
2. Prose and minor poetry
In modern times, Mena’s minor works have been published either
separately or in scholarly journals. The first of these is the prose
42
production. La Yliada en romance, also called Omero romaneeado edited
5
by Martin de Riquer. In the preliminary study, Riquer comments on
Mena’s prose and cites the opinions of previous critics. He affirms
jthat the work is a translation of the Ilias Latina, a mediocre Latin
! work, according to the editor.^ He relates the style of Omero
^romaneeado to that of the source and to the erudite and Latinate prose
I characteristic of fifteenth century Castilian literature,
j Riquer’s edition of the work is a reproduction of the 1519
I edition of Valladolid prepared by Arnao Guillen de Broca. He offers
this work as a premise to a future critical edition of the often quoted
I but little understood work. It contains the text of the Ilias Latina
I on facing pages and an alphabetical glossary of terms at the end.
jRiquer is interested primarily in making the work available and thereby
I facilitating the production of a critical text.
i
Several years after the appearance of Riquer’s edition, Alfredo
^ Carballo Picazo published a document attributed to Mena and referred
; Y
I to with the title "Memorias de algunos linajes." Much of Carballo
i
'Picazo’s article is devoted to a discussion of Mena’s life through
: references to his biographies, as previously noted. Some space is
! devoted to a discussion of the document that he publishes at the end
iof his essay. Carballo Picazo describes the MS. (16IK of the Biblio—
'teca Nacional, Madrid), containing the work, refers to earlier critics
who have dealt with the manuscript, and proceeds to offer a comment
ary on the question of authorship. After viewing the work in terms of
43
Mena’s position as court chronicler, he remarks that there is no con
clusive evidence to either affirm or deny its attribution to Mena. A
comparison of the "Memorias" to Mena’s other prose works reveals the
less complex style and vocabulary of the former and indicates that the
author paid less attention to rhetorical devices in writing the
_"Memorias" than he did in composing other prose. These facts lead the
j writer to conclude that the work could only be attributed to Mena if
I
j it represented a first attempt or a guideline for a more ambitious
'endeavor. The actual text is reproduced without critical commentary,
I since most of it appears in the preliminary study and is concerned with
the question of authorship. In a footnote, Carballo Picazo makes i
reference to another prose work attributed to Mena, entitled Un |
;tratado que fiço Juan de Mena sobre el titulo de duque. He suggests !
I that its editing would provide a better perspective for understanding
: the "Memorias." Carballo Picazo, like Piquer, is interested primarily
’in making available a work seldom or never before published in a j
modern edition. I
In 1956, the treatise referred to by Carballo Picazo, Tratado
sobre el titulo de, duque, was published in Revista de Literatura.^
{This work, contained in a manuscript of the Copenhagen Royal Library,
I
|G 1 Kge S 221, is only fragmentary and hence could not serve the pur-
{pose announced by Carballo Picazo, according to its editor.
In 1969, Louise Olga Fainberg, later editor of the Laberinto,
completed her doctoral dissertation in which she publishes a critical
44
edition of the Tratado and studies the work in an attempt to establish
its authorship.^ Her edition was extracted from a mid-fifteenth cen
tury manuscript that also contains an incomplete version of the
Coronacion, a different manuscript from the one referred to by Carballo
Picazo.
j The dissertation is divided into three sections: the first
' explores the historical relations between Mena, the supposed author,
! ^ PQ
j the recipient of the treatise, Juan de Guzman, and the Guzman family;
I the second studies the canon of Mena's prose works in an attempt to
I place the Tratado in relation to the didactic-ornamental style of the
Coronacion prose commentary and translation of the Ilias Latina; the
[third comprises an analysis of syntax, language, classical sources, and!
i
rhetorical techniques (both individually and in comparison to their usej
I
i in Mena's other productions), also in order to establish authorship. ,
; I
j Finally, Fainberg reproduces a known copy of the treatise, taken from
!
{ a sixteenth century manuscript in which it is conserved in fragmentary
i
I
' form.
Because of the stylistic and linguistic similarities between the
Tratado and Mean's other writings, as well as the favorable historical
conditions, Fainberg concludes by affirming the work's attribution to
Mena. To the questions involved in editing the text are added those
concerned with its authorship, a frequent occurrence in producing
! editions of Mena's minor works.
A similar situation exists surrounding another, better known
prose work, Tratado de amor. In 1948, Ch. V. Aubrun published it in
45
Bulletin Hispanique with a brief bibliographical commentaryLater,
12
Alberto del Monte also printed the work. In his preliminary study,
del Monte describes the manuscript (295 of the Paris Bibliothèque
Rationale) and cites its discovery by Morel-Fatio and the commentary
of Menendez y Pelayo, Valbuena Prat, and Blecua. Del Monte's study is
divided into two sections, the work and the author. In the first, he
indicates the often quoted source of this work, the erotic works of
Ovid, and refers to Mena's production as a general "Ensenanzas sobre
el amor." The Tratado de amor is, according to del Monte, a document
for the history of the love concept in medieval literature, Spanish
medieval prose and the style of Juan de Mena.
In the second section, del Monte, through appeal to external evi
dence and comparisons, attempts to establish the work's authorship. He
indicates that the style of the Tratado de amor differs from that of
I Mena's other prose works mainly because of its lack of Latinizing ele-
■ments. It is not, as Valbuena Prat contends, part of Mena's stylistic
development or evolution; instead, it is related more to the poetic
works, "Copias contra los pecados mortales" and "Dezir sobre la justi-
cia," both of which present a simpler style for the purpose of morali
zing. Del Monte concludes that there is no defense of authorship and
that stylistic comparisons in the case of Mena's candidacy tend to
diminish arguments in favor of his authorship. The work reflects
some peculiarities common to fifteenth century Spanish prose. Del
Monte dismisses Maria Rosa Lida's argument in favor of Mena's
46
authorship hy indicating that her evidence is neither new nor persua
sive through pointing out stylistic, structural, and linguistic
similarities with the Laherinto.
Finally, del Monte cites the editions of Bertini: and Aubrun and
I corrects their mistakes in transcription and erroneous readings. The
j notes to del Monte's text contain variants and refer to Latin sources.
i
For del Monte, the author question is of primary importance and the
editing of the manuscript is, for all intents and purposes, secondary.
The most recent critic to edit the Tratado de amor is Maria Luz
13
Gutierrez Araus. Her preliminary study represents a detailed styl
istic, linguistic commentary of the work as well as a presentation of
textual-study problems and a discussion of the authorship question.
Along with the critical edition, she reproduces a facsimile edition,
traces the work's history among critical writings, and discusses the
particulars of her edition. She admits knowledge of only one previous
printed edition of the Tratado de amor, that of Ch. V. Aubrun, which,
she says, differs markedly from the manuscript. After enumerating the
divergences, Gutierrez Araus indicates that her edition modernizes
only punctuation and orthographic accent. It also preserves the errors
in order to facilitate the study of linguistic change and the state of
the language during the fifteenth century.
Finally, Gutierrez Araus devotes attention to reviewing the
various studies that deal with the authorship question of the Tratado
dé amor and adds information of her own in support of its attribution
4T
to Mena, which includes similarities between the Tratado de amor and
the sphere of Venus in the Laberinto in imagery, concepts, and vocabu
lary. She concludes that the work is an early production that pre
figures characteristics of Mena’s later works such as systematic
structure, scholastic argumentation, and classic references,
j The notes to the text are limited to a few explanations of vocabu
; lary, the presentation of the commonly accepted versions of the Latin
quotations found in the Tratado de amor, and corrections of the scribe's
errors. In her edition, Gutierrez Araus; devotes attention to the
authorship question and also includes studies of the work's vocabulary
and style.
Perhaps the most ambitious undertaking involving the editing of
Mena's minor works is represented by the study of Alberto Varvaro.^^
In this work, Varvaro presents the catalogue of manuscripts and
: collected works in which Mena's works appear. According to this
i
j critic, the monograph could serve as a basis for a future edition of
I
I
1 the minor poetry. It is divided into three chapters: the first identi-
I
i fies and places Mena's works in a manuscript tradition, the second
I
j studies the various manuscript traditions and traces their recensions,
I
I and the third presents fourteen short poetic works written by Mena.
I At the outset of his study, Varvaro attempts to deal with the
j
{problem of assigning titles to the numerous cancionero manuscripts
I
I already discovered and to those that are being discovered on a regular
I basis. Varvaro's solution takes into account the complexities of the
j
' problem and is expansive enough to accommodate new information. Each
48
manuscript is assigned capital letters derived from the first letter [
of the city in which it is conserved. The small letters differentiate
among the manuscripts of the same library and the numbers indicate
volumes. In section one of the first chapter, Varvaro assigns code
I
letters and numbers to the manuscripts he has consulted and lists
< along with each, pertinent bibliographical information including name,
'editions, the code numbers found in the bibliographies of Aubrun,
'Masso Torrents, and Simon Diaz,’and the traditional classification
systems of Mussafia and Azaceta. In the next section, Varvaro charts
the manuscript transmission of Mena's longer compositions. In the
I notes to both sections the critic summarizes the contents of the
cancionero manuscripts and relates the histories of many manuscripts.
! Section three of chapter one contains a bibliography of Mena's works
I that includes even those works whose authorship is not firmly esta-
Iblished. The list is arranged in alphabetical order according to the
I first line of the particular composition. Each annotated entry is
I composed of three parts: in the first, Varvaro indicates the sources,
I
jwhere the manuscript is found, and the cancioneros printed before
I the seventeenth century ; in the second, the critic lists the later
editions, and the third is devoted to descriptions of the metric
characteristics of the compositions.
j The second chapter studies the manuscript tradition, the trans-
' mission of Mena's works, and the elements that relate the various
Icancionero manuscripts. Varvaro investigates the three Paris MSS.
49
(Pa, Ph, Pe) and through a detailed comparison of the variants of
Mena's works contained in each, he is able to establish the recension
of these three manuscripts. He proceeds to determine the relationship
among the Stuhiga (M), Roma (R), and Marciana (V) MSS and their
I association to the Paris MSS. Based on his study and on the investi-
’ gâtions of previous critics, Varvaro reconstructs the recension for
three principle manuscript traditions and several minor ones. In
[ graphic form the transmission is as follows:
15
I Before printing the poems, Varvaro discusses transcription prob-
{lems involved in editing. He refers to the absence in Spanish
I
! phonology of a transcription system to unify the diversity present in
i
I the numerous sources, Varvaro does not propose a new system but
I
I modernizes graphic-phonetic variations while maintaining peculiarities
I
; of Mena's language, especially his Latinizing tendencies.
I
50
In chapter three, Varvaro publishes fourteen short poems, seven
of which had been edited previously and include satirical compositions,
love poetry, and panegyrics. The texts are accompanied by the presen
tation of variants, brief summaries of the theme and content, identi-
' fication of images or allusions to historical characters, metric and
^linguistic information with examples found in other medieval Spanish
i
I authors, and the commentary of previous critics who have studied
I
jMena's poetic idiom.
j Thus, Varvaro demonstrates the interests of an editor or textual
: critic, the tasks involved in producing an annotated edition, and
I offers the beginnings of a critical edition of Mena's minor poetry.
I He presents a new system of manuscript classification, transcribes
'variants and sources, traces the manuscript recensions, and edits
selections from Mena's poetic works.
Alberto Varvaro also has examined Mena's relation to and influence
i
I on Portuguese authors, especially the Infante D. Pedro. In his
! article Varvaro attempts to reconstruct the history of the poetic
I exchange between the two authors that was later published in the
jCancionero de Resende, and edits the three poems involved, two
written by D. Pedro and one by Mena. Through reference to internal,
textual evidence, Varvaro dates the exchange between ihhl and i44t.
I
jThe marriage of Pedro's daughter Isabel to Alfonso in i44t is less
: important for Varvaro in dating the exchange than for Florence Street
IT
I who claims that it occurred after the marriage.
51
Varvaro expounds on the procedure he follows in editing the |
i
bilingual texts. He modernizes graphic elements, excluding variants
from the textual notes, and corrects or adjusts Portuguese phonetic
aspects, providing an indication each time the text is altered. He
makes the seemingly minor point that the exchange is contemporary with
I Santiliana's "Prohemio y carta" and that Mena’s response to Pedro’s
j poem is written in Spanish. This information suggests to Varvaro,
however, the superiority of Spanish over Portuguese as a literary
I language during this period. Before printing the poems, Varvaro
presents bibliographical information on the editions he used and !
I
I !
j works he consulted. In his customary manner he also includes informa- '
Ition regarding the metric system employed in the compositions. ;
j The notes include rather extensive language commentary, défini- :
I
:tions of terms with descriptions of their usage in works of other
1
'medieval authors and the identification of names alluded to in the
I poems.
I
I Attempts at editing Mena’s minor works are now at a lesser
I developed stage than those involving the Laberinto. Critics who
i
research in the former area often limit their function to simply
,reproducing (and not always accurately) a manuscript of difficult {
'access containing a minor poem in order to facilitate its later j
i
editing. Those critics who are involved in the editing process are
■usually also concerned with questions of authorship and devote much of
; their attention to them. The problems surrounding the minor works are
52
complex and the process by which they are being unraveled is long and
arduous.
From the foregoing review we can offer^answers to questions such
as: what do editors do? What tasks do they perform? Editors of
Mena's works explain allusions and passages, identify sources, des-
j cribe, and interpret the text : plot, action and procedure. Theyccom-
, ment on language usage and attempt to clarify difficult or peculiar
linguistic or stylistic elements. Editors become involved in discus
sions of authorship, attempt to classify the manuscripts containing
Mena's works, and trace their recensions.
These tasks closely parallel those discussed by Wellek and Warren
in their chapter on "The Ordering and Establishing of the Evidence.
These authors distinguish between two aspects of the procedure:
assembling and preparing the text (manuscript problems) and the re
search surrounding questions of chronology, authenticity, authorship,
j collaboration, and revision. They indicate that editions of works with
I ^
j introductions and notes can be important pieces of criticism. With
these positive aspects of editing aside, Wellek and Warren distinguish
clearly between annotation and commentary: "Annotation in the strict
sense— the explanation of a text, linguistic, historical, and the
like— should be distinguished from a general commentary, which may
simply accumulate the materials for literary or linguistic history
(i.e. point out sources, parallels, imitations by other writers) and
from a commentary which may be of an esthetic nature. . ." (p. 64).
They assert that, ultimately, the editors' tasks are only the founda
tions of literary analysis and are justified specifically as such.
53
Textual Studies
The early editors of the Laberinto and the questions involving
how they came to edit it have, in themselves, occasioned a fair
amount of critical investigation throughout the years. In this
i section is included a review of such research along with references to
^ textual, bibliographical studies.
I As early as the nineteenth century, critics began expressing the
1 need for a carefully produced critical edition of the Laberinto.
'According to José Amador de los Rios, such an edition could only come
I
I about after a thorough comparison of the text with the early manu-
j scripts because the printed editions from 1^99 to 1T65 all contain
: errors or modifications. He also affirms that only after the
I production of such an edition would Mena’s works be placed into proper j
perspective and only then could they be fully appraised. j
I
I
I Marceline Menendez y Pelayo has dealt extensively with the ,
I I
,questions involving the editions of Mena’s works and the authorship of I
j 2q
; several attributed to him. Included among the latter is a discus-
' 21
sion of the Copias de la panadera. The critic.admits that even
I though Mena’s minor poetry has never been completely edited and
I published collectively, Mena still remains the most edited and dis-
jcussed poet of the fifteenth century. A list of the known editions of
I
■the Laberinto, totaling twenty-four in number, follows in support of
'this statement. Of these, Menendez y Pelayo chooses six which, for
him, are the most important as they complement each other and are
54
indispensable for scholarly studies of Mena’s writing. He qualifies
his enthusiasm for these editions, however, by indicating that all six
j are incomplete and present either an altered or modernized version of
the original manuscript texts. Because of this fact, a new critical
edition should, according to Menendez y Pelayo, be based on an early
J manuscript.
Foulche-Delbosc, aside from editing Mena’s works, also has
23
,devoted attention to related considerations. Although most of his
1
article comprises a detailed study of the metric and prosodic
patterns found in the Laberinto, it also includes a discussion of the
ipoem’s title and a bibliographical list of all known printed editions
of Mena’s works through the end of the nineteenth century.
Foulche-Delbosc affirms that the early manuscript scribes wrongly
1
^ named the work Las Trezientas; in reality the poem has only 297
strophes and the final three were added later. He reviews the
jopinions of both early editors, Nunez and el Brocense, regarding the
appended twenty-seven strophe "flaca barquilla" poem, and the king’s
I request to add sixty-five more strophes to the three hundred in order
I
'that the work would have a number of strophes equal to the number of
, days in a year. Foulche-Delbosc, however, contends that neither the
I additional three strophes nor the twenty-seven" strophe poem (that
I includes the three strophes) were produced by Mena. The title Las
Trezientas was added before the first printed editions were available
: and the actual title of the poem should be Laberinto de Fortuna.
55
Along with this commentary, Foulche-Delbosc remarks on the chronology
of composition, affirming that the first strophe was written after the
poem was completed. Hence, the work actually begins with what is
I commonly printed as the second strophe. This assertion is based on the
I facts that formulas of address' to the king, such as those of the first
I strophe, are found throughout the poem and the first strophe differs
I from the rest of the poem in its rhyme scheme.
Another section of this article presents a chronological list of
i
the sixty-five printed editions of Mena’s works, including those
24
collected in cancioneros, up to 1902. He assigns each title a
I letter code and indicates which works each one contains, in the case
I of the cancioneros. The list of references includes information on
j
j the listings of an edition in the bibliographies of Gallardo, Salva,
[Heredia, and Mir6, as well as indications regarding library holdings.
I
The information on the reprinted editions includes references to the
works each reproduces through the system of previously assigned code
letters. The titles transcribed for each entry present full biblio-
I graphical information, including publisher, place, and date of publi-
; cation. The bibliographical apparatus contains an alphabetical listing
'of the first verses of Mena’s printed poetry, along with the coded
; letters indicating in which of the forementioned editions a given work
'appears.
Besides editing Mena’s texts, critics are interested in providing
information regarding the diffusion of his works in the manuscript
traditions and their later printed editions.
56
Some critics have been involved in secondary research regarding
25
the identity of the first commentator of the Laberinto, Hernân Nunez.
Others have also carefully traced the procedures Nunez followed and
the information he employed, in order to reconstruct the process
I through which he came to produce his critical edition.The second
I group of studies relates to the research reviewed earlier in this
'chapter and deserves further mention.
In 1950, Marcel Bataillon announced his discovery, in the library
I at Evora, of an early edition of the Laberinto, which he dates as
I l48l Salamanca, and hypothesizes that it is, indeed, the first printed
I
j edition. In discussing the edition, he poses the problem of who
produced it. The evidence he presents indicates that Antonio de
,Nebrija was responsible. This argument is strengthened by references
to Nebrija’s enthusiasm for Mena as evidenced in his Gramatica
castellana, where he quotes the poet incessantly. However, Bataillon
; ultimately rejects this possibility because the Salamanca text con
tains blanks at difficult passages in the work that would not have
; caused Nebrija any problems in explaining. From this. Bataillon con-
I
i
tinues his discussion by studying Hernân Nunez's relation to the early
editions and manuscript tradition. Nunez's corrections of the 1^99
edition in his 1505 edition suggest that he made them in the light of
! .
I new information based, perhaps, on the reading of the princeps
I edition. The changes made also coincide with the readings in the
'Paris MSS. 227 and 229. Furthermore, Nunez, because of his abilities
57
in the classics and wide readings, is able to correct lines and fill
in the blanks left in both the manuscripts and the early editions.
Bataillon concludes that only a detailed comparative study of all
the manuscripts and printed editions of the Laberinto would allow us
to evaluate the editions of Nunez and Foulche-Delbosc and separate the
. elements of the manuscript tradition from those added by the philo
logists .
I
I Florence Street, in her article, traces and identifies the
j sources Nunez used in producing his edition and explains why he made
I
I
J changes in the second edition (1505) since the first seemed to be
quite successful. In discussing Nunez’s attitude toward textual
I criticism. Street indicates that he, as an editor, appears to be
J intolerant of the errors committed by his predecessors and by the
I
I manuscripts’ scribes. Furthermore, because of his superior knowledge
I
I of the classics, Nunez is able to correct both Mena and his sources
I and in doing so presents, what is to him, the correct interpretation.
] Along with these commentaries. Street briefly discusses aspects
1
jof Nunez’s life, as recorded by Groussac’s article and attempts a
I
'chronology of events leading to the publication of the 1^99 edition.
: She concludes by indicating that because of the wholesale corrections
,and alterations of his manuscript sources, it is hard to determine
which, if any, particular manuscript he used. Since no definitive
manuscript can be recognized as Nunez’s immediate source. Street
I examines the early printed editions.
58
In tracing Nunez's knowledge of the printed editions. Street
describes their history, interrelations, and the state of printing
during the late fifteenth century. By comparing Nunez's text with
the three early editions (Salamanca l48l, Zaragoza 1489, Seville 1496),
Street determines that Nunez more closely followed the Seville^ edition
in composing his edition of the Laberinto. She adds, however, that
.Nunez's association with Nebrija, the suggested editor of the l48l
. edition, is significant in determining the revision of the l499
! edition and production of the 1505 revised edition.
I
' In summary. Street establishes that Nunez obtains the 1496
I Seville edition from the printer and modifies it through his own
jreadings of the classics. Between 1502 and 1504, Nunez comes into
j contact with Nebrija and through this association is led to modify his
i first edition based on a reading of the l48l edition. More attention
i i
i is given the manuscript traditions in the 1505 edition as a result of
I the Salamanca reading; hence, it represents Mena's intentions more
I faithfully. However, the Seville edition remains the ultimate and
I most significant source of Nunez's editions which, in turn, are copied
: substantially in the works of el Brocense and Foulche-Delbosc, thus
giving the inferior Seville copy, according to Street, undue
: recognition.
! The studies reviewed thus far in this section are concerned with
^the transmission of Mena's works in the printed editions and the
,reactions of the first editors to the manuscript traditions and to
59
other, early editions. The final textually-oriented study was also
!
I
written by Florence Street and appears to be the result of her
investigations in preparing a critical edition of the Laberinto, which,
27
as previously noted, was never produced. She contends that both
{the Madrid MS. 2882, the Cancionero de Ixar, and the Paris MS. ESP 227
^ derive from the same source. Paleographical evidence indicates that
,ESP 227 was produced before Part B of the Madrid 2882 (text of the
i
I Laberinto in the Cancionero de Ixar). Street identifies two groups of i
I
!Laberinto manuscripts: those proceeding from Paris ESP 229 and those
j from the Paris ESP 227 recension. The Madrid 2882 is closely related
to the 227 because they share numerous identical errors. Differences
in the two manuscripts, however, indicate that the scribe had access
I to yet another manuscript when copying the Madrid 2882, perhaps one of
I
.the ESP 229 tradition.
I
I Street affirms that the MS. ESP 229 is the most valuable because
jit traces to an unknown original manuscript, perhaps one prepared by
Mena himself. She indicates that the Laberinto text occupies part of
I
the manuscript and that there is evidence that two scribes and two
; commentators produced it. She concludes that the commentators and
!
I scribes were working from a:, manuscript of the Laberinto consisting of
both poem and commentary produced perhaps under Mena’s supervision.
Hence this manuscript is nearer to the original than any other known
today. The Cancionero de Ixar is valuable in relating the two manu-
I script traditions, but it ultimately descends from the ESP 227, which
I is further removed from the original than ESP 229.
6o
Apart from actually editing Mena’s works, critics simultaneously
are involved in solving related textual problems and in tracing the
diffusion of the poet’s works in the printed editions and manuscript
traditions. Several studies have been devoted to recording the data
I regarding the life and work of Mena’s first editor-commentator, Hernân
^Nunez, el Comendador Griego. In their findings, critics demonstrate
j the dependency of the later printed editions on the productions of
I this early editor. They have also traced his handling of the manu-
I scripts and printed sources. Finally, in attempting to establish the
I criteria for a new critical edition of Mena’s Laberinto, Florence
I 28
I Street reaffirms the aims and tenets of textual criticism. The .
initial "ordering and establishing of the evidence" in critical
editions and through textual studies have permitted Mena’s critics to
! commit their efforts to other critical tasks. To a review of these
f
i we now turn.
NOTES
CHAPTER II
Las C G C del famosi s s imo poeta Juan de Mena, ed. Hernân Nunez
de Toledo Cavallero de la orden de Santiago (Seville: Joannes Pegnizer
de Nuremburga y Magno, lU99)* I have used and quote from the 1552
Anvers edition. Las Trezientas d’el famosissimo poeta Ivan de Mena,
glosadas por Fernân Nunez, Comendador de la orden de Santiago. Otras
XXIII. Copias suyas, con glosa. La coronacion compuesta y glosada por
el dicho Juan de Mena. Tratado de vicios y virtudes, con otras cartas
y copias, y canciones suyas (Anvers: luan Steelsio, 1552). The UCLA
research library possesses a copy of the 1552 edition.
2
i Las obras del famoso poeta luan de Mena. Nuevamente corregidas
y declaradas por el Maestro Francisco Sânchez, catedrâtico de prima y
de retôrica en la Universidad de Salamanca (Salamanca: Lucas lunta,
1582). I have used the I80U rpt. edition, Madrid: Imprenta Répudiés.
3
Laberinto de Fortuna, ed. Ramon Foulche-Delbosc (Macon: Protat,
1904) reproduced in Cancionero castellano del siglo XV, ed. Ramon
Foulche-Delbosc (Madrid: Bailly y Bailliere, 1912), I. There are con
flicting reports on this matter. Marcel Bataillon, in "L’Edition prin
ceps du Laberinto de Juan de Mena," in Estudios dedicados a Menendez
j Pidal (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1951)>
II, 325-334 and Louise Vasvari Fainberg, ed. Laberinto de Fortuna
(Madrid; Alhambra, 1977), p. 72, affirm that the. 1904 edition is
printed without a single critical remark, notes, or introduction. José
Manuel Blecua, ed., El Laberinto de Fortuna o las Trescientas (1943;
rpt. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, 1973), p. cii refers to the 1904 edition as
a critical edition and the 1912 edition as a reproduction of the 1904
work without the critical apparatus. I have seen the 1904 edition,
which did not include critical commentary of any type. Thus, I am
still attempting to verify the validity of Blecua*s reference.
^ John Cummins, ed., Laberinto de Fortuna (Salamanca: Anaya, I968).
62
^ La Yliada en romance, ed. Martin de. Riquer (Barcelona:
S.èlecciones BibliofiJas , 1949) .
Riquer indicates that the Ilias Latina is a summary of the
Iliad written in Latin and produced by an unknown writer, although it
has been attributed to both Silius Italieus and Baebius Italicus.
Riquer further comments that the work was written, as a school text
book, a basic introduction to the poetry of Homer,
■ T
I Alfredo Carballo Picazo, "Juan de. Mena : un documento ined.ito
; y una obra atribuida," Revista de Literatura, 1 (1952), 269-299*
i 8
José Fradejas Labrero, "Un manuscrito con una obra do Juan de
Mena," Revista de Literatura, 4 (.1958), 149-152*
^ Louise Olga Fainberg, "Tratado sobre el titulo de duque,
imanuscrito del siglo XV, inédito atribuido a Juan de Mena,"
Dissertation Abstracts, 31 (.1969), 1T95A (Berkeley!, later published,
Tratado de duque (.London: Tamesis, 1976). The monograph is not
available to me.
According to Fainberg, Mena laments the death of Enrique de
Guzman in the Laberinto and in l444. composes a poem in honor of Juan,
de Guzman’s defense of Cdrdoba. The following year ha was awarded
the title of duke and it was for this occasion that Mena wrote, the
work.
Ch _.V. Aubrun, "Un Traité de l'amour attribué a Juan de Mena,”
Bulletin Hispanique, 50 (.19^8) , 333-344.
12
Alberto del Monte, "Una inédita ’Disertacîén sobre el amor,’"
Giornale italiano de filologia, 3 (.1950.), 310-321.
13
Maria Luz. Gutierrez Araus, éd., Tratado de amor atribuldo a
Juan de Mena (Madrid: Ediciones Alcala, 1975)*
Alberto Varvaro, Premesse ad un' e.dizione criti.ca delle poesi.e
minori di Juan de Mena [Naples : Liguori, 1964)*
Varvaro, Premesse, p. 73.
63J
Alberto Varvaro, "Lo scambio di copias fra Juan de Mena e
1'infante D. Pedro," Annali istituto universitario orientale Napoli,
sezione romanze, 8 (1966), 199-214.
17
Florence Street, "La vida de Juan de Mena," Bulletin His
panique, 55 (1953), 162.
I René Wellek and Austin Warren, Theory of Literature, 3rd ed.
' (New York: Hareourt. Brace, 1956), pp. 57-69.
j
' José Amador de los Rios, Historia critica de la literatura
I espahola (1865; facs. rpt. Madrid: Credos, 1969), VI, 107.
I 20 _
I Marcelino Menéndez y Pelayo, Historia de la poesia castellana
en la edad media, ed. Adolfo Bonilla y San Martin (Madrid, 19l4), II.
21
The work has been edited recently. See Copias de la panadera,
ed. Vicente Romano Garcia (Madrid: Aguilar, I963). In the preface to
his edition, Romano Garcia reviews the thorny authorship question,
citing the opinions of Argote de Molina, who attributes the Copias
to Inigo Ortiz de Stuhiga, Liciniano Saez, who contends that they
were written by Mena and Menéndez y Pelayo, who also admits the possi
bility of their being from the pen of Mena. Romano Garcia concludes
that although they generally are considered as a part of Mena's canon,
there are no definite proofs of the attribution and the< question must
remain unsettled in lieu of more convincing information.
22
; These include : Seville 1496, without notes; Seville 1499,
1 annotated by Hernân Nunez and containing a biography later suspended;
■Granada 1505, the corrected version of l499; Zaragoza 1509, first
I edition in which the twenty-four additional strophes are printed;
Seville 1517, which includes the greatest number of minor poems; and
the 1582 edition glossed by Francisco Sânchez de las Brozas.
23
R. Foulché-Delbosc, "Etude sur le Laberinto de Juan de Mena,"
Revue Hispanique, 9 (1902), 75-138.
24
Foulché-Delbosc, "Etude," pp. 114-138.
25
See R. Foulché-Delbosc, "Commandeur grec a-t-il commenté le
Laberinto?" Revue Hispanique, 10 (1903), 105-116, and Paul Groussac,
"Le Commentateur du Laberinto," Revue Hispanique, 11 (l904), 174-224.
64
! Both articles attempt to construct a biography of Hernân Nunez de
j Toledo focusing on available biographical data and especially on infor
mation regarding his association with the University of Salamanca.
Groussac lists the testimonies of el Brocense, Valerio Romero, and
Francisco de Villalobos as proof that Hernân Nunez de Toledo and not
; the apocryphal Hernân Nunez de Guzmân is the actual editor of the
ILaberinto. This conclusion is shared by Foulche-Delbosc, whom Groussac
j cites.
I
26
j Marcel Bataillon, "L’Edition principe," and Florence Street,
"Hernân Nunez and the Earliest Printed Editions of Mena's Laberinto
! de Fortuna," Modern Language Review,'6l (1966), 51-63. In research-
i ing this question Street consulted a total of ten manuscripts held by
; libraries in Portugal, Spain and America.
27
; Florence Street, "The Text of Mena's Laberinto in the
I Cancionero de Ixar and its Relation to Some Other Fifteenth Century
I MSS," Bulletin of Hispanic Studies, 35 (1958), 63-71.
I
I 28
! Fredson Bowers, in "Textual Criticism," in The Aims and
I Methods of Scholarship in Modern Languages and Literatures, ed. James
I Thorpe, rev. ed. (New York: Modern Language Association, 1970), p. 30,
j specifically states that textual criticism is concerned with "the
I recovery of the initial purity of an author's text and of any revision
I(insofar as this is possible from the preserved documents), and the
I preservation of this purity despite the usual corrupting process of
reprint transmission. ..."
_65_
CHAPTER III
SOURCES
It is the discovery and analysis of what original
minds have absorbed out of epochs prior to their own,
which invite the efforts of the student of literary
history. . . . In some cases, investigation in the
material which authors have used in the fabric of their
labors may lead at once to a tangible source, such as
current books whose popularity prompted direct imita
tion; it may reveal the sway of mere literary fads and
customs, or the more subtle power of an inherited ten
dency to pay tribute to an accepted authority of long
standing because it had been a factor in the writer's
early education or a part of the atmosphere in which '
his mind had matured. . . . The assimilation of in
herited forms of expression, or of ideas, may charac
terize a circumscribed epoch or it may be carried on
through an unlimited number of centuries.^
j With these words, Rudolph Schevill begins his study of Ovid's
I
! influence on Spanish literature. They describe his purpose in
writing and serve as theory for the branch of literary criticism that
is concerned with how an author came to write his works. Numerous
critics have studied, and disputed Juan de Mena's sources. This
chapter is devoted to a review of the opinions of those critics who
have pursued what Schevill has outlined in the passage quoted above,
and the results of their findings. It is divided into three sections
that reflect the general areas genetic critics have probed in order to
identify the origin and inspiration of Mena's verses; classical and
early medieval Latin authors, Dante, and other medieval vernacular
66
writers. My purpose is to identify the concerns, procedures, and aims
of the critics who have explored the genesis of Juan de Mena's
literary works.
I Classical and Early Medieval Latin
j The early commentators of the Laherinto were interested in
; identifying Mena's classical Latin sources. The information with which
I
'they provide the reader regarding the source(s) of one or another
word, name, line, strophe, story, or episode is basically of two
varieties. In the first type, the reader is told where the word,
name, or phrase can be found. For example, there is an abundance of
' 2
I phrases like: "cuenta Virgilio" or "asi lo dize Ovidio." This pre-
I
isentation of the source is the most common. The second type is given
I in a reduced number of examples. It is more direct, concrete and, in
I fact, the commentator actually uses the word "imitate." Phrases of
I this kind include: "aqui imita a" or "aqui, el poeta sigue a." The
! commentator will usually quote lines from the alleged source.
; As previously seen, the first writer to extensively annotate the
I q
Laberinto was Hernân Nunez, el Comendador Griego. In his commentary,
he discusses and elucidates Mena's classical Latin references,
expounds upon several themes and episodes at length, and corrects Mena
and those who censure the poet for his mistakes and misrepresentation
of the sources. He elaborates extensively upon Mena's use of the
concept of fortune and takes the opportunity to describe, in detail.
67
its presentation and significance among classic authors and the early
doctors of the church. A well-documented discussion of the witch epi
sode of the Laherinto and its source, Pharsalia VI, hints at a signi
ficant characteristic phenomenon of Mena’s mature works : Mena avoids
quoting from a single source, and instead, combines ideas or passages
taken from several into a coherent, balanced whole: "Escriue aqui el
poeta los hechizos y veneficios que aquella nigromantica junto para
quel cuerpo muerto unido con ellos resusitasse y les diesse entera y
cierta respuesta delo que fuesse preguntado: los cuales tomo al pie
dela letra de Lucano en el VI libro de la Pharasalia; excepte alguno
I que pone aqui Jua de Mena delos cuales Lucano no haze mencion.”^ Mena
not only imitates classical models but in one episode, the description
of the world’s geography, Laberinto 34-53, he imitates an early
medieval source. De Imagine Mundi attributed to Saint Anselm by Nunez.
The annotators job, as far as can be discerned from what Nunez
jwrites, also consists of correcting the poet in his use of sources and
! censuring those writers who criticize him: "Parece aqui aver halluci^
I
nado Juan de Mena e toma las Tebas de Egypto por las de Boecia, de las
quales hablo Estacio, poeta, en la Thebayda. I n other places, Nunez
defends Mena: "Bien se que algunos reprehenden en este lugar a Juan
de Mena . . . pero no lo fazen justamente" (line 209g).
Francisco Sanchez de la Brozas, el Brocense, closely follows Nunez
in his opinions, judgements, and comments. El Brocense, like Nunez
before him, points to Mena's sources in a general way, with the formula:
68
"cuenta. ...” He also discusses certain episodes or images at
length, quoting directly from the Latin source. He, more than Wuhez,
demonstrates Mena's combinative technique in borrowing and stresses
the importance of Lucan as a source of ideas, style, and episodes. In
i commenting on the effectiveness of witchcraft and spells in matters of
jlove, Laberinto 110b, ”Nin causan amores, nin guardan su tregua," el
jBrocense names Ovid, Ars Amatoria II as the source for Mena's passage.
I There are several passages in which el Brocense hints at Mena's
I deliberate, selective imitation of several sources. Included among
these is the commentary on the episode of the storm prognostic, strophe
169 ff.: "Las sehales de tempestad pone muy a la larga Plinio, capitule
I ultimo del lib. I8, y Virgilio en el tercero de la Georgicas, a quien
!aqui sigue Juan de Mena, y Lucano en el quinto hablando de Amyclas,
; . ,,6
1marinero. I
i . . . . '
! Regarding the geographic description, el Brocense, in agreement
I
with Nunez, specifies that Mena follows Anselm in De Imagine Mundi. Elj
I
Brocense also indicates who Mena does not follow in the world geography'
I
passages. j
Most prominent in el Brocense's annotations is his emphasis on 1
jLucan as Mena's main source. In relation to the witch episode, ,
ILaberinto 2hl ff., he comments: "Esto todo es de Lucano al fin del j
I j
lib. 6 quando el hijo de Pompeyo fue a preguntar los succesos de las j
( Y
■guerras civiles." j
Both Hernân Nunez and Francisco Sanchez de las Brozas identify
!Mena's Latin sources in attempting to elucidate the poetic text.^
69
Critics from the nineteenth century until the present have heen
interested in identifying Mena’s classical Latin sources. José Amador
de los Rios, who studies in detail the poet’s medieval sources,
principally Dante, also makes reference to Mena’s linguistic activity
and its relation to his preference for the classics.^ According to
jAmador de los Rios, Mena is especially attracted to Lucan for reasons
{of compatriotism.
I
' The Comte de Puymaigre contends that Mena’s principal sources of
inspiration are Dante and Lucan.He derives his style from the
Latin author and his structure from the Italian. Mena is associated
jwith Lucan both historically and culturally having been born, like the
Roman poet, in Cordoba. Mena looks to the classics, and Lucan in
particular, for inspiration in his project to create a new poetic
language in the vernacular, different from vernacular prose. Style,
I ideas, and minor details thus derive from Lucan, but Mena surpasses ^
Î
■his model in difficulty of concepts and obscurity of style. Puymaigre
’views Lucan’s influence on Mena’s style as essentially negative. In '
I !
fact, it is the Divine Comedy that counterbalances the difficult i
11 !
expressions inherited from Lucan. I
Puymaigre’s criticism of Mena is tempered somewhat because he !
views the episode of the Conde de Niebla, taken from the Pharsalia, as
one of the best of the Laberinto. It is worthy of attention and
' 12
'Puymaigre translates it.
Menendez y Pelayo comments extensively upon Mena’s use of
; classical Latin sources and makes the following observations: the
TO
imitations of the classics are more frequent than those of Dante. The
lament for Lorenzo Davalos derives from the lament for Euryalus in
Aeneid IX. The storm prognostic and death of Conde de Niehla follow
Georgies I. Mena is not a servile imitator, hut an inspired poet who
frequently surpasses his models. Such is the case, according to the
critic, in his description of the alciones, which was taken from
' 11
'Virgil.
Menendez y Pelayo argues that Mena was attempting to create a new,'
dignified poetic language in the vernacular and because of this under
taking, he avidly copied Lucan's "pompous" style.He also contends
that Lucan was Mena's favorite author and that he probably wrote the
’ Laberinto with a copy of the Pharsalia at his desk. The storm warn:-. . .
I
jings, already in part attributed to Virgil, owe something to Lucan
I also: "Pertenece a Lucano . . . todo lo que no es de Virgilio'.' (p. ITO).
i
He refers to Mena's technique of combining numerous sources with the
,term "imitacion compuesta" (p. ITO). The best example of Lucan's
influence on Mena is in the form of an entire episode: that of the
sorceress of Thesalius, Pharsalia VI. In summary, Mena borrowed
jimages, passages, and entire episodes from his cherished classical
! authors, especially Virgil and Lucan.
Bernardo Sanvisenti, in I primi influssi di Dante, del Petrarca
i e del Boccaccio sulla letteratura spagnuola states that Mena drew from
various sources, and the Divine Comedy, his principal source, competed
; , , X - 5 ' -
with French and Latin models.' Among the latter, the Pharsalia was held
71
in particularly high esteem hy Mena because of its epic-historic
significance and because of Mena's compatriotic ties with its author,
the fellow Cordovan, Lucan.
In the annotations to his plot summary of the Laberinto, .
j Sanvisenti indicates verbal reminiscences of classic authors and
jsources of descriptions and episodes. The verse "aun si yo viera la
jmestrua luna" of the storm prognostic derives from Georgies I, "ipse
I pater statuit quid menstrua luna moneret." The sorceress episode is
traced to the Pharsalia VI from which Mena copies, translating literal
ly as well as paraphrasing.
The study of classical influences on Spanish literature has
occupied the attention of Rudolph Schevill. In the study Ovid and the
Renascence in Spain, Schevill is interested primarily in documenting
Ovid's influence during the Golden Age, but he also devotes some pre- |
I
liminary chapters to the investigation of Ovidian influence on medieval
I authors, among them Juan de Mena.In the Laberinto, Mena makes many
'references to ideas and stories of Ovid and extensively borrows
!
mythological characters from the Metamorphoses. Schevill traces these
borrowings and shows how the characters and their stories are taken
j up by Mena and used in the Laberinto. The strophe beginning "La gran
babilonia que ouo cereado," derives from the story of Pyramus and
Thisbe, Metamorphoses XI.57-58. The building of the walls of
17
Babylon is described in XI.I9U ff. The incestuous love of
iKlytaemnestra, strophe 102, is told in Met amorpho ses X .2 98 and also
72
/
in Ars Amatoria I.285. The story of Icarus, strophe 52, is found in
Metamorphoses VIII.l83 ff. and the Ars Amatoria 11.21 ff. These
borrowings represent, for Schevill, a demonstration of Mena’s command
of literary sources and scholarly intention in writing the Laberinto.
Mena's references to Pythagoras, strophe II8, is related to Ovid's
I treatment of the life and thought of this ancient Greek mathematician
!
! in Metamorphoses XV.60 ff. Both the language and content derive from
j Ovid. The often quoted episode of the prophecy about Don Alvaro de
Luna (the sorceress of Valladolid) and the description of Medea's
supernatural powers which are, according to Schevill, "only an un
inspired copy of classical sources" (p. TT), derive from Ovid. The
additional twenty-four strophes make mention of classical subjects that
are also discussed in the Metamorphoses.
Other characters whose stories are told in the Metamorphoses are
represented in the Coronacion, and because Ovid's versions of these
I stories were well known, Ovid is probably Mena's source. I
I Passages in the Laberinto and Coronacion derive from the erotic !
I I
jworks of Ovid, Ars Amatoria and Remedia Amoris. Especially signifi- ■
! cant is strophe 110, which treats of the use of witchcraft in love. i
i
Ovid advises on such matters in the Ars Amatoria 11.99 ff. and
Heroides VI.93. Other textual parallels include Achilles' musical
; education, strophe 120, which derives from Ars Amatoria 1.11 ff., and
jthe warnings about shameless women, strophe 131. The "flaca bar-
Iquilla" closing passage of the Laberinto is found in Ars Amatoria I,
i
!
I
T3
J
J
772, Remedia Amoris 8ll, and Amores III.11.29. Several characters
known from the Heroides are presented in the Laberinto. Finally, Mena
21
mentions Ovid's name in both the Laberinto and Coronacion.
Schevill sees Ovid as part of Mena's classical learning, which he
incorporated into his poetic works. The evidence adduced by him in
j support of this claim is mostly textual, i.e., verbal parallels between
jworks by the two authors. Mena is also viewed as part of the literary
t
I tradition of courtly love that finds its common source, according to
I Schevill, in the erotic works of Ovid.
Another critic who wrote at the same time as Schevill and who
22
also studies Mena's classical sources is Chandler Rathfon Post. In
I his study. Post is interested in redefining Mena's relationship to his |
j !
jmedieval sources, especially Dante, and the references to classical I
I
]sources in Mena's works serve to support Post's thesis that Mena owed ,
j I
very little to Dante. The abundance of classical models followed by ,
I
Mena is in sharp contrast to the paucity of Dantesque imitation. When }
I
Mena proposed a definite imitation, and he did so often, it was from j
(
the classics. \
!
In the Laberinto, there are allusions to Virgil and his works. I
: !v
-The Conde de Wiebla episode is taken from both Virgil in the Géorgie !
I i
land Lucan in the Pharsalia: "Upon the details of the Pharsalia, which |
I would naturally be borrowed together with the rest of the episode, he
engrafts additional picturesque touches from the first Géorgie. Thus
'the Virgilian,
Ih
ipse pater statuit quid menstrua luna moneret
is added to
Lunaque non gracili surrexit lucida cornu . . .
. . . turn lurida pallens
Ora tulit voltu sub nubem tristis ituro.
The result is:
Aun si yo viera la mestrua luna
con cuernos obtusos mostrarse fuscada,
muy rubicunda o muy colorada
creyera que vientos nos diera Fortuna.
I
’Amyclas, the symbol of poverty, strophe 227, is taken from the
j
j Pharsalia XI.67-69. The monsters and beasts that greet Mena at
Fortune’s palace, strophe 3^, derive from Aeneid VI .285. The witch
episode is copied, often with exact translation, from the visit of
Sextus Pompeius to Erichtho in Book VI of the Pharsalia.
Post concludes his comparisons of texts and description of Mena’s
procedures of imitation by affirming the Spanish poet’s devotion to
I
I
iclassical sources and subsequent disregard for Dante; "All this borrow-
I
I
iing, and particularly the careful manipulation of material from Lucan
I
and Virgil . . . are indicative of [Mena’s] more devoted attitude
toward the classics, and a comparison of the paucity and vagueness of
Dantesque reminiscence to these definite instances . . . demonstrates
that the Laberinto could more fittingly be described as a classical
I • • 2 ^
jimitation.
j The same is true for the Coronacion in which the poet’s descent
to the inferno is more Virgilian than Dantesque. Mena constantly makes
I
[references to the works of Virgil, Ovid,, and Boethius in his commentary
75
on and explanation of characters encountered during his journey. In
the ascent to the Parnassus, the reference to time is from classical
mythology, and the Virgilian imitation in specific sequences and in the
25
overall conception is pronounced.
For Post, Mena’s most important models were classical and not
medieval vernacular writers. He appeals mostly to textual, internal
evidence in the form of parallel quotations to support this hypothesis.
Post’s study of classical sources is, in the context of his article,
negative because it attempts to demonstrate that Mena preferred the
classics over Dante and thus supports his claims that Mena was never
indebted to Dante as many critics purport. He is not interested in why
Mena imitates the classics, but instead why he does not imitate Dante.
I
I José Manuel Blecua, in the preliminary study to his edition of
jthe Laberinto, discusses, among other aspects, Mena’s knowledge of and
I attraction to the classics.In his prose commentary to the
i
ICoronacion, Mena often quotes Ovid from whom he derives most of the
27
myths and allusions mentioned in the poem. Internal evidence from
1
I the Coronacion commentary produces another example of Mena’s prefer
ences. His attraction to Lucan has a double meaning: "una, patriotica,
su devocion por todo lo cordobes; y otra, literaria, ya que Lucano
realiza cumplidamente el sueho de Mena de crear una insolita lengua
poetica, cuyos resultados habia de admirar un poeta tan interesado
por este problema’’ (p. xxvi ) . There are references to numerous other
classical Latin writers. Blecua discusses the duality of Mena’s works,
76
interest in the classics and in medieval moralizing, and views his
classical sources in this context. He contrasts Mena's affinity
for the Latin models to the disputed claims of his indebtedness to
Dante.
j By comparing passages from the works of Virgil and Lucan and
Mena’s Laberinto, Blecua, following Menendez y Pelayo, establishes
that the lament for Lorenzo Davalos derives from Aeneid IX; the storm
I prognostic comes in part from Géorgie 1.398-399 and Pharsalia
V.5^8-550, as does the description of the corneja, strophe 1T2, which
proceeds from Géorgie 1,388-389 and Pharsalia V.555-558. In the storm
prognostic, Mena not only copies Virgil, but also supersedes him. For
Blecua, Lucan’s influence on Mena is greater than that of Virgil, and
to support this contention he cites the sorceress of the Valladolid
episode in the Laberinto which derives, according to him, from the
Pharsalia VI.
I
j Blecua concludes that the problem of Mena’s sources is complex,
;but, despite disputes regarding his medieval preferences, Mena’s
attraction to the classic Latin authors is demonstrable beyond
I
I
question. |
When, in 1950, Maria Rosa Lida published her book, Juan de Mena, |
poeta del prerrenacimiento espahol, the question of Mena’s sources had |
28
been studied, disputed, evaluated, and re-evaluated. She reviews
much of this critical writing, rejecting the opinions and judgements
of some, criticizing and reaffirming those of others, and adds thoughts
TT
r
of her own. Through her study of Mena's sources, she attempts to
define the poetic-aesthetic ideal that guided Mena in his writings.
An aspect of his literary perspective is clearly perceived in his
handling of sources. By comparing passages taken from Mena’s works
I and those of his Latin models, Lida is able to demonstrate what
I
j Menendez y Pelayo alluded to with the phrase "imitacion compuesta."
I Mena’s recreative process of selectively choosing ideas, passages, and j
‘ . i
I descriptions from many sources is a characteristic of his literary
j style and an essential element in his view of art.
As sources of: inspiration, ideas, and descriptions, classical
, and early medieval Latin authors played a more significant role in
Mena’s literary production than medieval vernacular writers. He
looked to the venerated authorities, not simply as immutable models,
but as groundwork for new ideas and possibilities for creative
: expression. Thus, they contributed ideologically and stylistically to
Mena’s overall poetic endeavor. Lida studies the Spanish poet’s
'Latin sources from the perspectives of style and content and through
] her study defines and justifies her monograph’s title, poeta del
! prerrenacimiento espahol. These are her observations :
!
! Mena’s concept of the character of Fortune derives from Boethius
as presented in his De Consolatione: her nature is ever changing and
she is a hostile force that must be tamed. Her constant change is
associated with the daily changes in the world. Fortune is related to
chance but subordinate to Providence. Not only are the concepts
similar but there are also certain verbal parallels between the two
authors’ presentation of the character, Fortuna. The critic finds
verbal reminiscences of Boethius in Mena’s praise of order, strophe T,
and reproof of disorder associated with Fortune, strophe 9, in Mena’s
description of Fortune’s true nature through pairs of opposites,
i strophe 10, which also derives from Anticlaudianus. Mena, like
j Boethius, offers the order of the heavens as the counterpart of
1
Fortune’s disorder and a model to be followed in human relationships.
The geographical description, strophes 3^-53, is not as Menendez
y Pelayo indicates, a digression, but instead a necessary part of the
poem’s narrative structure. It has many classical antecedents in the
I catalogues of the Aeneid VII.6Ul ff. and X.136 ff.; Pharsalia III.
1
j 169 ff., and the Thebayde IV.3^ ff. Another important source, first
j mentioned by Hernân Nunez and reiterated by el Brocense, but since
1
J disregarded, is the De Imagine Mundi, wrongly attributed to Saint
i Anselm. Lida calls it a ’ ’fuente antigua literariamente importante
como la Eneida o la Farsalia, modelos de episodios famosos del
Laberinto. . .’ ’.(p. 32). To this geography, Mena adds passages and
29
descriptions taken from other works, expands on the original descrip
tions and images by paraphrasing and through the use of adjectives.
After demonstrating this technique and the similarities between Laber
into and De Imagine Mundi through abundant textual comparisons, Lida
concludes: "Parece . . . que De imagine mundi es la fuente del ’orbe
79
universe’ del Laberinto, claro no traducida al pie de la letra, sino
elaborada con un sentido de la forma sobria que apunta decididamente
al arte moderno, no al medieval.Mena does not faithfully keep the
established geographical, mythological, or historical order but
31
exercises his right to poetic license in the name of aesthetics.
Mena’s most important classical models, Virgil and Lucan, are not
exclusive sources. Ovid was frequently consulted and copied by Mena.
The address to and description of Juan II derive from the various
32
works of Ovid as do other passages. Included as reminiscences of
Ovid are the descriptions of the walls of Babylon, Metamorphoses IV.
57-58; the epithet "fijas de Tespis,’ ’ Metamorphoses V.310; the
characterization of Pythagoras, Metamorphoses XV7.60 ff., and the
enumeration of the magical ingredients. Metamorphoses XV.389-390»
The Canon Chronicus is the source for Mena’s list of orators
because the most obscure names given in the Laberinto also appear in
the Canon Chronicus and in no other work and because the characteri
zation of the personages in the Spanish poem coincides with the notes
written about them by the author of the Canon Chronicus, Eusebio de
33
Cesarea. Characters mentioned by Mena in this circle include
Orpheus, whose myth was widely known to ancient and medieval authors
and whose story is told by Virgil Géorgie IV, Ovid Metamorphoses X
and XI and Boethius, Consolatione III, verse 12, and Achiles’ music
teacher presented by Ovid in Ars Amatoria. In this last example,
Mena’s duality of perspective and charcter is again demonstrated:
80
Palpamos una vez mas el caracter prerrenacentista, doble
en esencia, de Juan de Mena: por una parte, apego a una
actitud medieval caracteristica— el poema de Ovidio
acogido como obra didactica seria— por la otra, orienta-
cion hacia una estima estetica, desinteresada, de los
autores que para la Edad Media eran ante todo maestros.
Estima visible aqui en la recreacion libre, en otro tono
y adaptada a otro contexto, de los frivolos versos de
Ovidio. (p. 59)
Mena’s list of Sibyls differs from that of the Diuinarum
Institutionum Liber I, "De falsa religione deorum" and from Isidore’s
Etymologiae. Enrique de Villena’s epithet, "Aquel que tu vees estar
contenplando/el mouimiento de tantas estrellas," derives from Consola
tione III. verse 9 and other elements are reminiscent of Metamorphoses
XV.65 ff• The magicians and sorceresses derive from Thebayde IV.^OU
ff. in which Statius follows the Pharsalia IV.U20 ff. Medea is known
through the works of Ovid and is followed in Mena's list by Licinea and
Publicia who are taken from Valerius Maximus and probably also asso-
!ciated with the Satire of Juvenal.
j The Conde de Niebla episode and the storm prognostic follow
i Pharsalia V but are not, as el Brocense and Menendez y Pelayo indicate,
I"todo de Lucano"; Mena combines passages from the Géorgie 1.353 and
11.^28-^33 as well as from the Pharsalia V.5^6. In the end result,
I
the language, style and content of Mena's verses follow more closely
the Géorgie passages and the Pharsalia goes unperceived. Neither the
explanation of Menendez y Pelayo nor that of Post on this borrowing is
! exact. Essentially the same procedure of combination is followed
: regarding the origins of the wind, strophe 172. The basic idea
81
nj proceeds from the Géorgie hut Mena alters it significantly to reflect
3ii
Pharsalia V.551, which is also modeled on the Géorgie.
The combination of sources, descriptions, and passages and the
i successive modification is an essential characteristic of Mena's
I
! recreative art. In this, Mena is differentiated from earlier medieval
I
[vernacular authors who faithfully quoted from classical models.
\ The lament for Lorenzo Davalos is based on several classical
[Latin sources not perceived by either el Brocense or Menendez y Pelayo.
j It derives from Aeneid IV, Ana's lament for Dido, and Aeneid IX, the
lament for Euryalus, as the earlier critics contend. Evander's lament
is both verbally and conceptually closer to Mena's than Euryalus'.
; Mena, however, does not limit himself to a faithful reproduction of
I
; Book XI; but, on the basic structure presented in Evander's lament he
I adds phrases and passages taken from Books IV and IX.
The witch episode is derived from a popular medieval tale and the
' 35
I description of Erichtho in the Pharsalia. Mena's vision is shorter
than Lucan's and there are verbal parallels in the scene of the
: bewitching, which Lida compares in the two works, but Mena improves on
■ the Latin poet's descriptions and passages by giving the language a
: more emotional content. The imitation of Lucan is neither servile nor
I exclusive. Mena's episode combines passages from the Metamorphoses,
the Aeneid, and the Etymologiae.
In contrast to the shortsighted perspectives of el Brocense and
others who saw only the Pharsalia in Mena's imitations, Lida
82
demonstrates Mena's sources to be multiple and erudite. Along with
classical authors, Boethius, Isidore, and the De Imagine Mundi all
served as models for and contributed structures, concepts, vocabulary
and style to the creation of the Laberinto.
i Concepts, passages, and descriptions from Latin authors also
I characterize Mena's minor poetry. The allegory of "Copias contra los
j pecados mortales" is in the tradition of the Psychomachia of Prudentius.
I
I Mena, in this poem, abandons the "dulces poesias" of the youthful
[Boethius. There are echoes of Mena's most cherished classical
authors: "la mas que civil batalia" is an almost direct quote of
3 6
Lucan, Pharsalia I.l: "bella . . . plus quam ciuilia." The erudi-
i tion of the work is medieval in the sense that it derives from authors
who were popular during that period. The fables of the Metamorphoses i
I
; occupy a significant position both in terms of content and style in ,
[ I
I the prose commentary to the Coronacion.
! . I
The Tratado de amor, whose attribution to Mena has been disputed, |
is a work that basically follows Remedia Amoris and Ars Amatoria.
There are similarities between the Tratado de amor and the Laberinto. '
I
Maria Rosa Lida argues that Mena wrote the Tratado de amor and that in j
I
doing so he probably used the same Latin source that he consulted
when composing the sphere of Venus in the Laberinto. The other possi-
jbility regarding authorship is that the Tratado de amor was written
by another author who used expressions of the Laberinto, especially the
definition of love and the enumeration of its causes, to translate the
I
I
_ _ _ _ _ 83.
Latin source. Although Menendez y Pelayo was essentially correct in
saying that "apenas hace otra cosa que traducir a Ovidio," the judge-
37
ment is not entirely exact. Tratado de amor is typical of Mena’s
art because it includes reminiscences of classical authors.
Maria Rosa Lida studies Mena’s classical and early medieval Latin
j sources in detail through precise textual comparisons. She uses the
; information obtained about Mena’s techniques of borrowing as support
i
' for her hypothesis that Mena, although a medieval author, was attracted
I
' to and a precursor of the Renaissance. Unlike other medieval verna-
1
! cular writers, who faithfully copied the authoritative Latin source,
Mena views his sources of antiquity from an eclectic Renaissance
perspective. He combines ideas, descriptions from several works to
38
form an aesthetically pleasing whole. Lida answers the question:
what are Mena’s sources? In doing so she re-evaluates previous
critical opinion about them. She also pursues the questions : how does
he imitate, how much does he imitate, and finally, why does he
imitate? The answers to these questions are related closely to Mena’s
i
creative guiding principle represented in the concept of I
I
pre-Renaissance.
Florence Street, who studies Mena’s relation to medieval sources,
I especially Dante, is also interested in the Spanish author’s classical
I 39
1 Latin sources. In the Laberinto, the concept of Fortune derives
I
I from Boethius: both authors regard Fortune as an unpleasant creature,
■ruled rather against her will by Providence. However, Mena could have
8h
gotten the idea for the allegory of Fortune's palace with its three
wheels from a number of classical and medieval Latin sources.
In another study. Street attempts to establish the authorship of
the Tratado de amor and does so (attributing the work to Mena) by
1
. comparing passages from it with Mena’s other works and to their
Uo
jcommon Latin sources. The Tratado de amor, Yliada en romance, and
’ the Coronacion incorporates phrases or translations of classical
I
! authors. The Tratado de ajnor is basically a translation of Ars
Amatoria and De Remedio Amoris with additions from other classical
authors. The Yliada also depends essentially on one work, Ylias
J Latina. I n the Coronacion, Mena deals with information gathered
I from various sources. In each of the three works, he gives exact
I references to his classical sources and is precise in translation. He
juses pagan myths to teach Christian, moral principles in the three
iworks and most importantly, these works and the Laberinto have a large
!
I number of classical quotations in common. Street writes:
I La mayor parte de los hombres cultos de la corte de
Juan II habian leido ampliamente a los clasicos; pero
Mena es mas bien un caso aparté. Sus citas y adop-
ciones son limitadas, deliberadas y sistemâticas. Una
cuidadosa comparaciôn de las obras de atribucion indis-
cutible que ha escrito, a lo largo de los ahos, prueba
I sin dejar lugar a duda que no toma citas al azar de
cualquier libro que llegue a sus manos, sino que vuelve
una y otra vez sobre los mismos autores. Homero, Vir
gilio, Lucano y Ovidio forman el fondo de sus obras sérias
con una creciente proporcion de Boecio, Séneca, Estacio
y varios historiadores. (pp. 21-22)
There are similarities between the Tratado de amor and the Venus
; circle of the Laberinto. The characters presented in both derive from
85
Ovid, with interpolations from Virgil and Pliny. The Tratado de amor
is an early work in which there is much dependency upon the original,
and the passages and images are not freely chosen as in the
Coronacion and Laberinto. Street studies sources through textual
I comparisons of the four works in order to ascertain the authorship
j of an anonymous work attributed to Mena. After affirming that Mena
I penned it, she compares the use of original material in it with its
; use in Mena's later works, Coronacion and Laberinto.
In "Notas sobre el Laberinto de Fortuna," Gimeno Casalduero
h2
studies Mena's sources. The labyrinth symbol and the allegorical
journey parallels Aeneid VI, in which Aeneas' descent to Hades is
presented, in structure, ideological content, and imagery. In the
sphere of Mars, Mena depicts the monarch's throne and on it describes
the glories of the past and the problems of the present. In this
description he also follows Virgil.
Another critic has discovered and studied a previously unnoticed
source of the Laberinto, Aristotle's Poetics. Dorothy Clotelle Clarke,
in Juan de Mena's "Laberinto de Fortuna": Classic Epic and Mester de
Clerecia, contends that Mena both knew of Aristotle's work and was
guided by it in writing the Laberinto. In the first part of her study,
she points out how epic elements appear in the Laberinto in order to
demonstrate that Mena had written an epic poem. These characteristics
include unity of action; moral teaching (not as an end in itself but
for the well being of the state in the Laberinto); single hero (Juan II
86
harmonizes Aristotle's concept of "no single protagonist" with the
medieval necessity of an epical main figure)narrative (Mena
employs both dramatic and narrative dialogue like Homer); length
(Laberinto is closer to tragedy, one twenty-four hour period, than to
epic); staging; melody and ^language ; fable; character; thought ;
jbeginning-middle-end; arrangement and size (Mena's heavenly bodies);
I probability and universality in characters ; dramatic sequence (not
[catharsis, but moral uplifting in Laberinto); poet in the poem (Mena,
I like Homer, assumes the role of "catalytic agent"); style (lexical,
[syntactical ornamentation, hyperbaton); poetic license; epic simul
taneity; and hexameter (adapted to verso de arte mayor). Further
more, in the Laberinto there is an episode that amounts to a
"mini-tragedy" based on Aristotelian precepts.
In a brief but succinct chapter, "From the Classics," Clarke re-
I views Mena's indebtedness to classical sources other than Aristotle,
j which for her, include Homer, Virgil, Lucan, and Statius. To Ovid,
I Mena owes less in borrowed material but more in surface design. Clarke
[discusses in detail the most important sources, Lucan and Virgil,
iThese are her observations: Mena borrows from Lucan for two reasons,
one historical and the other conceptual : Mena "was proud of and greatly
indebted to his fellow Cordovan and wished to show his admiration
without the risk of seeming patriotically to over-evaluate . . . so
without mentioning Lucan's name, borrowed openly for his extensive
maga scene largely from the Pharsalia . . . and he was particularly
AT-
interested in the Pharsalia because its major theme was the one '
political subject about which Mena felt most anguished: civil strife"
(pp. 55-58). Mena's concept of Fortune, as it appears after the three
wheels, derives something from the Pharsalia. There are similarities
U5
! between the two presentations but there are also differences. In the
epic, Fortune accompanies Arms and Time, and is companion to Wit. Such
is the case in Iliad XVI and Aeneid. Mena molds his conception of
I k6
[Fortune out of traditional material that included Lucan. Finally,
I Fortune perfectly fits Aristotle's prescription for character : good of
jher kind, appropriate, life-like and her character is constant.
Virgil's influence is seen more in the concepts than in any borrowings,
although there are many of these. The national enterprise is evident
in both poets; Mena, like Virgil, peered into the past in order to
see the future. The dead provide means for prediction in both poems. |
I
Mena, in writing the Laberinto, uses as his blueprint the Poetics ^
' I
! of Aristotle and incorporates elements into his work that characterize |
! 1
; the epic. Apart from these conceptual patterns, Mena also closely 1
follows the venerated epic poets, Virgil and Lucan, in both intellec
tual content and style. The study of sources, the application of
epical poetic theory to the Laberinto, and textual comparisons
identify Mena as a writer in a specific genre and support* Clarke's
i
hypothesis that Mena wrote an epic poem based on classic models.
Finally, classical tradition in Mena's minor works has been
hi
; studied by Arnold Reichenberger. Reichenberger proposes to add
detail to theories of Mena's uses of classical sources as outlined hy
earlier critics, especially Maria Rosa Lida, and as seen in his minor
poetry. In each poem discussed, Reichenberger briefly describes the
theme, metric form, and classical content. Through his observations,
Reichenberger is able to characterize Mena as both a classical humanist
j cancionero poet.
I
I For many years, commentators, editors, scholars and critics have
[been interested in Juan de Mena's classical and early medieval Latin
sources. They identify and define them for a variety of purposes: to
elucidate the poetic text, to show what sources Mena did not use, to
describe and demonstrate the function of Mena's poetic ideal, to
I establish authorship of an anonymous work attributed to Mena, and to
!
j demonstrate that he wrote in a particular genre. The evidence
I offered in support of one or another source as Mena's model comprises
generalizations, specific references to verbal and stylistic textual
similarities, to conceptual similarities, and biographical-historical
I
! information. Many aspects of his work and their relation to the
Latin sources have been studied and there is a great diversity of
opinion among scholars regarding the details of each. It would be
helpful here to summarize the ideas reviewed above. The fortune theme :
Lida says that it derives from Boethius. Street and Clarke agree but
add that it is also part of the classical tradition. Post sees it in
I
'relation to medieval Latin and vernacular works. Hernân Nunez does
'not see it either way but presents both classical and early Christian
89
views of Fortune. The witch episode: el Brocense, Menendez y Pelayo,
Puymaigre, Sanvisenti, Blecua, and Clarke trace it primarily to
Pharsalia. Hernân Huhez hints at other sources besides the Pharsalia
but does not specify them. Schevill suggests the Metamorphoses. Maria
j Rosa Lida contends that the Metamorphoses, Aeneid, Etymologiae, and
j popular lore are all present besides the Pharsalia. The storm prog-
I
'nostic and death of the Conde de Niebla: el Brocense traces them to
1 ' ■ " ,
I
Pharsalia, Virgil, and Pliny. Menendez y Pelayo and Post contend that
it follows Pharsalia and Georgies and that the former is most impor-
I
I tant. Lida disputes their claim, although she defends the dual
i source and says Virgil is most important. Blecua views both works as
contributing equally. Puymaigre traces the episode to the Pharsalia
only and Sanvisenti claims that it follows Georgies. Spells and love:
jel Brocense, Lida, and Schevill trace it to Ars Amatoria and Remedia
Amoris. Street claims the same sources and adds Pliny to them. The
I world geography : Hernân Nunez, el Brocense, and Lida view it as based
I primarily on De Imagine Mundi. Lida corrects Nunez’s attribution of
I
I the work to Saint Anselm and claims its anonymity. Post contends that
I
[the geography draws from Speculum Naturale and perhaps Dittamondo.
! The lament for Lorenzo Davalos: Menendez y Pelayo and Blecua affirm
I that it derives from Aeneid XIJ Maria Rosa Lida claims that it is
modeled after Aeneid VI and IX. Orators : Lida says the list is based
on Canon Chronicus.
I
j Aside from these specific, textual references to themes, passages,
land episodes, writers dispute other general issues. Mena and Lucan—
90
mysterious influence of the soil: Puymaigre, Amador de los Rios,
Sanvisenti, Post, Blecua and Clarke all refer to them as compatriots
and through this relation explain Mena's attraction to and imitation
of the Roman-Cordovan poet in content and style. Classical versus
medieval: Menendez y Pelayo, and Post contend that the classical
{authors influenced Mena more than the medieval writers, especially
I Dante. Mena and Virgil : Gimeno Casalduero and Clarke see a similarity
, of purpose in the works of these poets; they both search the past in
order to glimpse the future. Gimeno Casalduero claims that Mena
derives the model for his allegorical journey and for the presentation
of the throne of Juan II from Aeneid VI. Aristotle and Mena: Clarke |
' i
; contends that Mena wrote an epic poem and closely followed Aristotle's '
precepts as set forth in the Poetics. I
I
The minor works, prose and poetry, have come under the same ,
[
scrutiny in order to better identify and understand their sources.
Coronacion" poem and prose : Schevill argues that the characters derive
I from the Metamorphoses. Lida agrees that they draw from Ovid and,
jmoreover, they are used for a didactic purpose. Post contends that the
I
; journey is modeled after Aeneid VI. Blecua states that Mena derives
I the myths from Metamorphoses. He also finds direct quotations from
'numerous other Latin authors. Copias contra los pecados mortales:
[Lida alleges that the allegory derives from Psychomachia, the concepts
,from Boethius. There are verbal echoes of the classics, especially
,tragedies of Seneca. Tratado de amor : Menendez y Pelayo, Lida, .and
I T 1
i _
91
Street all claim that the treatise is Mena’s because of his handling
of sources— Ovid’s Ars Amatoria and Remedia Amoris. Yliada en romance:
Morel-Fatio, Street and Lida claim the Ylias Latina as its source.
All these assertions are focused on a central issue of the
criticism of Juan de Mena. They revolve around the question : how did
jMena come to write his works ? Other related questions are: what
I sources did he use? How did he use them? How many? Why? The
I
I answers that are offered are indicative of each critic’s interest in
1 studying this fifteenth century author.
Dante
1 ------
{ Vicente Noguera (1586-165^), in his "Discurso sobre la lengua y
jlos autores de Espaha," refers to Juan de Mena as "un altro Dante" and
I 1^8
'the only poet of the court of Juan II worth remembering and quoting.
! _ I
Unknown to Hoguera, his three-word metaphor was to become one of the
I most disputed areas of the criticism of Juan de Mena. Genetic critics
; from the nineteenth century onward concerned themselves with assessing
I and reassessing Mena’s relation to one of his medieval sources. Some
say that Mena owes everything to Dante, both intellectual content and
; structure. Others categorically deny Mena’s indebtedness to the
; Italian poet. More moderate positions include Dante as one of Mena’s
several medieval sources. Some critics study Mena’s works from the
I
perspective of the individual poet by relating his use of sources to a
[particular aesthetic-literary ideal. Some place his works against the
92
background of other medieval works of the same generic-thematic mold.
All are interested in defining his sources and assessing his use of
them. Disagreement 5 therefore, is characteristic of this branch of
j Mena criticism.
I Literary historians of the nineteenth century have studied Mena’s
j indebtedness to Dante. José Manuel Quintana devotes almost an entire
I chapter of his ’ ’Introduccion historica a una coleccion de poesia
I
. castellana" also known as Tesoro del parnaso espahol (1808), to a
study of Juan de Mena. Included in this study is a brief and somewhat
[negative commentary about Mena’s relation to Dante in which he refers
I
1 to the Spanish poet as an inferior imitator of the Italian.
i
[ The German literary historian, Frederick Bouterwek, presents Mena
'as an author who continues the established Hispanic tradition and
' Uq
'avoids adoption of the new, Italian forms. Thus, according to
j
IBouterwek, Mena imitates Dante only in genre.
I George Ticknor views the imitation question in terms of Mena’s
I development as a poet. The Coronacion is reminiscent of the Divine
Comedy in motifs and setting: the journey of a poet to the realms of
the supernatural. Ticknor indicates, however, that seven years later,
j in writing his masterpiece, Mena becomes "Dante’s serious imitator.
I Along with the writers who affirm Mena’s imitation of Dante,
! there are others who do not hesitate to indicate differences in the
I
Iworks of the two poets. José Pidal, in a preliminary study to his
edition of the Cancionero de Baena, establishes a fundamental
. 93J
distinction "between Mena and Dante on the "basis of ideology: "El Dante,
a quien quiso sin dudar imitar, puso a su ohra el sello catolico al
poner la escena en el Infierno, en el Purgatorio y en el Paraiso.
Juan de Mena la puso en los circules y ordenes de los planetas, e
imprimio a su ohra de esta manera un carâcter muy distinto del que
j dio a la suya el famoso poeta florentine.
I Amador de los Rios affirms Mena's imitation of his model and
I contends that Mena becomes a disciple of Dante because of the success
of Francisco Imperial and other Spanish imitators of the Italian. For
Amador de los Rios, it is significant that the most important poem
written in the court of Juan II was modeled after the Divine Comedy and
shared its overall transcendental ideal: the chastisement of vice and
praise of virtue. In order to make concrete this ideal or "idea
generadora," as Amador de los Rios calls it, Mena chose the most
I
appropriate form available to him, the allegory. Despite this affinity^
of the Laberinto with the model allegory, Mena displayed a measure of {
i
originality. The critic proceeds to censure foreign writers who have i
52 '
denied Mena this accomplishment. !
!
Following the summary of the Laberinto's plot, Amador de los Rios|
reaffirms his claim for Mena's originality and attempts to wrest from
him the derogatory title of servile imitator. He indicates that,
although there are no scenes in the Laberinto as "poetic" as Francesca,
Inferno "VI; Ugolino, Inferno XXXIII; Bordello, Purgatorio "VI; Lia and
Cacciaguida, Paradiso XV; Mena's mixture of both ancient and
9I +
contemporary characters is more balanced than Dante's. The master
outdoes the disciple, but Mena's condemnation of vices and praise of
virtues is commendable. Amador de los Rios prefers to view Mena in
historical terms as a follower of both Dante and Francisco Imperial in
the task of creating a separate, exclusive literary language,
j The Comte de Puymaigre begins his study of Mena by outlining
I briefly the known facts of Mena's biography, works, and sources.
I
Among the latter Dante is included. Puymaigre studies Dante's influ
ence on Mena in the lyrical poetry and the Laberinto. In the poem
entitled "Dubdo si el soberano," Mena coincides with Dante in "Donne
ch'avette intelleto d'amore" and the other poets of the Dolce stil
nuovo school because he presents the beloved through the use of the
sacred-profane hyperbole of a woman described as a supernatural being.
There are also numerous verbal echoes of Dante in Mena's poem.
In discussing the Laberinto, Puymaigre indicates that, although
the basic ideas in the poem are simila.r to those presented by Dante in
jthe Divine Comedy, Mena's poem lacks the realism and verisimilitude
attained by the Italian poet. The verbal parallels between the two
works include the description of the doorway to Fortune's palace,
jwhich is reminiscent of the presentation of the entrance to the
I Inferno.
I Menendez y Pelayo presents the poet as an imitator of Dante in
I both the minor works and in the Laberinto. In a phrase much quoted
,and later criticized by Maria Rosa Lida, Menendez y Pelayo describes
I
i
.9,5.
j Mena at work writing the Laberinto: "Sobre el escano del antor . . .
I
debio de haber siempre un codice de la Farsalia al lado de otro de la
Divina comedia" (p. l6U). Menendez y Pelayo's basic opinion in com
paring the two poems is that Dante creates a world that is believable
'and populated with human beings, not simply abstract forms as in the
I
j Laberinto and other poems that imitate Dante's model. Mena, however,
i
] demonstrates a degree of originality not found in poets such as
I Imperial in avoiding direct imitation of phrases or situations found
in the Divine Comedy. In terms of style, Menendez y Pelayo is of the
opinion that Mena was the "alma mas Dantesca" (p. l66).
For Menendez y Pelayo, as for Ticknor and Amador de los Rios
previously and Street later, the seven circles and planet arrangement
of the Laberinto derive from the Paradiso, but the allegory of the
three wheels of Fortune is, according to the critic, original in Mena.
The writers reviewed thus far attest-to Mena's imitation of Dante.
They express their conception of this imitation in abstract, general:
lized terms such as "alma Dantesca" and "idea generadora" and appeal
to external, and to a lesser degree internal, textual evidence to
I
support their hypotheses. Particularly apparent is their constant |
use of evaluative comparisons of Mena to his model, Dante. |
An early contribution to the study of Dante’s fame abroad is the
I work of Bernardo Sanvisenti (I primi influssi di Dante, del Petrarca
I
Ie del Boccaccio sulla letteratura spagnuola). In the works of Juan de
;Mena, Sanvisenti sees one of the most complete examples of Dante’s
96
influence on medieval Spanish authors. For Sanvisenti, Dante is. Mena’s
primary source and he points to a series of affinities between the
Laberinto and the Divine Comedy: Mena's guide. Providence, resembles
I Dante's Beatrice more than his Virgil; Beatrice, like Providence,
j
i represents the divine mind; both guides perform similar functions and
jthe poets (as characters) act in resembling ways. Other parallels
I
jbetween the two works include the presentation of Fortune as subject
jto Providence and an administrator of her will; acknowledgement of the
i
: influence of the stars on humans and the categorization of the famous
I
! historic-literary figures according to this influence. Each poet had
I
I
an original system and presentation of the blessed and the damned.
Sanvisenti also sees similarities between Mena and Dante in the
organization, choice, and presentation of characters in the seven |
circles.
I Although Mena preferred to quote Latin sources, images, and situ- ^
jations derived from the literature of venerated antiquity, Dante i
; inspired numerous lines of the Laberinto. Apart from the variety of
■sources used by Mena, Sanvisenti claims that, ". . .il poema del de
^Mena, sarebbe il caso pin. complesso d'imitazione dantesca" (p. 115).
: Dante also serves as the source for Mena's Coronacion.
I
!Sanvisenti, after describing the general plot of the poem, points out
'motives, images, and situations that, for him, find their roots in the
! Divine Comedy. The Coronacion is also generically related to the
I
Divine Comedy and Mena, in his prose commentary, explains the relation
97
quoting from Benvenuto da Imola’s commentary of Dante. They are both
comedies because they begin on a sad note and end happily, Sanvisenti
reiterates that, in several aspects, Mena represents the best qualified
! imitator of Dante. He writes : "La vita pertanto e la disciplina dell’
I
j ingegno, il carattere intrinseco ed estrinseco dell’opera sua
I
jmaggiore . . . fanno si, che . . . Giovanni di Mena possa di quest’
I arte [arte dantesco] chiamarsi il più profonde e rifiessivo
I
Iriproduttore" (p. 120).
î At the outset of his study, Arturo Farinelli indicates his oppo-
I
sition to the opinions of the majority of earlier critics who had
53
viewed Mena as the most complete imitator of Dante in Spain. He
I writes his objections in the form of a familiar comparison: "Juan de
I Mena è minor dantista del sue Mecenate, il dotto marchese; meno
I spontanea, meno viva è la sua ammirazione per il vate sublime e
sublime architetto d’ tre regni. Alio studio di Dante in Ispagna pote
Idar quindi assai maggior incremento il marchese che Juan de Mena"
!(p. 12^). He adds, in further disagreement with previous critics,
I
that is is difficult or impossible to determine from the commonly
cited historical-biographical information regarding Mena’s journey to
I and studies in Italy, during which he probably read the Divine Comedy,
jif these readings actually had any effect on Mena’s later poetic
j productivity.
I From these general introductory statements, Farinelli proceeds to
'review the individual works of Mena in an attempt to determine if and
98
how they reflect Dantesque influence. In two poems, Mena includes
I
Dante among his catalogue of illustrious dead. Sanvisenti*s comments
about the generic relation between the Coronacion and the Divine
Comedy is reiterated by Farinelli. However, aside from similar motifs,
situations, and images, there is little else to suppose an hypothesis
j of Dante's influence on the Coronacion.
j
In Farinelli's discussion of the Laberinto as testimony for a
theory of Dantesque imitation, he disputes the evaluations of ’ .
Puymaigre, Menendez y Pelayo, and especially Sanvisenti that character
ize Mena as a servile imitator, and re-evaluates their opinions.
Farinelli does not view Mena's imitation of Dante as does Menendez y
Pelayo, who suggests that Mena wrote with a copy of the Divine Comedy
at his desk. Nor does Farinelli trace examples of the direct borrow-
I ing of images or vocabulary. Mena's imitation is seen, instead, in the
creation of the allegory, the arrangement of the seven planets, the
distribution of the rewarded and the punished, and the description and
use of the guide figure which are all based on and derive from the
Divine Comedy. In agreement with the judgement of Menendez y Pelayo,
Farinelli describes Mena's inferiority to Dante in terms of his
I
inability to animate abstract ideas.
Farinelli disagrees, however, with Menendez y Pelayo and Puymaigre
who both view the Vita nuova and Canzoniere of Dante as sources for
Juan de Mena's love lyrics, especially the poem "Presumir de vos
loar."55
.99.
Through appeal to the generic and biographical external evidence
and the internal evidence of imagery, Farinelli reappraises previous
assertions and presents his own opinions regarding the sources of
Juan de Mena. The external evidence is, firstly, that Mena lived in
I
jItaly and could have easily known of and read the Italian author
I
jduring his stay, and, second^ that he wrote in two particularly
I medieval modes : the allegorical and courtly-love lyrical.,, both of
I
I which were cultivated by Dante. The internal support is conceptual;
I that is, it deals with the particular working out of the allegorical
j framework model.
I
Chandler Rathfon Post has written extensively on medieval Spanish
! allegorical literature and Dante’s influence in Spain.In his
i
j"Sources of Juan de Mena," he argues that Dante, in fact, is not a
'principal source of Mena, and that other critics, especially
! _ ^ i
1Sanvisenti, who have attributed this role to Dante are simply distort-
i
ing the facts. Although there are similarities between the two authorsj
the parallels do not proceed beyond generalities ; both had a didactic \
!
and patriotic purpose. Instead, the differences are significant ; j
Dante, according to Post, transfigures medievalism but Mena seldom \
irises above it; Mena's penal system is trivial while Dante's is I
! :
'titanic, so also their respective political aims. I
Post's basic hypothesis is that, since Mena wrote in the familiar
and popular allegorical mode, he could have, and probably did, borrow
ideas, motifs, images, themes, and situations from the numerous
100
medieval allegorical works already in existence at the time he was
writing. Dante's Divine Comedy is just one of many allegories. Post
attempts to determine what Dante's influence on Mena consists of and
he uses the canon of this poet's works as the basis for the inquiry.
He supports the thesis that Mena is not indebted to Dante'by
re-evaluating supposed verbal parallels between Mena's works and those
57 58
of Dante, and by comparing the general conceptions, specific
personages, episodes, and style^^ of the Laberinto and the Divine
Comedy.
In negating Dante's influence on Mena, Post challenges the
assertionsoof earlier critics, especially in the area of verbal
reminiscences and general conceptions. For example. Post objects to
Sanvisenti's comparison of Mena turning to Providence:
Bolvime con ayre de dubdosa cara
al ensolvedora de mis ynorancias,
como de niho que de sus ynfancias
la madré benina non triste sépara. . . .
to Dante turning to Virgil in fear:
Volsimi all sinistra col respitto
col quale il fantolin corre alia mamma
quando ha paura, o quand'egli è afflitto.
Post denies Sanvisenti's attribution of the concept of the seven
spheres in the Laberinto to the Paradiso. The criticism, at times,
transcends a mistaken attribution of a line, phrase, or image to
center on a completely erroneous notion of the poetic ideal of each:
"Sanvisenti fails to understand one of the fundamental distinctions
between Dante and Mena, and, indeed between the Italian and Spanish
101
mind and the literature that each produced, according to which the
latter poet-admits in luxuriance all traits that may contribute to
the momentary effect, and the former, in scrupulous regard for
artistic unity . . . eliminates from the plenitude of traits cata
logued in medieval lists under each virtue, vice, and planet all but
jone trait that accords with his final purpose" (p. 2U5) . Nor does the
1
iItalian critic understand Dante’s concept of the character of Fortune;
1 she is not a slave of Providence who over-rules her caprices, but a
willing minister of the inscrutable purpose of Providence, Sanvisenti’s '
attribution of the theory of planetary influence to the Paradiso is
also incorrect because that theory was a medieval commonplace, as were
'the theme of fortune and the use of allegory. Post particularly
i
; objects to calling a poem,in which no verbal parallels occur, the
I t
most complete case of Dante’s influence. j
i I
Sanvisenti, however, is not the only critic whose opinions are ^
censured by Post. In fact, he argues that all writers from Amador de !
los Rios to Farinelli have misconstrued and exaggerated Mena’s indebt- j
edness to Dante for the idea of dividing the places of the blessed I
and the damned. For Post, the Laberinto is reminiscent of the French
journeys to the House of Fortune, The presentation of historical
characters coincides with French and classical sources.
In the Coronacion, Post finds no verbal reminiscences and sees
it as composed mostly from French or Boccaccesque models; the comment
ary derives from Boccaccio or Dante’s commentator, Benvenuto da Imola.
102
The third allegorical composition of Mena, "Debate de Razon contra
la Volantad," owes as little to Dante as do the first two, and it
should be classified rather within the same tradition as the categories
of sins in the Alexandre, the series of medieval debates between the
'body and the soul, or the debates of Reason and Desire.
I The final compositions of Mena that are scrutinized by Post are
: his love lyrics. The critic begins by stating that they are more
likely modeled upon Petrarch's Rime. In tone and style, the love
! verses and, more particularly, "Claro escuro" are Petrarchan. Post
supports the theory of Petrarchan influence by citing parallel ideas,
concepts, and conceits expressed in the works of the two authors. The
poem, "En loor de una dama," is also attributed to Petrarchan influence
and both internal and external evidence is used in support of this
I contention.
Post, in his article, uses both external and internal evidence to
I defend his position about Juan de Mena's sources. He appeals to the
; general literary modes of the period during which Mena wrote, allegory
■and courtly love poetry, and to a rather close scrutiny of texts in
i
'order to better determine what and how much Mena borrowed from Dante.
He reduces Dante's influence to a minor role and attributes to the
period or to Mena's interest in various sources the numerous borrow-
I
lings, as well as verbal and situational reminiscences previously
I
; attributed to Dante. Furthermore, because of his closeness to the
jRenaissance, Mena more highly regarded Petrarch and Boccaccio for their
humanism than Dante.
.103.
In the preliminary study to his edition of the Laberinto, José
Manuel Blecua examines influences on Mena and his artistry. Blecua
sees Dante’s influence in the prose commentary of the Coronacion,
to a lesser degree in the Laberinto. Mena not only knew of Benvenuto
da Imola’s commentary of the Divine Comedy, but. also modeled his own
I commentary after that of Imola. Mena’s definitions of comedy and
; tragedy resemble those given by Imola and even the style of the
i
passages is similar. Furthermore, in dealing with the laurel crown
awarded to poets, Mena directly cites Imola and refers the reader to
his commentary on the subject.
I
Blecua cites the diverse and antagonistic opinions of the earlier 1
j
critics, Sanvisenti, Puymaigre, and Post regarding the fortune theme i
and he himself tends toward acceptance of the fact that a careful i
I
study of the poem would reveal Mena’s affinity for classic authors over,'
I
I medieval ones, including Dante. He cites examples of disputed
I passages, strophe 10, the entrance to the House of Fortune, and ]
j _ I
I strophes 3U to 55, the geographic catalogue. In both these instances |
! Mena seems to combine images and phrases from various sources, both '
! I
I _ I
'medieval and classical, and relies little upon only one source. The
^ 3
; similarity of genre is made complex through extensive borrowings.
' In the first chapter of Juan de Mena, Lida re-evaluates Dante’s
i
! influence on Mena and reviews the controversy this issue has produced
among critics. The generic affiliation of the Laberinto with the
; Divine Comedy, the best known of all medieval allegorical productions.
lOU
fails to preclude the possible or probable relation of Mena's poem
with a series of similar medieval Latin and vernacular productions
that present the poet’s journey to the House of Fortune, where he sees
i pass in review historical-literary characters from the past and
I present, grouped according to ethic or moral codes prevalent during
j that period.
I
j Lida criticizes Post's extreme point of view that Mena owed
I
; nothing to Dante but also sustains his basic assertions. She credits
Post with accomplishing a readjustment of misfocused critical evalua
tions, but censures the critic’s narrow-minded perspective in denying
the fact that, historically, Mena not only knew of the Divine Comedy
but read it and probably borrowed freely fromuit: "... siendo tan
leida la Comedia en Espaha durante el siglo XV, no seria juicioso
:regatear las huellas de su influ jo solo en fuerza del argumente _e ,
,silentio" (p. IT).
I In response to Post’s rotund negation, Lida affirms as "indudable
I
Iorigen dantesco" certain passages and images of the Laberinto. She
jtakes decided issue with Post, and defends Sanvisenti on a similar
i
i reference : "Me parece que la imitacion de estes versos en la copia 74
Isehalada per Sanvisenti y objectada por Post, es cierta no solo
I coincide la imagen en si, sine la situacion entera, y hasta hay una
Icoincidencia verbal en la primera palabra: ’Volsimi,’ ’Boluime.’"
I
Mena employs a critical, selective procedure to rework a tradi-
;tional image and draws from several sources for this purpose. To grasp
105
. —
j the full meaning of Mena's art, according to Lida, we must recognize
that he is not completely dependent upon one or another source,
ancient or medieval, for any given passage, image, situation, des
cription, or concept, hut combines at will, choosing examples from
among his many and varied readings. So then, for Lida, the fundamental
principle of Mena's poetry in relation to its sources is that of
recreation and not servile imitation. In this principle, Mena's
originality is also found.
The application of Mena's recreative precept can be witnessed in
several examples taken from the Laberinto: the disappearance of the
guide, strophe 295, which is taken from Dante, Purgatorio II.8O-8I
and Aeneid VI.700-702 ; the scripture over the portal of Fortune's
palace, strophe 27, which imitates Dante, Inferno III.9, Boccaccio,
Amorosa visione, and Aeneid VI.126-129 and V.19-20.
The tendency to reduce the importance of Dante's influence on
Mena, prevalent in the studies of Post and Farinelli, has caused them
to attribute an excessive amount of importance to Petrarch's Trionfi.
This is clearly seen in dealing with the catalogue of personae from
the circle of Phoebo. Mena, here, is no closer to one than to the
other in ordering his lists: "A diferencia de Dante, Mena reune la
ciencia humana y la divina . . . a diferencia de Petrarca, Mena no
se limita a las glorias grecorromanas . . . su lista es mas rica que la
de Dante y mas pobre que la de Petrarca, y no coincide con ninguna de
,.65
I
las dos ni en los personajes indicados ni en su caracterizacion.
I
106
still more differences among these works are apparent in the enumera- ^
tion of the poets within the order of Phoeho.
In some cases, the existence and propagation of a certain image
taken from Dante and ultimately from classical sources, was due less
I to the prestige it possessed for being part of venerated antiquity,
èS
j and more to its use by Mena.
Latin elements of style and Latin sources predominate in Juan de
Mena but do not preclude the existence of medieval, vernacular,
characteristics. Mena's position as a precursor of the Renaissance
influencedithis preference but also was responsible for his attraction
to Italian sources, especially Dante. He represented in Italian what
Mena was attempting in Spanish: the creation of a dignified poetic
language in the vernacular.
Just as Mena's use of allegory is inevitably related to the
Divine Comedy and other works of that medieval mode, so also Mena's
love lyrics appear to have affinities with the Dolce stil nuovo
poetry of which Dante is probably the most significant exponent. In
terms of this generic relation, it can be said that Mena, when writing
I
"Presumir de vos loar," Cancionero castellano del siglo XV, N. l8, had !
"Donne ch'avete intelletto d'amore" of the Vita nuova in mind; but, |
the laudatory tone of the two poems is the only resemblance because
the attitude expressed in each is different.
I Apart from presenting her own interpretation of the question of
!
I influence, Lida also reviews the opinions of previous writers who were
107
interested in establishing, affirming, or denying Mena's sources.
Maria Rosa Lida's approach to the issue of sources is characteristic
ally dual in nature. Mena was part of a larger literary movement
that produced works that were generically related to each other and
to their sources; but he was also an individual artist who established
and pursued specific artistic and aesthetic principles.
Also, in 1950, Werner P. Friederich published a study of the
early scholarship that dealt with the influence of Dante in Europe
TO
and America. He devotes a section of his book to reviewing the
opinions regarding Dante's influence in Spain that includes a brief biit
succinct presentation of the polemic stemming from allegations of
Dante's influence on Mena, or the lack of it, in the Laberinto, the
Coronacion, and the lyrical poems. Particularly interesting for us
is Friederich's own assessment of the question. He concludes his |
i examination with the words: "It is largely due to Post's two studies ,
I Î
■that the investigation of Dante's influence in Spain has bogged down 1
j in polemics and questions of minute detail" (p. kl). '
Florence Street, in "The Allegory of Fortune," devotes attention i
to the Dante question in an attempt to clarify some of its intricacies.|
Her study is focused from within an historical perspective. She
reviews the evaluations of previous writers and is outwardly critical
of their narrow interpretations and short-sighted affirmations. Mena's
allegory in the Laberinto has as its subject the popular medieval
symbol of Fortune and her wheel, which takes on a new dimension in the
108
poem. Street favors expanding the limits of the comparisons between
the Laberinto and the Divine Comedy offered by earlier critics in order
to view the Laberinto not in comparison to "isolated examples of the
allegory of Fortune," but "against the background of the whole of the
literature of its kind" (p. 3). She asserts that Mena’s concept of
Fortune derives from Boethius and, thus, is different from Dante’s.
Fortune, for Mena (and Boethius) is "an unpleasant creature, ruled
rather against her will by Providence" (p. 4). The Laberinto is just
one example of literature of Fortune produced in Spain during the
fifteenth century and given this fact. Street concludes that "it is
useless . . . to seek precise antecedents for Mena’s allegory of the
I House of Fortune with its multiple Wheels" (p. 4).
® If the fortune theme cannot be traced to a single source, there
i
jare other aspects of Mena’s allegory that can. The second part of
I Street’s essay is devoted to a presentation of these elements in two
■poems. The idea of the concentric circles derives from the Paradiso,
{according to Street, and she presents external evidence that suggests
I that Mena knew of and read the Italian poem and Benvenuto da Imola’s
commentary of it. There is a similarity between the contrasting
visions (heaven-hell) of Coronacion and Dante’s poem, as well as
resemblances in their symbolic geography. Street’s assertions about
Dante’s influence on the Laberinto are in the form of criticism of
those scholars who negate it. She disagrees with Post’s denial of the
I
1 seven circles deriving from the spheres of the Paradiso, andu
109
indicates other images that derive from the Divine Comedy: the pre-^
sentation of Providence; the sins written on sinners’ foreheads,
Purgatorio IX.100 and strophes 56, 109; and Mena's attempting to grasp
72
the vanishing Providence.
In conclusion. Street affirms that Mena borrowed from Dante, but
I nowhere did he admit it openly. Quotations are reserved solely for
{works in Latin. However, Dante and Mena were essentially attempting
i
I the same goal— renewal of their mother tongue through the medium of
the classics and not another vernacular language. Street views the
question of sources, influence, and imitation in a broad perspective.
She is not only interested in the question: does Mena borrow? She
( focuses her investigation around why he borrows and attempts an
I
jhistorical-literary explanation of the phenomenon.
I
A new further approach to the problem of Dante's influence con-
'cerning Mena and other fifteenth century Castilian authors is taken
by David Foster in an article suggestively titled "The Misunderstanding
73
of Dante in Fifteenth Century Spanish Poetry." For Foster, the
important issue is not solely whether Dante was or was not read and
interpreted, but how he was read and interpreted. His examination
focuses on the works of Imperial, 8antillana, and Mena and thus places
the imitation and influence question in a broader literary context.
He refers:to the polemic nature of previous assessments concerning
Mena’s sources and suggests that it is due to the fact that Dante’s
works eclipsed Mena’s. Mena’s grasp of the Divine Comedy is deficient
110
and less informed than the modern reader’s conception of Dante’s work.
The tripartite divisions are similar but the two poets differ funda
mentally in their views of Fortune. This divergence is not, as Post
claims, due to an inability to assimilate but an example of Mena’s
misunderstanding of Dante. Imitation was an important element of
j fifteenth century literary theory and these poets’ deficiencies in
j imitating Dante are reflected clearly in their incapability of compre-
I
bending and copying his works.
For Foster, in disagreeing with the arguments of earlier critics
and perhaps transcending them, the significant issue is more than one
of accepting or denying Dante's influence in Spain, it is under
standing the attested influence as indicative of "the imitative and
tentative assimilation characteristic of that century" (p. 34T).
Dante's influence on Mena is problematic. It is a disputed '
issue. Critics have studied it from a number of perspectives that can
be divided into two broad categories: some appeal to internal or
textual, conceptual evidence, others cite examples of external of bio
graphical, historical, generic relationships. Often, attempts are made
to refute or affirm the assertions made by one or another critic. The
j
! diversity of opinion, the number of comparisons made and, the amount of
I information presented is impressive. The following is a summary of
I
I
{this material: Seven spheres : Ticknor, Menendez y Pelayo, and Sanvisenti
111
affirm that Mena borrowed the idea from the Paradiso. Post denies this
assertion. Street refutes Post’s denial in support of the original
hypothesis. The three wheels : Menendez y Pelayo claims that the Image
is original in Mena. Post says that the only originality is linking
I them to the past, present, and future. Systems of reward and punish-
j ment : Sanvisenti and Farinelli find the systems original in both
I
{authors. Verbal parallels ; Puymaigre, Sanvisenti, Farinelli, Street
jand Lida see verbal,,textual similarities between the Divine Comedy
jand Laberinto in episodes, passages, and characters, including the
description over the gate, the guide figure, and the disappearance of
that figure at the end. Post encounters no parallels. Fortune :
Sanvisenti believes that Mena and Dante view it in the same way. Post,
I
'Street, and Foster find differences in the views of the two poets;
I Dante's Fortune submits to Providence willingly, Mena’s does not. ,
i . , '
Presentation of characters : Amador de los Rios, Menendez y Pelayo, and ,
Farinelli argue that Dante achieves a greater verisimilitude in the
presentation of his characters. Mena’s remain abstractions. Order:
I
Pidal, Blecua, Post and Lida say that the two works differ because
Dante follows strictly theological principles of hierarchy and Mena
blends the sacred and the profane. Tradition: all critics allude
directly or indirectly to the fact that Mena belongs to the medieval
allegorical tradition. Most associate him to Dante for this reason.
Post, and to a lesser degree. Street relate him to the more general
medieval tradition. Poetic ideal; Amador de los Rios, Post, Lida and
112
Street state that Dante and Mena shared the same ideal of creating a
poetic language that was different from prose, in the vernacular.
Mena's travels : Post and Lida indicate that Mena knew of and read Dante
during the time he spent in Italy. Farinelli doubts that this affected
i
I his literary production. Pre-Renaissance : Post, Lida, Street, and
jFoster affirm that Mena viewed Dante in a certain way because he lived
{in a period of transition from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance.
I
! Imitation : Sanvisenti sees Mena as a perfect imitator of Dante. Post
categorically denies any relation between the two poets. Most other
critics present a moderate opinion, which can be classified between
these extremes. {
! The issues involving the Coronacion and lyrical poetry are '
fewer in number but also represent divergencies among critics. Mode : I
I :
;Ticknor, Sanvisenti, Farinelli, and Street view the Coronacion as
1 similar in genre to the Divine Comedy, as an allegorical journey to the^
I supernatural realms. Commentary: Sanvisenti, Post, Blecua and Lida j
jclaim that the commentary of Benvenuto da Imola influenced Mena’s own |
; I
{commentary of the Coronacion. Lyrical poetry. Vita nuova: Puymaigre
; and Menendez y Pelayo assert that Mena’s lyrical poetry resembles
I
! Dante’s Vita nuova and Canzoniere. Post denies this claim and asserts
!
I that Mena owes more to Petrarch. Lida says that Mena probably had the
i Vita nuova in mind but he avoids following-it completely.
!
■Other Medieval Sources
As early as Quintana, critics were interested in identifying,
■describing, and defining Mena’s relation to his medieval, vernacular
113_
sources. Along with Dante, Quintana felt that Petrarch was an impor
tant model for Mena and the works of both poets were known in Spain
at the time Mena wrote. Quintana limits commentary on the matter to
j this reference.
; Puymaigre associates Mena’s lyrics with the Provençal and Dolce
j stil nuovo schools. He mentions Fazio degli Uberti’s, "Peccati mor-
{tali," in Rime de Cino da Pistoia, Florence, l862, in reference to
I
jMena’s "Debate de la Razon contra la Voluntad," but essentially
reduces Mena’s sources to two, as already mentioned: Lucan and Dante.
Menendez.y Pelayo refers to the poetry of Petrarch and his
inferior use of the allegory when compared with that of Dante. The
characters of the Trionfi do not hold for the reader the same interest
; or have the same life-like qualities as Francesca, Casella, Farinata,
I etc.. Mena’s allegory is closer to Petrarch’s in emotional content
'than to Dante’s.
I Sanvisenti, who more than any other critic, viewed Mena as a
!
{complete imitator of Dante, also admits to the influence of another
I
I medieval work upon Mena; the presentation of Fortune closely parallels
'that of Roman de la rose. Both the Laberinto and Coronacion depend
on this medieval French work.
Farinelli also contends that the allegory of the Coronacion
I
1 follows Roman de la rose. He asserts that Petrarch is the model for
I
I
iMena’s lyrical poetry, but, that these are general and isolated
reminiscences and are subordinate in importance to the primary source,
Dant e.
Il4
Post categorically denies Mena’s imitation of, or indebtedness
to, Dante, and claims that Mena’s models are other medieval authors,
especially French and Italian poets. In the general conception of
the Laberinto, passages, lists of characters, and episodes all derive
from, or are at least similar to, well-known medieval works. The
I
^ allegory of Mena’s poem is a commonplace in vernacular and Latin
' medieval literature and well represented in specific poems from the
twelfth to the fifteenth centuries. Among them, Roman de la rose which
borrowed the idea of fortune’s inconsistencies from Anticlaudianus and
Boethius; Baudouin de Conde’s Prision d’amors which presents Fortune
as deciding lovers’ fates and employs the wheel image; Escharbote, by
Watriquet de Couvin, in which Fortune is the central figure and the
poet travels to her city; the fourteenth century Chevailier errant of
Tommaso di Saluzzo which presents the poet travelling to Fortune’s
house and, there, sees ancients and moderns and listens to their judge
ments; Regime de Fortune which is modeled after Roman de la rose;
Regne de Fortune in which Fortune’s havoc is presented; and Kingiis
Quair which depicts Fortune at her wheel. Also of French derivation is
the denunciation of Fortune in the preface of a poem as in the
Laberinto. Other works that deal with the medieval theme include
Boccaccio’s Amorosa visione and Federico Frezzi’s Quadrireggio. All of
these examples are related generically to the Laberinto and demonstrate
T4
Mena’s interest in allegorical works after Dante.
Apart from these general parallels, there are more precise
similarities between the Laberinto and other medieval poems. The
115
description of the entrance to Fortune’s palace is reminiscent of
Amorosa visione. The language describing Fortune’s nature in terms
of opposites, derives from the Anticlaudianus and Mena’s conception of
the deity resembles Boccaccio’s in Amorosa visione. Boccaccio’s
treatment presents models for Mena’s own description of the House of
I ‘ 75
I Fortune, and even some of the characters who have been her victims.
I Geographical catalogues are found in works like Somnium
'Scipionis, and the Alexandre. Boccaccio’s Ameto also presents a
I global vista. The Dittamondo of Fazio degli Uberti gives a similar
survey, although it is not certain that Mena knew of the work. Mena
knew of and imitated the Speculum Naturale of Vicente Beauvais, and
; to this general model he added information from other geographies.
I
. Visions of the abodes of the blessed and damned are medieval
; I
'commonplace, and meeting the dead is a familiar theme in medieval i
I . ' . '
1 poetry.- Examples in English and French allegorical works include Lay
i I
iamoureux of Eustache des Champs, Paradys d’amour of Jean Froissart, ,
I . I
'the Confessio Amantis of John Gower, "Voie d’enfer et de paradis" of
j ,
; Raoul de Houdan, Pelerinage de l’ame by Guillaume de Guileville, and j
Livre de la mutacion de Fortune of Christine de Pisan. If any
1
Italian poet was imitated by Mena it was Petrarch of the Trionfi. The
bases of the Coronacion are to be found in Imperial’s verses on the |
birth of Juan II. Zenone da Pistoia wrote a panegyric for Petrarch
I
: in which he presents the nine muses. There are no verbal reminiscences
'between the two poems, however, and Post doubts if Mena knew of the
ll6
Fietosa fonte. Mena’s stylistic difficulties derive from Boccaccio
in the Filocolo. The vision, proceeding from a sad state to a happy
one, is common in French dits.
Post attempts to minimize Dante’s influence on Mena and in order
to do it, he explores other sources with which Mena was probably
I
I familiar and from which he derived passages, descriptions, and ideas.
{Many of these models were medieval French and Italian. He appeals to
' • 76
[textual evidence but also relates Mena’s poems to others of their
kind written during or before the Spanish poet’s time, principally
; allegorical poems that deal with Fortune and those that present a
jvision of the supernatural. Post studies sources to prove an hypo-
1
I thesis; Mena was or could have been indebted to many sources both
! medieval and classical, and among those numerous models, the Divine
j Comedy and the Vita nuova represent just two possibilities.
■ Maria Rosa Lida reiterates Mena’s relationship to numerous
I j
.allegorical poems that present the theme of fortune. The question if j
! I
‘the erudite Mena knew or did not know of these poems is superfluous. |
! It matters, however, that he did not imitate or follow any of these [
I
authors completely; Boethius, Alaine de Lille in Anticlaudianus,
Roman de la rose and Dante, Inferno VII. 67-96, but represents an :
I
original concept based, in part, on Boethius. Mena’s prose commentary !
to the Coronacion is like that of Boccaccio in the Filocolo,
!
[especially in its rhetorical characteristics. Mena also imitates
; contemporaries. The motif of the throne of Juan II derives from
'Santillana, "Coronacion de Mossen Jordi," 10 and 11.
„117l
In a brief study, Luis Felipe Londley Cintra identifies the Liber
Regum as a source of the Laberinto in the enumeration of the Visigothic
and Spanish kings presented in the history and in the fifteenth century;
77
poem.
Street reviews Post’s allegations about Mena's medieval sources
^and counters his assertions: his "work is marred by a lamentable
{tendency to deduce imitation of Boccaccio and Petrarch on little
{evidence, and of French sources on next to no evidence at all" (p. 2). |
1 Furthermore, Post relies heavily upon internal evidence. Mena never
I quotes or mentions one single French work; his preferences are for
j Latin and Italian sources. The Anticlaudianus and the Quadrireggio
I
I
I are the only medieval works of Post’s list that influence the Laberinto
;and, even then, not to any important degree. Street also disputes
I Post's allegations on the resemblance of the Coronacion vision to
earlier Spanish visions and especially those of the Italians, Petrarch {
and Boccaccio, and affirms that the combined (heaven-hell) vision j
comes from Dante. The assembly of famous persons gathered to give I
honor to others comes from the Inferno, although Boccaccio in his |
1
Amorosa visione has a similar gathering. Mena’s work resembles |
Dante’s in that they both give Virgil greater importance over the other {
poet s.
For Joaquin Gimeno Casalduero, the Laberinto is not a work built
upon the reworking of European themes, but a continuation of the
Spanish tradition. It is in this tradition that Mena finds his
118
source: Francisco Imperial, "Decir al nacimiento de Juan II."
Imperial, following the theories of Dante in De Monarchia, envisioned
a glorious sovereign for Castile and a powerful monarchy. He creates
in the "Decir" the perfect monarch; seven mythological gods. Fortune,
1 nobility, and the four Cardinal and three Theological Virtues combine
j to bestow on the infant, Juan, the qualities necessary to be that
I monarch. Mena sees that this prophecy of glory has failed to come
I
true. In the Laberinto he reviews the current state of affairs
against the background of Imperial's monarch and presents to the king
the great deeds prophecised by Fortune in the "Decir" and Providence
in the Laberinto as already complete. His goal is to move the king
to action.
I In Mena's presentation of Juan II in the Laberinto, the actual
!
I political-historical aspects are in vivid contrast to the idealized
attributes assigned to Juan II by Imperial. The basic arrangement of
the two poems is similar, but the actual working out of the details
' T 8
'differs markedly. Mena, in paying honor to the king, follows
Imperial but without proposing to create the ideal monarch according to
Dante as Imperial does. Both Mena and Imperial place the king above
Fortune, but Imperial's description coincides with the poem's tone and
design, to paint the perfect monarch, whereas in Mena's poem, that is
concerned with the present state of affairs, the description of the
king is in contrast with the reality presented by the poet.
Imperial's allegorization of the king serves as a model for
79
episodes in which Mena praises Juan II. The figure of Juan II
119.
ensconced is in contrast to the flaws and weaknesses Mena alludes to
in other passages. Thus, Mena glorifies the king, following Imperial,
but also points to his political ineffectiveness. The virtue. Justice,
is awarded to the king in the "Decir." In the Laberinto, Mena presents
the corruption of the laws (Justice) in the circle of Jupiter; Justice
I is prostrate at the feet of the monarch. In both Venus and Phoebus,
j Justice is again discussed; the first calls for the restoration of
I
j force and compassion in governing, the second, for the necessity of
jPrudence. Juan II, in Mena's poem, appears royally but with limita
tions. The hyperboles of the "Decir" are used by Mena to depict his
monarch and to inform him of his duties. This study of sources leads
Gimeno Casalduero to identify and describe the structure of the
Laberinto.
Recently, Derek Carr has discovered another Spanish source for
; one of Mena's episodes, strophe 65; Enrique de Villena's Doze trabajos
I ^ 3o
j de Hercules. Mena, in this strophe, tells of two of Hercules'
I
jtwelve labors, the Caledonian bore and the Harpies, which are not
generally associated with Hercules. Ho other author mentions them
except Villena. Moreover, there is a verbal parallel between the
narration of Villena and that of Mena.
José Pascual, in "Los doze trabajos de Hercules fuente de
algunas glosas a La Coronacion de Juan de Mena," sees Villena as
Mena's source for his commentary on four passages of the Coronacion.
Although Post suggested that Mena, in the commentary of the characters
120
Ixion, Cerbus, Pheneus, and the Harpies, drew from the Aeneid, and
secondarily from Boethius and Ovid, Pascual argues that Mena probably
followed Villena in the four examples and demonstrates this idea
I
jthrough textual comparisons. However, Mena differs from Villena in
I
! failing to mention Hercules or in correcting the poet’s attribution of
_these labors to him. In this, Mena differs from Villena, Santillana,
and also himself in the Laberinto, strophe 65. Pascual suggests
jthree answers for this inconsistency: firstly,'the Coronacion
I represents, an evolution of thought over the Laberinto. The established
I
! chronology fails to support this contention. Second, Mena as poet is
I different from Mena as commentator who attempts to correct the
'exaggerations of the poets. Pascual hints at a third possibility. An
I
iunknown commentator deleted the erroneous allusions to Hercules or
I corrected the mistaken attributions, as in the case of the Harpies.
I
I
;Pascual reiterates that this last possibility is only an hypothesis
and cannot be proven until an adequate critical edition of the
'Coronacion is available. The study of sources demonstrates the need
for a critical edition and the problems involved in creating one.
I
iConclusions and Observations
1 Juan de Mena’s literary sources have occupied the attention of |
I ;
jmany critics over the years. We have seen the work that these critics j
I I
Iperform. They are interested in identifying, defining, and explaining j
I
the sources of names, words, phrases, episodes, images, and concepts 1
121.
I used by Mena in his works. The main questions for them are, then:
i
I how did Mena come to write the Laberinto and other prose and poetic
i
; works? Where did he obtain his information? The fact that Mena was
' well educated and widely read indicates that his sources are erudite
'and his raw material proceeds from books, other literary works, and
I philosophical and theological treatises. These written sources are
I
I of three general categories: classical and early medieval .Latin:; ,
I Dantesque and other medieval vernacular sources.
' After establishing the basic categories from which Mena drew his
‘ I
information, other issues are investigated: how does he borrow? How
'much does he borrow? Why? Without repeating here all the possible j
I
.responses given to these questions, we can simply recall the diversity ^
I of opinions and the disputes about one or another detail. I
Critics also engage in theoretical discussions. From these
rather objective questions, they proceed to more abstract concepts ;
I such as influence and borrowing. Here, too, the diversity of opinion ■
! is proportionate to the number of critics that have researched Mena's i
I I
I sources. For some, influence means verbal parallels. Remember |
'post's position. For others, conceptual or structural similarities j
are sufficient evidence on which to base a theory of influence. The |
I I
! fact that two authors write about the same theme in vaguely the same [
: i
Iway is also an indication that one borrowed from the other. Remember j
I j
,the arguments in favor of Dantesque influence in the Laberinto and i
i
'Coronacion presented on the basis of a generic relation between the i
122
I works. The answers to these theoretical questions, seldom given
explicitly, cover the complete spectrum from word for word translation,
through paraphrasing, to conceptual and structural resemblance and
'similarity of purpose.
' The answers to all the foregoing questions also lead to defini-
^tions of theories of art and aesthetics. Mena views and uses his
I sources in a way particular to his time, and according to a set of
principles that characterize him as a writer of a transitional period
I who is dissatisfied with his inherited tradition, but who is unsure of
a new direction. He differs markedly from medieval authors in his
j selective combination of venerated sources (as opposed to faithful
reproduction), but is also related to them. In Mena, medieval
didacticism is infused into the copying of classical models.
The questions and procedures are part "-of the generic critic’s
■ concern about identifying sources and explaining their use in the
I name of scholarship. Besides elucidating the poetic text for its
better understanding and appreciation, these same critics have other,
'more specific, aims that they attempt to accomplish through source
studies. Post examines Mena's sources in order to prove a thesis that
I is the antithesis of the opinions of earlier critics. He more than
1
'claims what Mena's sources are, he demonstrates what they are not.
'Maria Rosa Lida is interested in Mena's duality of perspective as a
writer characteristic of the pre-Renaissance. She afford us a precise
reason for this interest: "Lo interesante es ver . . . como o para que
123.
se han acercado a elles [Virgil, Lucan, Ovid] les hombres este es, la
reaccion activa, creadora, de les diverses lectores trente a unes
mismos libres" (p. 532). Dorothy Clotelle Clarke approaches sources
! in order to demonstrate that Mena wrote in a particular genre, and the
examination leads her to pronounce a statement about Mena's art:
"More interesting than mere identification for its own sake of Mena's
sources for this or that passage is a study of his intertwining of
materials from Classical heroic works in such a way that we are
'periodically reminded of ancient epic (as such), which thus becomes
'secured to the new and serves as both epic reinforcement and ornamenta-
Ition of epic" (p. 6o). Establishing authorship of an anonymous
itreatise attributed to Mena is the goal of Florence Street's investiga-:
I
'tion of sources. For Joaquin Gimeno Casalduero, source study is the. \
I
I key to the identification and description of the form and structure
! of the Laberinto: ". . .el viaje en el que descansa la arquitectura
del Laberinto procédé del Libro VI de la Eneida, la composicion de j
la obra . . . dériva del Decir al nacimiento de Juan II de Francisco j
Imperial" (p. 139). José Pascual indicates that a discussion of i
!
! _ I
’sources, demonstrates the need for an adequate critical edition of the |
Coronacion, and initially indicates the difficulties to be en-
* countered in producing such an edition.
I
What generic critics do, then, is much broader and more signifi
cant than a first glance at their work would indicate. Their aims
transcend mere identification which becomes simply a means to an end.
12h
Thus 5 the study of sources is associated with aesthetic theory, struc
ture, questions of authorship, and the need for critical editions, and
is a well-researched area of the criticism of Juan de Mena.
i . 1 2 5 J
NOTES
CHAPTER III
I Rudolph Schevill, Ovid and the Renascence in Spain, University
I of California Publications in Modern Philology, Vol. h (Berkeley :
I University of California Press, 1913), pp. 3-H.
i 2
The general pattern for this first type of source identifica-
' tion is that the commentator tells the brief story alluded to in the
; poetic text and then mentions the source of the original or long
'version. References to the model are usually precise.
! ^ Hernan Nunez has occasioned a substantial amount of critical
: studies in his own right. Paul Groussac has studied Nunez's life and
,work in, "Le Commentateur du Laberinto," Revue Hispanique, 11 (l90U),
,165-22U; and Florence Street devotes attention to Nunez as an early
ieditor of Mena's works in "Hernan Nunez and the Earliest Printed
! Editions of Mena's Laberinto de Fortuna," Modern Language Review,
161 (1966), 51-63. See chapter II of this dissertation for more infor-
I mation.
; ^ I quote from the Anvers edition (1552), Las trezientas d'el
:famosissimo poeta luan de Mena, glosadas por Fernân Nunez, p. U85.
^ Nunez, Las trezientas, p. ±hh. The commentator corrects Mena
in no uncertain terms : "Juan de Mena se engaho. . . ." "Juan de Mena
confunde la fabula. ..." He not only rectifies errors in Mena but
^ also in the original source he copied from: "Cay6 en este error
Isidoro." Florence Street, "Hernan Nunez," p. 52, attributes this
exceedingly confident attitude to Nunez's classical learning that
iwas, according to the critic, superior to Mena's.
^ I quote from the Répudiés edition (180U), Las obras del famoso
poeta Juan de Mena, p. 280.
7
In most passages of the witch episode, el Brocense signals the
influence of Lucan, pp. 291-295.
126
For later critics, these annotations make the already difficult
text of Mena even more difficult and pedantic. Schevill, Ovid, p. 72,
comments: "The references to stories or ideas to be found in Ovid are
chiefly of that purely academic nature which reveals little that is
inspired, and which logically prompted a commentary by one Fernân
Nunez . . . whose pedantry is only exceeded by his disproportionate
longwindedness."
^ José Amador de los Rios, Historia critica de la literatura
espahola (1865; facs. rpt. Madrid: Gredos, 1969)9 VI, IO6.
Comte de Puymaigre, La Cour littéraire de Don Juan II Roi de
Castille (Paris: Franck, 1873)9 II, 8l. By imitating Lucan, Mena
was also inspired to write a national epic as did Ronsard in France a
century later. Puymaigre’s observation is reiterated by Dorothy
Clotelle Clarke in Juan de Mena's "Laberinto de Fortuna": Classic Epic
j and Mester de Clerecia ' (University, Miss: Romance Monographs, 1973)9
p. 10, n. 3.
Puymaigre, La Cour, pp. 8O-8I, "la Divine comédie a cependant
eu une action et une action salutaire sur ce style, justement parce
que la simplicité des certaines comparaisons dantesques était faite
pour atténuer 1'enflure dont la Pharsale. . .
12 .
Besides the conceptual and stylistic relation of Mena to Lucan,
Puymaigre indicates other classical borrowings in the texts which he
translates: "Ca he visto, dize, sehor, nuevos yerros," derives from
Pharsalia I, "En la partida des resto Troyano. . ." is inspired in
Aeneid VI.326 ff., and most importantly, the storm prognostic and
sorceress episodes imitate Pharsalia V and VI respectively.
1 13
j Marceline Menendez y Pelayo, Historia de la poesia castellana
j en la edad media, ed. Adolfo Bonilla y San Martin (Madrid, 191^), II,
; 169• He concludes by commenting, "no imita de este modo quien no
jtiene aima profundamente poética" (p. I69).
] Menéndez y Pelayo, Historia de la poesia, pp. I7O-I7I. The
I strophe that begins, "Ca he visto, dize, sehor, nuevos yerros," copies
.Pharsalia I; the Amyclas image is from Pharsalia V. Mena derives
I imagery, episodes and ideas from Lucan and follows him in isolated
.phrases and utterances : "la mas que civil batalla" taken from the
'"Copias contra los pecados mortales," resembles the line, "bella per
,Aematios plus quam civilia campos," Pharsalia I.l.
127
Bernardo Sanvisenti, I primi influssi di Dante, del Petrarca
e del Boccaccio sulla letteratura spagnuola (Milan, 1902). His study
of Mena's works comprises pp. 80-120 of the monograph.
Schevill, Ovid, pp. 72-81 are dedicated to reviewing Ovidian
influence on Mena's poetry.
' The pedantic use of the word "penatigero" also derives from
I Ovid, Metamorphoses XV .k'^0 .
Other'examples of the erudite quality of Mena's imitations
; include allusions to "Europa": "vimos aquella que Europa dixeron,"
; strophe U2, taken from Metamorphoses 11.83 ff. and Fasti IV; the
I labyrinth and Theseus, strophe 43, that derive from Metamorphoses
lVIII.155 ff. I
Schevill, Ovid, pp. 77-78. For Schevill, the only redeeming |
1 quality of these "dry lists" given by Mena is that they were taken j
.from a well-known classical source. !
; 2 Q _ ^ !
Schevill, Ovid, pp. 78-79. The story of Pasiphae, strophe j
|104, is told in Ars Amatoria 1.289 ff. and Metamorphoses VIII.136-137 ; |
I the verse, "non supo darse reparos en amando," strophe 130, along with '
iwords or phrases "males," "dulces saludes," are part of the fifteenth |
century courtly love tradition vocabulary that ultimately derives
! from Ovid. |
21
Schevill, Ovid, p. 80. Laberinto 4l and Coronacion 38.
I
j 22
Chandler Rathfon Post, "The Sources of Juan de Mena," Romanic
iReview, 3 (l912), 223-279.
I
I 23
j Post, "Sources," pp. 255-257, quotes the episode of the storm
Iprognostic as another example of combinative patterns employed by
iMena in rendering classical sources. In the description of the
! corneja, strophe 172, Mena combines both Latin sources, Géorgie
II.388-389 and Pharsalia V.555-556.
! 24
I Post, "Sources," p. 258. Other Virgilian reminiscences in-
; elude the grasping of the vanishing guide, strophe 295, and the warning
■over the gate of Fortune's House, strophe 27. See the Dante section
.of this chapter for more information.
128
25
Post, "Sources," p. 267. Strophe 45 makes reference to Atlas,
"Las quales contando en ante/el romance de Athalante," mentioned in
Aeneid I.740-746 and IV.247, 74l. Mena recalls Aeneid IV.174 ff., in
which Fame proclaims the glory of Aeneas and Dido, and beseeches her
to do the same for the Marques de Santillana.
Jo.se Manuel Blecua, ed. , El Laberinto de Fortuna o las Tres-
cientas (1943; rpt. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, 1973), pp. xxiii, xxxii,
xlvii-lvii.
27
Blecua, Laberinto, p. xxiv. Blecua also quotes from "Razona-
miento que faze Johan de Mena con la muerte" to show the poet's
interest in Ovid as an authority.
28
Maria Rosa Lida, Juan de Mena, poeta del prerrenacimiento
espanol (Mexico: Colegio de Mexico, 1950).
29
Lida, Juan de Mena, pp. 35-38. From Virgil, "Multaque
praeterea uariarum monstra ferarum," Aeneid VI.285, that is imitated
; in strophe 34, "bestias e gent es de estrahas maneras/monstruos, e
jformas fingidas e veras," also cited by Post. From Statius, Mena
; borrows the root of the word "Europa." The description of Sicily's
I volcanoes derives from the Metamorphoses V.S4 ff. and Aeneid III.571
Iff. The most significant addition to the De Imagine Mundi is the
j introduction of the patriotic theme, strophes 42-43.
! Lida, Juan de Mena, p. 4l. Through this study of sources
}Maria Rosa Lida succinctly reiterates her hypothesis concerning Mena's
poetic ideals:
Decir que "en quasi cosa ninguna se aparta" del tratado
De imagine mundi es exacto en tanto que lo que Mena dice
casi siempre coincide en contenido con el texto latino;
es inexacte en tanto que lo que Mena dice représenta una
reducidisima parte del texto, y en tanto no subraya . . .
la elaboracion poética de los dates que toma de su fuente.
Y esta reducciôn de contenido demuestra que si la tradi-
ciôn formai de su poema le impone como motive obligado la
vision panorâmica del mundo, su atencion ya no se siente
atraida por el contenido. Lo mismo résulta del cotejo
con las fuentes en otros episodios tildados de prolijos:
Mena, poeta de esencial transiciôn, ya no refleja cabaimente
el espiritu medieval, pero. como solo en parte le sobrepasa
y en parte sigue aside todavia a sus convenciones, es la
suya una creaciôn frustrada que adolece a la vez de las
fallas de lo premature y de lo caduco.
129
31
Lida, Juan de Mena, pp. 4l-45. Among the imprécisions regard
ing the use of mythological allusions, Lida points out strophe 65, in
which the Caledonian hore episode is listed as one of the labors of
Hercules. See the review" of Derek Carr's note below for an explana
tion of this misrepresentation. Regarding Post's thesis that Mena
; drew from Vicente de Beauvais, Speculum Naturale for his world geo-
I graphy, Lida argues that the passages are closer in style and content
I to the Etymologiae and De Imagine Mundi than to Speculum Naturale.
I
32
Lida, Juan de Mena, p. 54. These include strophes 102-104, and
J269. The line, "Medea la ynutil nigromantessa," derives from two
I Ovidian sources, Heroides XII .163-173 and Remédia Amoris. The des
cription of magic's power in love is modeled after Ars Amatoria II.
99-102. This final reference is also cited by Schevill.
33
Lida, Juan de Mena, pp. 56-57* The Canon Chronicus was an
jimportant source for historians of the Middle Ages. In reference to
I Mena's use, Lida indicates that it is the only source to provide
I information about Julio Gabiniano, named by Mena.
I
j Lida, Juan de Mena, pp. 74-75* Previously, Lida had criticized
I Post’s misunderstanding of Mena's art and Menendez y Pelayo's incorrect
I assertion about the poet's source of the description, "nin baten las
•alas los alciones," pp. 70-71 and n. 6l.
! Q R
I Lida, Juan de Mena, p. 79 * She adds, "juicios como los de
!Menendez [y] Pelayo o el del Brocense 'esto todo es de Lucano' falsean
'la relacion de los versos del Laberinto con sus originales,"
36
Also cited by Menendez y Pelayo. See h. l4 of this chapter.
37
In Historia de las ideas esteticas en Espaha (Madrid, I89I-92),
XII, 225 ff. The text of the Tratado has been published by Ch. V.
Aubrun, "Un Traité de l'amour attribué à Juan de Mena," Bulletin
Hispanique, 50 (1948), 333-344, and recently by Maria Luz Gutiérrez
Araus, éd., Tratado de amor: atribuido a Juan de Mena (Madrid; Ediciones
Alcalâ, 1975). See chapter II of this dissertation for a further
review of the question of authorship.
38
I See the section of her monograph entitled "Ante la antiguedad,"
:PP. 529-534.
39
I Florence Street, "The Allegory of Fortune and the Imitation
! of Dante in the Laberinto and Coronacion of Juan de Mena,"
.Hispanic Review, 23 (1955), 1-11.'
130
Florence Street, "La paternidad del Tratado del amor,"
Bulletin Hispanique, 54 (1952), 15-33. Street mentions the often
quoted biographical information that links Mena to Lucan on the basis
of common birthplace.
A. Morel-Fatio, "Les Deux 'Omero' castillans," Romania, 25
(1896), III-I29, also claims the Ylias Latina as the source for Mena's
Yliada en romance or Omero romaneeado.
42
Joaquin Gimeno Casalduero, "Notas sobre el Laberinto de
Fortuna," Modern Language Notes, 79 (1964), 125-139*
Clarke, Juan de Mena's, p. I8, mentions "Decir al nacimiento"
in which Francisco Imperial depicts a similar character: in fact,
the two poems are probably related: "His 'Decir al nacimiento' was
undoubtedly known by Mena and had some influence on him in the concep
tion of the Laberinto de Fortuna . . . the latter may be sort of a
sequel to it in both concept and style." See also Gimeno Casalduero,
"Notas sobre el Laberinto de Fortuna," reviewed further in the
medieval sources section of this dissertation chapter.
44
According to Clarke, Mena is a miniaturist and for this reason
critics have failed to recognize epic features in his poem.
The similarities include Fortune's aloofness to her devotees
and her obscurity as a shape. The differences are that Mena's charac
ter inspires anger in the poet and owes answers to higher powers;
Lucan's character receives indifference and is free to do as she
wishes.
46
Mena was able to present Fortune as submissive to Providence
and thus harmonize pagan and Christian elements.
47
! Arnold Reichenberger, "Classical Antiquity in Some Poems of
I Juan de Mena," in Studia Hispanica in Honorem R. Lapesa, ed. Damaso
j Alonso et al. (Madrid: Gredos, 1975), III, 405-4l8.
j A. Morel-Fatio, "Vicente Noguera et son discours sur la langue
; et les auteurs d'Espagne," Zeitschrift fur Romanische Philologie, 3
I(1879), 131.
49
Frederick Bouterwek, History of Spanish and Portuguese Litera-
Iture, trans. Thomasina Ross (London: Boosey and Sons, 1823), I, 92.
131
George Ticknor, History of Spanish Literature (New York: Harper
and Brothers, 184-9 ) , 1, 383.
José Pidal, ed.. Caneionero de Baena (Madrid, I861). The
reference is cited in Maria Rosa Lida, Juan de Mena, p. 392. This
edition of the Cancionero de Baena has been unavailable to me.
32
José Amador de los Rios, Historia critica, p. 99. He writes:
'"Bouterwek noté directemente que se advierta en Mena alguna que otra
jimitacion del Dante, dada la filiacion de escuela. ... . Ticknor,
[tratando de la Coronacion, la califica de imitacion servil, y no con-
;cede mayor originalidad al Labyrintho."
I
I 53
i Arturo Farinelli, Dante in Ispagna, Francia, Inghilterra,
' Germania (Turin, 1922). The chapter on Dante in Spain is a modified
version of the author’s "Appunti su Dante in Ispagna nell' età media,"
:Giornale storico della letteratura italiana, supplemento 8 (1905),
a-105.
I !
I 54 I
I Farinelli, Dante in Ispagna, p. 129, u. 1. Farinelli, in j
I complete disagreement with Sanvisenti, says "Tutte dubbie sono le |
Ipochissime reminiscenze dantesche che il Sanvisenti vorrebbe scorgere
!qua e là nei versi del Labyrintho." Previously, he had commented
I about earlier studies of the Laberinto in general and about Sanvisenti ’ s '
'study in particular : "non difettavano le analisi . . . ma il j
■ Sanvisenti ha pur voluto aggiungerne una sua. . . . In verita, nulla
dice che altri non abbia detto meglio di lui" (p. 128, n. 2). '
■ I
[ Farinelli, Dante in Ispagna, p. 136. Although there are pro- I
Ibably traces of Dolce stil nuovo sentiment in Mena’s poetry and_ |
Mena probably read Dante’s lyrical poems while in Italy, Farinelli j
fails to be convinced that Mena was inspired by either the Vita nuova '
or by the Canzonier e. For a review of the opinions of Sanvisenti and !
Farinelli see ¥.H. Hutton, "The Influence of Dante in Spanish Litera- |
ture," Modern Language Review, 3 (1908), 105-125, but especially <
■ 118-119. 1
I 56
j These studies include "The Beginnings of the Influence of I
iDante in Castilian and Catalan Literature," Twenty-Sixth Annual Report
! of the Dante Society (19OT-O8), 1-5T, and Medieval Spanish Allegory
I(Cambridge : Harvard University Press, I915).
132.
37
Post mentions the warning at the gate of Hell, Inferno
: V.19-20, and the House of Fortune, strophe 27; the poet attempting to
! grasp the vanishing guide, Aeneid VI.700-702, Purgatorio II.8O-8I, and
j strophe 294; Francesca, Inferno V.103 and Macias' lament, strophe I06;
' and lists of philosophers in the catalogues.
Included under this category are the presentation of Fortune
and the figure of the guide, the geographical catalogue, the wild
beasts, the celestial spheres, and the subdivisions of the abodes of
' the blessed and the damned.
59
Persons and episodes include: the sorceress of Valladolid, the
Conde de Niebla and Lorenzo Davalos. Regarding style. Post discusses
the use of simile. According to him, both style and episodes trace
to classical sources and not to Dante.
Post, "Sources," p. 233. Lida refutes this objection. See
60
below.
Post, "Sources," p. 273. Post reviews the opinions of earlier
writers: "Puymaigre . . . and Menendez y Pelayo . . . are the chief
exponents of a theory of Dantesque imitation in Juan de Mena's lyrics.
Sanvisenti slights the subject absolutely. Farinelli . . . doubts the
Dantesque strain but adduces no evidence."
The external evidence is that in the rest of fifteenth century
Castilian literature, Dante's lyrics were not imitated. The internal
evidence consists of similar presentations of the lady through conceits
and hyperboles, and the additional fact that in the poem "En loor de
una dama" Mena actually names Petrarch.
^ 3
Blecua, Laberinto, p. liii. The editor cites an example re-I
flecting an important difference between Mena and Dante: the presenta
tion of characters. In the Laberinto, characters (and actions) of
antiquity have value as exemplaries. In Dante, the presentation of
characters carries with it a significant theological overtone. In
Mena, characters are simply models of good or bad.
Lida, Juan de Mena, p. I80. Other borrowings cited by Lida
that reflect multiple sources include the child image, the dark cloud
enveloping the poet, and the arrival of Providence. This latter
reference is similar to the appearance of Beatrice in Purgatorio XXX.28
and the lady in Amorosa visione of Boccaccio.
133:
65
1 Lida, Juan de Mena, p. 48. A basic difference in concepts also
I is seen in this catalogue, Dante admits only those characters to each
j circle that have shown its trait and this according to Christian doc-
, trine; Mena admits both pagans and Christians who have shown the least
■ bit characteristic of a given category.
66
Lida, Juan de Mena, pp. 501-503. The example of Amyclas is
. instructive for Lida's thesis. The image derives from Lucan,
Pharsalia V. The presentation of the simple fisherman as a symbol of
poverty probably comes from Dante, Paradiso XI.64-69. It is however,
because of its prestigious origin in Lucan that Mena also incorporated
it into the Laberinto. This thesis finds support in the fact that,
firstly, Mena preferred Latin sources to medieval vernacular and
second, as a demonstration of the preference, employs the nominative
. Latin form "Amiclas" and not the form "Amiclate" used by Dante,
; Paradiso XI.68.
I
Lida, Juan de Mena, pp. 96-97. Lida summarizes Farinelli's
negative attitude toward Dante's influence on Mena's lyrics, which,
she says, is an overreaction to the opinions of Puymaigre and Menendez
y Pelayo that exaggerated Mena's indebtedness in this area.
Lida, Juan de Mena, pp. 389, 390, 392, 394-395, 398. Lida
presents and evaluates the opinions of Gil de Zarate, Ticknor, Amador
de los Rios, and José Pidal. Especially precise is her appraisal of
Puymaigre.
Regarding the question of source, based on the generic rela
tion of the Divine Comedy with fifteenth century allegorical poetry,
she writes: "Tampoco es exacto que la Divina commedia, en su conjunto,
se impusiera como dechado forzoso a la poesia alegorica del siglo XV.
Precisamente por su extraordinario valor, era mas fâcil admirar e
imitar unos mismos episodios del poema . . . que penetrar en toda su
estructura. . . . Por eso, el paralelo (si asi puede llamarse) entre
el Laberinto y la Divina commedia no conduce a nada" (p. 395).'
70
Werner P. Friederich, Dante's Fame Abroad 1350-1850 (Roma:
Edizioni di storia letteratura, 1950), especially pp. 35-4l.
71
Street, "Allegory," p. 8. "It is difficult to see why Post
should deny Farinelli's derivation of the seven circles on Fortune's
wheel from the seven heavens of the Paradiso." To correct the author.
Post denies Sanvisenti's derivation not Farinelli's: "I deny, then,
categorically Sanvisenti's derivation of the Spanish circles from the
Italian heavens" (Post, "Sources," p. 245).
134
72
Street, "Allegory," p. 9* Although the latter image is traced
to Dante, Street says that it could have derived from Ovid in his
description of Orpheus' attempt to embrace Eurydice, Metamorphoses
X .57-59.
73
David William Foster, "The Misunderstanding of Dante in
Fifteenth Century Spanish Poetry," Comparative Literature, l6 (1964),
339-347.
: 74
t Post, "Sources," pp. 225-228. See also Medieval Spanish
i Allegory, pp. 234-239*
' 7 5
' Post, "Sources," p. 231. He points out that, although the
language used in the two works is similar, the situations surrounding
the presentation of the House of Fortune differs.
For Post, the textual parallels are of primary importance for
any theory of imitation. He remarks upon the lack of verbal similari
ties: "I should be loth to believe in Juan de Mena's acquaintance
with the Pietosa fonte, since the imitation of substance ought ordin
arily to carry with it some verbal identity" (p. 262). In reference ■
to the Coronacion, he states that "there is . . .no verbel remin
iscence— a fact that diminishes at once the likelihood of what might
at first sight seem an architectonic reminiscence" (p. 268).
77
Luis Felipe Londley Cintra, "0 Liber Regum fonte comun do
jPoema de Ferhao Goncalves et do Laberinto de Juan de Mena," Boletim
I de Filologia, 13 (1952), 289-315; especially 313-315-
78
I Gimeno Casalduero, "Notas," p. 132. Imperial surrounds the
iking with the planets in order to bestow on him the qualities needed
for his kingship. Mena's planets serve to offer the king positive
jand negative examples of conduct. The virtues accompanying each
! planet are given to the monarch in the "Deçir" but in the Laberinto
I they are associated with the kingdom and are placed under the protec
tion of the king. Separate figures. Fortune in the "Deçir," and
Providence in the Laberinto, close the procession of characters and
jprophecy the king's glory.
I 79
I Gimeno Casalduero, "Notas," p. 133. The verbal parallels are
1 close. Mena, however, also draws from the Metamorphoses, VII.102-103
’in describing his king enthroned. Gimeno Casalduero cites Maria Rosa
■Lida's reference to this similarity, Juan de Mena, p. 58.
135
Derek C. Carr, "Dos doze trabajos de Hercules: fuente posiDle
del Laterinto de Juan de Mena," Hispanic Review, (1972), ^17-^20.
81
José Pascual, "Los doze tratajos de Hercules: fuente de
algunas glosas a La coronacion de Juan de Mena," Filologia Moderna,
13 (1972-73), 89-103.
136
CHAPTER IV
LANGUAGE AND STYLE j
! I
; The study of language, the rav material of writers has, for a !
long time, attracted the interest of literary critics, theoreticians, j
1
: and artistsIndeed, from the early sixteenth century to the present '
I
I day, the formal aspects of Juan de Mena’s poetic idiom (prosody, style,
' and vocabulary) have been commented upon, analyzed, classified, and
evaluated. Virtual linguistic anatomies of his works have been i
I
I written. Upon examination of the language-oriented research performed '
I on Mena’s works, it becomes evident that this corpus of critical |
jliterature portrays a multi-faceted analysis of his poetic production,
a near perfect paradigm of the history of language-theory developments,
and reflects the particular linguistic preferences of individual |
.historic periods. The spectrum from description and enumeration to j
analysis, evaluation, and explanation is covered in this collection of |
i criticism. In this chapter I propose to trace the linguistic-based, |
j j
I formal commentary on Mena’s works in chronological order, referring to j
!
I the principal characteristics, approaches and concerns of each writer
^and period reviewed.
Early Humanists
A good place to begin this review of research is with the works
'of the early theorists of the Spanish language and its poetic forms,
I
: 137
Antonio de Nebrija and Juan del Encina. For Nebrija, Mena is the poet
par excellence and he repeatedly quotes from his works in the séminal
2
Gramatica de la lengua castellana. Nehrija is one of the first
’writers to devote scholarly attention to the vernacular. Thus, he was
I quite naturally attracted to one of the first poets to ennoble it by
I placing it on an equal scale with Latin, the venerated language of
!
Roman civilization.
Webrija’s purpose in composing the Gramatica was, in part, didac-
I tic : to teach the principles of language, style, grammar, and ortho-
jgraphy. For Nebrija, the vernacular could possess the same prestige
as classical Latin. The Gramatica analyses linguistic phenomena in
I terms of ancient rhetoric and Latin grammatical concepts, and
;Nebrija illustrates these concepts by quoting his examples almost
I entirely from the works of Juan de Mena. The Gramatica represents a
I
idescription and categorization of the formal aspects of Mena’s poetic
'idiom (use of metre, syntax, grammar, and style) as well as the first
j attempt to compose a coherent manual of grammar for and in a Romance
'language. In diagraming and ennobling the vernacular, Nebrija the
Ihumanist also honors the poet who proposed to elevate the spoken lan-
I
j g u a g e to a venerated position similar to the one held by Latin.
I Nebrija’s descriptions of style through examples from Mena’s
'works become a concise guide to literary, grammatical, and rhetorical
'concepts. This classification of Mena’s style through references to
the principles of ancient rhetoric will become the system adopted by
1 3 8
succeeding generations of critics who undertake a linguistically
oriented examination of Mena's works.
Juan del Encina, in his "Arte de poesia castellana," also devotes
3
attention to formal, stylistic elements of the vernacular. He, like
Nehrija before him, uses Mena's verses as paradigms of his theory. He
categorizes Mena's language and devotes a section of his treatise to
,a discussion of arte mayor. In explaining the mechanics of this
I metric form he cites examples from the Laberinto. Finally, Encina
I
! attempts to describe and explain poetic devices that ultimately serve
'aesthetic purposes and presents, always citing verses of Mena,
jexamples of poetic license.
i Both Nebrija and Encina devote attention to describing the fea
tures and diagraming the anatomy of the emerging vernacular. Tech^,
niques of composition are enumerated and defined along with examples
taken, in the case of both theorists, almost exclusively from the
I works of Juan de Mena. By examining the language, they in turn pro-
I
I vide insights into the production of one of its pioneer writers.
;Casticistas y Modernos
During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Mena's works are
‘constantly cited in the polemic that was forming between the supporters
• of the new Italian hendecasyllable and those who defended the tradi
tional, Castilian dodecasyllable verse of arte mayor represented in
; its most mature and perfected form in the poetry of Juan de Mena.
_____________ 139-
Cristobal de Castillejo, a defender of the traditional form, in the
poem titled "Contra los que dexan los metros Castellanos y siguen los
italianos," imagines Juan de Mena's commentary regarding the new,
imported verse:
Juan de Mena, como oyo
la nueva troba pulida,
contentamiento mostro
caso que se sonrio
como de cosa sabida.
Y dixo: Segun la prueba
once silabas por pie,
no hallo causa porque
se tenga por cosa nueva,
pues yo mismo las use.^
Apart from the obvious condescending tone, the last line refers to
Mena's attempts at composing hendecasyllables.
Alfonso Garcia de Matamores, an avid admirer of the poetry of
Boscan and the Italian form, nevertheless defends the traditional verse
in his Pro Adserenda Hispanorum Eruditione with the words, "At
! quorumdam auribus dulcis sonant Joannes Mena, Bartholomeus Naharro,
1
IGeorgicus Manricus, Carthegena e illustrissimus Marchio Ignatius
I Lopez Mendozius. For Matamores, the difference in the two verses
jseems to be based upon intrinsic, aesthetic values rather than purely
'linguistic reasons.
Argote de Molina, in' "Discurso sobre la poesia castellana'.' (1575) s
: is more interested in the history of the long verses such as the arte
I mayor than in their mechanics. He describes and compares the
:hendecasyllable and the dodecasyllable, lamenting the disappearance of
I of the latter but respecting its reputation during the time of Juan
de Mena.^
.iko.
Alonso Lopez Pinciano, el Pinciano, writing in Philosofla
antigua poética (1596), demonstrates a knowledge and appreciation of
arte mayor and defends it as the ideal heroic verse form over the
Italian hendecasyllable. In his presentation, he specifically cites
Mena’s Laberinto as the best example of arte mayor and quotes from its
verses, referring to them as unequaled even by the hexameter of ancient
7
Greece and Rome.
The attitudes and opinions of the aforementioned sixteenth cen
tury writers are, beyond a doubt, favorable toward the traditional
Castilian verse form and its use in the works of Juan de Mena. Despite
this enthusiasm, they all admit that from their modern, sixteenth cen-
jtury perspectives, arte mayor is nothing more than a testimony of a
I
j former age.
■ Similar venerative opinions are to be found among seventeenth
I century writers. A case in point is the Tablas poeticas of Francisco
Cascales.^ He discusses both the history and structure of arte mayor
and, most importantly for our purposes, depicts Mena as its most
I
I brilliant and accomplished representative. As with previous writers,
'Cascades cites verses from the Laberinto to illustrate his technical,
I
theoretical discussions of the metre. In order to obtain supplement
ary information about arte mayor. Cascades refers the reader to the
text of the Laberinto with the words "La textura destos versos la
podreis aprender . . . en las Trezientas de luan de Mena" (p. 122).
ikl
In the Arte grande de la lengua castellana (1626) of Gonzalo
Correas, Mena is once again presented as the major representative of
traditional Castilian poetry.^ Correas devotes attention to the par
ticulars of this verse type and quotes lines from the Laberinto as
illustrations.
The sixteenth and seventeenth century writers who study the
metric history of Castilian poetry view arte mayor favorably, almost
with reverence. Their expositions indicate attempts to vindicate it
and its most, prominent and refined author, Juan de Mena, against the
hostile, modern opinions that favored the imported, Italian verse form
that was gaining in popularity and importance during this period. It
is also evident from the foregoing selections that, although these
writers venerated the ancient, traditional form, after the metric
revolution of the Italian hendecasyllable, they were required to view
arte mayor as a vestige of a past, superseded age.
Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Language-Style Negative Criticism
Mena's fate among other sixteenth and seventeenth century writers
was significantly less brilliant. The response to the poet's predilec
tion for what Juan del Encina has called "poetic license," the use of
erudite, elitist linguistic formulas, and the deliberate accumulation
of Latinisms, Latinate, and invented forms and archaisms; and the
subsequent disregard for the purity of the vernacular, is essentially
and vehemently negative. The aesthetics of buen gusto, the theory
1U2
that espoused the writing in such a manner as to mirror speech, were
in direct conflict with the aesthetic and linguistic theories that
Mena embraced. A good example of this negative response is found in
Juan de Valdes’ Dialogo de la lengua (1535).^*^ In this work, Valdes
applauds the metre used by Mena but censures the difficult and unnatu
ral style that obscures meaning. His commentary is worth quoting
I because the criticism contained therein is essentially repeated in
ithe writings of later commentators and language theorists:
Pero, porque digamos de todo, digo que, de los que an
escrito en metro, dan todos comunmente la palma a Juan de
Mena, y a mi parecer, aunque la merezca en quanto a la
dotrina y alto estilo, yo no se la daria quanto al dezir
j propiamente ni quanto al usar propios y naturales vocables,
j porque, si no m ’engaho, se descuido mucho en esta parte,
j a lo menos en aquellas su Trescientas, en donde, quierien-
j do mostrarse doto, escrivio tan escuro, que no es enten-
I dido, y puso ciertos vocables, unos que por grosseres se
j devrian desechar y otros que por muy latinos no se dexan
I entender de todos, como son 'rostro jocondo,’ ’fondon del
I polo segundo,’ y ’cinge toda la sfera,’ que todo esto
I pone en una copia, lo qual a mi ver es mas escrivir mal
} latin que buen castellano. (pp. l63-l64)
I Valdes' preoccupation with proper and natural vocabulary, understood
jby the majority, would account for this type of response to Mena's
writing, directed toward an elite minority. In the case of Valdes,
'and in the following examples, Mena is evaluated by a different set of
.values from those under which he wrote the Laberinto and that were
I
jaccepted as standard during his period.
j Another criticism of Mena's style is found in the preface of the
poem titled "Las habidas" and written by Geronimo de Arbolanches in
1556, in which he refers to the Laberinto as "three hundred pregnant
143
strophes. This coirmient is also alluded to hy Miguel Sanchez de
^ 12
Lima in his Arte poetica en romance castellano (1580). He directs
all readers who are in need of further proof of Mena’s obscure and
difficult style to the commentary of Hernan Nunez which, according to
Sanchez de Lima, is even more obscure than the text it espouses to
clarify.
From the pen of Diego de Mendoza in "Segunda carta al Bachiller
I de Arcadia,” there proceeds a further complaint against Mena’s ■ :
13
writing. Mendoza recognizes the importance of Nunez’s commentary
and its contribution to the elucidation of the difficult, otherwise
inaccessible, text.
j Characteristic of these critical opinions is their emphasis on
t
Îevaluation. Mena’s works are assessed from a perspective different
from his own and on the basis of a set of linguistic values foreign to
I his epoch. Essentially, he is judged anachronistically. It is
I
i interesting to note that twentieth century critics will attempt to
re-adjust the focus and view the poet from within the context of his
own period, the fifteenth century.
‘General Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Language-Style Commentary
' Diverse commentaries of other sixteenth and seventeenth century
1
I writers remain to be reviewed. Fernando de Herrera, in his Anotaciones
i
Î a las obras de Garcilaso (158O) explains a technique of amplification
used by Garcilaso through reference to a similar passage in the
Laberinto
ihh
El Pinciano, in "Epistle X" of the Philosofia antigua poetica,
alludes to the differences among Mena's works regarding the use of
language and syntactic structures, and differentiates between lyrical
and epic styles citing Mena as the representative of the latter and
jPetrarch as the model writer in the former mode
j As previously mentioned, Gohzalo Correas favorably views Mena’s
I use of metre. His Arte closely follows Nebrija’s categories of des-
j criptions of rhetorical techniques and literary tropes. Like Nebrija,
I
Correas repeatedly cites examples from the works of Mena as illustra
tions of literary-rhetorical procedures. He is interested primarily
in diagraming and explaining the language through the use of classical
terminology and concurrently produces a significant guide to the
particulars of Mena’s poetic idiom. I
j The poets and dramatists of the Golden Age have commented
jvariously upon the formal aspects of Mena’s verses, especially those
I
jwritten in arte mayor. Lope de Vega in his Gatomaquia refers to arte
! qg
; mayor as "el arte de Juan de Mena." In Laurel de Apolo, he
expresses an opinion akin to those of earlier theorists that lamented
I
the disappearance of this venerated traditional, Castilian verse form.^"^
j Tirso de Molina, in the drama La prospéra fortuna de don Alvaro
I
I de Luna y la aduersa de Ruy Lopez de Avalos, presents the character
I
I Juan de Mena at the court of Juan II reading lines from the Laberinto,
Iwhich was both in the play and in reality dedicated to the monarch.
I
Upon completing the recital, the court jester, Pablillos, comments:
1^5
"lAy, ayl, que ese metro es tono famoso/para los ciegos cantar de
repente." It is difficult to determine if this sarcastic remark
represents the opinion of Tirso. It is, however, an indication of the
influence exerted hy arte mayor in Spanish letters and the subsequent
association of it with Juan de Mena.
The Hyperbaton, Precursor of Gongora
Contemporaries of Gongora constantly allude to his indebtedness
i to Mena as an immediate predecessor in the use of the hyperbaton.
Manuel de Faria reminds us that many years before Gongora wrote, Juan
de Mena was employing the technique.The Peruvian author, Juan de
Espinosa Medrano, supports Faria's assertion, but qualifies it by
20
claiming the superiority of Gongora over Mena.
Mena's name is mentioned by Lope in his feud with Gongora and
j Gongorismo, especially in his diatribes against the hyperbaton. A
jtestimony of Lope's disdain for the device and for Mena's unnatural
! style is found in "Respuesta a un papel que escribio un sehor destos
^ 21
reinos en razon de la nueva poesia." Particularly abhorrent is the
violent syntactical transpositions associated with the use of the
I hyperbaton. Lope presents the commentary to the Coronacion as an
j example in discussing the retrogression of the culteranos, led by
jGongora, to the Latinized, hyperbatonic, elitist style characteristic
22
! of many sixteenth century prose and poetic works. He continues by
I condemning syntactical and stylistic difficulties that are present in
lU6
jMena’s writings and produced by his attempts to model the Spanish
vernacular on Latin syntactical structures. Finally, he unhesitantly
criticizes the excessive accumulation of Latinisms in the often-quoted
line of the Laberinto: "si amor es ficto, vaniloco, pigro." Defense
of his historically limited perspective is found in the "Introduceion
a la justa poetica al bienaventurado San Isidro," in which he argues
that any given language would naturally tend to eliminate those
I stylistic and linguistic experiments that contradict its specific,
23
I reduced structures and accepted norms.
Far from being forgotten, Mena’s works attracted the attention
of numerous sixteenth and seventeenth century artists, theorists, and
-critics. The writings of this period are rich with multi-faceted
1
I language commentary on his productions. His name is mentioned repeat-
'edly in the polemic between the casticistas and modernos and his
tworks, especially the Laberinto, are presented as the venerated para-
1
digms of the traditional Castilian metric form. Not all the critical
opinions are positive, however. Mena’s style is criticized in the
writings of a group of authors whose aesthetic values and linguistic
'theories directly contradicted or opposed those under which the fif- .
'teenth century poet composed his works. Mena is viewed by some authors
: of this period as the predecessor of Gongora, particularly in his use
'of the hyperbaton. As such, he is alternatively evaluated favorably
land unfavorably. Description, classification, and evaluation charac-
'terize the approaches to Mena’s poetic idiom applied during this period.
ikj
The opinions and evaluations of sixteenth and seventeenth century
writers are adopted, and modified hy subsequent generations.
; Eighteenth Century
j During the eighteenth century, critics maintain an essentially
j negative and condescending attitude toward fifteenth century literary i
I productions in general and toward Juan de Mena's elitist use of lan-
I
/ J '
jguage. Latinized vocabulary, and'stylistic and syntactical obscurities.
jHowever, little new is added to the opinions of earlier writers.
I Luis José Velazquez, in Origenes de la poesia castellana (l75^)>
I characterizes Mena as the most important poet of the reign of Juan II
i . 2 ^
I and refers to his style as epic. Criticism of his elitist style and
I
!
'vocabulary is defended by citing Valdes' negative evaluation of Mena's
■writing. Juan Andres, in Dell' origine, progressi e stato attuale
Id' ogni letteratura, terms Mena's choice of vocabulary and style as
Imisguided, improper, and essentially an obstacle preventing his poetry
I from being recognized as the most impressive of his period and perhaps
I 25
! even the best of all periods.
I The opinion of Tomas Antonio Sanchez is worth quoting as an
I
example of the violent eighteenth century reactions toward the style
of an earlier period governed by a completely different set of
artistic, aesthetic norms. Aside from establishing Mena as the most
important representative of the fifteenth century, in his Coleccion
de poesias castellanas anteriores al siglo XV, he criticizes the style.
ihQ
I syntax, and vocabulary commonly employed during that period: "Mena
. . . fixo nueva epoca a la castellana y levanto el estilo mas que
cuantos le habian precedido ; pero la afeo con metaforas impropias, con
colocaciones violentas, con palabras latinas o inventadas, y finalmente
! con un estilo hinchado y pomposo de que uso no solo en verso sino tam-
I bien en prosa."^^ A more rotund denunciation of style is difficult to
conceive. Hence, one wonders exactly what Sanchez meant by "... fixo
i
nueva epoca . . . y levanto el estilo. . . ." Characteristically, it
is the hyperbaton and excessive use of Latinisms that provoke the
most significant ire of eighteenth century critics.
Much of the eighteenth century writings represent opinions based
j on purely anachronistic views and approaches to a former age and its
I culture. It is, furthermore, rife with evaluation and it repeats
! many of the already established critical topoi.
; Nineteenth Century
j Critics during the nineteenth century begin to expand the limited
i
'scope of earlier descriptive-evaluative approaches to include
1
;quasi-scientific, historically focused analyses of Mena's style and
I
!
Ivocabulary. José Manuel Quintana is perhaps the first critic to seek
jhistorical explanations of linguistic phenomena encountered in Mena's
jpoetry rather than simply evaluate them according to current, accepted
27
linguistic trends. The opening statements of his study of Mena's
Iworks seem to anticipate the perspectives of critics that view language
lh9
as dependent upon the requirements dictated by the choice of metre,
form, structure, and genre. He writes:
La lengua en sus manos es una esclava que tiene que
obedecerle y seguir de grado 6 fuerza el impulse que
le da el poeta. Ninguno has manifestado en esta parte
mayor osadia ni pretensiones mas altas: el suprime
silabas, modifica la frase a su arbitrio, alarga 6 acorta
las palabras, y cuando en su lengua no halla las voces
6 los modes de decir que necesita, acude a buscarlos en
el latin, en el frances, en el italiano, en donde puede.
(p. 130)
Quintana views Mena’s linguistic innovations and experiments as poetic
license, but his evaluation of them transcends mere description and he
seeks to explain their existence in historical terms: the instability
of the emerging vernacular language. The nineteenth century
Icritic-historian’s approach to Mena’s use of language stresses
j
explanation, although evaluation remains an equally important consider
ation. The linguistic and stylistic innovations produced by Mena and
!
I the poets of his generation receive significant support and favorable
'evaluations in the writings of Quintana.
I
The nineteenth century literary historians, Ticknor, Amador de
los Rios and Menendez y Pelayo, have commented, at varying lengths
and from diverse perspectives, on Mena’s poetic language and style.
They generally support Quintana’s view of Mena as a pioneer in lin
guistic experimentation who freely borrowed material from various
languages and incorporated it into his singular, literary idiom. Hence,
Ticknor writes, "Juan de Mena . . . looked round to see how he could
enlarge his poetic vocabulary. . . . He took boldly such words as he.
150
thought suitable to his purpose, wherever he found them, chiefly from
28
the Latin, but sometimes from other languages." This particular
license is seen more as a positive innovation rather than an impro
priety.
Amador de los Rios transcribes the testimonies against Mena’s
linguistic innovations found in Sanchez de Lima and Diego de Mendoza,
29
as well as el Brocense’s defense of Mena against these criticisms.
He continues by mentioning the Ennio espahol title bestowed upon the
fifteenth century poet by Juan de la Cerda in his commentary on Mena’s
poetry. For Amador de los Rios, such a name is in direct contrast with
the negative appraisals penned by earlier critics.
After reproducing the observations of these previous critics,
; Amador affords us his own commentary of Mena’s language and style. It
is reminiscent of earlier studies because it emphasizes Mena’s ,
attempt at creating a new poetic language through borrowings from Latin
j and French. He lists the vocabulary employed in the Laberinto that j
I . I
■ derives from Latin and notes that these particular borrowings lend to j
: - I
the style its extravagant and pedantic nature. He comments briefly on j
the use of hyperbaton, condemning it as abusive and cites several 1
j
examples of its implementation in the Laberinto. He concludes the ,
examination by indicating the need to produce a critical edition of {
Mena’s works in order that the poet might be studied properly and j
]evaluated.
j
j Menendez y Pelayo devotes attention to three areas of Mena’s
'poetic idiom: vocabulary, style, and metre.He summarizes previous
151
language-based studies, reiterates the divergent opinions regarding
Mena’s linguistic endeavors of forging a poetic language of stature,
and refers to the similar poetic ideals espoused by Gongora and
Herrera. The nineteenth century critic perceives the Latinizing
j tendency in word order, vocabulàrv. and sentence structure as an
I inevitable occurence in fifteenth century poetry since Latinization
, of the prose of the period had already taken place. He transcribes
I
Quintana’s observations and proceeds to comment on the neologisms and
compound Latinate words encountered in Mena’s poetry to which he is
generally receptive, to the degree of lamenting their disappearance
I from current popular speech. Despite his favorable disposition toward !
I
Mena’s Latinizing tendencies, he censures them when in excess.
i
He seeks explanations for Mena’s ornate. Latinized style in the
general linguistic atmosphere of the period and comments on Mena’s
I
I inferior use of the Latin hyperbaton. Although nineteenth century
jperspectives and prejudices are evident in Menendez y Pelayo’s
writings, he attempts to combine both evaluation and historical
! explanation in his appraisals of Mena’s works, contributions, and
I literary achievements,
i
I Aside from his stylistic commentary, Menendez y Pelayo devotes
j attention to Mena’s use of arte mayor. He begins his examination by
i
presenting some basic impressions of the verse form. Then, he proceeds
to describe in detail the metric pattern common to arte mayor and
: suggests that Mena’s choice of verse was not entirely adequate for the
152
31
type of poem he had written. He relates the metre’s use in Spanish
poetry of the fifteenth century hy referring to it as the obligatory
form of long, panegyric, narrative-didactic compositions. Character
istic of Menendez y Pelayo’s approach to the formal aspects of Mena’s
productions is his interest in explaining them within a specific
historical, cultural context.
I Not all nineteenth century writers, however, undertook historical,
I
I explanatory studies of the formal elements of Mena’s works. Vestiges
I
j of the anachronistically focused perspectives of earlier generations
and their resulting unfavorable commentary are detected in the writings
of certain nineteenth century critics. Included in this group is
-Rafael Floranes, whose severe evaluation of Mena’s style and language
i
I is found in Vida literaria del Canciller Mayor de Castilla, D. Pedro
j ^ 32
1 Lopez de Ayala. Floranes writes:
I
El destructor, pues fue (Dios se lo perdone) el buen
' Juan de Mena, que . . . porrumpio con un estilo alti-
i vago . . . pueril, afectado, violento y lleno de im
propias hinchazones . . . sirvi6 entonces para corromper
a infinites y trastornar despues a muchos. . . . Por
este motive tiene en los hombres prudentes la justa y
severa censura de que se hizo merecedor . . . pues él
I fué el primero que hablo en distinta lengua de la que
I nacio. . . . (p. 380)
j
!Aside from censuring his writing and use of language, Floranes views
Mena’s influence as essentially negative and damaging to good taste.
During the nineteenth century there begin to appear
semi-objective studies of Mena’s works that de-emphasize the purely
I
I evaluative aspects and recognize the fifteenth century as the only
153
proper historical context in which to study the works. Writers attempt
historical explanations of linguistic anomalies and recognize the
differences between the views of various ages regarding style, use of
language and significance of metre.
j Arte mayor
I
j Toward the end of the nineteenth century, critical reviews
increasingly began to focus on purely formal aspects of Mena’s poetry,
especially the particular employment of arte mayor. The authors of
these writings attempt to describe the origins of the form and
explain the details of its composition. They become involved in dis
putes regarding the accuracy of proposed hypotheses and critical
interpretations and are interested primarily in penetrating the
function and structure of the metre. In the process, they invariably
draw their examples from the works of its most sophisticated writer,
! Juan de Mena. To trace the niunerous theories and polemics would far
I
I surpass the established scope of this dissertation. It is sufficient
I to review briefly here those metric-oriented studies that have
1
■ attempted a direct contribution to the understanding of Mena’s works,
33
his literary language, and arte mayor.
In 189^5 Alfred Morel-Fatio hypothesized about the origins and
affiliations of arte mayor, stating that it was probably derived
from the French decasyllable, césure à cinq.^^ He offers explana
tions for certain peculiarities of arte mayor as exemplified by
I5U
Mena’s poetry, which include the presence of the primary stress on the
fourth syllable instead of the fifth, and the employment of the
synalepha. Morel-Fatio believed that Mena was a national peot whose i
verses were not affected by the Italian hendecasyllable and that he
jwas, furthermore, the most accomplished Spanish writer to use the
jmetre. In defense of these opinions he refers the reader to the
j authority of earlier theorists by transcribing their evaluations
jdirectly. Morel-Fatio peremptorily corrects critics and poets when
their writings are in divergence with his own perception of the form’s
"true" essence.
Writing eight years later, Ramon Foulche-Delbosc challenges
jMorel-Fatio’s notions of arte mayor and devotes much of his study to
• • 35
I a refutation of Morel-Fatio’s opinions. He describes the peculiar
I
'versification of arte mayor as demonstrated in the Laberinto,
i
■ outlines the basic hemistichial-accentuation patterns of the form, and
I
categorizes the different possible verse types derived from these
3 6
patterns and encountered in the Laberinto. Foulche-Delbosc’s j
application of the theory to the Laberinto provides insights into the ,
intricacies of the metre, and the study serves as a schematic metrical I
guide to the important fifteenth century poem. |
John Schmitt has applied an historical approach to the study of
the origins and character of arte mayor, and in the process is
37
critical of Morel-Fatio’s judgements regarding both. For Schmitt,
as for previous critics, Mena’s verses serve as examples in the
155
discussion of structural and formal aspects of the arte mayor metre.
He attempts to demonstrate the existence of two arte mayor verse
types and argues that they occur in indiscriminate combinations in the
Laberinto. He relies entirely upon internal, textual evidence in
explaining rhythmic variability of arte mayor.
F. Hanssen, in an article titled, "El arte mayor de Juan de Mena,"
which is, in reality, a combination of unrelated or marginally
related linguistic topics, reproduces Foulche-Delbosc's investigations
regarding the prosodic patterns of the Laberinto and supports the J
38 I
French Hispanist's conclusions. Hanssen calculates the number of I
verses in the Laberinto that correspond to each of Foulche-Delbosc's 1
suggested stress-pattern combinations and establishes further prosodic •
guidelines based upon this numeric information. He is interested
primarily in diagraming the anatomy of the poem's metre and to this |
I
jend he employs statistical information and percentages. As a result |
! of his investigations, he provides a detailed metric-prosodic index to \
: I
'the Laberinto. '
i I
j Apart from these articles devoted to arte mayor and by associa- ]
I ;
jtion to Juan de Mena's poetic works, chapters and sections of mono- j
graphs are dedicated to an exploration of the form's structure, its
characteristics and peculiarities, and to the presentation of theories
regarding its variations. Joaquin Balaguer, in Apuntes para una
:historia prosodica de la metrica castellana reviews the diverse
theories of Nebrija, Bello, Hanssen, Morel-Fatio, and Foulche-Delbosc
156
and traces the evolution of arte mayor and its employment from Juan
de Mena to Ruhen Dario. A review of all this material here would he
an unnecessary departure from our present topic: the studies of Juan
de Mena's implementation of arte mayor. It is sufficient to indicate
that Balaguer closely follows Nehrija in his explanation of arte mayor
i and draws his textual examples exclusively from the Laberinto. For
jBalaguer, Mena's poem is the most developed and perfected expression
!
j of arte mayor in Spanish literature and it corresponds precisely to
iNebrija's principles of the form. This correspondence he proceeds
I 3 9
! to demonstrate through abundant quotations from the poem. Character-
I
I istic of Balaguer's approach is close attention to detail and ample
I
j enumeration of examples serving as illustrations of a certain metric
j rule and its variants. His study also could be considered a reference
I guide to the metre and prosodic patterns of the Laberinto.
Pierre Le Gentil has devoted lengthy studies to the versification
liO
of medieval Spanish and Portuguese poetry. In his book, he explores
the function and composition of arte mayor according to the theories
of Nebrija, Encina, and Foulche-Delbosc, traces its evolution in
selected works of fifteenth century Spanish authors, especially Juan
de Mena, and discusses the various theories of its origins. Le Gentil
rejects Foulche-Delbosc's theory of a single-stress hemistich and
affirms that there are always two stresses in each half verse, even if
the beat falls on a naturally non-tonic syllable. Throughout his study.
Le Gentil employs verses from the Laberinto as paradigms.
157
Dorothy Clotelle Clarke has written articles and monographs that
study the theoretical and technical problems of Spanish versification.
Her Morphology of Fifteenth Century Castilian Verse is important for
our review because it contains both theoretical sketches of arte mayor
and applications of its principles to the works of the cancionero
! kl
jpoets, including those of Juan de Mena. In particular reference to
^Mena's arte mayor, she notes the attention given the pause, variation
j of the pause length, and the emphasis on regularity of rhythmic beat.
She indicates that this regularity is counterbalanced by the relatively
liberal treatment of the caesura. In Mena’s arte mayor poetry the
mid-section of each verse serves to join the two hemistiches unlike
the traditional caesura. The use of statistics, percentages, and
computations plays an ever increasing role in Clarke’s study. It
transcends simple enumeration of characteristics and attempts a syn
thesis of both the common and unusual features of Mena’s use of metre
as well as an explanation for their existence.
Another critic to study Spanish metric and versification systems
^ I 4 . 2
from a quasi-mathematical perspective is Oreste Macri. In his book,
devoted primarily to an examination of editorial and versification
questions in the Libro de buen amor, he attempts explanations of the
j prosodic patterns found in the Laberinto, especially in relation to
1 the Italian hendecasyllable verse. Macri interprets Mena’s use of
I
I trochees against their use in other Spanish poets who imitated Dante,
iand observes that Dante’s iambs were commonly converted into trochees
1 5 8
by his fifteenth century Spanish imitators. Macri summarizes the
similarity between the metre of Mena’s arte mayor and that of the
Italian hendecasyllable through a series of comparisons and statistics
and adds his own comments to those of Dante’s Spanish translator,
I
1 Fernandez de Villegas as further evidence of how the Italian poet’s
' ii3
; hendecasyllables were read and interpreted by Mena. The final pages
of his book contain a complete statistical analysis of the types of
I rhythmical, metrical, and hemistichial patterns to be found in the
I
j Laberinto. Macri divides the poem’s hemistiches into two basic
I kh
types, six sub-types, and eleven variants.
Recently, Fernando Lazaro Carreter has applied a formalist
approach in studying the prosodic patterns of arte mayor encountered
I i i 5 . .
j in the Laberinto. He is critical of the shortcomings inherent in
Jthe rhetorical, philological, and cultural approaches to poetry. j
i I
According to Lazaro Carreter, these methods overlook the importance
of metric choice and the subsequent influence that the choice exerts
on the poetic creation and employment of language. His study attempts j
to transcend isolated description and view the structure and content:
the metre, style, and vocabulary as an inter-related system and
comprehensive whole. Lazaro Carreter is particularly hostile toward
Maria Rosa Lida’s approach to Mena’s style and to Mena’s use of
classical and medieval rhetorical devices that emphasizes external,
cultural explanations for the poet’s personal language preferences.
Lazaro Carreter argues that Mena’s choice of vocabulary derives
from metric considerations; words are chosen for their ability to
159
satisfy specific stress, beat, and rhythmic requirements dictated by
the rigid demands of the arte mayor form. For Lazaro Carreter, the
metre explains particular rhetorical, syntactical devices, and voca
bulary employed by Mena. Arte mayor, as conceived by Juan de Mena,
was a metric system that transposed linguistic material by the dis
cipline of its rhythm.
The metric-oriented explanations of Mena’s poetry, especially the
Laberinto, are numerous and varied. Some are theoretical discussions
of versification and metrics. These study what Wellek and Warren refer
to as "graphic prosody," or the traditional approach to rhythm and
metre that, "attempt[s] to draw up metrical schemes or patterns which
the poet is assumed to observe exactly" (p. l68). It is precisely on
the matter of what metrical scheme Mena followed and to what extent he
adhered to it that disputes among critics have arisen. Other, more j
I
jcontemporary, approaches also rely on the graphic system, but attempt
j to supersede its simple technique of categorization and account for the
! numerous, unexplained idiosyncracies. These critics propose to study
the phenomena previously overlooked by the graphic method. Most
recently, the tenets of Russian formalism that claim, as Wellek and
Warren write, "rhythmical impulse . . . influences the choice of words,
the syntactical structure, and hence, the general meaning of a verse"
(p. 171)5 have been applied to the Laberinto. Enumeration and
statistical analysis are integral elements of metric-based studies.
All have attempted to increase awareness of the intricacies and
160
possibilities of the prosodic structures derived from and dependent
upon arte mayor as used by Juan de Mena. In doing so, they have pro
posed theories, stimulated questions, provoked disputes, and have
written detailed metric reference guides to the Laberinto.
Maria Rosa Lida
In writing her study, Maria Rosa Lida draws from the extensive
amount of material available concerning the formal, linguistic aspects
of Mena’s works.She incorporates this information into her own
j research, transcribing some exactly and using some as a point of
I
departure. She adds detail to the general outlines of Nebrija and
Correas by including comparative examples of techniques from selected
medieval Spanish authors. Most importantly perhaps, Lida surpasses
I the negative, anachronistic perspectives of critics who have censored
Mena’s Latinizing, elitist style, and attempts instead to readjust the
focus of study through cultural, philological, and historical explana
tions of stylistic and linguistic phenomena.
In her analysis of style, Lida traces rhetorical techniques
employed by Mena in the Laberinto which, for her, constitute the basic
I exercise of poetic creation. The description of these diverse rheto-
jrical elements, coupled with abundant examples of each taken from the
jpoetic text, begins with the category of amplificatio rerum, or the
I
Ienumerative-narrative devices. It is followed by that of amplificatio
i
;verborum. Encompassed under this title are the use of paired or
161
tripartite synonyms, repetition, double inflection of a verb, litotes,
periphrasis with etymological derivations, use of relatives or
absolutes, symmetry of the verse and line that closely parallels the
; structure dictated by arte mayor, and, finally, apposition.
Apart from tracing and diagraming Mena's narrative-stylistic
devices, Lida situates the poet in a particular historical-literary
context by viewing him as the precursor of Gongora in matters of style,
specifically in the use of hyperbaton. According to Lida, the pre
ponderance of this technique, and of the apostrophe, reflects Mena's
double perspective: his allegiance to Latin, learned, and classical
sources, and perception of medieval themes and world views. The thrust
of her stylistic analysis is reiterated in the observation that Mena's
style is an extension of his poetic ideal of recreation, as opposed
to faithful reproduction. He avoids citing his sources or quoting
passages in languages other than Castilian. His attitude toward the
venerated authors of antiquity transcends simple reproduction common i
I
to most medieval writers. For Mena, antiquity serves as a source of
/
I ;
inspiration and is the basis of a new art written in the vernacular ' /
and developed from the principles of classical rhetorical-literary ! /
doctrines.
Lida endeavors to produce a similarly detailed analysis of Mena's
ky
use of language. Here, also, her examination is based on the prin
ciples of the rhetorical-philological method. She begins her chapter
by quoting the opinions of Menendez y Pelayo regarding Mena's attempts
162
at creating a new poetic language and those of José Manuel Blecua who
argued that Mena was influenced essentially hy the Latinizing tenden
cies in the literary writings of the fifteenth century. Lida charac- '
terizes Mena's language as hybrid, a combination of both
popular, and Latinized classical elements. The abundance of archaisms
; indicates to the author that Mena was intentionally archaic in voca-
Ibulary choice. Under a series of descriptive headings, she classifies
I in detail and with numerous textual examples, the multiple types of
jlanguage incorporated in the Laberinto. These include: vocablos
'groseros, Latin and non-Latin borrowings, technical or occupational
I
jterminology, vernacularized forms of classical Latin, poetic license
jin spelling and accentuation, and, finally, inert elements.
j These descriptions are followed by a rather lengthy section
I devoted to an analysis of syntax. Each element is described and the
I description is accompanied by a list of examples taken from the text
'of the Laberinto. Lida notes Mena's preference for Latin or Latinized
syntactical structures: subordinates, absolutes, passive voice,
; relatives, and, along with these, the juxtaposition of erudite and
I
popular forms. Verb tense is studied as is the accumulation of syn
tactical elements that contradict the patterns of spoken language
and lend Mena's style its elitist character.
Lida's study of style and vocabulary in the Laberinto can be
Itermed by what Wellek and Warren refer to as .a "grammar of a literary
work . . . beginning with phonology and accidence, going on to
1 6 3
jvocabulary (barbarisms, provincialisms, archaisms, neologisms), and
rising to syntax (e.g. inversion, antithesis and parallelism)"
(p. 176). Characteristic of her approach is attention to detail, and
emphasis on enumeration, explanation, and evaluation.
Along with her analysis of the Laberinto, Lida also comments
I briefly on linguistic aspects of Mena’s prose and minor poetry.
jAccording to her, his poetry divides into three categories: amorous,
1
'political, and moral. The poems in each category are studied in a
somewhat eclectic manner as she focuses upon themes, content, imagery,
and historical information related to their composition. Of concern
j to us here will be her language-oriented commentary. In the "Dezir
I
I sobre la justicia," Lida encounters rhetorical devices similar to those
employed in the Laberinto. The vocabulary of the "Dezir" reflects
noticeable differences, which she proceeds to enumerate. The "Copias
^ contra los pecados mortales" represents a simplification of style and
language with respect to the poet’s earlier works. Aside from an
apparent simplification, Lida encounters significant lexical enhance-
I
! ment. In "Razonamiento que faze Juan de Mena con la muerte," the
I poet refers the reader to his literary sources, a technique he abandons
I
jin his later works.
I Lida’s study of Mena’s prose is similarly eclectic and contains
I _ i i 8
I thematic, stylistic, and linguistic commentaries. These works also
i
jdivide into three categories : didactic, narrative and ornamental. The
I only didactic work is the commentary to the Coronacion. Its vocabulary,
i
16k
Lida observes, is not characteristically Latinate primarily because
the prose commentary serves the function of explaining the numerous
Latinisms and erudite allusions encountered in the poetic text. With
out any further commentary, Lida cites several lengthy paragraphs of
the commentary as examples.
The narrative prose includes the Qvidian fables in the comment
ary of the Coronacion and the Omero romanceado. The narration of the
fables suggests an affinity to Renaissance art and ideals in its
noncoramital, aesthetic presentation of places and themes, extrinsic-
ally associated with classical antiquity. From this comment, Lida
I proceeds to a discussion of the individual myths. Her discussion of
I
the Orpheus story is characteristic of the treatment given the others
and is worth quoting: ". . .es claro y llano el estilo de esta
narraciôn, aunque por momentos se vislumbran toques de intencion
j decorativa en el orden de palabras . . . en la simetria . . . y sobre
i todo en el vocabulario, con algunos latinismos . . . y parejes de
I vocablos castizos y latinos. . ." (p. 131) . Lida supplies abundant
textual evidence in support of her affirmations. She concludes her
analysis of Omero romanceado by indicating that, since it is a trans
lation of a Latin source, it is written in an erudite language that
includes the use of decorative Latinisms, epithets, analogies and
Latinate forms of possessive adjectives.
Included in the category of ornamental prose are the prologue of
the Coronacion, the "Proemio" of Omero romanceado, and of Alvaro de
165
I Luna’s Libro de las virtuosas y claras mujeres. She quotes passages
from these works and mentions the characteristic accumulation of
Latinisms. She makes several final comments regarding the style and
language of the Tratado de amor attributed to Mena, and indicates
the coexistence of pairs of popular and erudite words, and Latin and
archaic formulas.
Modern Editors
Contemporary editors of Mena’s works have analyzed his style, use
^ of language, and metre. In a preliminary essay to his edition of the
j Laberinto, José Manuel Blecua characterizes Mena’s style and language
I by relating them to the general linguistic atmosphere of the fifteenth
J
' century and indicating that he had little choice but to write using
I
' kQ
'Latinate forms and structures. Blecua’s description of the indivi-
i
I dual elements of Mena’s writings includes the use of hyperbaton,
jsubordination, and periphrastic constructions, all of which were,
'according to the critic, characteristic of the writings of Lucan and
'Gongora. Blecua adds to this series of previously noticed phenomena
j several others that have not been studied. These include "symphony of
!
jvowels," alliteration, and the symmetry of arte mayor. The des
cription of each is accompanied by examples taken from the Laberinto.
His stylistic commentary of the work concludes with a reference to
the affinities among the three Cordovan poets: Lucan, Mena, and
Gongora.
Blecua briefly comments on the language of Mena's minor poetry.
The "symphony of vowels" is prevalent in "Claro escuro" in both the
arte mayor verses and in the octosyllables. The most ascetic of
Mena's works, "Copias contra los pecados mortales," presents a simple,
, straightforward style lacking in both syntactical complexities and
I Latinized vocabulary. In "Dezir sobre la justicia," Blecua argues,
[Mena is more interested in content than in style.
I
' John Cummins alludes to Mena's accomplishments in style and
I
’language by indicating that he expanded the limits of the newly evolved
' Spanish language and in doing so created a vehicle for more complex,
jserious literary expression.His commentary also includes a summary
jof the Latinized and popular elements found in Mena’s writings.
In her analysis of the language and style of the Laberinto, Louise
I
Vasvari Fainber^ closely follows the observations of Maria Rosa Lida,
! frequently quoting directly from the scholar’s work.Fainberg
i
‘begins by reviewing the commonly expressed observation that Mena, in
I writing his poem, was attempting to create a new poetic idiom through
jlinguistic innovation based on classical models. Like Lida, she
'offers an extrinsic explanation for this phenomenon by attributing it
■ I
'to the instability of the language during the fifteenth century, which j
I permitted the introduction and use of neologisms, partially popularized I
I I
j !
I terms, and popular archaic forms and their coexistence in a single ;
■poetic text. Fainberg reiterates Lida’s notion that Mena was inten- i
]
■tionally archaic and supports this contention with examples of the I
167
various categories of archaisms found in the Laberinto. She presents
an alphabetical listing of the neologisms used by Mena, gives their
meanings and locations in the Laberinto text and some indication
regarding their use by earlier writers.
In her description of style, Fainberg also follows the work of
Lida, demonstrating an admiration for the scholar but adding little
new information to her study. Fainberg's presentation of stylistic
elements includes sections devoted to the techniques of amplificatio
verborum. All these narrative modes are documented with select
examples from the Laberinto along with verse and strophe indications
of the location of similar examples.
She concludes her study by indicating that its primary purpose is
to view the poet stylistically from within his corresponding period.
Support for her stylistic, linguistic study is derived from philo
logical and cultural references. Finally, Fainberg summarizes Lazaro
: Carreter's article and presents the study as an alternative perspective
I to her own.
I A recent critical edition of the Tratado de amor, attributed to
j Mena, is prefaced by an examination of the phonology, vocabulary, and
52
syntax of the treatise. The first section of the essay is devoted
to phonology: the characteristics of the vowels, vocalic groups, and
phonetic ultracorrections. From this the author proceeds to examine
the constitution of consonants and consonant groups, especially as
they evolved from Latin. Included among these linguistic phenomena are:
1 68
special characteristics of the morpho-syntax, verbal, adjectival and
participial forms.
A panorama of the vocabulary encountered in the Tratado de amor,
French, Latin, and Arabic elements, is presented in the next section.
Gutierrez Araus observes that whenever a choice between archaic and
modern forms is available to the author, Mena selects the archaic form.
She argues that this choice or the possibility of choice is primarily
due to the instability of the emerging vernacular language. Separate
sections study the phonetic and graphic peculiarities of the Tratado
de amor, and these are presented together with selected examples from
the treatise text.
A final section is dedicated to studying the vocabulary that has
vacillated in spelling, composition, or meaning, other terms found in
the Tratado de amor that are no longer part of the language, and a
third category of words delegated to a regional or dialectical usage
only. The editor presents an alphabetical listing indicating where the
word is found in the text, its etymology and examples of its use in
other medieval writers. As has been the case with previous language
studies, Gutierrez Araus' is characterized by profuse quotations of
[examples and enumeration. Description is dominant over explanation
and evaluation.
Other Pertinent Studies
Damaso Alonso has examined the poetic idiom of Gongora in terms
of its relation to the fourteenth and fifteenth century Latinizing
169
Spanish authors and has compiled a list of Latinized vocabulary common-
53
ly used by these writers. According to Alonso, these authors, and
especially Juan de Mena, superseded Gongora’s linguistic extrava- ;
5 ^ i
: gances. I
I !
I To trace the history of Spanish syntax through representative j
I
I literary works of different periods is the purpose of Martin Alonso’s !
• ^ ^ 55 . I
;book. Evolueion sintactica del espanol. Particularly interesting to ■
I j
: US is his chapter titled "Sintaxis intemporal desde Jorge Manrique a ;
: ^ I
Gongora." By "sintaxis intemporal," Alonso refers to all the styles
of writing that deviate from the norms of a given epoch. According to
Alonso, the literary styles of Juan de Mena, Fernando de Herrera, and
I Luis de Gongora are representative of this type and as such are in
I
idirect opposition to those of Garcilaso and Cervantes, writers of the
: style termed, buen gusto, a literary idiom that attempts to approxi-
i
I mate current speech patterns. Alonso’s particular analysis of Mena’s
1
! style closely follows that of Lida, at times reproducing it exactly,
iHe offers similar historical, cultural reasons for style. Significant
for the purposes of his monograph and his linguistic-stylistic theory,
is his discussion of the hyperbaton. Here he associates Mena closely
I
Iwith his descendents, Herrera and Gongora.
I Summary
Juan de Mena’s style and language have been closely examined,
characterized, categorized, and evaluated by many critics in different
170
[periods and according to different, and at times antagonistic, sets
I
of criteria. Particular linguistic theories and perspectives prevalent
during each historical period seem to govern the types of explanations
jand assessments given to his works. The formal aspects have
I suggested, nonetheless, similar meanings to all critics and have been
jdescribed in relatively similar manners. He has been evaluated both j
'from within the context of the fifteenth century and its poetic, ;
* I
,linguistic theories and anachronistically. He is cited as a glorious :
I
representative of a former age and tradition of poetic composition. |
Entire grammars of his work have been written that describe and explain:
jthe poet’s language, attitudes toward it, and allegiances, thus con- j
^tributing significantly to the understanding of his individual art. ;
!
His works are viewed as simple documents of a metric-literary history j
I and also are studied frequently in relation to later writers, inherit j
j '
itors of the same poetic tradition, and as important contributions to
I . . . I
I the development of a linguistic system. In this regard, it could be j
I I
! argued with Karl Vossler that the, "literary history of certain periods[
would gain by an analysis of the linguistic milieu at least as much as
by the usual analyses of political, social, and religious tendencies
56
or the country and climate." Ultimately, language and literature
share an undeniable, dialectical relationship.
Wellek and Warren have voiced objections to the assumptions of
stylistic approaches and attempt to demonstrate some of the short
comings. Their perspectives relate to our discussion. Numerous
171
I critics have described Mena’s style as erudite, elitist and Latinized.
I
These characteristics have been the object of criticism in the writings
of commentators and researchers. The arguments of Mena’s evaluators,
however, are founded on unsound premises according to the authors of
I
I Theory of Literature. They write: "The assumption that, especially for
jpast periods, we know the distinction between common speech and
artistic deviation is, regrettably, quite unfounded. Much closer study
must be given to the diversely stratified speech of remote times
before we shall possess the proper background for judgement of the
diction of an author or of a literary movement" (p. I T T ) . Furthermore,
I linguistic and stylistic studies seem to emphasize either the
"... old disjointed study of figures based on the classifications of
.rhetoric . . . [or] the more grandiose but less concrete speculations
,on period styles. . ." (p. 1T9)• For Wellek and Warren, a mean betweenj
,these two extremes seems to be more acceptable, but it is infrequently ^
I found in the writings of critics. The criticism of Mena is undoubtedly
' I
dichotomized in this area. |
I
Another problem with stylistic analysis of literary works that I
concentrates on the peculiarities of style or traits that differentiate,
I it from the normal linguistic pattern is, as Wellek and Warren write,
!"We are likely to accumulate isolated observations, specimens of the
1
' marked traits, and to forget that a work of art is a whole. We are
[likely to overstress 'originality,’ individuality, the merely idio-
I
:syncratic" (p. l8l). The vast amount of attention given the
1T2
enumeration of characteristics particular to Mena's works certainly
exemplifies this shortcoming.
Stylistic analysis does, however, contribute to the understanding
of an author and his work. It is, as Wellek and Warren indicate,
"most profitable to literary study when it can establish some unifying
^ principle, some general aesthetic aim pervasive of a whole work"
;(p. 182).
i
I We can say, in conclusion, that linguistic, stylistic analyses
j of the norm and deviation from it in the works of Juan de Mena have
been justified through appeal to external, cultural-historical and
internal, textual, supports and have lent to the understanding of the
aesthetic purpose at the base of the linguistic anomalies, but less
frequently, if at all, to the total meaning of a single work or group
of works.
173
NOTES
CHAPTER IV
' René Wellek and Austin Warren, Theory of Literature, 3rd ed.
.(New York: Harcourt, Brace, 195é). They devote an entire chapter to
an analysis of style and language approaches to literature.
I
2
Antonio de Nehrija, Gramatica de la lengua castellana, ed.
I Gonzalez Lluhera (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1926).
i 3
Juan del Encina, "Arte de poesia castellana," ed. Marceline
.Menendez y Pelayo, Antologia de poetas liricos Castellanos (Santander :
I Aldus, 19^4), V, 30-^^. See also the critical edition of Juan Carlos
.Temprano in Boletin de la Real Academia Espahola, 53 (l9T3), 321-350.
[I wish to thank Rosalie Gimeno for the information regarding this
i edition,
i
I Cristobal de Castillejo, Obras, ed. J. Dominguez Bordona j
I(Madrid: Espasa Calpe, I92U), II, 233. I
5 ^ i
Alfonso Garcia de Matamores, Pro Adserenda Hispanorum Eruditione,'
trans. and ed. José Lopez Toro (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investi- j
gaciones Cientificas, 19^3), p. 222. I
I
^ Argote de Molina, "Discurso sobre la poesia castellana," ed.
M. Menéndez y Pelayo, Antologia, V, 6U-T5.
T
Alonso Lopez Pinciano, Philosofia antigua poética, ed. Alfredo
'Carballo Picazo (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
;Cientificas, 1953), II, 230-231.
^ Francisco Cascales, Tablas poeticas, ed. Benito Brancaforte
.(Madrid: Espasa Calpe, 19T5).
17^
Gonzalo Correas, Arte grande de la lengua castellana, ed.
Emilio Alarcos Garcia (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
Cientificas, 195^). Correas characterizes the arte mayor verse in a
way similar to other critics, especially el Pinciano, by saying,
"El verso de a doze silabas, que llaman de arte maior, i era eroico i
grave como en Las Trezientas de Xuan de Mena. . ." (p. ^73).
Juan de Valdes, Dialogo de la lengua, ed. José P. Montesinos
(Madrid: Espasa Calpe, I969).
i 11
I Cited by Jose Amador de los Rios in Historia critica de la
literature espahola (1865; facs. rpt. Madrid: Gredos, I969), VI, 105,
In. 3. I have not seen the poem.
12
Miguel Sanchez de Lima, El arte poética en romance castellano,
ed, Rafael Balbin Lucas (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
Cientificas, 19^^), pp. 23-2U.
13 ^
Cited by Menendez y Pelayo in Historia de la poesia castellana
en la edad media, ed. Adolfo Bonilla y San Martin (Madrid, 191^), II,
191. Maria Rosa Lida in Juan de Mena, poeta del prerrenacimiento
espanol (Mexico: Colegio de Mexico, 1950), pp. 367-368, challenges the
validity of the letter and the authenticity of its authorship. The
text is published in Revista de Archives, Bibliotecas y Museos, 27
( 1913) , 291-319, 352-363.
lU
Fernando de Herrera, Anotaciones a las obras de Garcilaso, ed.
'Antonio Gallego Morell (158O; facs. rpt. Madrid: Consejo Superior de
Investigaciones Cientificas, 1973), p. 307.
I
I Alonso Lopez Pinciano, Philosophia, III, 123-12^.
I
' Lope de Vega, "La gatomaquia," Coleccion escogida de obras no
’dramaticas, ed. Cayetano Resell, Biblioteca de Autores Espaholes, Vol.
38 (Madrid: Atlas, 1950), p. U35.
17
Lope de Vega, "Laurel de Apolo," Coleccion escogida de obras
no dramaticas, ed. Cayetano Resell, Biblioteca de Autores Espaholes,
Vol. 38 (Madrid: Atlas, 1950), p. 202.
; Tirso de Molina, Obras dramaticas complétas, ed. Blanca de los
iRios (Madrid: Aguilar, 1969), I, 1975. I quote from this edition.
175
cited by Maria Rosa Lida, Juan de Mena, p. 370, who follows
Damaso Alonso, La lengua poética de Gongora, 2nd ed. rev. (Madrid:
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1950), pp. I83-I85.
20 X
Juan de Espinosa Medrano, "Apologético en favor de don Luis
de Gongora," ed. Ventura Garcia Calderpn, Revue Hispanique, 65 (I925),
^57.
21
1 Lope de Vega, "Respuesta a un papel que escribio un sehor de
j estos reinos en razon de la nueva poesia," Coleccion escogida de obras
I no dramaticas, ed. Cayetano Rosell, Biblioteca de Autores Espaholes,
IVol. 38 (Madrid; Atlas, 1950), p. 139.
22
Lope writes: "Mas viniendo a una verdad infalible, no deja de
causar lastima que lo que los ingenios doctos han procurado ennoblecer
en nuestra lengua desde el tiempo del rey don Juan el Segundo hasta
nuestro tiempo del rey Felipe III, ahora vuelva a aquel principle. . ."
(p. 1^0).
' 23
! Lope de Vega, "Introduceion a la justa poética al bienaventu-
! rado San Isidro," Coleccion escogida de obras no dramaticas, ed.
I Cayetano Rosell, Biblioteca de Autores Espaholes, Vol. 38 (Madrid:
I Atlas, 1950), p. IU6.
I
2h ^
' Luis Josef Velazquez, Origenes de la poesia castellana, 2nd
ed. (Malaga: Herederos de Francisco Martinez de Aguilar, 1797), p. 105.
pq
Juan Andrés, Dell' origine, progressi e stato attuaie d' ogni
letteratura (Parma, I785), II. Reference cited in Lida, Juan de Mena,
p. 55^. I have not seen the work.
26
Tomas Antonio Sanchez, Coleccion de poesias castellanas
anteriores al siglo XV, cited in Lida, Juan de Mena, p. 38I. The
work is not available to me.
27
José Manuel Quintana, "Introduceion historica a una coleccion
de poesias castellanas," Obras, ed. Rivadeneyra, Biblioteca de Autores
Espaholes, Vol. 19 (Madrid: Rivadeneyra, I852), reproduced from Tesoro
del parnaso espahol: poesias selectas desde el tiempo de Juan de Mena
ihasta el fin del siglo XVIII, ed. José Manuel Quintana, 4 vols.
I(Perpignan, I817). I quote from the Obras edition.
I 28
I George Ticknor, History of Spanish Literature (New York:
■ Harper;,. 18U9) , I, 390.
176
29
Amador de los Rios, Historia critica, VI, 105.
30 ^
Menendez y Pelayo, Historia de la poesia.
31 ^
I Menendez y Pelayo, Historia de la poesia, II, 18%. He writes:
' "El movimiento lirico y marcadamente trocaico de este verso, parece
que contradice a la gravedad y al sosiego de un extenso poema doctrinal
é historico."
I 32
! Rafael Floranes, Vida literaria del Canciller mayor de
j Castilla, D. Pedro Lopez de Ayala, Coleccion de Documentos Ineditos
■para la Historia de Espaha,Vol. 19 (Madrid, I85I). Floranes reiter-
jates his condemnation of Mena’s style in Vida y ohras de Dr. D.
; Lorenzo Galindez Caravajal, Coleccion de Documentos Ineditos para la
iHistoria de Espaha, Vol. 20 (Madrid, 1851), pp. 262-26U.
' 33
For a review of theoretical questions involving arte mayor
and previous studies devoted to it see Joaquin Balaguer, Apuntes para
I una historia prosodica de la metrica castellana (Madrid: Consejo
jSuperior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 195^).
j Alfred Morel-Fatio, "L’arte mayor et 1’hendecasyllahe dans la
I poésie castillane du quinzième siècle et du commencement du seizième
I siècle," Romania, 23 (189^), 209-231.
35
Ramon Foulché-Delhosc, "Etude sur le Laherinto de Juan de
'Mena," Revue Hispanique, 9 (1902), 75-138. See also the Spanish
I translation of the metric study in the original article, pp. 81-103,
iJuan de Mena y el arte mayor, trans. Adolfo Bonilla y San Martin
J(Madrid: José Perales y Martinez, I903).
{ Gonzalez Lluhera, in his edition of Gramatica de la lengua
!castellana, p. 193, indicates that according to Foulché-Delhosc, in
'the Laherinto, forty different metric-stress schemes occur. Lluhera's
'statement is, however, incorrect. Foulché-Delhosc outlines the forty
■combinations possible in arte mayor and proceeds to indicate that
I only four do not occur in the Laherinto.
i
! 37
! John Schmitt, "Sul verso de arte mayor," Rendiconti della Real
Academia del Lincei, lU (1905), 109-133.
38
F . Hanssen, "El arte mayor de Juan de Mena," Anales de la
'Universidad de Chile, 68 (1906), 179-200.
177
39 ,
Balaguer, Apuntes, pp. 29-41.
Pierre Le Gentil, La Poésie lyrique espagnole et portugaise
à la fin du moyen âge, 2 vols. (Rennes: Philon, 1952).
kl
Dorothy Clotelle Clarke, Morphology of Fifteenth Century
! Castilian Verse, Duquesne Studies, Philological Series, Vol. k
(Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 196^). Mena's works are dis
cussed on pp. 190-197 of the monograph.
h2 ^
Oreste Maori, Ensayo de métrica sintagmâtica: Ejemplos del
"Libro de buen amor" y del "Laherinto" de Juan de Mena (Madrid:
jGredos, I 9 6 9 ).
The source of the often quoted line, "bolvime con aire/de la
dubdosa cara," of the Laherinto is discussed by Maori from the perspec
tive of metre. He argues that although it is ideologically similar
,to "volsimi all sinistra/col rispetto" (Purgatorio XXX.U3), metrically
'it approximates other lines from the Divine Comedy such as "oppresse
,di stup6re/mi volsi come parvol" (Paradise XXII.1-2), "poscia
i rivolsi/alia mia donna il vise" (Paradise XV.32), "ma drizzo verso
i me.1'animo e 1'volte" (inferno XXIV.131), "volgendo a l6ro/e qua e
I là la faccia" (Purgatorio VI.11) and "ed al maéstro mio/volse la
ifaccia" (inferno XXIII.6l).
' hh
Dorothy Clotelle Clarke in review of Ensayo de metrica
sintagmâtica by Oreste Macri, Hispanic Review, hi (1973), 92-9^, chal-
'lenges Macri's notions and handling of the question involving Dante's
'.influence on Mena. She writes that Macri accepts "traditional biases
[and assumptions through which the influence of Dante and other
,Italians is probably exaggerated and virtually no consideration is
; given to the possible influence of medieval church and ancient
I classical Latin metric forms on fifteenth-century Spanish metrics"
;(p. 9k).
' ^5
I Fernando Lazaro Carreter, "La poética del arte mayor," in
iStudia hispanica in honorem R. Lapesa, ed. Damaso Alonso et. al.
'(Madrid: Gredos, 1972), I, 3^3-378.
Maria Rosa Lida, Juan de Mena. Much of this information is
transcribed in the chapter of the monograph titled "Critica."
hi
Her study of language in the Laherinto encompasses pp. 233-322.
178
j The prose study is reproduced from her article, "La prosa
de Juan de Mena," Boletin de la Real Academia Argentina de las Letras,
18 (1950), 393-^32.
hQ
Jose Manuel Blecua, ed., El Laherinto de Fortuna o las Tres-
cientas, by Juan de Mena, (19^3; rpt. Madrid: Espasa Calpe,
1973).
50
! _ John Cummins, ed., Laherinto de Fortuna, by Juan de Mena
I(Salamanca: Anaya, I968).
' 51 .
I Louise Vasvari Fainberg, ed., El Laherinto de Fortuna, by
I Juan de Mena (Madrid: Alhambra, 1977).
I 52
! Maria Luz Gutierrez Araus, ed., Tratado de amor : atribuido a
I Juan de Mena (Madrid: Alcala, 1975).
! 53
I Damaso Alonso, La lengua poetica.
j 5 ^
See Erasmo Buceta, "La critica de la oscuridad sobre poetas
]anteriores a Gongora," Revista de Filologia Espahola, 8 (1921),
{I78-I8O, and Erasmo Buceta, "Algunos antecedentes del culturanismo,"
[Romanic Review, 9 (l920), 33^-336. Both articles are cited by Alonso.
i
; qq
j Martin Alonso, Evolueion sintactica del espanol (Madrid:
I Aguilar, 1962).
I 56
I Karl Vossler, Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Sprachphilosophie
I(Munich, 1923), p. 37. Cited in Wellek and Warren, p. 17^. I quote
from their translation.
179
CHAPTER V
STRUCTURE
In recent years, the Laherinto has been the object of a signifi-
j cant number of studies that have explored, for the first time, its
I internal composition: its form, structure, and themes. This flurry of
I
■formalist, thematic criticism chronologically followed the identify
ing of Mena's sources and influences, the scrupulous diagraming of
both style and language, and the writing of his biographies. The |
earlier, more "traditional" studies have provided the necessary
I information and foundation that permitted later critics to expand into
jnew, previously unresearched areas. The availability of modern criti-
Ical editions of the poem and textual studies have also facilitated
'its structural, thematic analysis.
In this chapter I propose to review the opinions expressed in
■these formalist writings and pursuant of my aim, I have divided them
I
jinto two groups: those that diagram the structure of the Laherinto
I
[relating its parts to the total meaning, and those that study only
;the poem's content, its themes. The division is more for purposes of
organization than for indications of essential differences, as many
[critics perform both tasks. A third and final section of critical
; appraisals that resist classification, but nevertheless represent
intrinsic approaches of sorts, is presented at the end of the chapter.
1 8 0
structure
Writing in 1951, Cleanth Brooks expounds upon his critical per-'
suasion hy citing several articles of faith that he abides by. These
include: "that the primary concern of criticism is with problems of
1 unity— the kind of whole which the literary works form or fail to
jform, and the relation of the various parts to each other in building
I up of this whole; that in a successful work form and content cannot
I be separated; that form is meaning, Later in the same article,
jwhile defending his approach against the criticisms of others. Brooks
{presents further tenets of formalism :
The formalist critic, because he wants to criticize the
work itself, makes two assumptions : he assumes that the
relevant part of the author’s intention is what he got
actually into his works . . . and the formalist critic
assumes an ideal reader: that is, instead of focusing
the varying spectrum of possible readings, he attempts
to find a central point of reference from which he can
focus upon the structure of the poem or novel. (p. 3)
Structure and content, form and meaning, are viewed as a unit ; that
I unit printed on the page is self-contained. It alone is the object
; of investigation.
Critics who have written on the Laherinto during recent years
could be classified loosely under the heading of formalist. They are
concerned mainly with the poem's structure and meaning. They seek
internal explanations for the elements and overall composition of the
work. Through a study of the poem's structure, they arrive at its
meaning.
l8l
The first critic to outline the Laherinto's structure is Rafael
2
Lapesa. He observes that the poem reflects a conscious and veil
I planned symmetry. For Lapesa the work is organized into the following
I
I i f
,seven divisions:
a.) Dedicatoria a Juan II (estrofa l)
b) Exposicion, invocacion, invectiva contra Fortuna,
j rapto del poeta y encuentro con Providencia (30
: estrofas, de la 2 a la 31)
c) Descripcion del orbe universo (23 estrofas, 32-5^),
; y de las très ruedas (8 estrofas, 55-62)
; d) Descripcion de los siete circulos (IT^ estrofas, 63-236)
: e) Episodio de la hechicera de Valladolid, consultada
I por los enèmigos de don Alvaro de Luna (31 estrofas,
I 237-267)
f) Profecias sobre Juan II; recorrido por la historia
de Espaha; desvanecimiento de la vision (28 estrofas,
: 268-295)
g) Exhortacion final a Juan II (2 estrofas, 296-297).
i (p. 262)
I
[Lapesa demonstrates the subtleties of this structure and begins with
!
I the remark: "Es indudable el deseo de equilibrar los elementos que se
agrupan antes y despues del nucleo central. . ." (p. 262). According
'to this arrangement, the first and final sections, sixty-two..arid
I sixty-one strophes each, are dedicated to the king. The central
[grouping in the seven circles presents the virtues and vices with
advice to the monarch at the close of each planet on what to seek and
what to avoid. The distribution of persons in each circle is based on
the moral prerogatives presented by the poet. The structure of the
mid-section offers irregularities; the poet deviates from the esta
blished pattern of presenting examples from the past and present and
I examples of virtues and vices in every circle. Furthermore, the
182
I condemned of the present are left nameless, probably because of the
ipoet's fear, but more significantly because the poem was written in
I
jpraise of the moral values of Castile. There are other omissions or
j anomalies that remain unexplained through social or moral reasons.
[ Lapesa observes that the flexible structure was created to be at the
! poet's service: "... dilata o abrevia, ahade o suprime segun sus
lintereses. . ." (pp. 265-266). Because of this variable structure,
1
jwhich avoids monotony, the content and character of the work are
'able to represent the moral values Mena was presenting as ideals for
[Castilian nobility and Mena's judgement of his contemporaries is free
1 from personal comment. Lapesa views the structure and meaning of
I
'the poem as closely related to the moral element contained in its
'strophes.
! The next critic to offer his views on the structure of the
I > . 3
ififteenth century poem is Joaquin Gimeno Casalduero. He divides the
Laherinto into three main sections:
La primera (l-6o) expone los propositos, aclara la
alegoria, inicia la accion, y muestra, desarrollando
el tema de Fortuna, el sentido del mundo y el aparente
i desorden de los sucesos; la segunda (61-26T), en siete
I etapas (siete ordenes), describe el viaje del poeta,
! alegoriza el nresente, construye el catalogo moral,
canta los hechos famosos, y aconseja a Juan_II.; la ter-
; cera (268-297), recordando el pasado y adelantando el
I future, guia al monarca hacia la meta salvadora.
! (p. 127)
,The allegorization of the present is further divided into three epi
sodes and two prophecies: the history of Don Juan (1UI-I58), in which
1 8 3
jthe past is compared with the present; the deaths of the eight knights
(159-209), which describes the tragedies of the present; the episode
of Alvaro de Luna (233-267), which depicts the dangers of the future.
The two prophecies are complementary; the first (253-256) predicts the
death of Castile and the second (271-291) announces its future glory.
Gimeno Casalduero observes that Castilian reality is examined in
the seven orders. The first three demonstrate the causes for the
iconfused present: injustices, immorality, and greed. The fourth
depicts contemporary personages and juxtaposes Greco-Roman, Christian
,science to superstition. The fifth is devoted to a definition of
[Castilian destiny through a comparison of its past and present. The
'past glories are sculpted on the throne of Juan II and the contempo
rary world is presented in two contrasting parts: the reconquest
campaigns in Andalucia (1^7-158), and the civil war in Castile
!(159-20^). Jupiter, the sixth planet, presents the peaceful kings.
I
; The virtues of the Greco-Roman world are contrasted with the corrupt
■Castilian government. Saturn is devoted to good rulers and Alvaro
de Luna shines forth alone. Against the background of the contempo-
;rary state of confusion is projected the glorious prophecy of the
■future of Juan II and Castile. Juan II is presented as the sum of
all past kings.
Mena skillfully employs the technique of contrast, concludes
'Gimeno Casalduero. In the first sixty strophes is presented the con-
[fusion of the world and events in the reign of Fortune and the reverse
18U
in that of Providence. In the second section (l9T strophes), the
labyrinth is built around the fearing Juan II and the final section
(the prophecy of glory through reconquest) provides the monarch with
a way out of his labyrinth. Hence, through a study of the structure
of the Laherinto, its: meaning and the poet’s purpose become clear.
In an article that uses Gimeno Casalduero’s divisions as a point
.of departure, Philip 0. Gericke offers yet another view of the
[Laherinto’s structure.^ Gericke observes a clear distinction between !
•circles I-IV and V-VII, formerly treated as a single unit comprising
'the center of the poem. He views these two parts as "antithetical"
! and the contrast is based on the juxtaposition of the past and the
[present. Fortune and Providence, ethics and practical reality. |
I
I In circles I-IV, the emphasis is upon past examples and ethical |
I
I considerations. It is the domain of Providence. In circles V-VII, ,
I I
ithe presentation is no longer on the basis of venerated examples but ^
[the emphasis is on war and the national theme. The shift, then, is to
I
both ethical and practical considerations, the present and the rêignn [
of Fortune, from the macrocosm to the microcosm. Circle V begins with !
i I
! stress on the practical even though the results are tragic (the death ■
I of the eight knights); all are struck down by Fortune and confusion
I
ireigns. In the preceding two circles possible responses to Fortune
and ways of combating her powers are considered. Circle VI offers
-the ethical, passive solution embodied in the figure of Amyclas; one
should remain aloof from political problems. Gericke notes that this.
185
however, is not Mena’s position. In circle VII, we see Alvaro de Luna,
glorious and alone, who conquers the force of Fortune hy meeting her
through direct confrontation. An ethical ideal is combined with a
I pragmatic response. With Fortune now defeated, the reign of Providence
1 returns and the poet looks to the future. He concludes optimistic-
'ally: the king should act because Providence has predicted his glory
'and has set before him the model of Alvaro de Luna, an example of !
I
strength against adversity. Gericke concludes this part of his study ,
: by affirming that "The Laherinto . . . is more than a loose aggloméra- j
tion of unrelated episodes held together by the allegorical system
land conditioned by the moral standards which the poet wishes to exult.
It conceals an argument based on the depiction of an order, the
I temporary suspension of that order, and the prediction of its sub-
1
I sequent restoration" (p. 520).
For Gericke the poem divides into the following five parts:
a) Exordium: dedication, statement of purpose, first
characterization of Fortune, vision, encounter with
I Providence (stanzas 1-33)
; b) Ambientation: physical background of timeless macro-
I cosm (mapamundi, stanzas 3^-55); allegorical frame-
I work (three wheels, seven circles, stanzas 56-60)
c) Journey through the domain of Providence : larger
! historical context, emphasis on the past, virtue and
' wisdom. Providential order (Circles I-IV, stanzas
I 61-137)
■ d) Domain of Fortune: Mena’s Spain. Emphasis on disordered
' present; Fortune triumphant (Circle V), irrelevant
(circle VI), subjugated (Circle VII)(stanzas 138-268)
e) Conclusion: vision of future. Restoration of order,
Juan II’s g l o r y , his task (stanzas 2 6 9 - 2 9 7 ) .
(p. 521)
186
It can be said that Gericke views the structure as related to and
dependent upon pairs of juxtaposed topics.
The next critic to discover meaning in the structure of the poem
; q
' and the organization of the seven planets is Luis Beltran. He
indicates that the longest section of the poem is the one "dealing
_ with the resources of man against Fortune" (p. 319, jStànzasi.55-268) . i
I
I Each of the wheels is divided into seven circles arranged concentric- '
i
I ally following the Ptolomaic astrological system. Persons are assignedj
I i
: to the planets on the basis of qualities they exhibit. Beltran’s I
■study of each planet’s organization is especially detailed. He
. observes a parallelZ.movement in each circle and a dynamic movement
! progressing from the smallest to the largest. No two planets are
I
I alike but the general pattern is that the past is viewed before the
[present and the positive examples before the negative. Schematically
the patterns look like this:
ositive examples
negative examples
Planet
-of the c
past
cerco
-of the
present positive examples
^negative examples
IAfter charting the particular presentation in each planet, Beltran
[proceeds to explain the anomalies.^ The fictional narration is
i
I
i8t
I
interrupted by the historical voice of the poet advising the king in
six of the seven circles and not in all seven, as Lapesa has indicated.
Each circle has two parts: "a longer, fictional one . . . and a much
I shorter, non-fictional one" (p. 322). Two planets offer significant
: deviation from the established pattern, the Sun and Jupiter, and both
I of these structural variations have meaning. The virtue extolled
I
I in the Sun is Prudence. Mena, by proceeding to the wheel of the
I present without completing that of the past, thus"mixing the establish-!
■ed past-present order, graphically suggests the sin against Prudence, i
, I
'the peering into the future as a diviner, perverting knowledge and !
'destroying the established Divine order. * [
I
> Before discussing the variations in Jupiter, Beltran traces the
■ j
[presentation of the four Cardinal Virtues in the first six planets.
: Mercury and Venus deal with two aspects of the same virtue ( Temperance ),|
and both are linked to the Moon (Chastity), organizationally because |
.the Moon contains all positive examples and Venus all negative. The
[Sun (Prudence), Mars (Fortitude), and Jupiter (Justice), round out the
I
[scheme. Jupiter ends the series of the Cardinal Virtues and, since
I
[according to Beltran, "Mena’s structural complexities always seem to
I
ihave meaning" (p. 325), it announces the beginning of something else.
Saturn, the last planet, is occupied entirely by one figure, Alvaro de
;Luna. He is made to embody all four oftthe Cardinal Virtues and is '
'placed in the largest of the concentric circles, the one that both i
I {
[structurally and thematically embraces the rest. There is no address I
188,
to the king after Saturn, nor is there any need for one. Mena’s
ultimate purpose is not that of describing a single quality but showing
the presence of all four virtues in one man and indicating that such
! a goal is possible to achieve.
It is shown clearly in Beltran’s explanations that he sees the
structures and deviations from them as the key to the poem’s meaning
and the significance of Mena’s purpose.
The writer who most recently has studied the structure of Mena’s
ILaherinto is Marie G. Turek. After brief references to the
I
'political-historical situation during Mena’s time and to Mena’s
I poetic language, Turek addresses previous structural studies and
I indicates the disparity of their results. She affirms: "De ningun
I modo es posible coincidir en la division del poema con precision
igeometrica" (p. 10^), but she also contends that her division of the
I
poem reflects its discursive nature and Mena’s predilection for
Latin formulas. It is as follows:
I Introduccion:
Insinuatio - Copias 2-33
Expeditio - Copias 3^-55
II Argumentasion - Copias 6l-231
III Conclusion - Copias 232-297
The scheme excludes the first strophe, that was written, according to
Foulche-Delbosc who Turek quotes, after the poem had been composed.
This fact, for Turek, also eliminates the possibility that the poem
I
I
I was dedicated to Juan II as critics have been saying for a long time.
Turek says that she is modeling her study up to strophe 60 after that
189
! of Gericke, then the remainder of it will he her own opinions. Her
presentation consists of an episodic description and thematic comment
ary as she traces the divisions of the poem. She indicates that
strophes 56-6O prove the difficulty involved in achieving an exact
[ division of the poem. She proceeds to describe the structure of the
^ seven circles and how the main theme, according to her, of censure
I and protest is developed in the argumentation (6l-23l) and reaches its
I peak in the conclusion (232-297). Turek is interested in structure
^ and how it relates to the main theme and the narrative line of the
^ poem.
I Five studies of the structure of Mena’s Laherinto and its
! compositional elements, its raw materials, have been reviewed. Five
I diverse interpretations and schematic divisions have been presented
I along with five similar but individual reasons for studying the com
position and the same number of explanations for its existence and
t
I keys to its understanding. In diagramatic form the structural divi-
Idions offered by the foregoing critics look like this:
Lapesa Gimeno Gericke Beltran Turek
a) 1 I 1-60 a) 1-33 55-268 I 2-33
'b) 2-31 II 61-267 b) 3^-55, 3U-55
ic) 32-54, III 268-297 56-60 II 61-231
! 55-62 episodes c) 61-137 III 232-297
Id) 63-236 141-158 d) 138-268
Ie) 237-267 159-209 e) 269-297
If) 2 6 8 - 2 9 5 2 3 3 - 2 6 7
jg) 296-297
190
None coincides with another on a single point and several only approxi
mate each other. Although these critics have analyzed the structure
and, through it, the meaning of the work, it resists, however, a
single, molded form obvious to all.
Several other structural approaches remain to be reviewed. The
authors of these studies do not attempt numerical divisions of the
poem but simply focus on the elements that contribute to its particular
form. Dorothy Clotelle Clarke, in Juan de Mena’s "Laherinto de For4:-_n_
tuna": Classic Epic and Mester de Clerecia, studies Mena’s sources,
attempts to demonstrate that the Laherinto is an epic poem according
1 to Aristotle’s precepts, discusses Mena's relation to the poems and
I authors of inester de clerecia (Berceo, Juan Ruiz, and the Libro de
Alexandre).^ She also studies Mena’s technique of "diffusion." This
I
I latter investigation leads her to a discussion and presentation of the !
I form, character, and meaning of the Laherinto. The following is a i
summary of Clarke's study dealing with the formal elements of Mena’s i
I
poem.
Clarke distinguishes between the art of fusion of Juan Ruiz and
Mena's art of diffusion. She says that "Mena’s aim apparently was to
fraction an idea and then so diffuse the bits throughout his poem by
means of repeated direct or indirect allusion and easily perceptible
or sub-surface images that the reader . . . would sense the unifying
continuity and subconsciously reconstruct the idea and use it for
understanding the aesthetic or moral or political or philosophical
191
principle or lesson the poet wished to impart" (pp. 81-82). She con
tinues, stating that certain images of units (circle or the number "1")
"would . . . gently hammer into the reader’s mind the unity concept"
' (p. 82). From this schematic presentation of Mena's artistic tech-
; nique, Clarke proceeds to study the unifying images that comprise the
j structure of the Laherinto. They include: the circle, rhetorical
jfigures (circumlocution, periphrasis, paronymy, and chiasmus); the !
j labyrinth, related to the specific political situation in Spain during i
I Mena's time; the epic system, tripartite wheels and seven circles as !
containers of totality; patterns of totality in the muses and the j
I liberal arts; numbers, especially one through five, seven and the |
I j
jmultiples, with Mena's favorite number being three; the epic simile, j
I borrowed from the classics that contributed to the atmosphere of time- 1
i i
'lessness; foreshadowing and complementing ; and finally the poetic j
i I
(genres deriving from Aristotle and Quintilian: tragedy. Mars; lyrical, ,
i
the Moon ; elegy, Venus (love) and Sun (funeral); comic, Saturn; satire,
9
Mercury ; and epic., Mars.
Mena’s presentation is not static, nor are his figures rigid as
; in the "tableau-like allegory," but there is a quality of dramatic
tension. Mena avoids the monotony produced by the mechanically and
structurally perfect forms, through surprise and deviations in the
norm in geographical and natural facts. For Clarke then, Mena’s poem
also reveals a studied and careful structural planning; elements are
! chosen for their unifying effects. This idea also coincides with
Mena's own desire for artistic, political, and cosmic unity.
L
192
Much before Clarke had written her study, José Manuel Blecua had
viewed Mena’s poem in relation to fifteenth century plastic arts, par
ticularly the ways in which the Dantesque allegorical order and the
manner of presenting facts and persons in the Laherinto are similar
ito the retablos and tapestry of Gothic art.^^ Characteristic of the
I structure of this art, and Mena's by association, is the classification
of the material within the form of circular frames, represented in the
Laherinto by the seven spheres.
The Laherinto has offered critics a variety of impressions regard
ing its structure and the relation of its content to the form of the
Laherinto. Some have preferred to study it as a specific shape,
; dividing it into its component parts and sub-parts; others have been
, more interested in describing the elements and techniques that contri-
' bute to its structure and how it, in turn', is related to the forms of j
the graphic arts. All of these studies have been concerned primarily
I
with the inner workings of the poem and attempt, through a careful
i
analysis of the component parts and their interrelations, to arrive at I
an interpretation of both the meaning of the poem and the author's !
I
purpose in writing it. They seem to correspond to Brooks' "articles !
1
of faith" presented at the beginning of this chapter.
Themes
Closely associated with the study of structure and meaning is the
: analysis of themes. Since the aforementioned critics are interested
193
primarily in discovering and describing the meaning of the Laberinto,
they obviously devote attention to the presentation of themes. Other
critics, such as Maria Rosa Lida, who, as we have observed, has
studied sources, language, style, and influence; and Florence Street,
! who has devoted space to Mena's relation to allegorical compositions
I and Dante, also engage in the study of themes. The themes that authors
I focus upon include: fortune, the national ideal (reconquest versus
I
civil war, censure, and protest), the king, and the moral issues.
Although most critics seem to agree on the number and kinds of themes
! found in the Laberinto, there are disputes regarding Mena's specific
! handling of them. The following is a review of the thematic criticism
iof the Laberinto, and, in one case, of the Coronacion.
I
i1. Fortune and Divine Providence
, Maria Rosa Lida examines both Mena's view of Fortune and the
i
view(s) expressed in works before and during his time, as previously
12
seen in chapter III. Mena derives his concept of Fortune from
Boethius. The first verses present Mena's purpose in writing: "Tus
casos falaces Fortuna, cantamos. ...” From here Mena proceeds to
chastize her and describe her nature in terms of opposites or contra
dictions. She is viewed as the servant of Providence and not as a
self-ruling goddess. Mena's presentation is original but closely
I 1 o
I follows that of Boethius.
! Florence Street traces the concept of Fortune during ancient
i
Itimes and the early Christian period, paying particularly close
19^
attention to Boethius’ concept of the goddess.He believed that
Fortune was an agent of Providence and her unstable, fickle conduct
demonstrates the "worthlessness of the goods she controls" (p. 3).
Street affirms: "Mena takes over this definition complete in the
Laberinto" (p. 3). As previously noted, the author observes that,
jsince the literature on Fortune was a common part of Mena’s literary
I
! heritage, it is useless to seek precise antecedents for his concept.
i
I Characteristic of their approaches, both critics view the theme of
i 25
I fortune in relation to Mena’s sources.
I
' Rafael Lapesa views it from within the context of the poem.
jAlong with describing the question of Fortune at the opening of his
■poem, Mena also presents it in moral terms : "virtudes e viçios narrar
de potentes," The moral element conditions the fortune theme and its
presentation in the Laberinto. Lapesa devotes a section of his essay
to review the polemic during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries
surrounding the question of Fortune, its relation to Divine Providence
and its place in the Divine Order. Mena adopts a conciliatory attitude^
I
reflected by Boethius. Fortune, however, does not act directly in the i
poem. Providence is Mena’s guide but Fortune is viewed as a negative
force against whom it is necessary to act. Particularly original is
Lapesa’s observation of the apparent contradictions in Mena’s presenta
tion. The poet attempts to harmonize the idea of chance with that of
Christian Divine Providence but cannot help notice the concrete
examples of how the world is ultimately subjected to the whims of the
199
mysterious force of Fortune over which there is no control. His atti- \
I
tude is more in line with that of the ancients than with the resigna
tion of the ascetic Christian,
j Gimeno Casalduero views the fortune theme and its presentation
,in terms of its relation to the labyrinth symbol, derived, as pre-
^viously seen in chapter III, from the Aeneid VI. Mena modifies the
I ^ *
I traditional House of Fortune motif into the form of a labyrinth in
I
order to "alegorizar la confusion castellana" (p. 128). Like
Boethius, who Mena follows in both his idea of Fortune and Providence,
jMena seeks answers to the present state of turbulence and confusion
i
I from Providence. After the description of, and recriminations against
i
jFortune, Providence appears to guide the poet, explain the workings of
jthe world, the movement of time. Providential order then reigns until
I the circle of Mars, after which Fortune once again takes control for
I the remainder of the circles. In Saturn she is pitted against Alvaro
I
de Luna and is defeated. With the allegorization of the Castilian
present complete (61-267) Providence again controls the development of
I events and prophecizes the glory and fame of the king.
I Gericke’s view of the fortune theme takes into account the views
i
■and studies of Lida, Lapesa, and Gimeno Casalduero. He observes
I that, although Mena presents Fortune at the beginning of the poem, the
I
jpoet is later transported to Fortune’s palace and greeted there by
(Providence, not Fortune. Because of this occurrence, Gericke affirms
I
jthat Mena relegates Fortune to a secondary role. This arrangement.
1 9 6
however, is modified as the poem progresses. Gericke disagrees with
Lapesa and does not view these diverse presentations of Fortune as
discrepant hut simply as an original view later modified. Gericke
indicates that the wheels actually belong to Providence and not
Fortune, "in that they allegorize the reward of virtue and the punish
ment of vice" (p. 51^)• The ultimate end is controlled by Providence,
but Fortune is a power that man must deal with in life. Gericke
relates the antithetical divisions of the middle section to the
fortune-providence theme. Later, he devotes space to comment on the
history of the fortune topos. Herein lies his original contribution
to the study of Fortune in Mena. Gericke prefeps to view Lida’s two
itypes of Fortune (Boethius and pagan) in reverse order. Mena trans-
I
j cends combating Fortune with wisdom and devotion (Boethius) and
(suggests a position later adopted by Machiavelli and Guiccardini, which
emphasizes the role of strength and virtu.
Marie Turek briefly refers to Mena’s presentation of Fortune,
i
jbut limits her discussion to the description of Fortune in the first
jten strophes and a repetition of the ideas made by other critics.
Turek comments on the relation of Fortune to Alvaro de Luna who
struggles against her and overcomes her power. She relates this view
'of combating Fortune to that of Machiavelli and, in so doing, demon-
j
strates her enthusiasm (once again) with Gericke’s "excelente
articule" (p. 103) without allowing him the credit for the expressed
point of view regarding Fortune.
197
The theme of fortune has been a central issue for critics of Mena.
They have attempted to define its sources and characteristics. It has
been viewed in relation to the moral tone of the work, the symbol of
the labyrinth, and to Castilian reality. Mena’s view has been associa
ted with that of Boethius and the Renaissance perspective of Machia-
jvelli. Critics all agree that it is central to the structural meaning
!
[of the poem but answer divergently questions involving its presentation
[by Mena.
2. The national ideal: reconquest versus civil war, criticism and
protest
Practically all the structural studies, and some others, have
alluded to the national element in Mena’s Laberinto and the related
considerations of civil war versus reconquest, protest, and criticism.
(Before proceeding to review these studies, mention should be made of
I
_an essay involving Mena’s Coronacion that has focused on these same
themes.
Inez MacDonald reappraises the prose commentary of the Corona
cion against the maligned opinions of earlier critics, views it as
an integral part of the poem, and sees it as essential for the poem’s
understanding.^^ She traces the history^ of poem commentaries and the
thematic background of the Coronacion. It is on this point that the
study complements those done on the Laberinto in more recent times.
Iln the Coronacion, the Marques de Santiliana, because of his victory
pver the Moors at Huelma in IU38, is set up as an example for his
198
contemporaries. Huelma represents a moral victory amidst political
squabbling of the period and is for the Coronacion what Higuerela,
1U3I, is later for the Laberinto: victory in the only just war, the
reconquest.
I Viewing the commentary, we are able to penetrate Mena's true
; meaning: praise for the Marques and perhaps, more importantly,
["a searing commentary on the nobility of the age" (p. 129), and a
i
[criticism of all those who neglect their responsibilities. It is a
testimony against loose morals, avarice, and sins of the noble class.
Juxtaposed to those who are guilty, stands Santillana as the ideal
moral and political model. MacDonald concludes that the Coronacion
is an "indictment of the society of the day" (p. 13^) which is, how
ever, only discovered through the commentary; the satire would be
meaningless without it. Mena had to veil his criticisms in exactly
.such a fashion because of his close associations with the court and
the nobility criticized in the poem.
José Manuel Blecua, in a section of his preliminary study titled
"Lo nacional en el Laberinto," affirms that Mena proposed to write a
IT
national poem in an allegorical framework. Included in the allegory
are protests against the immorality, corruption, and especially the
civil wars all prevalent during Mena’s time. Thus, the "best pieces"
of the Laberinto are those devoted to the exaltation of the reconquest
or to those who lost their lives battling for that noble cause.
Maria Rosa Lida observes that for fifteenth century poets
"Espaha" represents a political ideal that is near realization and
1 9 9
dependent upon two conditions: the predominance of* Castile politically,
which would he proceeded by a political order in Spain under one
Castilian monarch, and that the monarch would complete the unification
of the peninsula by completing the reconquest. Mena’s views are the
most advanced of his time among the poets as the terms "Espaha" and
■"Castilla" are interchangeable. King Juan II is already presented as
ithe King of Spain and, most importantly, the reconquest is viewed as
I
ia holy and just war against the enemies of Christianity that will
I
I eventually lead to the unification of the country. At the same time,
observes Lida, the reconquest is constantly juxtaposed with the
"guerra injusta," civil war, the promoter of discord. Thus, the
national ideal, as presented by Mena and perceived by Lida, consists
of the unification of Spain and the termination of the reconquest.
Francisco Lopez Estrada has also focused on the importance of the
I reconquest versus civil war as a theme of the Laberinto. The
jreconquest is the king's duty, "Salus Hispaniae," and it is to be
I revered. Mena condemns those who stand in its way. Thus, civil war
I is presented as the opposite of "noble" and is etymologically related
I to "cruel." The original perspective of Lopez Estrada's article is
the clear contrast drawn between the view of the Moors during Mena’s
time in the Laberinto, and that presented in the later Romances and
especially in the Abencerraje. Mena's poetry defends a political
ideal and sings the glories of the king in his basically anti-Moorish
attitude, while later the position is completely reversed and they are
200
viewed more as friends and comrades in the Romances. A graphic
example of the difference is afforded in the diverse treatment of the
battle of Higueruela in the Laberinto and in the Romances. Lopez
Estrada affirms other critics' points of view regarding the reconquest
versus civil war theme and adds an extra point of contrast between the
views of Mena in the Laberinto and those expressed in later literature.
! The moral considerations of the Laberinto, observes Rafael
i
[Lapesa, dictate the number of strophes devoted to the various topics
or themes of the poem. First among them is the importance of war and
the exercising of arms : "Mena . . . pone todo su afân por orientarlo
I
jhacia la 'virtuosa, magnifica guerra" contra los moros y apartarlo de
I
I la discordias civiles, echando abajo de la rueda a 'los belicosos en
i I
I causas yndinas'" (p. 263). The reconquest theme is clearly portrayed j
: . . . I
jin terms of its moral determinants and significance. ,
I I
I Maria Rosa Lida's presentation of the national ideal, unifica- ^
! . !
tion, and reconquest, represented in fifteenth century authors and I
.particularly in Mena, is challenged by Gimeno Casalduero. He agrees j
with the inclusion of the reconquest in this ideal but affirms that |
the goal of unification is not actually considered until the time of !
I
Ferdinand and Isabel, and then its acceptance is less than universal. ■
Furthermore, he clearly distinguishes between the concepts of "Espaha"
and "Castilla" and views Mena as making the same distinction. Gimeno
I
ICasalduero also studies the theme of civil war versus reconquest in a
section of his essay titled "Castilla y el Laberinto." He traces
201
Mena's examination of Castilian reality in the seven circles as the
poet expounds on the vices responsible for the sad state of present
affairs (first three circles). In the circle of Mars, Mena juxtaposes
the true national destiny, incarnate in the reconquest and symbolized
in the Andalusian campaign of Juan II, to the civil wars; the triumphs
of those who have died in the reconquest and the shame of those killed
in the civil strife. Fame awaits the former and oblivion the latter.
Thus, the reconquest theme is associated with the allegorization
of Castilian reality and the examination of its situation in the seven
planets. It is the ideal that guided previous kings and it is repre-
{sented in the prophecy of the glory of Juan II; the central means
j through which he is able to free himself and Castile from the confu-
jsion of the labyrinth and achieve the glory prophesied along with the
t
I veneration of his subjects.
Philip Gericke, in a brief comment on the national theme (recon
quest versus, civil war) agrees with Lida's presentation of Mena as a
political visionary. Through the allegorical structure, he blames
Fortune for the confusion and strife that reign in Spain and thus
avoids the censure of his contemporaries. Gericke challenges Gimeno
Casalduero's objection to Lida's opinions regarding the ideal of unifi
cation and Gimeno Casalduero's assertion referring to the facts of
those killed in the reconquest and those who died fighting the civil
wars. According to Gericke, those in the second category are neither
"shamed, dishonored nor forgotten" (p. 5175 n. 12).
202
Thus far, the national ideal of unification postulated hy Maria
Rosa Lida has been challenged and reaffirmed, but critics all seem to
agree on the significance of Mena’s position regarding the ideal of
the reconquest.
The four virtues extolled by Mena (prudence, fortitude, chastity,
and justice) are viewed by Beltran in a political framework instead of
a religious one. In such a position, they become the needed ingre
dients of good government and aid in achieving the final victory over
the Moors and reunification. Beltran associates the theme of recon
quest and unification with the presentation of the four virtues,
their embodiment in Alvaro de Luna, and representation in the prophecy
of the glory of Juan II.
Finally, Marie Turek’s study is reminiscent of Blecua’s with the
emphasis placed on the theme of censure and protest. She views the
significance of the reconquest and its negative complement, civil
strife, within this broader context.
Mena is a poet profoundly concerned with the present and future
state of Castile, or Spain for some critics. All writers agree that
this concern is reflected in his handling of the national theme and
relating it intimately to the reconquest. The assertions that Mena
was also interested in national unification have been both accepted and
challenged. The criticisms in the Laberinto and Coronacion serve
the purpose of fomenting the just and holy war and censuring fratri
cidal, civil strife.
203
3. Th'é king and Alvaro de Luna: a lesson
Another topic of the Laberinto frequently examined by critics is
that of the presentation of and symbolism surrounding the king, Juan
II. Critics comment that Mena’s purpose in writing the poem is, among
others, to move the indifferent and politically inept monarch into
; political action. Gimeno Casalduero, in a section of his essay titled
i
I "Juan de Mena y Juan II," studies Mena’s presentation of the monarch
I
j in this light. We have already seen in chapter III how Mena, in
j depicting the monarch, followed the model presented by Francisco '
i 1
t i
I Imperial in "Dezir al nacimiento." Mena, however, revises Imperial’s j
j optimistic and enthusiastic presentation of the monarch. By focusing j
j on the present state of affairs in Castile, Mena chastizes the king for
I his inaction, if not directly, at least through insinuation.
I
Luis Beltran has focused on the political lesson that Mena was ,
attempting to teach Juan II through the example of his trusted advisor,^
; Alvaro de Luna. Beltran points out that Luna, however gloriously he ’
i !
, is portrayed, always remains parttof the poetic fiction in the poem. {
j 1
I Only the poet (traveler guided by Providence, and advisor to the king)
; and the king (positive example in the Moon, Mars, and Jupiter, and the
character addressed after each circle) share dual roles of occupying
both the fictional and real realms. On the fictional level, the king
is presented as a "finished product" (p. 330). The historical
addresses between the planets are aimed toward the future and are
interested in what the king could become. Thus, through most of the
204
poem, the two levels, fiction and reality, are kept apart. Only at the
end of the last circle, Saturn, in Providence’s prophecy of the glory
of Juan II, does the possible king of the historical sections and the
honored one of the fictional become embodied into one symbol.
Conditioning the future that begins as soon as the poet finishes
!
[ speaking to the monarch at the end, is the king as presented in the
i
examples of virtue, and the king who has chosen the epitome of all
four virtues, Alvaro de Luna, as his advisor.
Beltran concludes with some historical information by indicating
that Mena was unsuccessful in changing the character of his king nor
! did the Cardinal virtues become the basis of government in the country.
; The presentation of Juan II is viewed in relation to the narrative
J structure of the poem (the two levels) and historically, as Mena’s
; guide to the ideal monarch by using the consummated example of virtue,
Alvaro de Luna, as example.
Kathryn Sherrill has devoted a brief article to study the Laberin
to in terms of a eulogy whose purpose was to "goad Juan II into
assuming his responsibilities."^^ She disagrees with Maria Rosa Lida’s
suggestions that the Laberinto was meant solely as eulogy, despite the :
fact that he pays tribute to the king throughout and refers to him as
the King of Spain before it was a politically unified entity. The
addresses to the king after each circle, however, suggest neither a
unified state nor one that is in a healthy state of affairs. Sherrill
reviews the sections of the poem in which Juan II is presented.
205
directly or indirectly, and praised. Throughout the seven planets, '
i
the tone of praise increases in a crescendo fashion: "He is chaste, a j
I
good husband, a man of learning, a great warrior and patriot, a just |
ruler . . . the greatest king that Spain has ever had" (p. l86). If |
: it were simple praise however, the addresses at the end of the circles j
would not be needed. In them, Mena urges the monarch to assume the !
I I
^responsibilities of his position and become the person Mena has i
I I
; eulogized. In this way he would deserve the praise and remembrance I
I of his subjects. :
j Marie Turek, coinciding with her interpretation of the theme of j
I protest and criticism, also views Mena’s address to Juan II as
criticism of his shortcomings. In reference to the circle of Saturn \
: however, she suggests that ..foremost on Mena’s mind is not to advise j
I
the monarch, for he had been repeatedly reminded by the nobles that ;
I
his kingdom was poorly governed, but to advise Alvaro de Luna of
I
[the impending danger. i
Critics have observed the presentation of Juan II from varying j
! I
'perspectives and interpreted its significance in a variety of comple- '
!
; ment ary ways. The source for Mena’s king image has been established. [
I
jHe partakes of a double nature in the Laberinto, real and fictional,
I
jwhich only come together at the end. Mena eulogizes his monarch but
{also censures his failings, according to Mena’s political ideal
[ I
of the reconquest and urges him to occupy the position of ruler res- j
_ t
,ponsibly and thereby earn the praise and respect of his subjects.
2 0 6
k. Moral considerations
The final area explored hy critics is that of the moral content.
Rafael Lapesa views the moral element as primordial in the composi
tion, character, and tone of the Laberinto. Mena directs his moral
lessons to the "potentes" only and emphasizes the moral attitudes
I necessary for war and righteous government. Of prime importance on
[Mena’s scale of moral values is the activity of war, followed by
I political considerations. The presentation of other moral aspects is
I
: intimately tied to the structure of the poem. The Moon and Venus are
' complementary in presenting the virtue of chastity and its opposite,
jlust and lascivious behavior; one contains all positive examples, the
‘other all negative. Moral considerations in the erotic issues corres-
pond to the "heresy of courtly love" topos. Mena condemns promiscuous '
; behavior in both the Laberinto and "Copias contra los pecados mortales,"j
I but refrains from naming directly any contemporary guilty of this
I
[excess. The only exception is Macias, whose moral condemnation is
[ counterbalanced by an aesthetic redemption. The reason for the i
* I
I silencing of names is to be found in the fact that Mena was fearful of i
I counter-reprisals and, more importantly, because the poem was intended |
! ^ _ I
! as a praise of the moral values of Castile, as previously noted. j
I Dorothy Clotelle Clarke devotes a section of her book to a dis-
I
eussion of the Laberinto’s break with the mester de clerecia. One
of the elements on which this break is founded is the concept of
' sin-virtue. In Mena, it is presented as a matter of degree rather
207
than a matter of difference, says Clarke. Mena is interested in the
effects sin and virtue have on the government of Spain. Thus, the
characters praised or condemned in the various circles are not in
heaven, hell, or purgatory hut simply "in death or life, honorably
j (above) or dishonorably (below), according to the use they have made
^of a human trait" (p. Il6).
; Gimeno Casalduero, in his previously quoted review of Clarke’s
[book, is critical of the author’s omission of an essential aspect of
ithe poem: Mena’s presentation of the destiny of Castile (and Gimeno
ICasalduero distinguishes between Castile and Spain, as we have already
I
I seen), a political, religious and Christian concept that emphasizes
j the holy war. In this context, the Laberinto does present scenes of
jheaven or hell (the witch episode and the throne of Juan II and it
I also includes references to "tormentos infernales" [p. 137]).
jOther Commentary
' I have included here several studies that do not readily lend . .
I
I themselves to classification 'under the foregoing categories but do
I
^ attempt to study and view the Laberinto and Mena’s minor works from a
I formal, thematic perspective and thus merit mention in this chapter.
I Antonio Gomez Alfaro has focused on Mena’s use of sensorial ima-
jgery in his poetry from the perspective of what the critic calls
I 2 0
1"autojustificacion e intelectualizacion." On this basis Mena is
,presented as a learned poet; his images proceed from books and he is j
I . 208
I in this special way different from another Cordovan poet, Luis de
jGongora: "Asi pues, creemos que para Mena solo tenia importancia el
I ^ I
jmundo intelectual, el de sus lihros. El hahia nacido para leer y no |
jpara ver una puesta de sol . . . todo mensaje sensorial sirve para
Ihacer una imagen intelectual, al contrario que en Gongora" (pp. ITl-
ilT2). Gomez Alfaro traces imagery of the five senses in Mena's
I poetry in an attempt to demonstrate his intellectual persuasion over
i
I 21
1 the emotional. The second half of Gomez Alfaro's essay is devoted to
j
,commenting upon and tracing natural imagery used by Mena in his
; compositions, especially flowers, birds, and water. These also, like
■the sensorial images, reflect a bookish character and, moreover, are
presented sporadically and in unreal landscapes.
' . . 2 2
Luisa Revuelta y Revuelta has studied Mena's works. In her
jeclectic article, she discusses opinions regarding Mena's linguistic
i 2 3
! renovation, and views the poet as a moralist whose main motivating
'force is that of a constant struggle, seen in all his works, of
^reason and the will. She attempts to extract a spiritual and physical
jsemblance of the poet from his love and ascetic poetry and discovers
t
,the characteristics alluded to in the title of her article: "Juan de
(Mena es dolor de espiritu superior hacia cuanto le rodea, mas la
t
fortaleza espiritual de que esta dotado le impide caer en la
iangustia. . ." (p. 121). Mena represents both the spirit of Cordoba
I
I and Castile as well as the symbol of the poet for times of reflection.
I Rafael Fuentes Guerra, whose views on Mena's life at court and in
iCordoba were reviewed in chapter I, devotes a section of his book to a
209
2k
'commentary of Mena’s poetic and prose works. Before quoting and dis
cussing verses from Mena’s compositions, Fuentes Guerra briefly refers
to the editions available and the opinions of other critics (all
25
reviewed in this dissertation). His presentation of Mena’s prose
! and poetry is limited to linguistic commentary, the pointing out of
I
jsome interesting or unusual characteristic of Mena’s technique, com-
[parisons with other fifteenth century authors, especially the Marques
* de Santillana, and finally, mention of imagery and themes— all elements
[that are commonplace in the criticism of Juan de Mena,
j Recently, Jorge Ramos Suarez has attempted a re-explanation of
j
I the significance of the classical and mythological element in the
! 26
^ Laberinto. In complete disagreement with Maria Rosa Lida, who
'claims that this aspect of Mena’s work demonstrates his important
I
'humanist background and Renaissance attitude toward antiquity, Ramos
Suarez suggests that classical references, especially mythology, serve
'to allegorize the present (fifteenth century) historical situation of '
I Castile, and thus represent examples of good and bad. It is intimately'
I I
jtied to Mena’s preoccupation with moral considerations. The Laberinto,j
! according to Ramos Suarez, is a criticism of the corrupt political and |
I social conditions present in Castile during the fifteenth century.
I :
jThe first strophe of the poem, the dedication to the king, is viewed
{by Ramos Suarez as ironic; in reality it disguises Mena’s criticism of
t
the nobility and society. The Laberinto is, in the final analysis, an
anguished cry of the times.
210
Summary
Recent studies of the Laberinto and the minor poetry have focused
on both structure and content. They have attempted, thus, to present
a "reading" of the poem, to expound upon its meaning, significance,
I and purpose. Structural considerations have conditioned the inter-
Ipretations of thematic material in many cases. Some of this material
t
'is viewed as part of the scale of moral values as conceived by Mena.
t
iOther material is dependent upon Mena's relation (fictional and his-
[torical) to Juan II, and his conception of the political state of
jthe Hispanic kingdom(s). The fortune topos plays a significant role
I
! in the p'oem. Critics have discussed its sources, viewed it in the
context of the symbolism of the labyrinth and the narrative structure ^
: of the long mid-section, and related it to the Renaissance concept of
'overcoming its ill effects through force and not simply wisdom and [
1 1
resignation. Both the Coronacion and the Laberinto have been viewed |
as eulogies and criticisms. The first was written in praise of !
•Santillana and his victory over the Moors in the "just and holy war";
i I
the second lauds Juan II and places Alvaro de Luna before the monarch ;
as the ideal model of conduct and character for a political leader. j
The criticism in both poems is of the lax morals among the Castilian
I
inobility and the ineptness of the monarch in the Laberinto. Mena
I identifies and espouses those qualities or virtues needed for a just ;
’government and the goals of the reconquest while censuring vice,
corruption, and discord responsible for the confusion and turbulence
plaguing Castile.
211
NOTES
CHAPTER V
Cleanth Brooks, "The Formalist Critic," in The Modern Critical
Spectrum, ed. Gerald Jay Goldberg et al. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice Hall, I962), p. 1. In Hispanic criticism one of the original
proponents of such a view of criticism is Joaquin Casalduero. See,
for example, his Sentido y forma de "Las novelas ejemplares" (Madrid:
Credos, I962); Sentido y forma del "Quijote," 3rd ed. (19^9; rpt.
Madrid; Insula, 1970), and Sentido y forma del teatro de Cervantes
(Madrid: Credos, I966).
2
Rafael Lapesa, "El elemento moral en el Laberinto de Mena: su
influjo en la disposicion de la obra," Hispanic Review, 27 (1999),
257-266.
3 ^ .
Joaquin Gimeno Casalduero, "Notas sobre el Laberinto de For-
I tuna," Modern Language Notes, 77 (1964), 125-139.
I
' 4
Philip 0. Gericke, "The Narrative Structure of the Laberinto de
Fortuna," Romance Philology, 21 (1967-68), 512-922.
^ Luis Beltran, "The Poet, the King, and the Cardinal Virtues in
Juan de Mena's Laberinto," Speculum, 46 (l97l), 318-332.
^ Louise Vasvari Fainberg, ed., Laberinto de Fortuna (Madrid:
Alhambra, 1977), p. 22, n. 3 indicates that Beltran has overlooked
several points in his chart. He mentions the present circles of Venus
and the Sun as having no positive examples. However, in Venus, Macias
is a character from the present as are the magicians and the diviners
depicted in the Sun. See pp. 19-27 for a summary of the four struc
tural studies thus far mentioned and a description of the contents,
plot, and narrative of the Laberinto.
7
Marie G. Turek, "El Laberinto de Fortuna: Imagen artificiosa
de la epoca de Juan II," Cuadernos Americanos, I83 (1972), 99-123.
212
I Dorothy Clotelle Clarke, Juan de Mena's "Laberinto de Fortuna":
Classic Epic and Mester de Clerecia (University, Miss.: Romance
Monographs, 197 3).
^ Gimeno Casalduero in his review of Juan de Mena's "Laberinto
de Fortuna": Classic Epic and Mester de Clerecia, by Dorothy Clotelle
Clarke, Nueva Revista de Filologia Hispanica, 25 (1975), 132-138, is
critical of Clarke's presentation of the genres as based on a specific
technique around which the work is arranged and the sometimes arbitrary
'association of a circle with a genre of a muse. See pp. 135-136 of the
review.
José Manuel Blecua, "Algunos aspectos del Laberinto,"
Castilla, 1 (l94o), 115-131. I cite this reference primarily in
relation to Clarke's suggestion of the "tableau-like" allegory.
11
Secondary indications of Mena's relation to the plastic arts
are the numerous references to them in the Laberinto and also in the
{prose works. Terms such as "ricas labores," "las manos del platero,"
I"maçoneria," and "que fabrica pueden mis manos fazer" are named by
!Blecua.
1 p2
Maria Rosa Lida, Juan de Mena, poeta del prerrenacimiento
espahol (México: Colegio de Mexico, 1950), pp. 20-30.
13
Lida, Juan de Mena, p. 23, n. 13. Lida also indicates a
second view of Fortune present in the Laberinto, one which she calls
i an "actitud incidental," and what Howard Patch refers to as the Pagan
{Fortune, H.R. Patch, "The Tradition of the Goddess Fortune," Smith
College Studies in Modern Languages, Vol. 3 (Northampton, Mass.:
jSmith College, 1922), pp. 131-177.
! l4
Florence Street, The Allegory of Fortune and the Imitation of
(Dante in the Laberinto and Coronacion of Juan de Mena," Hispanic Review,
23 (1955), 1-11 and especially 1-5.
Fainberg, Laberinto de Fortuna, p. 21 alludes to three points
of Mena's development of the Fortune concept that do not coincide with
his sources: the reprobatory tone (strophes 2-9), accepting her
arbitrary nature (strophe lO), and subordination to Divine Providence
'(strophe 25) in which he harmonizes pagan and Christian ideals.
i
I
I Inez MacDonald, "The Coronacion of Juan de Mena: Poem and
'Commentary," Hispanic Review, 7 (l939), 125-144.
213
IT
José Manuel Blecua, ed., El Laberinto de Fortuna o las Tres-
cientas (1943; rpt. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, 1973), pp. Ixvi-lxix.
lÔ
Francisco Lopez Estrada, "El sentido poetico de la frontera en
el Laberinto de Mena," Boletin de la Real Academia de Cordoba de
Ciencias, Bellas Letras y Nobles Artes, 28 (1957), 91-103.
Kathryn Sherrill, "A Fifteenth Century Goad to Glory," Romance
Notes, 13 (1971), 181-187.
20
Antonio Gomez Alfaro, "El mundo de los sentidos en la poesia
de Juan de Mena," Boletin de la Real Academia de Cordoba de Ciencias,
Bellas Letras y Nobles Artes, 28 (1957), 176.
21
Gomez Alfaro's sense of erudite, scholarly poetry is perhaps
best understood in the following reference to auditory imagery : "El
mundo no le trae armonias y musicas celestiales. Juan de Mena lee,
lee sin descanso . . . pero cuando alza la mirada de su libro, no
encuentra sino guerra, muerte, destruccion . . . y, entonces a sus
libros" (p. 181).
22
Luisa Revuelta y Revuelta, "El dolor y la fortaleza en Juan
de Mena," Boletin de la Real Academia de Cordoba de Ciencias, Bellas
Letras y Nobles Artes, 28 (1957), 105-123.
23
She includes the work of Maria Rosa Lida among the contribu
tions to language studies. However, she incorrectly gives the date of
its publication as 1952.
i 24 ^
I Rafael Fuentes Guerra, Juan de Mena, poeta insigne y cordobes
:modesto (Cordoba: Tipografia Artistica, 1955), pp. II-60.
I
! 25
■ Fuentes Guerra, like Revuelta y Revuelta, includes Lida's
[study and also, like her, presents some unsound information. After
[citing the reference and publisher, "Colegio de Mexico" he says : "No
es la primera vez . . . que Mexico rompe lanzas en homenaj e al idioma
del Imperio. . ." (p. 17).
Jorge Ramos Suarez, "A proposito de Juan de Mena: Tentativa
de una nueva lectura de El Laberinto de Fortuna," Cuadernos Hispano-
Americanos, 314-315 (1976), 603-6l6.
I
I 2l4
CHAPTER VI
FAME AND INFLUENCE
A esta universal difusion de sus obras correspondio la
veneracion de su nombre, la cual de mil modos se mani-
fiesta, ya en las continuaciones y adiciones de otros
poetas, ya en las glosas y comentos de los humanistas,
ya en el respecte con que su nombre es pronunciado en
las artes de trobar.^
With, these words, Menéndez y Pelayo characterizes the extent of
Mena's influence on succeeding generations and the forms under which
it is manifest. Scholars have traced Mena's fame as poet and the
i
[fortune of his literary works. In their investigations, they attempt
I
: to discover the aesthetic effect of these works, and to determine if
it is maintained throughout different generations. Their interest
centers upon whether the structures, forms, and ideas present in
I
I
[Mena's writings are able to satisfy the varying interests and sensi-
t
jbilities of diverse ages. In reviewing former judgement, critics
{appeal to the testimonies of Mena's popularity in allusions to his
I
Iname as representative of a particular, literary-aesthetic ideology
and art form. They also study the direct imitations of the vocabulary,
style, images, and ideological content of his works. The present
chapter is arranged on the basis of these complementary perspectives.
215
Popularity: The Poet's Fame
Beginning in the nineteenth century, literary historians and
scholars have been involved in tracing Mena's fame both during his
lifetime and after. Such an interest prompted George' Ticknor to write
j of Mena's relations with his contemporaries at court, the Portuguese
2
j sovereign don Pedro, and later generations of imitators. He
I
I indicates that both Mena and his works were respected at the royal
court, as the letters of Bachiller Cibdarreal, author of the "Centon
epistolario," attest; twelve of the 125 letters contained therein were
3
addressed to Juan de Mena. Ticknor indicates that, although Mena's
works were collected and published in the cancioneros and in separate
volumes, they were never at any moment entirely or extraordinarily
popular. The amorous poetry and satirical composition, "Sobre un
macho que compro de un arcipreste," twice alluded to in the "Centon"
have universal appeal because of their themes; but other minor poems,
according to Ticknor, "belong only to the fashionable style of the
society in which [Mena] lived, and, from their affectation, conceits,
and obscure allusions, can have had little value , . , except to the
persons to whom they were addressed. . ." (pp. 382-383). Thus Mena's
fortune, is characterized by a varied opinion. As further indications
of Mena's popularity, Ticknor refers-to the critical editions of his
works produced by Hernan Nunez and Francisco Sanchez de la Brozas, and
he cites epistles XLIX, XL and XX of the "Çenton" that record the
reactions of Juan II to the Laberinto and his suggested corrections of
certain passages.
2l6
Ticknor discusses Mena's influence on other authors and periods.
He makes reference to the Infante don Pedro de Portugal, with whom
Mena exchanged verses and who had written a poem imitating the
Laberinto. He remarks that both the exchanges and the longer composi
tion were later published in the Cancionero de Resende of I516. Mena's
I
[
' general influence on and linguistic contributions to Spanish literature
1
I are also observed. Although many of the poet's lexical innovations
I
■were unsuccessful and abandoned by modern Spanish authors, the language
I
and versification of Spanish poetry were strengthened by them and Mena
established a precedent followed later by such authors as Juan de
Lucena, Diego de San Pedro, Garci Sanchez de Badajoz, the Manriques,
and others who had begun the expansion and transformation of Spanish
verse that would culminate during the sixteenth century. Through
appeal to literary and historical evidence, Ticknor provides a glimpse
of Mena's fame and attempts to evaluate his position in Spanish letters!
José Amador de los Rios outlines a brief history of the positive
reception given to the Laberinto during Mena's lifetime and afterwards,
and presents examples of the enthusiasm with which he was admired
k
during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, The favorable opinion
j is counterbalanced by the negative evaluations of Diego de Mendoza
and Sanchez de Lima, who criticize Mena's obscure language and pompous
style. Their judgements, however, were refuted and Mena's "good name"
was defended by his editor, Sanchez de las Brozas, el Brocense.
Amador de los Rios also traces the history of the title of Ennio
217
espanol awarded to Mena, according to the historian. Padre Luis
de la Cerda in reference to the fifteenth century poet's stylistic
innovations. Padre Domingo Sarmiento, writing after Luis de la Cerda,
revokes the title and bestows it on an earlier poet, Gonzalo de Berceo.
In exchange, Sarmiento awards Mena with the epithet, "corrompedor del
gusto." Alberto Lista, writing during the nineteenth century, restores
the title to Mena together with its original, symbolic meaning asso
ciated with Mena's innovations in an effort to create a poetic
language different from the civil tongue. Amador de los Rios views
Mena's fortune in terms of the positive and negative reactions to his
works and honorific titles related to his literary endeavors.
Menéndez y Pelayo extensively traces Mena's fame and influence
among later generations of writers.^ He begins by alldding to the en
thusiasm with which the early humanists were attracted to Mena. Both
Nebrija and Encina employ, almost exclusively, examples from Mena's
works to illustrate their treatises on language and for the first,
■Mena is "poeta por antonomasia.Next, the critic records Cristobal
de Castillejo's defense of the traditional verse forms through
invoking Mena's name against the followers and imitators of Petrarch
and the Italian hendecasyllable. Like Amador de los Rios, Menéndez y
Pelayo cites the negative opinions of Diego de Mendoza and Sanchez de
Lima, and refers to the esteem for Mena reflected in the work of the
early commentators, Nunez and el Brocense. Nunez especially affords
a healthy measure of respect for Mena since, according to Menéndez y
218
Pelayo, he set aside his recensions of Seneca and Pliny in order to
devote attention to the Laherinto. Nunez’s efforts helped to make
Mena’s poem accessible to a wide circle of readers. El Brocense
expresses his admiration for the poet and his literary endeavor in
j the prologue to his 15Ô2 annotated edition of the Laherinto.
i
j Although there were dissenting opinions regarding the value of
; Mena’s works and contributions, Menendez y Pelayo admits that most of
the evaluations have been positive. In this respect, he cites the
comments of Argote de Molina who laments the abandonment of arte mayor,
and Cervantes, who referred to Mena as ’ ’aquel gran cordobes" (Don
Quijote, II, xliv). The testimony of Padre Mariana is also mentioned
by Menendez y Pelayo who cites the early historian’s comments on the
style and language of the Lorenzo Davalos episode, Mena’s overall
contributions to Spanish literature, and represents the poet as the
most important of his age. Mariana concludes his brief discussion by
saying that Mena’s memory "dura y durara en Espaha" (Menendez y Pelayo,
p. 19^).
Mena’s fame is so widespread, according to Menendez y Pelayo, that
his verses are recognized and known by even the uneducated and he is
the only poet of the fifteenth century royal court to be so remembered;
no other poet of the reign of Juan II had more disciples. In Portugal
7
and Cataluha, Mena’s works are appreciated and imitated. In Castile,
the poems written in arte mayor or the "metro de Juan de Mena," as
Menendez y Pelayo prefers to call it, are numerous and include:
219
"Tribagia o via sacra de Jherusalén" of Juan del Encina; the "Laberin-
tho del Marques de Cadiz," Los doce triunfos de los doce Apostoles,
and Retablo de la vida de Cristo, all by Juan de Padilla; the Libro
de la celestial jerarquia e infernal laberinto, the "Panegirico de la
Reina Catolica" of Diego Guillen de Avila; "Historia parthenopea" by
Alonso Hernandez; works by Hernân de Vazquez de Tapia; and Villalobo’s
I"Tractado de las pestiferas bubas." Even the translations of the
i .
! Divine Comedy, the Aeneid and Aristotle were produced in arte mayor.
I
I These numerous- examples attesting to Mena’s popularity, fame, and
influence lead Menendez y Pelayo to conclude: "Tan prolongada domina-
cion algo significa en las esferas del arte, y el poeta que fue digno
de ejercerla, tuvo, sin duda, cualidades eminentes. . ." (,p. I96),
thus adding his own praise to the testimonies he cites.
In another study, Menendez y Pelayo refers to a somewhat different
demonstration of Mena’s fame : a composition in the Cancionero dé burlas
provocantes a risa that is a sixteenth century parody of the Laberinto.^
1 In the same study, Menendez y Pelayo traces several verbal and ideo-
I
jlogical parallels between the Celestina and Mena’s poetry, especially
! the Laberinto and "Copias contra los pecados mortales," He reiterates
Foulche-Delbosc’s observations regarding the provenance of the
bewitching scenes in the Celestina that derive from the Laberinto and
ultimately from the Pharsalia. For Menendez y Pelayo, Mena’s fame
and importance are apparent in his popularity among readers of diverse
ages and in the imitations of and commentaries on his works.
220
Benedetto Croce, in studying the relationship between Spain and
Italy during the Renaissance, has afforded samples of opinion regard
ing the acceptance of Mena’s works in Italy.^ Galateo, in "Espositione
del Pater Noster," attests to the fact that Mena’s works enjoyed a
wide audience in the sarcastic comment: "Se metteranno ad solazar nel
dolce romanzo, leggeranno Joan de Mena, lo Omero Spagnuolo. . . .
In "De Educatione," the same author ironically refers to Mena as
"Homerus ille hispanus," and ridicules his commentary to the Corona-
cion. Finally, Mario Equicola, in "De natura de amore," censures Mena
for combining the sacred and the profane.
Croce also transcribes testimony in support of Mena’s achieve
ments. Tulio Giraldo, in "De Poetis Nostrorum Temporum," praises the
vernacular poets, Mena, Manrique, and Ausias March. Borghini
(Benedetto Varchi), in L’Ercolano, "quesito II," writes lines in praise
of Mena as the best and best known of all Spanish poets. Croce
presents the perspectives of foreign critics who are familiar with
Mena’s poetry and elect to praise or censure it according to their
persuasions.
In a section of the preliminary study to his edition of the
I
[ Laberinto entitled, "La admiracion por Juan de Mena," José Manuel
!
iBlecua records the opinions of writers through the nineteenth century,
[reiterating the testimonies compiled by Ticknor and Menendez y Pelayo,
and adding new names to the list of Mena's admirersBlecua begins
jby associating the goal of Mena’s career with the popularity and
jimportance of his literary works : "La fama tan ardientemente
I
221
perseguida por Juan de Mena, no se le mostrô esquiva . . . Juntamente
con Santillana y Jorge Manrique constituye la trilogia de poetas del
siglo XV con los que la posterioridad se ha mostrado mas amahle, siendo
con Garcilaso y Gongora cornentado como un clàsico. . (p. xci).
Blecua's review of opinion proceeds to affirm this statement. The
first reference is made to the poets who continued the "Copias contra
los pecados mortales," left unfinished at Mena’s death. He next cites
the Vita Beata as a prose work that reflects the rhythm of arte mayor
in numerous passages of Nehrija’s and Encina’s overwhelming support of
Mena, and Nunez’s glosses of the Laberinto and Coronacion are also
cited. The enumeration of judgements continues with mention of the
imitations found in the Celestina. Blecua refers to the opinion of
12 ^ 13
Castro Guisasola and Ramon Foulche-Delbosc who trace parallels
between the Celestina and the Laberinto. Another early testimony of
i esteem for Mena and his writings comes from Juan de Padilla, who, in
I
his poetic works, imitates Mena’s style, vocabulary, expressions, and
even complete verses of the Laberinto and minor poetry.
Among the generation of poets who write in the Italian verse,
there are to be found favorable opinions of Mena. Cristobal de
Castillejo, defender of the traditional verse form in "Contra los que
dejan los metros castellanos y siguen los italianos," contrasts Mena
with Garcilaso, and Gregorio Silvestre glosses a strophe of the "Copias
contra los pecados mortales.Contrary opinions are those expressed
by Juan Valdes in Dialogo de la lengua, and Diego de Mendoza in the
222
"Segunda carta al Bachiller de Arcadia," both previously cited by
Menendez y Pelayo and Amador de los Rios. Mena’s popularity during
the sixteenth century can be guessed, according to Blecua, by the
number of editions produced of the Laberinto by 1552. Second,
Francisco Salinas, in De Musica (1572), attests to the fact that
verses of the Laberinto were sung. Third, Argote de Molina, in
"Discurso de la lengua, ’ ’ defends the glory of Mena and laments the
disappearance of arte mayor. Fourth, el Brocense, in the prologue
to his edition of the Laberinto defends Mena against those who censure
15
him and his works as antiquated.
Testimony during the seventeenth century is also abundant. Lope
de Vega, in his dispute with Gongora, cites Mena’s name and remembers
him in La Dorotea. Cervantes praises Mena and imitates him in
Numancia and El trato de Argel.^^ Blecua reiterates Padre Mariana’s
I T
favorable opinion of Mena and adds that of Quevedo. Other seven
teenth century admirers include Gongora and Vaca de Alfaro, an histo
rian who wrote a biography of the fifteenth century poet lost to us
today. In Portugal, Vicente Noguera also pays homage to Mena.^^ To
these, Blecua adds the testimony of Leon Pinelo, who writes in
"Anales" (ms.1255 Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid) of a festival
celebrated in 16^9 during which there was displayed a statue containing
the nine muses of poetry and nine Peninsular poets representing three
periods, ancient, medieval, and modern. Along with Garcilaso, Mena
represented the Middle Ages.
223
Blecua continues by mentioning the names of eighteenth century
critics who have expressed positive or negative opinions about Mena
and his works. These include Padre Sarmiento, Rafael Floranes, and
Tomas Antonio Sanchez. Although he omits direct quotations from the
works of these authors, he comments: "no faltan carihosas frases para
j Juan de Mena. . ." (p. ci). He next transcribes the opinions of José
Manuel Quintana found in "Introduceion historica a una coleccion de
poesias castellanas," and those of Martinez de la RosaBlecua then
completes his review of the opinions about Mena by reiterating the
thoughts of Menéndez y Pelayo and Amador de los Rios. Blecua compiles
previous materials and opinions and adds new information derived from
'his own investigations, hence constructing a succinct history of "La
I
admiracion por Juan de Mena."
The most complete study to date of both Mena’s fame and influence j
I
is that of Maria Rosa Lida in Juan de Mena, poeta del prerrenâcimiento
espahol. She incorporates the information provided by the research
previously quoted and transcends the rather limited scope of these
studies to include in her presentation a wider sample of opinions and
attitudes. Lida devotes an entire chapter to tracing Mena’s influence
on authors through the Golden Age. In another chapter of her monograph,
i"Critica," she transcribes the opinions of authors, commentators, and
critics from the time of Mena through the end of the nineteenth century.
Among these latter selections are the commentaries of authors already
cited by earlier researchers along with those cited there for the first
2 2 4
time. Also included in this chapter are examples of imitation of
Mena’s works, particularly those of Castillejo, Herrera, and Gongora,
which I have elected to include under the second heading of this
dissertation chapter. Firstly, I will review the opinions presented
20
hy Lida as information relating to Mena’s popularity and fame.
Lida transcribes the Italian criticism mentioned by Croce and
attempts a cultural explanation of its hostile tone. Mena is evaluated
by the Renaissance critics from a Renaissance perspective that
presents, according to Lida, "un ideal artistico reflej ado . . . en
una exigencia grecorromana (Galateo) . . . y en una exigencia clasi-
cista de delimitar esferas de pensamiento y generos literarios
(Equicola)" (p. 335). These opinions are not only representations of
the indignation of a subjugated people but reflect the tendency to
judge Mena outside his historical, literary context. Lida attempts
to correct these anachronistic perspectives in her approach to the
works of Mena.
The next example she adduces is the testimony of Gonzalo Fernandez
de Oviedo. In his Quincuagenes of 1556, he declares the desire to
someday return to Spain and present Mena’s sepulcher with a new epi
taph, which he writes in octosyllabic verse, and to which he adds a
prose commentary that is similar, according to Lida, to Mena’s com
mentary of the Coronacion. In the glosses of the strophes in
"Estanças" IV and XXXVII, Oviedo refers explicitly to Mena’s use of
the images of the three Castilian rivers (Laberinto, 62) and the
particles of dust floating in a light ray (Laberinto, 295). He also
remembers Mena in the Historia general y natural de las Indias as he
contrasts the selfish attitude of Panfilo Narvaez with the generosity
expressed by the Conde de Niebla as depicted in the Laberinto. Book
XXXVIII of the Historia, in which Oviedo describes the Nordic terri-
jtories, begins with a gloss of the creation image that initiates the
Coronacion. Another author who glosses the verses of Mena is Luis
de Aranda. Among Aranda’s works is one titled "Glosa a XXIV copias de
las Trescientas de Juan de Mena," and another called "Obra nuevamente
hecha, intitulada ’Glosa peregrina,’ porque va glosando pies de
diverses romances,’ ’ which begins with a direct quotation from the
opening lines of the "Copias contra los pecados mortales." !
I
Lida proceeds to cite the opinion of Sanchez de Lima, which, she
observes, is listed as negative toward Mena by both Amador de los Rios
and Menendez y Pèlayo. However, the critic adds it to the favorable
evaluations of the fifteenth century poet because, according to her,
farther along in the Arte poetica Calidonio, the voice of the author,
Sanchez de Lima, quotes some verses which he says proceed from Juan:, de
Mena. This causes Silvio to exclaim praises in honor of the poet.
Lida observes that the verses quoted are not, in fact, productions of
Mena but were written by Juan Alvarez Gato and comments: "Palpamos
aqui el proceso de la atribucion a Mena: siendo la copia conocida y
habiendose olvidado el nombre de su autor, nunca famoso, fue natural
asociarla con el poeta que para el publico general era todavia el poeta
226
por excelencia" (p. 34l). The error affords Lida the opportunity
to add proof in support of Mena's fame.
Two other minor examples of Mena's renown during the sixteenth
century are transcribed by Lida. They proceed from the "Utilly breve
institvtion para aprender los principios y fundamentos de la lengua
jespanola" (1555), which cites Mena in discussing a grammatical point
I and Dialogo del pajes (1575), which echoes Mena's praises of Santillana,
I Villena and the city of Cordoba.
I i
The next heading in Lida's study is "Popularidad en el siglo de j
oro," under which she transcribes a variety of information in support
of the durability of Mena's general renown during the Golden Age.
Some of the samples cited by Lida have been mentioned by previous
critics. Such is the case with Francisco Salinas' testimony. Others
are now added. Melchor de Santa Cruz, in FIoresta espanola de
Melchor de Santa Cruz de Duehas (1574) writes of Mena's popularity
among both the educated and the ignorant. For Alonso de Toro, Mena is
21
the "poeta por antonomasia." Two historical documents from 1594 and
1596 attest to the popular interest in the Laberinto since it is in-
; eluded in several lists of books shipped to America during those
! 22
jyears. Another demonstration of Mena's integration into the general
culture of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is the poem "Cuento
de vn pintor," whose author, in referring to the fortune theme, cites
23
I Mena as an earlier author who wrote about the subject. More literary
testimonies are encountered in the works of well-known writers of the
227
Golden Age. Lida transcribes the previously quoted lines from La
Dorotea and adds others from the Quijote of Avellenada, XXV, in which
Sancho remarks about the number of printed editions of the Laberinto.
One of the best examples of Mena’s incorporation into the general
culture is offered by the "Centon epistolario." Its author chooses
I Mena as the recipient of the correspondence because, according to Lida,
; he was the only poet of the court of Juan II who enjoyed popularity
'among later generations. He knew of Mena’s position as Court Chronic
ler and alludes to it constantly (Epistles XXIII, XLVII, XLIX, LXVII,
LXXIV). In other letters he refers to literary topics (LXVI) and in
several tells of Juan II following the progress of the Laberinto
(XLVII, XLIX, XLV, LXXVI). Two (XX and XXXVI) deal exclusively with
iliterary themes; the first makes mention of the monarch's amending
strophe 93 of the Laberinto and the second presents a variation of
[Mena's satirical composition, "Sobre un macho que compro de un arci-
preste."
Under the heading, "Patriarca de la poesia espanola," Lida reviews
the erudite opinion of Mena for which he is the author par excellence
!of the fifteenth century poetic tradition. Such is the view of the
I . 2h
editor of the works of Ausias March quoted by the scholar. The
favorable opinion of Lulio Giraldo and Benedetto Varchi, both cited by
Croce, are transcribed next by Lida along with the praises of Vicente
Noguera. She then proceeds to review more specific opinions of Mena
,in which he is viewed as a respected member of a past age. The judge
ments reproduced here include those of el Brocense, Padre Mariana,
228
Pellicer in his introduction to the works of Anastasio Pantaleon de la !
25 . !
Ribera, who views Mena in the historical role as father of the heroic|
I
style in Spain, and Diego de Saavedra Fajardo. Gonzalo Correas
presents Mena as the grand master of ancient poetry in his "Comparazion
27
de dos lenguas latina i castellana," as does the author of the poem
"La fundacion de la orden de Nuestra Sehora de la Merced," who writes
that Juan de Mena was the first writer to attempt an eloquent type of
. 28
poetry.
Lida continues the enumeration of opinions quoting Francisco de
Trillo y Figueroa's defense of poetry in "Romance XVIII," in which he
favorably refers to Mena; the Principe de Esquilache, who cites Mena
as the representative of ancient poetry in his "Cartas al Conde de
I
Valdereis, Gobernador de Portugal," and Antonio de Solis de Rivadenya, j
29 '
who does likewise in "Hermofrodita y Salamacis." The final referencej
of this section of her monograph is to the "Anales," previously cited
by Blecua, in which Mena is depicted as one of the representatives of
medieval poetry. The writers presented here view Mena in historical
terms and present him as the most significant early poet of the
Spanish language, the sum and substance of early literature and the
patriarch of Spanish letters.
Next, Lida reproduces the opinions of the critics of the Golden
Age, Luis Zapata, Argote de Molina, El Pinciano, Francisco Cascales,
and Nicolas Antonio, All of these judgements could be classified as
favorable toward Mena whom they view as a venerated author of Spanish
229
antiquity. The opinions of Boscan, a creator of the new poetry that
replaced arte mayor, are also reviewed. In "Octava rima," he cites
both Mena's name as the first Castilian poet inspired hy the virtue of
love and the first line of Mena's minor poem, "Ay dolor del dolorido
Lida continues enumerating testimonies of Mena's popularity in the
Golden Age hy referring to Gregorio Silvestre's gloss of the "Copias
contra los pecados mortales," and Luis Galvez de Montalvo's praise of
31
"el cordohes y el toledano," in Pastor de Filidia, Valencia, 1792.
Both Amador de los Rios and Menendez y Pelayo recorded the
"Segunda carta al Bachiller de Arcadia" of Diego de Mendoza as a minus
for Mena in the polemic between the followers of arte mayor and those
addicted to the Italian metre. Lida, however, reduces the importance
of this testimony by doubting the work's authenticity and attribution
i to Mendoza, and by observing that even if the "Carta" were written
by him, its strength as a negative testimony is greatly diminished
32
because it attacks the poets of the new art with equal rigor. A
second example of this type is the satire on poetry of "La Academia
33
de los humildes de Villamanta" replete with commentary. It begins
by criticizing the Coronacion and reducing the significance of
Mena's commentaries on its verses. Another seventeenth century criti
cism of Mena is found in the poem titled "Contra Juan de Mena delante
de su magestad y de rrepente," of which only the first line is known.
The negative evaluations are vastly in the minority and Lida proceeds
to quote the favorable Golden Age testimony of Quevedo and Gracian,
230
who in Agudeza y arte de ingenio, discurso XL, reproduces Mena's poem
about the time piece, Cancionero No. 50, as an example of wit. Tirso
de Molina also revives the image and memory of Mena in his Prospéra
fortuna de don Alvaro de Luna y adversa de Buy Lopez de Avalos. Lida
I comments that the significance of Tirso's comprehension of Mena is
I that, for the Golden Age dramatist, the fifteenth century poet is
I simply a venerated relic of the past. His political thought is not
reproduced in the historical play, nor is the famous bewitching scene
of the Laberinto which is so common to the epic and the theatre before
Lope. With the testimonies of these latter artists, a picture of
Mena's fortune among succeeding generations begins to emerge. It is
characterized by a respectful and enthusiastic attitude toward the
originator of the Spanish poetic idiom and a comprehension of the
differences separating him from his descendents.
From these observations and commentaries, Lida proceeds to review
the opinions of scholars and artists of the eighteenth century. The
I first group includes the mixed judgements of Padre Sarmiento, Tomas
Antonio Sanchez and Rafael Floranes. Lida's presentation of the
artists' points of view adds new information to the compilation of
opinions. Luis de Losada attributes to Eugenio Gerardo all of the
qualities that symbolize great poets of past ages; Mena is remembered
35
in this regard for being erudite. José Cadalso, in Los eruditos a
la violeta (1772), presents a catalogue of Spanish authors, and the
first author he mentions is Mena. Along with this list he cites the
231
first verse of the Laberinto and the lament for Lorenzo Davalos. A
similar catalogue of poets in the Parnassus, with Mena’s name at the
head, is reproduced in "Ocios de mi juventud o poesias liricas en
continuacion de Los eruditos a la violeta." Lida next refers to
Tomas Iriarte’s Fabulas literarias (1T82), in which the author
narrates a fable using the venerated arte mayor and indirectly mentions
Mena as its most accomplished representative. Another author, Felix
Maria de Samaniego, in "Copias para tocarse el violin a guisa de
tonadilla," condemns Iriarte’s verses and ridicules the latter’s poem,
"La musica," through the voice of Juan de Mena, who Samaniego has
appear in his satire. Finally, in lT9Ts Moratin adopts the arte mayor
form and "pompous style" in one of his works written in celebration
of the marriage of the Principe de la Paz and la Condesa de Chinchon.^^
Lida reappraises Mena’s fame through the centuries in order to
demonstrate that he is one of the few medieval authors to be remembered
and venerated during later periods. His popularity among both general
and erudite circles of readers is proclaimed. He is cited in the
polemic between the defenders of the traditional verse and those who
favor the Italian metre; he is considered as part of the former but is
also respected by the practitioners of the latter. Likewise, he is
mentioned in the complaints against unnatural style, but is also
I
'venerated as the epitome of ancient poetry. Generally, he is con
sidered the patriarch of Spanish poetry, despite the satires leveled
1 against him and his works.
232
Imitation: The Poet's Influence ^
I
Just as critics were interested in describing and defining Mena's
literary sources, Lida also traces the history of Mena's works as
sources for following generations of authors through the seventeenth
I century. She begins by observing: "Sobradamente gozo Mena en su
j propia generacion y en la inmediata de mayor reconocimiento que los
I versos panegiricos, por sinceros que los juzguemos: del reconocimiento
I
I de la imitacion" (p. U03). In this context, she refers to Mena's
I contemporaries; the poets who completed the "Copias" and praised Mena;
in the hope that they might be able to continue his work, they invoke
his name. From these references, Lida continues by mentioning Mena's
first direct imitators, the author of the twenty-seven strophe "Flaca
barquilla" poem appended to the Laberinto and the Marques de Santillana,
Reference to the second is reviewed elsewhere (see chapter VII of this ^
dissertation), hence a brief summary will suffice here. In the works
of Santillana are found stylistic reminiscences of Mena. The Latin
quotations of the Marques, who did not know Latin, were due to their
presence in Mena's works. There is also discussion about who was the
first author to employ certain images. The study of Santillana's
imitation of Mena, complete with abundant examples, affirms Mena's
superior poetic ability over his contemporary. Lida next reviews the
! indebtedness of Anton de Montoro and Rodrigo de Cota to Mena. The
I 37
I first, imitates the satire of "Sobre un macho" and borrows, as
models, the lament for Lorenzo Davalos, language, techniques, and
233
mythological allusions, and medieval didacticism reminiscent of
passages from the Laberinto. Lida takes this opportunity to unite the
three authors in their common social status as converses and then
proceeds to define Cota’s responses to Mena’s work: "Cristiano nuevo
como Montoro y Mena, el enigmatico Rodrigo Cota . . . se muestra
j imitador del segundo en Dialogo entre el amor y un viejo" (p. U o 6 ) .
* Lida also contends that Diego de Burgos’s panegyric, written at
Santillana’s death, corresponds to Mena stylistically. She demon
strates this affirmation through indicating the points of contact these
poets have in common, which include the direct imitation of characters
from the Laberinto, preoccupations with the reconquest, images of the
guide, and the poet as a child, the description of the throne of Juan
II, isolated expressions, and vocabulary. Other general points of
similarity include: the rhetorical devices; symmetrical hemistichs;
hyperbaton, apostrophe, and rhetorical questions disrupting the
symmetrical verse arrangement; asyndeton, anaphora, and hendiadys;
tripartite rhythm; etymological forms; erudite allusions; and the
correlative and consecutive sentence structure. All of these factors
are proof of how Mena’s poem was seen as the norm of poetic writing
by the poets of his generation.
The same pattern is followed in Lida's discussion of Gomez
Manrique’s works. They show motifs of Mena’s works but exclude overt
imitation of the Laberinto. Especially significant is the relation
between the Coronacion and "Planto de las virtudes." Manrique
234
relied on Mena’s poem for the themes used in his own. Other works of
Mena reflected in Manrique’s include the "Prohemio" of Omero roman-
ceado, "Pregunta a Santillana," "Copias," and the amorous poetry.
There are certain images common to both poets and found frequently in
j Latin poetry. The Laberinto is responsible for indirect influence on
j Manrique and the influence is most apparent in style and use of
I rhetorical devices: anaphora, symmetrical strophes, periphrastic
I
numbers, relative clause, consecutive infinitive and absolute con
structions, and poetic licence. Thus, according to Lida, Manrique
evaluates Mena as both the poet and maestro.
Pedro Guillen and his son Diego are both avid imitators of Mena.
'The former follows "Copias” and "Claro escuro," and the latter, in
j"Panegirico en alabanza de la reina Isabel," demonstrates his know-
j
ledge of Mena's style and versification. The areas of contact between
j these authors and Mena's works include : dystic verses; symmetrical
I
Ihemistichs separated by asyndeton; anaphora; hendaidys; tripartite
rhythm; Latinizing elements (absolute constructions, relative clauses,
hyperbaton, etymological figure) and ornamental Latinisms character
istic of the Laberinto.
Fray Inigo de Mendoza in "Hystoria dela question y diferencia que
ay entre la Razon y Sensualidad sobre la felicidad e bienaventurança
humana," closely follows Mena's "Copias" as is noted by Alfonso de
Cartagena in his criticism of Mendoza’s work in "Otras suyas por
mandado del rey, reprehendiendo a fray Inigo de Mendoza y tachandole
' 38
'las copias que hizo a manera de justa."
2 3 5
Of all the imitations of Mena, perhaps none is more direct and
complete than that of Juan de Padilla, el Cartujano: "Entre todos
los poemas a los que se extiende el influjo de Mena . . . los de Juan
de Padilla el Cartujano rinden a Mena por excelencia el homenaje de
la imitacion. La historia literaria registra pocos casos de tan fer-
j vente aprendizaje de un modelo poetico como el que demuestran Los
I doce triunfos 1521 y el Retahlo de la vida de Cristo" (p. 427) . The
j
j study that follows this passage attempts to demonstrate Padilla's
I dependency heyond douht, hy tracing the narrative structure, content,
and images of Padilla's poems to Mena. These include : the super
natural vision, interest in the reconquest (thirty years after the
j
j fall of Granada), the panoramic vision of world geography, which Lida
I
calls the most important episodic element of imitation, and the des
cription of the throne of Juan II. After describing and comparing
' these features Lida says: "En verdad, todo el texto de Los doce
I triunfos no es sino un incesante tejer y destejer los hilos del
j Laberinto. . ." (p. 432). The Laberinto determines which images will
j
' be chosen by Padilla from classical mythology. More indications of
I
jPadilla's esteem for his model are found in stylistic similarities
such as rhetorical devices and techniques of amplification: the
numeral, apposition, the relative clause, asyndeton, anaphora,
symmetrical arrangements of strophes, divisions of the strophes in
dystics, chiasmus, and the etymological figure. All are used by
Padilla however, with less accuracy and less successfully than by Mena.
236
The final area of dependence is that of vocabulary and syntax.
Like Mena, Padilla juxtaposes the popular and the erudite— figures
from antiquity with those from contemporary history. Padilla's voca
bulary is more abundant and diverse than Mena's but it is not too well
adapted to the content. There is an abundance of ecclesiastic and
cosmographie terminology. The vernacularized Latin terms and the
Latinisms are also similar to those in Mena. Latinizing syntax,
although like Mena's (relatives, infinitives, subordination, consecu
tive and correlative participles, and gerunds) represents a lower
stage of development and an even greater adhesion to the Latin struc
ture. All these formal features are enumerated with pages of examples
I taken from the works of both authors and are used to demonstrate
I
Mena's literary supremacy and Padilla's devotion to and esteem of the
master.
Another area that indicates Mena's magnetism and influence in
literary circles is represented not by the works of a single author,
but in numerous poems composed in arte mayor before the time of
Garcilaso and Boscan. Lida names the works, some of which had been
mentioned by Menendez y Pelayo, and adds others to the list.
She next turns to Mena's imitators in Portugal. The first author
mentioned here is the Condestable de Portugal, son of Pedro, with whom
Mena exchanged verses. The Condestable imitates both the style and
thought of Mena in the Laberinto and "Copias," in his De Contempto
Mundi^^ and his experimentation with arte mayor forms in "Tragedia de
237
la insigne reina dona Isabel" of 1^57• Don Juan Manuel laments the
death of Alfonso, heir to Juan II of Portugal, and imitates Mena in
style, diction, use of the interrogative, apostrophe, symmetry, and
periodic structure. The poem "Trovas sobre los siete pecados," perhaps
owes its plot structure to the French allegorical poems as Post, in
I "The Sources of Juan de Mena," suggests, but it also models the
I Laberinto in use of the hyperbaton, choice of mythological characters,
I
and verbal reminiscences, remarks Lida. In Libro de la celestial
j jerarquia y infernal laberinto, previously mentioned by Menendez y
Pelayo, there is an echo of the Retablo de la vida de Cristo, and the
Laberinto. In comparison to the narrative poems written by Mena’s
j contemporaries and successors, Mena demonstrates an improved compre-
! hension of form and selection. His mythological choices are limited
while those of his followers are diffuse and combined with elements
i
from Biblical and ecclesiastical works, and Spanish history. Further- ^
more, Mena is not a polyglot:'in writing, but strives for innovation
while the other poets are simply satisfied with borrowings and quota
tions in foreign languages as ornamental decoration. These observaAi :
tions conclude Lida's review of contemporary imitation of Mena in
narrative, epic, and lyric poetry.
' She proceeds to study Mena's influence in early drama, especially
I
I
in the works of Juan del Encina and Gil Vicente. Encina's esteem for
the fifteenth century poet has been demonstrated in the "Arte de
poesia castellana" but he also imitates Mena in the lyrical poetry and
238
the narrative "Triunfo de la fama," in which Encina travels to the
Parnassus with Juan de Mena as his guide. In "Trivagia o via sagrada
de Iherusalen" (l52l), Encina demonstrates his devotion to arte mayor
and Virgil’s Eclogues. Encina borrows medieval characteristics of
Mena’s language such as the liberal treatment of proper names,
Greekisms accented on the last syllable and paroxytone accentuation of
Latinisms, vernacularized learned terms, and the use of the temporal
que. In the dramatic eclogues he imitates Mena's style. Francisco
de Madrid^^ follows Encina's political eclogue of l4$5, that, in turn,
reflects the style and vocabulary of the anonymous "Oh grave dolor oh
mal sin medidal" (l5l4), and imitates Encina's "1res pastores," and
Mena's style in the use of apostrophe and symmetrical constructions.
Gil Vicente's drama derives from Encina's eclogues. In his Auto de
: Saô Martinho ' (l504), written in arte mayor, he follows Mena's style
I
in the accumulation of apostrophe, rhetorical questions, symmetrical
structure, anaphora, and the Latinate active participle. Arte mayor
is also used in Comedia Rubena, Farsa chamada auto das Fados, Dialogo
sobre Resurreiçao, and Comedia sobre a divisa da cidade da Coimbra.
However, arte mayor is not the only model for this early dramatist.
Auto da Feira is based on verses from the Coronacion. The most pre
cise imitation of Mena is found in Auto dos Quatro Tempos, and includes
the accumulation of names of divinities, mythological allusions, cosmo
graphie al terms, liberal treatment of proper names, erudite and
vernacularized words, the juxtaposition of the sacred and the prdfane,
etc., all characteristic of Mena's poetry.
239
The sixteenth century drama also owes something to Mena. The
Comedia Tihalda reflects Mena’s influence, especially in the speech of
the lover and in the doctrinal and scholastic elements taken from the
Laberinto. Juan de Paris writes the Egloga nuevamente compuesta
(1536), in arte mayor and follows the concept of love expressed in the
Venus circle of the Laberinto. Diego de Negueruela, in Farsa llamada
Ardamisa, transcribes strophes from the Laberinto replete with apos
trophes, and so does Bartolomé Palau in the Farsa llamada custodia del
hombre. Fernando Diaz demonstrates his knowledge of the Laberinto in
modeling his style and expressions after Mena's poem. Fernan Lopez
de Yanguas composes his Farsa del mundo y moral (1551) in arte mayor
I
I
I
i and depends on Mena's poem for style and themes.
Lida proceeds to trace the influence of Mena on fifteenth century
prose. Both in the Vita Beata and Careel de amor, the arte mayor
j rhythm is employed. She produces abundant examples from the pages of
both works. Sanchez de Arévalo, in "Verged de los principes," reflects
[Mena's style and thoughts about Fortune and the virtues and vices. The|
I
iCronica del Condestable Miguel Lucas de Iranzo is reminiscent of Mena's
I
I
I style and expressions. Next, Lida discusses Mena's influence on the
Celestina. She cites the studies of Foulché-Delbosc and Castro
Guisasola, who, according to the author, do not attempt to formulate
a theory of authorship based on the verbal and ideological parallels
in the two works. The Celestina imitates words and phrases from the
Laberinto and "Copias." It reflects Latin constructions and rhetorical
2 4 0
devices common in the Laberinto such as absolute and active partie
ciples, repetitions, and in the final verses of the early sixteenth
century work, rhythms of three, symmetrical hemistichs, and hyperbaton.
The first act of the Celestina is characterized by both an arte mayor
and octosyllabic rhythm, as Menendez y Pelayo has indicated in
Origènes de la novela. Another point of comparison between the two
works is imagery, and includes optic theories, magical ingredients of
the bewitchings, sacred and profane hyperbole of "Presumir de vos
loar," and the presentation of the fortune theme, which, even though
Rojas closely follows Petrarch, is, according to Lida, "fijado. :ambi-
ciosamente en la mas importante obra literaria que podia ofrecerle el
Castellano" (p. 482). In this last passage, she clearly affirms con
tentions of Mena's literary supremacy.
The Celestina was the object of numerous imitations and these in
turn demonstrate their indebtedness to the Laberinto in terms of style
and motifs derived from Mena's poem through the Celestina. I n other
dialogue prose works, Mena's influence is also observed. Such is the
case in the Comedia seraphina, which is similar to Mena's poetry in
language, use of rhetorical devices, themes, and expressions. The
Celestina and its imitations owe their inspiration to Mena's example.
Fray Antonio de Guevarra, who looked more to the Middle Ages than
to the Renaissance, of which he was a member, finds a model in Mena.'s
42
"Copias" for the presentation of life as a slow death,
j Cristobal Castillejo's defense of arte mayor has already been
!presented. He demonstrates a working acquaintance with Mena's verses
241
in the quotations from the Laberinto and "Copias" in his "Sermon de
amores," Obras de amores, and Obras de conversacion. In the latter
work he parodies the first lines of the Laberinto in the poem "A un
cierto escribano confeso, baraton y apanador, pero buen companero,"
which begins : "Al muy impotente, bestial vagabundo. ..." In Obras
morales there are also allusions to Mena’s poetry.
Fernando de Herrera’s commentary on Garcilaso demonstrates his
knowledge of Mena’s verses, and he also imitates Mena’s poetry. For
Herrera, Mena’s example is most meaningful in the area of linguistic
innovation. To this effect, Lida cites examples of vocablos groseros
in the works of Herrera. As in Mena, Herrera’s Latinisms are more
irelated to ornament than thought. Like Mena, Herrera does not simply
i
I reproduce archaic and Latin forms but recreates in both areas.
Herrera’s syntax bears the seal of Mena’s influence; there is an
abundance of the Latinate omission of the article, hyperbaton, and
I anaphora. The epic catalogue of the Omero romaneeado has been taken
up by Herrera and the expressed terror of oblivion in love and fame,
many times presented in his sonnets and "Elegias," derives from Mena’s
"Claro escuro" and "Ay dolor del dolorido."
The influence of Mena on Garcilaso, although less significant than
in the previous authors mentioned above, is, nevertheless, evident.
The descriptions of the circles of Venus and Mars in the Laberinto, and
isolated expressions from Mena’s principal work are reproduced by
Garcilaso in the Canciones. As previously indicated (see chapter IV of
242
this dissertation), Herrera, in his annotations of Garcilaso’s works,
has also indicated instances of Mena's influence on the poetry of that
sixteenth century poet. To the imitations of Mena reflected in these
authors, Lida adds that of Torres Naharro in Comedia Calamita.
I Among the poets influenced hy Mena is Gongora. His works reflect
I
j verbal and thematic parallels with those of the fifteenth century
I author. The latter's techniques of hyperbaton, periphrastic expression
I
of numbers. Latinized vocabulary, and syntax influenced Gongora’s
linguistic innovations. More so than Herrera, he disassociates his
style from Mena’s popular characteristics. Thus, Gongora and Herrera
are viewed as successors of Mena, not abstractly and through vague
reference, but in the area demonstrative of intimate contact: imitation.
Damaso Alonso has studied Mena’s relation to Gongora and a review of
his findings will be presented at the end of this section.
j Lope de Vega, as a critic who opposes Gongora, also censures Mena
I
* as the latter's antecedent. As an artist, however, he praises the
i
fifteenth century poet through imitation. Hence, in Porfiar hasta
morir (II, x), the Maestre de Santiago reads to Enrique III of Castile
verses supposedly written by Macias. The dedication of the book in
which they are printed is modeled after Mena's dedication of the
Laberinto to Juan II. Hot only does Lope quote from the Laberinto, but
he also demonstrates his understanding of this work by imitating
certain motifs : the triumph over the Moors and the restoration of the
Visigothic kingdom, and its style : parallel verses and hemistichs.
243
appositions, relatives, and hendaidys. He also imitates directly the
predominant rhyme scheme of the Laherinto, abhaac-ca^ in the
verses he copies from the first strophe of Mena’s poem which represent
the only exception, an ababbccb rhyme scheme, and the style of
strophes that proceed from the circle of Venus. Lida traces the imita-
jtion of Mena’s works during the Golden Age, even in minor poems such as
; Ambrosio de Salazar’s "Tesoro de diversa leccion” of I636. Mena’s in-
I
jfluence, as presented by Lida, transcends the demarcations of various
styles and affects poets of different stylistic and ideological
persuasions.
The Portuguese and Spanish American epics owe much to the Laberin-
;to. Camoens in Os Lusiades imitates both Mena’s Laberinto in geogra-
I
phical description and in the fortune theme and Padilla in his Doce
triunfos. According to Lida, the Spanish American epic, ”por su forma
I. . . pertenece a la corte de Juan II, y no Carlos V" (p. 496). Such ^
Ian impression is offered in the early work titled Obra en metro sobre
I
! la muerte que fué dada al ilustre don Diego Almagro, which echoes
themes, expressions, and techniques of the Laberinto. The later epics,
Araucana, Arauco domado, Austriada, Elegias de varones ilustres de
indias, Vasauro, La Argentina, and Armas antarticas all demonstrate
similarity of language and concepts with the Laberinto. Other, more
specific, contributions of the Laberinto to later epic poems include
the use of vocablos groseros, Latinisms, Latin poetic style, peri-
iphrastic number, and classical motifs— especially those found in Lucan,
jsuch as Amyclas, the symbol of poverty. Lucan’s influence on the
2kk
Araucana, Austriada, and Arauco domado is exercised through Mena and
represented in the elaboration of the witch scene and the enumeration
of the bewitching ingredients of the Condestable episode in the
Laberinto. In the latter of the three mentioned epics, the scene is
adapted to the customs among the native peoples. Another classical
theme elaborated upon in these works is that of the storm prognostics.
The usually popular lament for Lorenzo Davalos seems to have had less
1 influence, according to Lida.
I
I An abundance of material derived from the Laberinto takes the
form of situations, people, images, geographical descriptions, and the
fortune theme. The most direct evidence of esteem toward Mena in
these poems is, however, the invocation to him on an equal scale with
Homer, Lucan, Virgil, Petrarch and Ariosto.
Mena, the author of an historical narrative, epic poem that
I received much acclaim among later generations of authors, becomes the
j model for the poets who sing the glories and relate the tragedies and
: intrigues involved in the conquest of American soil.
The final section of Lida’s study of influence is devoted to a
review of the opinions of Cervantes as a critic and imitator of the
fifteenth century author. The Galatea, I989, includes strophes
written in arte mayor and along with Persiles, contains rhetorical
: expressions similar to those employed by Mena and common to the epic
tradition. Many aspects of Mena’s poetic works are represented in
Cervantes’ prose: Galatea II, Persiles III, and Quijote I. Mena also
2U5
influenced Cervantes'i dramatic works because arte mayor was the means
to elevated expression and it celebrated the poetization of antiquity,
according to Lida. In the witch episode of El trato de Argel Cervantes
follows Mena. Schevill and Bonilla, modern editors of Cervantes, say
that he combines classical and contemporary images. The dramatic
personifications (Fame and Fortune) in the Numancia also imitate Mena.
Cervantes is a serious imitator of Mena in both form and content and
he parodies elements of style and linguistic techniques such as the
possessive ending in ino, time expressed in mythological terms, and
the catalogues of warriors. The last two are common both to the epic
tradition and Mena, and the latter is a parody on all ."libros
I mentirosos" that deform reality in an epic way.
! According to Lida, Cervantes did not propose to judge Mena
I
historically but according to his rational theories of art. As an
example of Cervantes' procedure, Lida traces the history of the
' expression "10 vida segura la mansa pobrezal" used in the Laberinto
i and in Quijote II. In early times it was associated with interior
piety and the cults to the vows of poverty and work. Later it became
anecdotic and was attached to a moral lesson. Such is its signifi
cance in the Celestina, Aula de cortesanos, and La Argentina. It was
I also taken up by the moralist writers, Mateo Aleman and Quevedo.
I
I Cervantes, in his use of the expression in reference to the holes in
Don Quijote's stockings, points out the contrast between the spiritual
poverty of the moralists and the material poverty plaguing seventeenth
21+6
century Spanish society. In so doing, he reduces the gap between
poetry and reality and expresses an allegiance to verisimilitude as an
aesthetic norm.
Finally, Lida presents the contribution of historical criticism
to the study of past epochs. It proposes an approach that intends to
I judge a work in its individual period and not on the basis of its
I adaptation to one or another aesthetic ideal different from the one
j followed by the author in creating the work. She is here describing,
i
I at the end of the monograph, her particular point of view as well as
' pointing out the differences between the historical focus and that of
Cervantes, in which the work is viewed out of its original context and
judged according to current sets of ideals.
Before concluding we can mention briefly the studies of other
critics who have researched Mena’s influence on following generations
of authors. Chandler Bathfon Post, whose controversial views on
Mena’s sources have already been presented (see chapter III of this
dissertation), also devotes attention to Mena’s influences. Mena’s
! allegorical compositions, Coronacion and Laberinto, serve as models for
I
! similar poems by various authors. Diego de Burgos, in his panegyric
dedicated to the Marques de Santiliana, derives motifs and concepts
from the Coronacion rather than from the eulogized author’s "Infierno
de los enamorados" or "Defunssion de don Enrique de Villena." These
borrowings include "the idea of welding together the journey to the
three realms of the other world and the central theme of the poet’s
2hj
glorification" (p. TO). For Post, the Coronacion represented, "the
most potent formative influence" (p. 71) on Burgos. In another section
of his hook.,. Post discusses the sources of Juan de Padilla, among
which are included Mena’s journeys to supernatural realms along with
hk
those of Dante and Petrarch’s Trionfi. Alfonso Alvarez Guerrero
modeled his work, the Castle of Fame (l520), after the Laberinto.
Another poem by Guerrero, "Cincuenta del Laberinto de Fortuna,"
depends, according to Post, on Mena’s Coronacion. Because it presents
a similar view of Fortune as a fickle goddess in control of the
world’s movements. Post seeks the sources of late medieval, Spanish
allegories in the allegorical writings of earlier Spanish authors.
Mena’s works are included in the material drawn upon by later authors.
i
Otis Green, in a brief note, adds names to the list of Mena’s I
I
^ 5 I
admirers during the sixteenth century. These include: Hurtado de j
jMendoza, who associated Mena with Boscan and Ariosto; Hernan Nunez, for
I
! whom Mena was an heroic poet; Pedro .Sanchez de Viana and Pedro Malon
I ' i
i de Chaide, who both viewed Mena as the "poeta per antonomasia"; and '
' Alejo Vanegas del Busto, Sebastian de Horozco and Pedro Manuel
! Ximenez de Urrea for whom Mena’s works were source books.
' Damaso Alonso has commented on the antecedents of Gongora’s style
U6
and language, which include works of Juan de Mena. Mena was the
example followed by Gongora in his quest to create ah:.’elitist literary
idiom. Alonso distinguishes between two groups of hyperbaton in '
Gongora’s writing : those due to the adoption of normal, Latin
248
syntactical constructions and those stemming from imitation of styl
istic transformations practised by earlier poets and prose writers.
Both types prevail in the Latinized prose of the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries and include the placement of the verb at the end
of the sentence (first group) and the separation of noun from its
I
!
j modifier (second group). Alonso continues, "Pero el intento latini-
I
j zante mas ejemplar para nuestro caso es el de Juan de Mena. Gongora
I leyo indûdablemente a este poeta de su patria, y medito su estilo, y
aprendiô en el no poco" (p. l83). He proceeds to refer to the
observations of Gongora’s early commentators who enumerated examples
of Mena’s influence on the seventeenth century poet in cases of
imitation, verbal or ideological reminiscences, and techniques. These
include: the reference to the walls of Babylon (Laberinto and Piramo
y Tisbe), the use of periphrastic number (Laberinto and Soledad II),
I expressions of reverence for Cordoba, and the use of erudite expres-
t
sions. Alonso concludes : ’ ’Todo esto prueba hasta que punto era
familiar para Gongora la lectura del autor del Laberinto, y como,
cuando se quieran estudiar a fondo los origenes del cultismo, sera
I
necesario tener en cuenta y aquilatar la importancia de este prece-
jdente" (p. 189, n. 2). For Damaso Alonso, more interested in des
cribing Gongora’s idiom than in studying Mena’s style, the latter
represents the point of departure for, or the beginning of, the
tradition that culminates in the works of Gongora. The Spanish critic,
however, does review the influence of the hyperbaton in some detail.
2I+9
He transcribes a series of hyperbatons taken from the Laberinto that
include the much quoted "Divina me puedes llamar Providencia" and "a
la moderna volviendome rueda." He also mentions the fact that Mena is
named in the seventeenth century Gongora polemics. Mena is Gongora’s
precursor and Gongora represents the culmination of Mena’s linguistic
and aesthetic innovations. The relationship is presented as a reci-
! procal one.
Summary
Scholars from the nineteenth century onwards, who have a fairly
sophisticated notion of literary sequences or periods, have b'een
I interested in tracing Mena’s fame and influence among later generations
! of authors. In recording these explicit or implicit evaluations,
' scholars piece together an overall historical picture of the reactions
i to the poet and his works and in so doing gauge the tastes of the
I 1 + T
I ages. Mena’s fame is studied in terms of his popularity. He is
j referred to as the early poet, par excellence, viewed as a classic,
1
jvenerated patriarch of the national literature, associated with a
I little-used, but noble, arte mayor metre, and presented as its best
■ known and most refined practitioner. His influence is also observed
I
as multifaceted and studied in the form of verbal, stylistic, linguis
tic, and ideological reminiscences in the works of his disciples. By
I appealing to this evidence writers attempt to demonstrate that Mena
was the most important literary figure of his age and affirm the
250
concept "that enduring works of art appeal to different admiring |
generations for different reasons . . . the classics keep their place j
48 I
hut keep it hy a series of changing appeals. ..." Mena's contri- j
hution to Hispanic letters is patented; the historical significance
of his literary works is demonstrated hy these critics.
251
NOTES
CHAPTER VI
1 ^
I Marcelino Menêndez y Pelayo, Historia de la poesia castellana
i en la edad media, ed. Adolfo Bonilla y San Martin (Madrid, 19l4), II,
| 190.
r
! 2
George Ticknor, History of Spanish Literature (New York:
Harper Brothers, 18U9), I, 378-383.
3 ^
Menendez y Pelayo, in Historia de la poesia, p. lU2, rejects
the epistles as apocryphal and disregards their importance as historic
al evidence in writing a biography of the poet.
José Amador de los Rios, Historia critica de la literatura
espahola (1865; facs. rpt. Madrid: Credos, 1969)5 VI, 105.
^ Menendez y Pelayo, Historia de la poesia, pp. I9O-I96.
j ^ Menendez y Pelayo, Historia de la poesia, p. I90. Maria Rosa
jLida in Juan de Mena, poeta del prerrenacimiento espanol (Mexico:
IColegio de Mexico, 1950), p. 332, n. U, criticizes Menendez y Pelayo's
^misrepresentation of Nebrija’s passage in which he uses the example of
Juan de Mena taken to mean "the poet" in describing the term
"antonomasia."
7
Pedro de Portugal in Copias del contempto del mundo, and
Oberza in Cataluha. Menendez y Pelayo provides no further bibliogra
phical information for these two references.
^ Menendez y Pelayo, Origenes de la novela, (Madrid: Bailly-Bail-
liere, I91O), III, Ixxvii, n. 2. The work referred to by Menendez y
Pelayo is titled "Caragicomedia." For a detailed discussion of the
authorship question and information related to the main character
alluded to in the satire see, Daniel Eisenberg, "Notas sobre la
'Caragicomedia,’" Iberoromania, 3 (l97l), 213-219.
252
^ Benedetto Croce, Espana en la vida italiana del Renacimiento,
trans. Francisco Gonzalez Rios (Buenos Aires: Iman, 1945).
Published in Collana degli scrittore di Terra d'Otranto, IV
201. Cited in Croce, p. 8l, n. 4.
José Manuel Blecua, ed., El Laberinto de Fortuna o las Tres-
cientas, by Juan de Mena (1943; rpt. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, 19T3),
pp. xci-cii.
12
Florentino Castro Guisasola, Observaciones sobre las fuentes
literarias de la "Celestina" (Madrid: Centro de Estudios Historicos,
1924), pp. 158 ff.
13
Ramon Foulche-Delbosc, "Observations sur La Celestine,"
Revue Hispanique, 9 (1902), I66-I68.
14
In Romancero y cancionero sagrados, ed. Sancha Justa,
Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles, Vol. 35 (Madrid, 1915), p. 332.
Francisco Sanchez de las Brozas, ed., Obras by Juan de Mena
(Salamanca, I582). The prologue begins with the words, "Si, como
dize Horacio, aquellos ingenios deben ser preferidos que mezclan
dulcura con vitalidad, no se yo en nuestra lengua (y aun por ventura
en las otras) quien con razon se puede anteponer a nuestro luan de
I Mena." Cited by Blecua, p. xcvii.
Blecua, on this point, is following the observations of Angel
Valbuena Prat, in Historia de la literatura espahola (Barcelona:
Gustavo Gili, 1937), I, 238.
17
Blecua, p. xcix, Francisco de Quevedo, "Espana defendida," in
Obras complétas (Madrid, 194l), I, 351a.
See Alfred Morel-Fatio, "Vicente Noguera et son discours sur
la langue et les auteurs d’Espagne," Zeitschrift für Romanische
Philologie, 3 (1879), 31.
Francisco Martinez de la Rosa, Obras (London, 1938), I, 83.
!This is the only bibliographical information provided by Blecua.
20
[ For a more ample presentation of early opinions of Mena see
ichapter IV of this dissertation.
253
21
Alonso de Toro, "Copias hechas por Alonso de Toro cojo
vecino de Avila," Revista de Archives, Bibliotecas y Museos, 32 (1928),
33.
22
José Torre Revello, El librola imprenta y el periodismo en
America durante la dominacion espahola (Buenos Aires: Casa Peuser,
1940), appendix XLVII, and Irving Leonard, Romances of Chivalry in
the Spanish Indies (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1933),
p. 285.
23
In Ramon Foulché-Delbosc, "Romancero de la biblioteca
Brancacciana," Revue Hispanique, 65 (1925), 36T.
24
Quoted also in Arturo Farinelli, Italia e Spagna (Turin,
1929), p. 71 and Dante in Ispagna. Francia, Inghilterra, Germania
(Turin: Fratelli Bocca, 1922), p. 87, n. 2.
25 ^
Anastacio Pantaleon de la Ribera, Obras, ed. Rafael Balbin
Lucas (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1947),
I, 24.
26
Diego de Saavedra Fajardo, Republica literaria, 2nd ed. Ed.
Vicente Garcia de Diego (Madrid: Espasa Calpe, 1956), pp. IO6-IO7.
i 27
1 In Arte grande de la lengua castellana.
! ,8
' In Coleccion de entremeses, loas, bailes, jacaras, moj igangas
desde fines del siglo XVI a mediados del XVII, ed. Cotarelo y Mori,
Nueva Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles, Vol. 17 (Madrid: Bailly-
Bailliere, 1911), I, 44-45.
29
The dates and places of publication of these works are
omitted in Lida's text.
30 ^
Juan Boscan, Las obras de Juan Boscan, ed. W.I. Knapp
(Madrid, 1875), p. 446. The line quoted in Boscan's poem refers to
Mena's composition listed as No. 17 in the Cancionero castellano del
siglo XV, ed. Ramon Foulché-Delbosc (Madrid: Bailly-Bailliere, 1912),
I.
31
Mayans in the notes to his edition of this work believes that
Galvez de Montalvo refers to Juan de Mena and Juan de Quiros.
254
32
Paul Groussac, "Le Commentateur du Laberinto," Revue His
panique a 11 (1904), 1765 inclines toward attributing it to Mendoza.
33
Lucas de Torre, "De la academia de los humildes de Villamanta,"
Boletin de la Real Academia Espanola, 2 (1915)5 199-218.,.
Alfonso Miola, "Un cancionero manuscrito brancacciano," in
Homenaje a Menendez y Pelayo, ed. Juan Valera (Madrid: V. Suarez,
!1899), I I . 92.
i
I - 3 5
I In Poetas liricos del siglo XVIII, Biblioteca de Autores
IEspanoles, Vol. 6l (Madrid: Atlas, 1950), I, xxxvii. I have been
1 unable to confirm this reference.
Lida omits all bibliographical data regarding this work.
3T
Anton de Montoro, Cancionero, ed. Cotarelo y Mori (Madrid,
1900), nos. 78, 94, and 122.
38 ^
In Foulche-Delbosc, Cancionero castellano. I, 92-93.
See also Menendez y Pelayo, Antologia de poetas liricos
Castellanos, ed. Enrique Sanchez Reyes (Santander : Aldus, 1944-45), 3-
III, 304-305 and IV, 383-4o8.
See Joseph E. Gillet, "Egloga de Francisco de Madrid,"
Hispanic Review, 11 (1943), 275-303.
These works include: Comedia Thebayda and Segunda comedia de
Celestina in Coleccion de libros espanoles raros y curiosos (Madrid:
Rivadeneyra, 1894); Tragicomedia de Lisandro y Roselia, Coleccion,
1872; Comedia 11amada Selvagia, Coleccion, 1873; Tragedia policiana of
Sebastian Fernandez ; Comedia florinea of Juan Rodriguez Florian; and
Comedia de Eufrosina of Jorge Ferreira de Vasconcellos. Lida omits
bibliographical information related to the latter three works cited
'above.
42
See "Reloj de principes" and Menospreeio de corte y alabanza
de aldea.
Chandler Rathfon Post, Medieval Spanish Allegory (Cambridge :
[Harvard University Press, 1915).
255
uu ,
Post, Medieval Spanish, pp. 265 ff.
Otis H. Green, "Juan de Mena in the Sixteenth Century:
Additional Data," Hispanic Review, 21 (l953), 138-lUo.
Damaso Alonso, La lengua poetica de Gongora, 2nd ed.
(Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1950).
I 47
j See John Cummins, ed. Laberinto de Fortuna by Juan de Mena
] (Salamanca: Anaya, 1968), pp. 16-21, for a brief but succinct review
I of five centuries of critical appraisals of the Laberinto.
I 48 ^
j René Wellek and Austin Warren, Theory of Literature, 3rd ed.
(New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1956), p. 248.
256
CHAPTER VII
A POLEMIC: MARIA ROSA LIDA AND RAFAEL LAPESA
I
t
I The best known and most widely studied poets of the reign of
I
j Juan II in Castile (l405-l454) are, without doubt, Juan de Mena and
I
Inigo Lopez de Mendoza, Marques de Santillana. During their life
times they were considered to be the mentors of nearly all court poets
and the leaders of their respective generations. They were both held
in high esteem during most of the fifteenth century as can be seen in
the testimonies of their contemporaries and disciples. It is only in
14-92, when Antonio de Nebrija writes his Gramatica de la lengua
castellana, that the situation of similar stature changes. The change,
moreover, proved indicative of what would proceed it during four
centuries. Mena’s works are the paradigms for nearly all of Nebrija’s
i
commentary, explanation, and theory; he makes only incidental mention
of Santillana. Thereafter, Mena occupies an undisputed central posi
tion in the writings of scholars, critics, and commentators ; Santillana,
the more prolific of the two authors, is almost completely disregarded.
In modern times, this situation has been modified and the
attested superiority of one or the other poet has become object of
critical dispute. Rafael Lapesa, in La obra literaria del Marques de
Santillana, re-evaluates the entire corpus of Santillana’s writings in
2 5 7
an attempt to revive interest in them and to restore some measure of
prestige to this frequently neglected fifteenth century Spanish
writerMaria Rosa Lida, in Juan de Mena, poeta del prerrenacimiento
espanol, reaffirms the attitudes and judgements of earlier writers
and attempts to reinforce Menais position as the most significant and
scholarly poet of the Spanish Middle Ages, and certainly the most
2
important of the fifteenth century.
My purpose in this chapter is to review the opinions of both
scholars regarding Mena and Santillana, the basic information presented
by each, and the resulting academic debate, in an attempt to classify
and explain the aims of their criticism. The juxtaposition of the
poets’ scholastic preparation, abilities, works, and influence com
prises the procedure they follow in making their critical evaluations.
In the process, they appeal to similar topics of reference and the
results they obtain serve as supports for their arguments.
The Essentials
Maria Rosa Lida studies various aspects of Juan de Mena’s
literary productions : style, language, and influence. Throughout her
monograph she frequently affirms Mena’s achievements in these areas
through comparisons with the works and accomplishments of Mena’s
contemporary, the Marques de Santillana. Indeed, much of her case in
support of Mena’s greatness as a poet depends upon these intentional
3
comparisons. Although individual points of contrast are as varied
as they are numerous, all serve to indicate Mena’s superior composi
tional skills.
A commonly quoted difference between Mena and Santillana refers
to the formalized education received by each. Lida uses this bio-
! graphical information in support of her contentions. She points out
I Santillana’s educational deficiencies by alluding to his rather common-
' h
I place quotations of Latin passages. The Marques was essentially a
I
j self-educated writer and represented the ideal man of arms and letters
but he lacked the profundity of thought and innovative style reflected
in Mena’s works. His deficient preparation in the classics is seen
clearly, according to Lida, in his textual references to the classical
sources from which he quotes. Mena, the classics scholar, seldom
refers the reader to his sources, and by not doing so he demonstrates
his intellectual maturity: "Santillana, el gran sehor aficionado que
no se instruye en la universidad sino hojeando los tesoros de su
propia biblioteca . . . présenta con extraordinaria frecuencia lo que
es casi excepcional en la obra de madurez de su amigo : la indicacion
de sus fuentes entretejidas en el contexte, la remision del lector a
sus auctores" (p. 178, n. 17).
Lapesa offers a direct rebuttal to these comments of Lida and is
interested in vindicating Santillana. He demonstrates the Marques’
extensive studies by referring to his erudite, classical sources and
i indicates that the remission to them in the text is for specific,
theoretical reasons. Furthermore, Lapesa points out that Santillana
259
is only one of many writers who compose in this manner: "De sus libros
saca el poeta materia para alegorias, comentarios, similes y
alusiones . . . no es ya la costumbre de respaldarse en autoridades,
sino el deseo de lucir lo recien aprendido. Disculpemos esta inocente
vanidad. Tambien los poetas doctos y semidoctos del Cancionero de
Baena . . . citan abundantes autores. . (pp. 16O-I61).
Other examples of Lida's interest in presenting Mena as the
superior personality are the comparisons based on artistic ability.
In her detailed analysis of Mena's style, she repeatedly juxtaposes
the two poets. The following passages are indicative of her procedure:
"El notable sentido arquitectonico de Mena, por el cual se distingue
de un simple enumerador como Santillana, y por el que revela una
afinidad honda . . . con lo mas valioso del arte antiguo que el
Renacimiento exalta. . ." (p. 197) or "en todo présenta Mena, medido
por el cartabon de sus precursores y contemporaneos, un sentimiento
müy superior de la forma, un saber renunciar y escoger que es el mas
eficaz testimonio de su asimilacion de los clasicos y que va dando la
espalda al sumiso reproducir medieval" (pp. 227-228). The principal
thesiss of Lida's monograph, that Mena is a poet who reflects the
mentality and attitudes associated with the Spanish pre-Renaissance,
is reiterated in these examples; Mena is viewed as a precursor of the
Renaissance in Spain.while the other writers, and Santillana in
5
particular, are firmly entrenched in the ideology of the Middle Ages.
260
In praising Mena’s work, Lida downplays that of Santillana to the
degree that his stylistic techniques seem significantly inferior to
those of his contemporary: "La simetria interna del verso no.esta
marcada en las copias de arte mayor de Santillana, y aun escasean
mucho mas en sus formas de mayor refinamiento. . ." (p. 205).
The most deliberate juxtapositions are found, however, in Lida's
analysis of Mena's literary language. She outwardly admits that com
parison is necessary in order to arrive at a proper critical appraisal
of the poet's works. With this purpose in mind she writes: "A
dif erencia de su precursor Imperial y de su coetâneo Santillana,--f-pue s
es precise una y otra vez tomar distancias para poder llegar a la
apreciacion justa— , Mena muestra un vocabulario muy rico en el cual
es fâcil distinguir grupos bien caracterizados que corresponden a las
lenguas técnicas" (p. 245). Mena's experimentation with language j
I
forms, an element of his writing partly responsible for his greatness,
according to Lida, is also viewed in juxtaposition to Santillana's
[writings.^ Just as Mena avoids revealing his sources to:the reader,
he also infrequently includes quotations in foreign languages in his
texts. This omission separates him from numerous poets of his period,
7
including Santillana.
Maria Rosa Lida compares Mena and Santillana on the basis of bio
graphy, style, and language use. She also compares them regarding
political ideology. Mena's political thought is presented as innova
tive, progressive, and even perhaps prophetic. For example, in his
261
writings, the words "Espana" and "Castilla" are interchangeable. This
is not true in the works of Santillana.
Rafael Lapesa’s evaluation of Santillana as a great poet also
is clearly presented in terms of a comparison: "En 14-36 ningûn poeta
castellano anterior ni contemporaneo podia competir con Inigo Lopez
en vastedad de intereses: ninguno se habia Ianzado tan avidamente
como el sobre los clasicos latinos ni sobre la literatura italiana"
(p. 161). In attempting to vindicate the Marques from the short
comings of which he had been accused by Lida, Lapesa makes intentional
reference to Mena’s deficiencies: "Si el sehor de la Vega olvida el
orden de los signos en el zodiaco o situa el Olimpo en Toscana no se
muestra mas escrupuloso Juan de Mena, profesional de las letras, res
pecte a la exactitud de los dates empleados con fin ornamental" (
(p. 161). In this comparison, Lapesa criticizes an aspect of Mena's
artistic ability that Lida praises: recreation functioning as aesthetic
appeal disregarding the question of fidelity to tradition or source.
The aim of these critics in writing their monographs is to make
"true" statements about the greatness of the individual personality
each defends. The principle measure for this evaluation is the inten
tional use of comparisons. For Maria Rosa Lida, proper intellectual
formation, knowledge of the classics, innovative use of language, and
progressive political thought are criteria for judging the worth of the
two poets being compared. She argues that Mena satisfies the require
ments but that Santillana does not. Rafael Lapesa deems Santillana a
262
great poet on the basis of his diversified interests in both classical i
and medieval Italian authors. The scholarly debate stemming from thesej
studies is formed on the procedures of evaluative, comparative criti
cism. The critics involved in the debate are more concerned with
individual personalities than with individual or collected works of
literature. The polemic extends into other areas: the preguntas y
respuestas, the Coronacion, and the influence of one author on the
I other. Each topic will be reviewed separately in the following dis-
'cussion.
Preguntas y Respuestas
In the Cancionero castellano del siglo XV there are several poems
that Mena addressed to Santillana and vice versa, nos. 27» 28, and
219.^ Both Lida and Lapesa use these stylized poems as bona fide tesAi
timony of the esteem in which each poet held the other. Santillana
answers Mena's question in no. 27 by addressing him as "buen amigo,"
"especial amigo," and most importantly, "poeta excelente, gran
ystorial." Lapesa sees this set of questions and answers as a clear
indication of Mena's opinions of Santillana: "Mena traza una semblanza
inolvidable del Marques : lo proclama en primer lugar maestro de cuantos
desean la sabiduria, pero tambien modelo de conducta gloriosa" (p. 268)
jLida comments on Mena’s description of the Marques and corrects the
latter’s attribution of the strophe to Ennius: "Los primeros versos de
la segunda copia de la Pregunta a Santillana traducen elegantemente las
263
palabras de Caton (no Ennio como explica e quivo c adament e el Marques
en su respuesta). . (p. 104, n. l8). Indirectly, she affirms
Mena’s knowledge of the classics while pointing out Santillana’s
deficiencies in this area.
No. 28 offers another sample of opinions. The Marques answers
Mena’s question in a series of laudatory verses which Lida transcribes
as further proof of Santillana’s esteem for his contemporary. Lapesa
prefers to cite Mena’s question in which he praises the Marques and
the critic glosses these eulogies in his own exposition. He later
qualifies his exuberance by suggesting that the Marques was fully
conscious of his competition, Juan de Mena: "Se da cuenta de que tiene
! delante si al unico poeta capaz de competir con el, tal vez superarle,
I
I y lo reconoce con noble sinceridad. . ." (pp. 269-270).
The third set of preguntas y respuestas, no. 219, is not dis- j
I
cussed by either critic; Lida simply lists it as another example of ^
j
Santillana’s respect toward Mena. '
Lapesa cites minor examples of the preguntas y respuestas and
describes the topics of each and the circumstances surrounding their
creation. Lida also mentions these minor exchanges without attempting
to present them as further proof of Mena’s superiority.
Although both scholars place these preguntas y respuestas in their
limited historical and literary perspectives, "descontando las
hiperboles corteses, obligadas en las preguntas y respuestas poeticas"
(Lida, p. 325), "aunque el motive sean triviales acertijos" (Lapesa,
2 6 4
p. 2 6 8 ) 5 they view them as accurate, realistic demonstrations of each
poet's attitude: "tienen su valor los cumplidos de uno a otro" (Lida,
p. 325)9 "las estrofas con que cada poeta encaheza su interveneion
representan muy hien las respectivas actitudes y estimaciones"
(Lapesa, p. 268). The preguntas y respuestas are viewed as objective
judgements and lend support to each critic's evaluation.
La Coronacion
Another area from which the two researchers draw support for their
arguments is the poem Coronacion. For Lapesa, the importance of this
panegyric of Santillana written by Mena is twofold: it established the
Marques as an admired and venerated cultural and military leader, and
it consolidates his place in the literary Parnassus as the undisputed
I head of his poetic generation.^ The critic reiterates the image of
Santillana sketched by Mena in the Coronacion and indicates that Mena
followed Santillana's lead in writing the poem, even if in the process
he superceded his model in both form and content. The Marques is the ,
venerated subject of the poetic composition, but it is written by an
aspiring poet who would soon occupy the leadership among a generation
of writers.
Lida prefers to view this poem from the perspective of its author.
She relates the work to Mena's canon and views it as an integral part
of his development as a poet. On the basis of a comparison of the
poem with its model, Santillana's panegyric of Mosen de Jordi, it
265
becomes clear to Lida that Mena's composition eclipses its model
Furthermore, when viewed as part of Mena's stylistic evolution, the
Coronacion represents for the critic a refinement of his early
political poetry.
Influence
The dissemination of each poet's works and the influence exer
cised by these works on the other poet and on subsequent generations
of Spanish authors is studied by Lapesa and Lida and is yet another
facet of the debate that we are reviewing.
Lida argues that Mena influenced Santillana and that by imitating
him, Santillana demonstrates his respect for Mena and admits Mena's
literary supremacy over other Castilian poets: "Quiza tambien deba
alistarse entre los imitadores nada menos que al Marques de Santillana,
quien admite, como sus contemporaneos . . . la supremacya literaria
de Mena. Siempre es probable, dada la amistad y comunidad de ideal
poetico de ambos, que las coincidencias fueron o bien puramente
casuales, o bien no disimulada prueba de admiracion" (pp. 402-403).
, She amply documents this assertion by comparing passages taken from
' 11
■ the works of both poets.
Lapesa admits that Mena, the disciple, both surpasses the master
and later influences him: "Juan de Mena, entonces novel [en 1436],
aprendio de don Inigo, aunque despues sistematizase en formulas
cristalizadas lo que en su predecesor eran logros frecuentes y aunque
266
el saber latin pusiera en sus manos nuevos recursos” (p. 174). Lapesa
indicates that poems of the same date, the Laberinto and the "Comedieta
de Ponça," coincide in purpose, although Mena's aspires to aemore
profound and noble ideal. In "Bias" and "Doctrinal de privados" there
are verbal reminiscences of the Laberinto. Finally, Lapesa suggests
that Santillana’s poem about the Cid, lost to us today, was written
in response fo Mena's summons in the Laberinto. Despite these clear
examples of Mena's superiority, Lapesa refuses to accept Santillana's
dependency in all cases and questions Lida's attributions of Mena's
influence on Santillana's poetry before l444:
Pero cuando la semejanza se da entre el Laberinto y la
Pregunta de nobles (anterior a l4s4), la Defunsion de don
Enrique de Villena (l4s4), la Comedieta (1435-36) o el
Prologo al Centiloquio (l437), la relacion tiéne que ser
forzosamente inversa: tal es el caso en seis ejemplos
citados por Maria Rosa Lida. Anadase otro. . . . Res-
pecto al unico paralelo entre el Laberinto y la Corona
cion de Mosen Jordi, la sabia investigadora acepta la
prioridad de Santillana. Habra que reconocerla tambien
en "los Agenores" por "los Agenorides" (Sueno, 36b;
Laberinto, 4d); el Sueno debio de preceder unos diez
anos al Laberinto. (pp. 302-303, n. 75)
In this passage, Lapesa openly and clearly disputes Lida's affirmations
by criticizing her attempts to present Mena as the superior poet by
disregarding established chronology.
Other Critics
The marshalling of opinions of earlier critics who have studied
Mena and Santillana is a fourth technique employed by both scholars in
12
writing their monographs. The first author cited by Lapesa and Lida
267
is Gomez Manrique. According to Lapesa, at the deaths of Mena and
Santillana, Manrique inherited the leadership of the contemporary
poetic generation and became the most important poet in Castile. He
recognized his masters and paid homage to them by completing Mena’s
"Copias contra los pecados mortales" and dedicating "Planto de las
; virtudes e poesia" to Santillana. Lapesa summarizes Manrique’s
opinion of Santillana as an accomplished man of arms and letters and
applies this judgement as support for his theory of the Marques’
greatness.
Lida also employs Manrique’s testimony by focusing on the eulogy
of Mena found in the poem dedicated to the Marques.
Anton de Montoro, a contemporary of the two poets, is the next
writer whose opinions are quoted by each critic. In tracing the
compositions lamenting Santillana’s death, Lapesa refers to Montoro’s
eulogy. Lida cites Montoro’s compositions in praise of the "Copias
contra los pecados mortales" and in lamentation of Mena’s death.
A brilliant evaluation of Santillana is produced by the pen of
his personal secretary, Diego de Burgos. Lapesa cites the work,
"Triunfo del Marques," in support of Santillana’s literary excellence
and sterling character. Lida includes the secretary’s composition as
a further- example of the respect awarded to Mena by his contemporaries.
He is given an honorable position as a character in the panegyric and
Lida contends that the "Triunfo del Marques," although dedicated to
Santillana, is an example of Mena’s influence on the authors of his
268
generation: "... literarlamente el Triunfo corresponde a Mena, y no
al ensalsado Marques" (p. ^07).
In reviewing further opinions and evaluations of writers through
the end of the sixteenth century, both critics cite passages from the
works of Fernando de la Torre, Juan de Lucena, Hernando del Pulgar,
Antonio de Nebrija, Juan del Encina, Juan de Valdes, Garcia de
Matamoros, Fernando de Herrera and Argote de Molina. These judgements
are not entirely favorable toward the Marques but they afford Lapesa
the opportunity to vindicate this neglected fifteenth century author
and to redress critical oversights, especially those of Lida. No
clearer example of Lapesa's opinion of Santillana exists than:.the final
pages of his monograph:
Al cabo de unos cinco siglos el Marques de Santillana
es para nosotros, ante todo, el alto poeta de quien per-
viven creaciones que conservan inmarchita frescura o bl
elevan noblemente nuestro espiritu. . . . La razon
capital de su influencia queda patente en la imagen que
de él presentan sus contemporâneos: hombre complete y
armonico encarnô en si un nuevo ideal humane que aprove-
chaba las ensehanzas de la antiguedad para enriquecer el
anime y agrandar las dimensiones de la persona y de sus
empresas. Para nosotros es el autor de las Serranillas
y de la Querella de amer, el que nos hace compartir el
dolor de Macias en un mundo de sombras y Hamas, o anorar
la vida sencilla de les humildes, el que nos alecciona
con la aitiva serenidad de Bias o hos'^Estrèmeoe con la
violenta sacudida del Doctrinal; para sus contemporâneos
fué eso y mueho mas : un extraordinario promoter del saber
y, sobre todo, un paradigma de humanidad excelsa. (p. 313)
The historical opinion of Mena, however, lends complete support
to Lida's thesis: he is constantly remembered by writers of posterior
generations and they all express large measures of respect for his
works and accomplishments.
269
Reviews
In the course of this survey, we have seen how the affirmations
about the greatness of each poet are proposed and defended and we
have traced the procedures employed by each critic in his or her dis
cussions. One final aspect of the scholarly debate yet to be seen
centers upon the reviews written by each critic of the other’s mono
graph. These reviews afford candid insights into the debate and are
summaries of respective opinions.
Lapesa’s review of Juan de Mena, poeta del prerrenacimiento
espahol is an accurate description of the study's contents, which also
13
expresses a basically favorable attitude toward its author. The
opening paragraph sets the tone of the review:
La poesia del siglo XV peninsular esta concentrando en
estos ultimos ahos la atencion de los estudiosos. Entre
las contribueiones a su mej or conocimiento e interpreta-
cion el libro de Maria Rosa Lida de Malkiel sobre Juan
de Mena ocupa lugar sobresaliente. Un enorme caudal de
lecturas, con envidiable saber de los clasicos antiguos
y de la literatura medieval, tanto latina como romance;
una despierta sensibilidad para estimar valores poeticos
y captar sutiles matices expresivos; y un inteligente
enfrentamiento con problemas de ideologia y actitud vital,
han permitido a la autora darnos una obra dificil de
superar. (p. l6l)
Throughout, Lapesa employs similar superlatives to describe Lida's
abilities, accomplishments in writing, and contributions to scholar-
ship.
Despite these lines of acquiescence, Lapesa dissents rather
; vehemently with several of Maria Rosa Lida's affirmations. These
include : her reasons for the sudden importance given to the theme of
270
fortune by fifteenth century Spanish authors, her attributions of the
"Flaca barquilla" poem appended to the Laberinto to someone other than
Mena, and most significantly, her underestimation of the worth of
Santillana’s contributions to culture and the influence exercized by
him in Spanish letters. Lapesa reiterates his claim for Santillana’s
antecedence in six of the ten passages cited by Lida as examples of
Mena’s influence on the Marques. He takes the critic to task for
disregarding biographical data indicating that Santillana was Mena's
superior by thirteen years and was thereby the first of the two to
be recognized as a great poet. Lapesa summarizes his objections in the
comment: "En general, la aportacion y la influencia de Santillana han
sido subestimadas por la senora Lida de Malkiel" (pp. I66-I67). He
concludes the essentially positive review by listing and correcting a
series of mistaken details and misjudgements in Lida's approach. 1
I
Maria Rosa Lida’s review of La obra literaria del Marques de
Santillana is also a collection of courteous phrases and gracious'
judgements and a synthesis of the highlights of the monograph.The
valuable contributions to scholarly study that this investigation
represents include, according to the reviewer: an exercize in histori
cal criticism, the placement and study of Santillana’s works in an
historical context, and the identification, clarification, and dis
cussion of Santillana’s sources.
Lida’s evaluation also includes criticisms of Lapesa’s monograph.
According to her, the author should have been more precise in his u
271
description of Santillana’s prose production and influence. These
reservations are documented in detail. The polemic is also mentioned
on several occasions. Lida attempts to promote reasons for the
renewed interest in Santillana and his works : "Muy curiosa es el
vaiven entre las fortunas de Mena y Santillana. Desde fines del siglo
j XV hasta comienzos del XIX prédomina la de aquel . . . pero desde la
; segunda mitad del siglo pasado este es quien se halla en ascen-
!
j diente. . ." (p. 293). She suggests that perhaps today the dilettante
I
I Santillana, is more appreciated than the professional, Mena. She
addresses Lapesa's observation about Santillana's use of the hyperbaton
in terms of the familiar juxtaposition: "La ausencia del hiperbaton
preferido por Mena . . . se debe a que este orden de palabras imita
una est rue tura muy frecuente en el hexâmetro y pentâmetro lati:-- ■
nos. . . . Santillana, que no conoce directamente la poesia latina,
en sus pocos casos de hiperbaton muestra no haber percibido esa
funcion estructural dentro del verso" (p. 297, n. 10).
Lida contends that Lapesa's study is characterized by benevolence
in its critical judgements. This assessment is tempered, however, by '
the olive branch statement: "Pero no le regateemos su piadosa actitud,
senalemos, en cambio, su erudicion segura . . . que reconoce con la
misma imparcialidad aciertos de contrincantes (pags. 109, H 8, ihl) y
yerros de maestros (79, 213), rectifica asertos de la propia obra
(l3^ y 291) y deja en claro mas de un punto embrollado por la polemica
en paginas que son modelo de refutacion séria y cortés" (pp. 29^-295)*
272
The final statement is a clear reference to the debate and to Lapesa's
refutation of Lida's assertions regarding the question of influence.
Summary
Maria Rosa Lida and Rafael Lapesa are concerned with evaluating
or re-evaluating two fifteenth century Spanish authors. They argue
their points regarding the greatness of the respective authors and
make apparently "true," demonstrable statements about the properties
of artistic greatness. For them, characteristics of a great poet
include: originality, the creative use of language and style, proper
intellectual preparation, knowledge of the classics, ability to elicit
respect and imitation over an extended period of time, selectivity in
handling of sources, and the promotion of humanistic learning. All
these criteria, furthermore, are viewed within the specific context i
I
of a comparison. In juxtaposing the two authors, Lida and Lapesa
appeal to similar evidence : the preguntas y respuestas, the Coronacion,
the influence of one over the other, and the judgements of previous
writers. Evaluation in terms of comparisons of greatness has led to
the debate that we have been reviewing.The debate, in turn,
reflects the interests of these two critics in the personalities of
the authors they study, and to a lesser degree, their concern for works
of literature.
The question of value and evaluation as elements of literary
IT
appreciation has been discussed by ¥ellek and Warren. They study
273
the movement of criticism as "an act of interest" to an "act of judge
ment" and describe specific procedures of literary evaluation: "By
reference to a norm, by the application of criteria, by comparison of
it with other objects and interests, we estimate the rank of an object
or an interest" (p. 238).
Their presentation contributes to the elucidation of the particu
lar segment of the criticism of Juan de Mena, reviewed in this chapter.
The definition of "judicial criticism" offered by Wellek and Warren
can be applied to the writings of both Lida and Lapesa. They write :
"What is crudely asked for or offered as 'judicial criticism' is a
blunt grading of authors and poems, accompanied by the citation of
authorities or appeal to a few dogmas of literary theory" (p. 250).
As such, "understanding poetry" quickly'becomes "judging poetry." They
indicate that at the opposite extreme, purely exegetical criticism,
must, of necessity, contain judgement. In conclusion, they urge the
adoption of both overt and implicit judgement in criticism. This syn
thesis is most desirable: ". . . a sensibility can scarcely attain
much critical force without being susceptible of considerable
generalized, theoretical statement; and a reasoned judgement, in
matters of literature, cannot be formulated save on the basis of some
sensibility, immediate or derivative" (p. 251).
Perhaps the works of Mena and Santillana could benefit from a
study undertaken on the basis of this criteria.
2jh
NOTES
CHAPTER VII
^ Rafael Lapesa, La obra literaria del Marqués de Santillana
(Madrid: Insula, 1957).
2 ^
Maria Rosa Lida, Juan de Mena, poeta del prerrenacimiento
espanol (Mexico: Colegio de Mexico, 1950).
3 . .
For a discussion of the term "greatness" and its use in evalua
tive criticism see Rene Wellek and Austin Warren, Theory of Literature,
3rd ed. (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1956), p. 2kk; Northrop Frye,
Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays (1957; rpt. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1973), pp. 20-29; Morris Weitz, Hamlet and the
Philosophy of Literary Criticism (Chicago : University of Chicago Press,
I96U), pp. 269-284 ; M.H. Abrams, "What's the Use of Theorizing About
the Arts?" in In Search of Literary Theory, ed. Morton W. Bloomfield
(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972), p. 7.
^ Lida, Juan de Mena, p. 287, n. 2. This is perhaps the most
often cited difference between the two poets.
^ For an opposite point of view, see Manuel Duran, "Santillana y
! el prerrenacimiento," Nueva Revista de Filologia Hispanica, 15 (1961),
! 344-363. In this article, Duran compares the works of Mena and
i Santillana in terms of content, themes, and style.
^ Lida, Juan de Mena, pp. 238-240. "La muy crecida proporcion en
que se hallan los arcaismos dentro de la obra de Mena, comparada con
jla del Marques, su amigo, nacido trece ahos antes, apunta a un hecho
inequivoco: Mena arcalza de intente. . . . Dificil parece no ver en
en este cumule de arcaismos . . . una de las muehas directivas en que
el laborioso poeta experimento con su material."
Lida, Juan de Mena, pp. 227-228. Villasandino, Fray Diego de
Valencia, Ruy Pérez de Ribera, and Francisco Imperial are other writers
mentioned by Lida.
275
Cancionero castellano del siglo XV, ed. Ramon Foulche-Delbosc,
2 vols. (Madrid: Bailly-Bailliere, 1912-15).
^ Lapesa refers to the relationship among poets of the fifteenth
century in terms of generations. Other critics have employed the
classification. See for example, Angel del Rio, Historia de la
literatura espahola, 2nd ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1963), I, 135-138.
I
; 10
i Lida, Juan de Mena, p. 104. "Lastima que se sepa tan poco de
I la intimidad literaria de Mena y Santillana y no pueda determinar de
;quien partio la iniciativa de llevar a la copia octosilahica la
!alegoria con desfile de personaj es que se halla en las dos Corona-
! clones, la escrita por Mena en honor del Marques y la escrita por el
Marques en honor de Mosen Jordi. De todos modos, la experimentacion
es mas audaz por parte de Mena (ya que . . . su proposito era mucho mas
grave que un mero agasajo al merito literario de su amigo) y por lo
demas, enpalma con otros tanteos metricos de Mena . . . todos los
cuales dan testimonio de una aguda conciencia de la metrica como medio
expresivo del tono de la poesia."
i
I Lida, Juan de Mena, pp. 402-4o4. In only one case does she
Îadmit the antecedence of Santillana: "En camhio, parece corresponder a
Santillana la prioridad en cuanto al motive de la silla preciosa, que
este describe en la Coronacion de Messen Jordi, 10 y 11 y Mena en el
Laberinto, l42 y 1U3." She points out, however, that even in imita
tion, Mena shows a more refined and scholarly poetic ability: "Aun
cuando retiene rara palabra . . . Mena da nuevo sentido al motivo. . ."
(p. 4o4, n. 2).
12
Lapesa, La obra literaria, pp. 271-280; Lida, Juan de Mena,
]pp. 325-367.
13
Rafael Lapesa, rev. of Juan de Mena, poeta del prerrenaci-
' mi ento espahol, Nueva Revista de Filologia Hispanica, 9 (1955)9
1161-167.
See, for example, the following passages: "Quedan asi admirab-
Ilemente analizadas" (p. 163), "excelentes son las paginas" (p. 163),
j"excelente es también el analisis" (p. I63), "novedad importante con-
Istituye el estudio de la prosa de Mena" (p. l64), "con gran maestria
sabe présentâmes la autora" (p. l64), and "ambos recorridos muestran
una vez mas el extenso conocimiento literario y la finura de aprecia-
cion a que nos tiene acostumbrados la autora" (p. 166).
276
Maria Rosa Lida de Malkiel, rev. of La obra literaria del
Marques de Santillana, Romance Philology, 13 (196O), 290-297. Charac
teristic of the language used in the review are passages such as the
following: "Una caracteristica valiosa de este trajabo" (p. 290),
"merece especial aplauso" (p. 290) , and "guiado por su fina percepcion
del texto poetico" (p. 291).
Comparisons are commonly employed by critics evaluating an
author and his works. See the following pages written on Mena and
Santillana: George Ticknor, History of Spanish Literature (New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1849), I, 379; Amador de los Rios, Historia
critica de la literatura espahola (1865; facs. rpt. Madrid: Gredos,
1969)5 VI, 127-128, n. 1; Angel del Rio, Historia de la literatura
espahola, 2nd ed. (New York : Holt, Reinhart and Winston, 1963), I, 138;
Juan Alborg, Historia de la literatura espahola (Madrid: Gredos, 1972),
I, 356, n. 76. The debate regarding the significance of the works and
contributions of Mena and Santillana is confined, however, to the works
of Lida and Lapesa; later critics have avoided committing themselves
to the camp of one or the other.
17
Wellek and Warren, Theory, pp. 238-251.
277
CONCLUSIONS
In preparing and organizing the material herein reviewed, I
j have adhered to the basic assumption that the meaning of a work of
I art is, to a large degree, "the history of its criticism by many
I 2
I readers in many ages." This dissertation is concerned with literary
j criticism, the secondary sources of information; it is an inquiry into
the assumptions, procedures, and aims of this literary art and it
reflects my interest in sorting out and arranging, according to
logical divisions, the trends of criticism found in the somewhat
chaotic, but rich, body of critical writings on the life and works of
Juan de Mena. I have categorized the literature in a manner that
would portray, as accurately as possible, what I have perceived to be
the basic interests and approaches of the writers who have studied
Juan de Mena and his writings.
The history of Juan de Mena criticism is characterized by a
multiplicity of concerns, goals and procedures. These include bio
graphy ; editorial questions ; extrinsic aspects such as sources ;
intrinsic considerations consisting of language, style and structure ;
and the fame and influence of the poet and his works. Mena criticism
is also comparative and is represented as such in the form of an
academic debate. Mena and his works, especially the Laberinto de
278
Fortuna, have received constant attention throughout their five
hundred year history and continue to interest present day critics. All
the traditional areas of inquiry are included in this critical corpus
and the procedures and concerns of writers seem to vary according to
the periods during which they wrote. It would he premature and
inexact, however, to conclude definitively about movements or periods
in Mena criticism based upon the information gathered here. No clear
demarcation lines appear. It can be affirmed, on the basis of this
review, that, at least in reference to the Laberinto, the general
trend or movement has been away from emphasis on extrinsic or extra-
literary considerations and toward an interest in viewing the work as
a self-contained whole— an artifact worthy of study in itself. The
flurry of studies written between 1959 and 1972 concerned with the
structure (content and form) of the Laberinto are ample documentation
in support of this suggestion. The same does not hold for Mena's
other works. The criticism of the minor works represents a totally
different stage of development ; with the possible exception of Inez
MacDonald's article on the Coronacio.fi and Maria Rosa Lida's language
jand style studies, scholars working in this area are, by and large,
concerned with "traditional" fields of research: editing the works,
problems of authorship, and sources. Alberto Varvaro's monograph and
the various recent editions of Mena's minor prose and poetry vividly
attest to this fact.
The history of Juan de Mena criticism demonstrates that the
business of literary criticism is essentially a cumulative process or
279
exercise; one generation affirms, denies, or contributes additional
information to what previous generations of scholars have proposed.
Seen in these terms, no single approach, no individual opinion can be
understood as the only correct opinion, or as the definitive method.
The disparity of views presented by the structural studies of the
Laberinto is instructive in illustrating this point, as is the variety
of contradictory opinions regarding Mena's literary sources. No
single study should thus be viewed as presenting more than a partiel
"truth,” nor should it have to if the total meaning of a work of art
is, as I have assumed along with Wellek and Warren, the history of
many readings during many periods.
Through this review of Juan de Mena criticism, a dichotomized
picture of the relationship between scholarship and criticism emerges ;
the traditional distinction between these two areas can be gleaned from
the pages of this dissertation. Although I have chosen to refer to
those who have written on Mena as both critics and scholars, for the
purposes of precision, scholars, or the majority of writers who have
studied Mena, have examined historical, extra-literary aspects of the
poet's works. This approach is perhaps best exemplified in the writing
of Menendez y Pelayo and Maria Rosa Lida. The critic, as understood
in the modern definition of the term, is interested in presenting a
2
close reading of the literary text. The baggage of early Mena
"scholars" consisted of a working knowledge of literary, rhetorical
theories, language and style, and the political and cultural history
280
of the fifteenth century, to the almost complete exclusion of a
coherent reading of the work of literature under scrutiny. Later
writers have attempted a synthesis of these approaches (that of the
scholar and that of the critic) in studying the Laberinto, but much
has yet to be accomplished regarding the minor works. A task remaining
I for those interested in studying Juan de Mena is precisely this: an
j attempt at harmonizing traditional scholarship, the majority of the
critical writing on Mena, with the concerns of contemporary literary
criticism. Indeed, according to some writers, this is an area in need
3
of improvement in much of Hispanic criticism.
A second task awaiting future writers consists of a careful study
of Mena's works in terms of the economic situation of the fifteenth
century, or as much of it as can be extracted from existing documents,
that permitted the rather large-scale production of art and literature,
or more specifically, questions involving literary patronage at the
court of Juan II and Enrique IV.^ Perhaps research on Mena's writings
could serve as a chapter of a complete history of fifteenth century j
literary production and patronage. Questions that remain to be
answered in this area are : do the economic conditions of the period
relate to the production of art? Are economic considerations important
for the study of Mena? What function did patronage and dedication of
works serve? Nearly all critics admit that Mena dedicated the
Laberinto'to Juan II and the Coronacion to Santillana but none expands
these affirmations in a study of art production and its relation to
'the prevailing economic situation that supported it.
281
Another dichotomy presented hy the history of Mena criticism is
that of academic versus judicial criticism, knowledge and understanding
versus taste. It can he concluded from the review that Mena criticism
contains much, perhaps a disproportionate amount, of judicial criti
cism. Indeed, many of Mena’s early critics viewed him and his works
j in purely evaluative terms, in a perspective, furthermore, that Mena
I himself could not have. From this basis, they inevitably criticized
I
j his shortcomings and condemned his sins against contemporary creeds of
j language and style. Examples of this type of approach are clearly
seen in the writings of Juan Valdes, the eighteenth century critics,
Rafael Floranes, and Menendez y Pelayo to mention only the most out
standing. This particular type of criticism is not only limited to
early writings but is an essential element in the contemporary
j polemic between Rafael Lapesa and Maria Rosa Lida, traced in chapter ,
I
I VII, which pits Mena against Santillana for the purpose of deciding
1
I which is the better poet and, by extension, the best of the fifteenth
century in Castile. On the matter of the place of judicial criticism
in contemporary writings, I agree with Northrop Frye when he writes
that a critic's function is to increase understanding of the text
that he or she is studying and not to judge its author nor compare him
to his contemporaries for purposes of evaluation.^ On the basis of
this review, it can be said that Mena critics have only begun to
promote the points of view of academic criticism, deemphasizing the
reliance on tastes or trends in critical appraisals.
282
Themes have been examined by Mena's critics, but, in many cases,
from the limited perspective of the poet's literary sources. Further
more, to date there exists no detailed thematic study of Mena's entire
canon. Viewing the philosophical, political, and literary themes so
essential to Mena's writings such as fortune, sin and vice, reason and
: desire, civil war and reconquest, and courtly love, as part of the
; history of Western thought would enhance and add depth to each and to
I
jtheir development, as well as increase the knowledge of Mena's role
I ^
I in this intellectual history. It seems that in the past excessive
emphasis has been given to the classification of techniques and treat
ment of topics according to characteristics of designated historical-
; cultural periods, thus segmenting the historical presentation of themes'
I that have interested and puzzled men's minds from the earliest times. i
I The suggestion here is, simply, that these themes and others be viewed ,
I
I as part of a continuum.
!
; Throughout the centuries, a vast amount of research has been con- |
I ducted on the life and works of Juan de Mena. This dissertation has '
I provided for the recognition of all previous contributions made to ;
I '
jthe understanding and appreciation of this fifteenth century Spanish
! ^ I
I author. The study of critical writings about Mena has also helped to !
determine unexplored or understudied areas such as the role of j
I
I
patronage in Mena's literary productions and in the production of art
in general during the fifteenth century, the intrinsic aspects, of
Mena's minor works, and the thematic study of Mena's writings from
283
within the context of the intellectual history of Western civilization.
Through a presentation of the goals and methods of the critics of
Juan de Mena, this compendium of research demonstrates that no single
statement of criticism is completely true or false, that no single
point of view or approach is the definitive approach - and, finally,
that multiplicity is dominant over singularity and dogmatism.
NOTES
CONCLUSION
]_
{ René Wellek and Austin Warren, Theory of Literature, 3rd ed.
: (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1956), p. h2.
2
See Northrop Frye, "Literary Criticism," in The Aims and
Methods of Scholarship in Modern Languages and Literatures, ed.
James Thorpe, rev. ed. (New York: MLA, 19T0), pp. 69-81.
See Bruce W. Wardropper, "Spanish Literature," in Modern
Literature, ed. Victor Lange (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall,
1968), II, 6T-II9 and James A. Parr, "An Essay on Critical Method
Applied to the Comedia," Hispania, 57 (197^), U37-U77,
k
Karl Julius Holzknecht, Literary Patronage in the Middle Ages
(1923; rpt. New York: Octagon Books, I966). Holzknecht limits his
discussion of patronage to examples found in English, French, and |
I Italian medieval literature. A study of patronage in Spain remains to i
he written.
^ Frye, "Literary Criticism," p. 73.
^ The most ambitious studies of this type are Maria Rosa Lida's
La idea de la fama en la Edad Media castellana (Mexico: Fondo de
Cultura Economica, 1952), and Otis Green's Spain and the Western
Tradition, h vols. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, I968).
Recent thematic studies of medieval Spanish literature include :
Ricardo Arias y Arias, El concepto del destino en la literatura
medieval espahola (Madrid: Insula, 1970), in which the author studies
only early prose and the poetry of mester de clerecia, Juan de Dios
Mendoza, Fortuna y providencia en la literatura castellana del siglo
XV (Madrid: Real Academia Espahola, 1973), and José J. Labrador,
Poesia dialogada medieval: la pregunta en el "Cancionero de Baena"
(Madrid: Ediciones Maisal, 197^), especially pp. 77-109.
ABBREVIATIONS IN BIBLIOGRAPHY
AEM Anuario de Estudios Medievales
AIUON Annali— Istituto Universitario Orientale Napoli
AUC Anales de la Universidad de Chile
BAAL Boletin de la Academia Argentina de Letras
BAE Biblioteca de Autores Espaholes
BdF Boletim de Filologia
BRAE Boletin de la Real Academia Espahola
BH Bulletin Hispanique
BHS Bulletin of Hispanic Studies
BRAC Boletin de la Real Academia de Cordoba de Ciencias, Bellas
Letras y Nobles Artes
CA Cuadernos Americanos
CEH Centro de Estudios Historicos
CHA Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos
CL Comparative Literature
CSIC Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas
I
'FCE Fondo de Cultura Economica
IFMod Filologia Moderna
GIF Giornale di Filologia
GSLI Giornale Storico della Letteratura Italiana
HR Hispanic Review
286
KRQ Kentucky Romance Quarterly
MLA Modern Language Association
MLN Modern Language Notes
NBAE Nueva Biblioteca de Autores Espaholes
NRFH Nueva Revista de Filologia Hispanica
RABM Revista de Archives, Bibliotecas y Museos
RAL Rendiconti della R. Academia del Lincei
j RFE Revista de Filologia Espahola
RFH Revista de Filologia Hispanica
RH Revue Hispanique
RL Revista de Literatura
Rom N Romance Notes
RPh Romance Philology
RR Romanic Review
i SCSML Smith College Studies in Modern Languages
SFM Studi di Filologia Moderna
ZRP Zeitschrift fur Romanische Philologie
28T
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agiiado, José Maria. "Descripciôn y vicisitudes de unas heredades y
casas que pudieron pertenecer al poeta Juan de Mena." BRAE, 19
j (1932), k99_508, 55^-565 and 2% (1935), %9-80.
jAlborg, Juan Luis. Historia de la literatura espahola. 2nd ed.
t 3 vols. Madrid: Gredos, 1972.
! Alonso, Damaso. La lengua poética de Gongora. 2nd ed. rev. Madrid:
j CSIC, 1950.
Alonso, Martin. Evolueion sintactica del espahol. Madrid: Aguilar,
1962.
Alonso Cortés, Narciso. "Juan de Mena y la Cronica de Juan II."
Anotaciones Literarias. Madrid: Viuda de Montero, 1922.
Amador de los Rios, José. Historia critica de la literatura espahola.
7 vols. 1865; facs. rpt. Madrid: Gredos, I969.
Arias y Arias, Ricardo. El concepto del destino en la literatura
medieval espahola. Madrid: Insula, 1970.
Asensio, Eugenio. "La peculiaridad literaria de los conversos."
AEM, k (1967), 327-351.
Aubrun, Ch. V. "Un Traité de l'amour attribué à Juan de Mena." BI7, 50
(19^8), 333-3^^.
Balaguer, Joaquin. Apuntes para una historia prosodica de la métrica
castellana. Madrid: CSIC, 195^.
Bataillon, Marcel. "L'Edition princeps du Laberinto de Juan de Mena."
Estudios dedicados a Menéndez Pidal. Madrid: CSIC, 1951. II,
I 325-33^.
I
{Beltran, Luis. "The Poet, the King and the Cardinal Virtues in Juan
de Mena's Laberinto." Speculum, k6 (l97l), 318-332.
288
r— %
I Beltran de Heredia, Vicente. "Nuevos documentes inédites sobre el
poeta Juan de Mena." Sadamanticensis, 3 (1956), 502-508.
Bibliografia iberica del siglo XV. Ed. Conrado Haebler. 2 vols.
1903; rpt. Hew York: Burt Franklin, I962.
Blecua, José Manuel. "Algunos aspectos del Laberinto." Castilla, 1
(19U0), 115-131.
Bouterwek, Frederick. History of Spanish and Portuguese Literature,
j Trans, by Thomasina Ross. 2 vols. London : Boosey and Sons, 1823.
I Bowers, Fredson. "Textual Criticism." The Aims and Methods of
I Scholarship in Modern Languages and Literatures. Ed. James
j Thorpe. Rev. ed. Hew York: MLA, 1970.
Buceta, Erasmo. "Algunos antecedentes del culturanismo." RR, 11
(1920), 328-3^8.
. "La critica de la oscuridad sobre poetas anteriores a
Gongora." RFE, 8 (1921), I78-I8O.
Cadalso, José. Los eruditos a la violeta, o curso completo de todas
las ciencias dividido en siete lecciones para los siete dias de
la semana. Barcelona: Viuda de Piferrer, I786.
Cancionero castellano del siglo XV. Ed. Ramon Foulché-Delbosc.
2 vols. Madrid : Bailly-Bailliere, 1912-15.
Cancionero de Fernandez de Hijar. Ed. José Maria Azaceta. 2 vols.
Madrid: CSIC, 1956.
Cancionero de obras de burlas provocantes a risa. Ed. Juan Alfredo
Bellon et al. Madrid: AKAL, 197^.
Cantera Burgos, Francisco. Alvar Garcia de Santa Maria y su familia de!
conversos: historia de la Juderia de Burgos y de sus conversos i
mas egregios. Madrid: Arias Montano, 1952.
Canete, Manuel. "Observaciones acerca de Gongora y del culturanismo
en Espana." k6 (l9^^), 281-311.
Garbalio Picazo, Alfredo. "Juan de Mena: un documente inédite y una
I obra atribuida." RL, 1 (1952), 269-299.
I
'Carr, Derek. "Los doze trabajos de Hércules: fuente posible del
Laberinto de Juan de Mena." HR, kl (1972), ^17-^20.
289
Casalduero, Joaquin. Sentido y forma de las :"Hov.elas ejemplares."
Madrid; Gredos, 19^2.
-------------■ — • Sentido y forma del "Quijote." 19^9; rpt.
Madrid: Insula, 1970.
--------------------. Sentido y forma del teatro de Cervantes. Madrid :
Gredos, 1966.
' Cascades, Francisco. Tablas poeticas. Ed. Benito Brancaforte.
j Madrid: Espasa Calpe, 1975.
I Castillejo, Cristobal. Obras. Ed. Jesus Dominguez Bordona. h vols.
I 1926; rpt. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, I96O.
Castro, Americo. La realidad historica de Espaha. 5th ed. rev.
Mexico: Porrua, 1973,
Castro Guisasola, Florentine. Observaciones sobre las fuentes
literarias de "La Celestina." Madrid: Jimenez y Molina,
I92U.
"Centon epistolario." Epistolario espahol. Ed. Eugenio Ochoa. BAE,
Vol. 13. Madrid: Rivadeneyra, 1870-72.
Cintra, Luis Filipe Londley. "0 Liber regum fonte comun do Poema de
Fernao Goncalves e do Laberinto de Juan de Mena." BdF, 13
( 1952) , 289-315.
Clarke, Dorothy Clotelle. Juan de Mena's "Laberinto de Fortuna":
Classic Epic and Mester de Clerecia^. University, Mississippi:
Romance Monographs, 1973.
---------------------. Morphology of Fifteenth Century Castillian
Verse. Dusquene Studies Philological Series, V0I-. h. Pittsburgh:
Dusquene University Press, 1964.
--------------------------. Review of Ensayo sintagmatico: Ejemplos del
"Libro de buen amor" y del "Laberinto" de Juan de Mena, by Oreste
Maori. HR, kl (1973), 92-94.
Coleccion de entrerneses, loas, bailes, jacaras mojigangas desde fines
del siglo XVI a mediados del XVII. Ed. Cotarelo y Mori. HBAE,
Vol. 17. Madrid: Bailly-Bailliere, I9II.
Copias de la panadera. Ed. Vicente Romano Garcia. Madrid: Aguilar,
1963.
290
Correas, Gonzalo. Arte grande de la lengua castellana. Ed. Emilio
Alarcos Garcial Madrid: CSIC, 195^.
Croce, Benedetto. Espaha en la vida italiana del Renacimiento.
Trans. Francisco Gonzalez Rios. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Iman,
1945.
Cronica de don Alvaro de Luna. Ed. Juan de Mata Carriazo. Madrid:
Espasa Calpe, 1940.
Del Monte, Alberto. "Una inedita 'Disertacion sobre el amor.’" GIF, 3
(1950) , 310-321.
Del Rio, Angel. Historia de la literatura espahola. 2nd ed. 2 vols.
Hew York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.
Duran, Manuel. "Santillana y el prerrenacimiento." HRFH., 15 (1961),
343^363.
Encina, Juan del. "Arte de poesia castellana." Antologia de poetas
liricos Castellanos. Ed. Marcelino Menendez y Pelayo. Santander:
Aldus, 1944. V, 30-44.
Espinosa Medrano, Juan. "Apologetico en favor de don Luis de Gongora."
Ed. Ventura Garcia Calderon. RH, 65 (1925), 397-461.
Farinelli, Arturo. "Appunti su Dante in Ispagna nell’ età media."
GSLI, supplemento 8 (1905), 1-105.
------------- . Dante in Ispagna, Francia, Inghilterra, Germania.
Turin: Fratelli Bocca, 1922.
------------------ . Italia e Spagna. 2 vols. Turin : Fratelli Bocca,
1929.
Fainberg, Louise 0. "Tratado sobre el titulo de duque, manuscrite del
siglo XV, inédite, atribuido a Juan de Mena : edicion critica
y estudio linguistico y literario." Diss. Berkeley, I969.
Floranes, Rafael. Vida literaria del canciller mayor de Castilla
D. Pedro Lopez de Ayala. Coleccion de Documentes Inédites para
la Historia de Espaha, Vol. 19. Madrid, I85I.
--. Vida y obras del Dr. D. Lorenzo Galindez Carvajal.
Coleccion de Documentes Inédites para la Historia de Espaha,
Vol. 20. Madrid, I85I.
291
Foster, David William. "The Misunderstanding of Dante in Fifteenth
Century Spanish Poetry." C^, l6 (1964), 338-347.
Foulche-Delhosc, Ramon. "Le 'Commandeur grec’ a-t-il commenté le
Laberinto^" RH, 10 (1903), 105-116.
. "Etude sur le Laberinto de Juan de Mena."
m, 9 (1902), 75-138.
i/\----------------------- . Juan de Mena y el arte mayor. Trans. Adolfo
Bonilla y San Martin. Madrid: J. Perales y Martinez, 1903.
------- . "Observations sur La Celestine." RH, 9
(1902), 171-199.
. "Romancero de la biblioteca brancacciana."
RH, 65 (1925), 367.
Fradejas Lebrero, J. "Un manuscrito con una obra de Juan de Mena."
9 ( 1956) , 149-152.
Friederich, Werner P. Dante’s Fame Abroad 1350-1850. Rome: Ed.
Storia Letteratura, 1950.
Frye, Northrop. Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1957.
--------------. "Literary Criticism." The Aims and Methods of
Scholarship in Modern Languages and Literatures. Rev. ed. James
Thorpe. New York: MLA, 1970, pp. 69-8I.
! Fucilla, J.G. "FoUr Notes on Italian Influences." RR, 26 (1935),
I 3 2 5 - 3 2 9 .
j !
I Fuentes Guerra, Rafael. Juan de Mena poeta insigne y cordobés modeste.!
I Cc5rdoba: Tipografia Artistica, 1955.
--------------------- — : . "Recientes comentarios inéditos sobre Juan
de Mena." BRAC, 28 (1957), 221-223.
Garcia Matamoros, Alfonso. Pro Adserenda Hispanorum Eruditione. Ed.
José Lopez de Toro. Madrid: CSIC, 1943.
✓fCericke, Philip 0. "The Narrative Structure of the Laberinto de
I Fortuna." RPh, 21 (1968), 512-522.
Gerli, E. Michael. "Celestina, Act I, Reconsiderations: Cota, Mena—
or Alfonso Martinez de Toledo." KRQ, 23 (1977), 29-46.
292
Giraeno Casalduero, Joaquin. "Notas sobre el Laberinto de Fortuna."
MLN, 79 (1964), 125-139.
Review of Juan de Mena's 'Laberinto de
Fortuna"; Classic Epic and Mester de Clerecia, by Dorothy
Clotelle Clarke. NRFH, 25 (1975), 132-138.
Gomez Alfaro, Antonio. "El mundo de los sentidos en la poesia de
Juan de Mena." BRAC, 28 (1957), 167-210.
jGreen, Otis. "Juan de Mena in the Sixteenth Century: Additional Data."
! HR, 21 (1953), 138-140.
------------. Spain and the Western Tradition. 4 vols. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, I968.
Groussac, Paul. "Le Commentateur du Laberinto." RH, 11 (1904),
174-224.
Hanssen, F. "El arte mayor de Juan de Mena." AUC, 68 (1906), 179-200.
Holzknecht, Karl Julius. Literary Patronage in the Middle Ages.
2nd ed. 1923; rpt. New York: Octogon Books, I966.
Homenaje a Menendez y Pelayo. Ed. Juan Valera. 2 vols. Madrid:
V. Suarez, 1899.
In Search of Literary Theory. Ed. Morton W. Bloomfield. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1972.
Labrador, Jose J. Poesia dialogada medieval: la pregunta en el
"Cancionero de Baena." Madrid: Ediciones Maisal, 1974.
Lapesa, Rafael. "El elemento moral en el Laberinto de Mena : su
influjo en la disposicion de la obra." HR, 27 (1959), 257-266.
-----: ---- . La obra literaria del Marques de Santillana. Madrid:
Insula, 1957.
-------------- . Review of Juan de Mena, poeta del prerrenacimiento
espahol, by Maria Rosa Lida. NRFH, 9 (1955), I6I-I67.
Laza Palacios, Manuel. "La influencia biblica en Juan de Mena."
Gibalfaro, 3 (1953), 171-177.
Lazaro Carreter, Fernando. "La poética del arte mayor castellano."
Studia hispanica in honorem R. Lapesa. Ed. Damaso Alonso et al.
Madrid: Gredos, 1972. I, 343-378.
■Le Gentil, Pierre. La Poésie lyrique espagnole et portugaise à la
fin du moyen âge. 2 vols. Rennes: Philon, 1952.
293
Leonard, Irving. Romance of Chivalry in the Spanish Indies.
University of California PuLlications, Vol. l6. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1933.
Lida, Maria Rosa. "Civil 'cruel.’" NRFH, 1 (19^T), 8O-85.
"La hiperUole sagrada en la poesia castellana del
siglo XV." RFH, 8 (19^6), 121-130.
------------. La idea de la fama en la Edad Media castellana.
Mexico: FCE, 1952.
i-----------------• Juan de Mena, poeta del prerrenacimiento espanol.
; Mexico: Colegio de Mexico, 1950.
I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . "Para la Liografia de Juan de Mena." RFH, 3 ( 19^1) ,
150-15^.
"La prosa de Juan de Mena." BAAL, I8 (l950), 393-^32.
Review of La oUra literaria del Marques de
Sant illana, by Rafael Lapesa. RPh, 13 (196O), 290-297.
Lista y Aragon, Alberto. Ensayos literarios y criticos. Ed, José
Joaquin de Mora. 2 vols. Seville: Calvo Rubio, I8UU.
Lopez Estrada, Francisco. "Sentido poetico de la frontera en el
Laberinto de Mena." BRAC, 28 (1957), 91-103.
Lopez Pinciano, Alonso. Philosofia antigua poetica. Ed. Alfredo
Carballo Picazo. 3 vols. Madrid: CSIC, 1953.
Lucas de Torre. "De la academia de los humildes de Villamanta."
BRAE, 2 (1915), 199-219.
---------------. "Carta del bachiller de Arcadia y respuesta del
Capitan Salazar." RABM, 28 (1913), 308-357.
Lucena, Juan de. La Vita Beata. Ed. Bertini. Testi spagnoli del
secolo XV. Turin: GHeroni, 1950.
Macri, Oreste. Ensayo de metrica sintagmatica: Ejemplos del "Libro de
buen amor" y del "Laberinto" de Juan de Mena. Madrid: Credos, 19^9.
Manrique, Gomez. "PIanto de las virtudes e poesia por el magnifico
senor Inigo Lopez de Mendoza." Cancionero castellano del siglo
XV. Ed. Ramon Foulche-Delbosc. 2 vols. Madrid:
Bailly-Bailliere, 1912-15.
2 9 ^
Martinez de la Rosa, Francisco. Qbras. Ed. Carlos Seco Seffano.
BAE, Vols. IU8-I55. 8 vols. Madrid : Atlas, 1950.
McDonald, Inez. "The Coronacion of Juan de Mena: Poem and
Commentary." HR, T (1939), 125-1^^.
Mele, Eugenio. "Il métro del primo coro del' Adelchi e il métro
d’ arte mayor." SFM, 1 (I908), 93-101.
Mena, José Maria de. "Recordacion de un cordohés enterrado en
I Castilla." BRAC, 28 (1957), 128-138.
jMena, Juan de. Las CCC. Incunables Poéticos Castellanos, Vol. 5.
Valencia: Tipografia Moderna, 1955.
La Coronacion. Ed. A. Pérez Gômez. Incunables
Poéticos Castellanos, Vol. 10. Valencia : Tipografia Moderna, I96U.
---------. "Dezir sobre la justicia e pleytos." RABM, 6 (1876), 85.
---------. Laberinto de Fortuna. Ed. John Cummins. Salamanca:
Anaya, 1968.
--------- Laberinto de Fortuna. Ed. Ramon Foulché-Delbosc.
Maçon: Protat, 1904.
---------. El Laberinto de Fortuna. Ed. Louise Vasvari Fainberg.
Madrid: Alhambra, 1977.
---------. El Laberinto de Fortuna o las Trescientas. Ed. José
Manuel Blecua. 19^3; rpt. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, 1973.
--------. Obras del famoso poeta Juan de Mena. Ed. Francisco
Sanchez de las Brozas. 2nd ed. 1582; rpt. Madrid: Répudiés, l8o4.
---------. Prose and Verse. Ed. J.B. Trend. London : Dolphin, 19^0.
--- . Las trezientas d'el famosissimo. poeta Juan de Mena
glosadas por Fernan Nuhez Comendador de la Orden de Santiago.
Ed. Hernan Nuhez. 1517; rpt. Anvers : Juan Steelsio, 1552.
/
. Yliada en romance. Ed. Martin de Riquer. Barcelona:
Selecciones Biblioflias, 1949*
Mendoza, Juan de Dios. Fortuna y providencia en la literatura
castellana del siglo XV. Madrid: Real Academia Espahola, 1973.
295
Menéndez y Eelayo, Marcelino. Antologia de poetas liricos Castellanos.
Ed. Enrique Sanchez Reyes. ih vols. Santander: Aldus, 1944-45.
------------------------- Historia de la poesia castellana en la
edad media. Ed. Adolfo Bonilla y San Martin. 3 vols. Madrid:
1911-16.
Historia de las ideas estéticas en
Espaha. Ed. Enrique Sanchez Reyes. 5 vols. Madrid: CSIC, I962.
---------------------------------Qrigenes de la novela. 4 vols.
Madrid: Bailly-Bailliere, I9IO.
The Modem Critical Spectrum. Ed. Jay Goldberg and Nancy Marmer
Goldberg. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, I962.
Molina, Argote de. "Discurso sobre la poesia castellana." Antologia
de poetas liricos. Ed. Menéndez y Pelayo. Santander: Aldus,
1944-45. V, 64-75.
Montoro, Anton de. Cancionero. Ed. Cotarelo y Mori. Madrid, 19OO.
Morel-Fatio, Alfred. "L'Arte mayor et 1'hendecasyllabe dans la
poésie castillane du quinzième siècle et du commencement du
seizième siècle." Romania, 23 (1894), 209-231.
— -------------. "Les Deux Omero castillans." Romania, 25 (1896),,
1 1 1 - 1 2 9 . i
. "Vicente Noguera et son discours sur la langue
et les auteurs d'Espagne." ZRPH, 3 (l879), 1-38.
Morreale, Margherita. "El tratado de Juan de Lucena sobre la
felicidad." NRFH, 9 (1955), 1-21.
Munoz Vazquez, Miguel. "Aportaciôn documentai a la biografia de Juan
de Mena." BRAC, 28 (1957), l47-l64.
Nebrija, Antonio de. La gramâtica de la lengua castellana. Ed.
Gonzalez-Llubera. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1926.
Obras de Garcilaso de la Vega con anotaciones de Fernando de Herrera.
Ed. Antonio Gallego More11. I58O; facs. rpt. Madrid: CSIC, 1973.
;Orti Belmonte, Miguel Angel. "Aportaciones a la vida y obras de Juan
de Mena y su época." BRAC, 28 (1957), 3-90.
296
Orti Belmonte, Miguel Angel. "La ciudad de Cordoba en tiempos de Juan
de Mena." BRAC, 28 (1957), 225-279.
Orti Belmonte, Vicente. "En el V centenario de Juan de Mena."
BRAC, 28 (1957), 213-219.
Oviedo y Valdes, Gonzalo Fernandez. Historia general y natural de las
Indias. Ed. José Amador de los Rios. 4 vols. Madrid: Real
Academia de la Historia, 1851-55.
i------------------------------------ . Quincuagenas de la nobleza de
I Espaha. Ed. Vicente de la Fuente. Madrid: Real Academia de
I la Historia, l880.
!
Pantaleon de la Ribera, Anastasio. Obras. Ed. Rafael de Balbin
Lucas. Madrid: CSIC, 1947.
Parr, James A. "An Essay on Critical Method Applied to the Comedia."
Hispania, 57 (1974), 434-444.
Pascual, José A. "Los Doze trabajos de Hércules, fuente de algunas
glosas a la Coronacion de Juan de Mena." 13 (1973), 89-103.
Patch, Howard Rollin. "The Tradition of the Goddess Fortune." SCSML,
Vol. 3. Northhampton, Mass.: Smith College, 1922, pp. 131-177.
i Poetas liricos de los siglos XVI y XVII. Ed. Adolfo de Castro. BAE,
Vols. 32 and 42. 2 vols. Madrid: Atlas, 1966.
y/ Post, Chandler Rathfon. Medieval Spanish Allegory. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1915.
y ------------------------. "The Sources of Juan de Mena." RR, 3 (1912),
223-279.
Pulgar, Fernando del. Claros varones de Castilla. Ed. J. Dominquez
Bordona. 1923; rpt. Madrid; Espasa Calpe, I969.
Puymaigre, Le Comte de. La Cour littéraire de Don Juan II, Roi de
Castille. 2 vols. Paris: Franck, I873.
-------------------- -— . "Juan de Mena." Le Correspondant, 1 (1869),
216-247.
I Quintana, José Manuel. Tesoro del Parnaso espanol o poesias selectas
I desde el teimpo de Juan de Mena hasta el fin del siglo XVIII.
4 vols. Perpihan, 1817.
297
R. de Uhagon, Francisco. "Un cancionero del siglo XV." RABM, 4
(1900), 395a.
Ramirez Arellano, Rafael. Ensayo de un catâlogo biogrâfico de escri-
tores de Cordoba con descripcion de sus obras. 2 vols.
Madrid: Tipografia de la Revista de Archives, Bibliotecas y
Museos, 1921-22.
Ramos Suârez, Jorge. "A proposito de Juan de Mena: tentativa de
una nueva lectura de El Laberinto de Fortuna." CH, 314-315
j (1976), 603-616.
[ Reichenberger, Arnold. "Classical Antiquity in Some Poems of Juan de
Mena." Studia hispanica in honorem R. Lapesa. Ed. Damaso
Alonso et al. Madrid: Credos, 1975. Ill, 405-4l8.
Revuelta y Revuelta, Luisa. "El dolor y la fortaleza en Juan de
Mena." BRAC, 28 (1957), 105-123.
Rivera, Gladys Mary. "Juan de Mena's 'Copias de los siete pecados
mortales' and its Continuations: A Critical Edition and Study."
Diss. University of Pennsylvania, 1977.
Romancero y cancionero sagrados. Ed. Justo de Sancha. BAE, Vol. 35*
Madrid, 1915*
Saavedra Fajardo, Diego de. Republica literaria. Ed. Vicente Garcia
de Diego. 1923; rpt. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, 1956.
I
I Sanchez de Lima, Miguel. El arte poetica en romance castellano. Ed.
I 1. , Rafael de Balbin Lucas. Madrid: CSIC, 1944.
!
ISanvisenti, Bernardo. I primi influssi di Dante, del Petrarca e del
; Boccaccio sulla letteratura spagnuola. Milan: V. Hoelpi, 1902.
ISargeant, Frank Wadleigh. "An Etymological Vocabulary and Line Con-
I cordance of the Latinisms in Juan de Mena's El Laberinto de
j Fortuna." Diss. St. Louis, 1976.
Sarmiento, Martin. Memorias para la historia de la poesia y poetas
espanoles. 2 vols. Madrid: Joachin Ibarra, 1775.
Schevill, Rudolph. Ovid and the Renascence in Spain. University of
California Publications in Modern Philology, Vol. 4. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1913.
Schmitt, John. "Sul verso de arte mayor." RAL, l4 (1905), 109-133.
298
Serrano, Luciano. Los conversos d. Pablo de Santa Maria y d. Alfonso
de Cartagena, obispos de Burgos, gobernantes, diplomaticos y
escritores. Madrid: CSIC, 19^2.
Sherrill, Kathryn. "A Fifteenth Century Goad to Glory." RomN, 13
(1971), 181-187.
Street, Florence. "The Allegory of Fortune and the Imitation of
j Dante in the Laberinto and Coronacion of Juan de Mena." HR, 23
I (1955), 1-11.
------------ . "Hernan Nuhez and the Earliest Printed Editions of
Mena’s Laberinto de Fortuna." MLR, 6l (1966), 51-63.
-. "La paternidad del Tratado del amor." BH, 54
(1952), 15-33.
-. "The Text of Mena’s Laberinto in the Cancionero de
Ixar and its Relationship to Some Other Fifteenth Century MSS."
BH8, 35 (1958), 63-71.
------------ . "La vida de Juan de Mena." BH, 55 (1953), 149-173.
Ticknor, George. History of Spanish Literature. 3 vols. New York:
Harper Brothers, 1849 ^
Torre Revello, Jose.- El libro, la imprenta y el periodismo en America
durante la dominacion espahola. Buenos Aires : Casa Peuser, 1940.
Torres Naharro, Bartolomé. "Propalladia" and Other Works of Bartolomé
de Torres Naharro. 3 vols. Ed. Joseph E. GiTlet. Byrn Mawr,
Penn.: Byrn Mawr, 1946.
'Tratado de amor : atribuido a Juan de Mena. Ed. Maria de Luz Gutiérrez
I Araus. Madrid: Ediciones Alcala, 1975. '
; ' j
!Tratado de duque. Ed. Louise Vasvari Fainberg. London : Tamesis, 1976.
i/'Turek, Marie G. "El Laberinto de Fortuna: imagen artificiosa de la
i época de Juan II." ÇA, I83 (1972), 99-123.
Vaidés, Juan de. Dialogo de la lengua. Ed. José F. Mont esinos.
5th ed. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, I969.
iVarvaro, Alberto. "Lo scambio di copias fra Juan de Mena e l’infante
d. Pedro." AIUON, sezione romanza, 8 (I966), 199-214.
299
Vârvaro, Alberto. Premesse ad un’edizione critica delle poesie minori
di Juan de Mena. Naples: Liguori, 1964.
Vega, Lope de. Coleccion escogida de obras no dramaticas. Ed.
Cayetano Rosell. BAE, Vol. 38. Madrid: Atlas, 1950.
Velazquez, Luis Josef. Qrigenes de la poesia castellana. 2nd ed.
Malaga : Herederos de D. Francisco Martinez de Aguilar, 1797.
Wardropper, Bruce. "Spanish Literature." Modem Literature. Ed.
I Victor Lange. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall,
1968. II, 67-119.
I
: Weitz, Morris. Hamlet and the Philosophy of Literary Criticism.
I Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1964.
1 Wellek, René and Austin Warren. Theory of Literature. 3rd ed. rev.
j New York: Harcourt Brace, 1956.
Xupolos, James. "El Laberinto de Fortuna by Juan de Mena." Diss.
New York University, 1953.
300
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
It is hoped that the organization of this corpus of criticism into a concise compendium will aid the task of students and scholars interested in studying Juan de Mena and in better appreciating his contributions to the language and literature of Spain. It is further hoped that this review of research will encourage the exploration of previously neglected or newly suggested areas of inquiry. In preparing this dissertation, I have become acutely aware of a genuine need for the collection and organization of the research conducted by all critics who, throughout the centuries, have devoted patience and energy to the elucidation of the life and works of Juan de Mena and to enriching the understanding of his literary art.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Bureaucrats and old clients: dependence, stigma, and negative sentiment in the service relationship
PDF
The prose fiction of Salvador Elizondo
PDF
The impact of developmental events upon the perception of intergenerational family solidarity
PDF
Existentialism In The Theater Of Alfonso Sastre
PDF
Styles of moral education: an ethical analysis
PDF
Cynewulf: The Ascension Of Christ
PDF
The Australian gekkonid lizard genus Diplodactylus Gray: an evolutionary and zoogeographical study
PDF
The impact of culturally responsive teaching on the suspension rate of African American students: an evaluation study
PDF
Rhetoric And Fancy As A Basis For Narrative In The Novels Of Jean Giraudoux
PDF
Social environment, self-concept, and social conduct: sense of self as mediator of the relationship between life-change and marital interaction
PDF
Mental disorders in the metropolitan area: an ecological analysis
PDF
The use of cognitive task analysis to capture expert patient care handoff to the post anesthesia care unit
PDF
Aspects of feeding on the bryozoan Zoobotryon verticillatum (Delle Chiaje)
PDF
Comparative osteology and evolution of the lungless salamanders, family Plethodontidae
PDF
Evolution in the oceanic midwaters: comparative osteology and relationships of the lanternfishes (family Myctophidae)
PDF
Understanding allegations of childhood neglect using structured and unstructured administrative data
PDF
A critical analysis of goodwill arising from consolidation and the varying effects on financial statements
PDF
Bureaucratic reorganization: Monitoring systemic change in the public sector
PDF
Adjustment of large downtown and boulevard churches in Los Angeles to socio-cultural factors in the community
PDF
Metabolism of mammalian deoxyribonucleic acid and nuclear ribonucleic acid
Asset Metadata
Creator
DiFranco, Ralph Anthony
(author)
Core Title
The biographers and critics of Juan de Mena
School
Graduate School
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Spanish and Portuguese
Degree Conferral Date
1978-05
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest
Advisor
Givens, Joaquin (
committee chair
), Berkey, Max L. (Max Leslie), Jr. (
committee member
), Sackett, Theodore A. (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC11256129
Unique identifier
UC11256129
Legacy Identifier
DP31612
Document Type
Dissertation