SOURCE: Gaddy, Barbara E. “Myth in the Libro de Buen Amor.” In Estudios Alfonsinos y Otros Escritos: En Homenaje a John Esten Keller y a Anibal A. Biglieri, edited by Nicolas Toscano Liria, pp. 70-76. New York: The National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Hispanic Foundation for the Humanities, 1991.

[In the following essay, Gaddy considers Ruiz's literary use of Venus, the goddess of love.]

Critics have all agreed, after years of research, that Juan Ruiz's Libro de Buen Amor is not original in literary convention, motif, etc. Ruiz himself never did make such a claim but, instead, pointed out that his work was an exposition of said literary conventions and invited his reader to gloss as he saw fit(1631).¹ Ruiz varied form as best he could in his presentation of the exhaustive repertory of literary lore of the Middle Ages. The reader recognizes the Libro as a type of written projection run at high speed. He sees flash before his eyes the canticles to the Virgin, the Canonical hours, the calendrical and astronomical tables with the seasons and their labors, the Virtues and Vices, etc.

Stephen Gilman refers to the brevity of each episode in the work (Gilman, 300), but sustaining the the duration of narrative was not characteristic of the period nor was it Ruiz's aim. G. B. Gybbon-Monypenny attributes the patchwork effect of the presentation to the fact that it was not conceived of originally as a unity, but only became so in retrospect or, that various portions were written at different times in the life of Ruiz and eventually assembled into a whole by him at a later date (G-Monypenny-Autobiography, 78). I find that there is a cohesive archetypal pattern to the Libro, a mythological pattern, that directed Ruiz' final organization, whether or not he was conscious of it.

Many scholars, among these Otis Green and John Keller, feel Juan Ruiz's intention, as a storyteller, was to entertain, which is one of man's greatest cushions against his own mortality. In this, if Ruiz was a churchman, he would have been following in the footsteps of those clerical juglares preceding him—Berceo, Alfonso X, and St Francis, but the lightness of tone and the comic effects are undeniable. María Rosa Malkiel discusses the mixed nature of material and form (Malkiel, 10-11) in the Libro, and Monypenny believes that Ruiz anticipated popular input from the travelling juglares, especially with regard to the lyric songs referred to by Ruiz, but not existing in the text (G-Monypenny-Autobiography, 77). Keller also says that the people in the squares always asked the juglares to recite Ruiz's Libro.

Although Ruiz dedicated the Libro to God and the Virgin, as did the clerical juglares, he depended more upon its lusty appeal than they since the carnal dominates in his work. Neither does he make clear at the end of each sexual encounter that the Virgin saves sinners as do Alfonso and Berceo in their miracle collections. Instead, he most often plays the role of the spurned lover (422) or takes to his bed (603, 944) before setting out in search of another conquest. The encounters with the serranas involve no attempt at seriousness, but are followed by verses to the Virgen del Vado. The religious quality of the work thus appears to exist more to envelop the lyrical and the narrative, both of which Ruiz revels in. In fact, Ruiz is more like the rustic musicians, dancers, and jugglers who graced the illustrated manuscripts of the music of the Divine Office as early as the tenth century (Steiner, figs. 4. 15-4. 20) and whom Ruiz includes with their instruments in his procession and festivities in honor of don Amor (1225).

The clerical juglares traditionally dedicated their works to God, the Virgin, or to their particular saint and, although Ruiz outwardly complies with convention, he opens the Libro with a dedication to God before offering verses to the Virgin. Likewise, doña Venus' advice will later follow that of her spouse, don Amor. On the other hand, Alfonso and Berceo approach God through the Virgin and she is the evident focus of their works. Sinners address their praises, prayers, and vows to her, and she saves sinners and replaces them when they are absent from their posts, even when they are sinning.

Berceo portrays the Virgin as the most beautiful of beautiful things and, “Estrella de los mares, guiona deseada b Es de los marineros en las cuitas guardada … (Berceo, 9). Ruiz' verses to the Virgin also portray her as guide (20d) and, “de todo bien es comienzo é raiz (19a).” He then places the emphasis upon her as the Mother of Jesus Christ, including the annunciation, birth, visit of the Magi, etc. This is followed by material on the Greeks and the Romans and astrology. Although he establishes, admittedly ambiguously, the importance of astrology early on (123-165) and tells the reader that the Archpriest was born under the sign of Venus (153), he does not seek her advice until later (603), but, at that time, she too is presented as a guide and as, “nuestra vida é nuestra muerte (584a).”

Since everything is ambiguous in the Libro, and the importance of the astrological signs does not dominate modern culture to the extent that it did in the Middle Ages, the reader ignores the confusion / substitution of the Virgin / Venus / Trotaconventos or the Earth Mother of the cults when the Archpriest addresses his pleas to Venus as guide of man's life here on earth. Malkiel states that, in the mind of the man of the Middle Ages, the difference between the divine and the earthly was nebulous (Malkiel, 4) and Ross extends the divine to include the cults (Ross, 109). One would never have expected Ruiz to dedicate the work to anyone other than the Virgin, but Gilman differentiates the Virgin as the inspiration of poetry rather than a creation of poetry, which Trotaconventos and the other characters are (Gilman, 296). However, André Michalski draws a parallel between the language used by Berceo in his presentation of the Virgin in the Milagros and Ruiz's twisting of Berceo's terminology, plus a play on words to introduce Trotaconventos (Michalski, 62).

The ambiguity of the role of the mother-figure and the use of the term madre, to refer to both the Virgin and Trotaconventos (Gilman, 266) tends to be confusing, but the reader, already disoriented, takes little note of it. Trotaconventos will also assume the generally accepted role of the mother-figure when she entices Endrina to her house with goodies and games and when she scolds and comforts Melón (Gilman, 292), but she is especially necessary to any dubiously successful love affairs that occur and is the physical embodiment of Venus, since Venus has power over such affairs.

Raymond Willis, in his article “Dos Trotaconventos,” traces the evolution of the character of Trotaconventos in the Libro through three stages and three manuscripts of the work.² He shows that from a very nebulous personage who is ambivalently old / young, male / female, loyal / treacherous, don Amor and doña Venus bring the image of the character of Ruiz' go-between into sharper focus, but, in actuality, Ruiz has the two create the particular character of Trotaconventos here since they are the directors of the work (Willis, 355). Don Amor describes the job qualifications for this woman (436-448), which includes con lágrimas de Moysén or magic (438d), and doña Venus confirms her spouse's words (608, 645). Thus, although there was a literary prototype for a go-between, Ruiz, via don Amor / doña Venus, creates his own specific type of go-between. Trotaconventos then supposedly exists as an appendage of don Amor / doña Venus and finally comes to be named Buen Amor, albeit in retrospect and in the middle of the Libro, “Lamatme buen amor faré yo lealtad (932).” He then names the Libro in her honor (933, Cited by Willis, 356).

Since Trotaconventos / Buen Amor is an appendage of don Amor / doña Venus, and Ruiz has named the book for her, he has, in effect, dedicated the Libro to Venus. The reader is aware that Ruiz is dancing to the tune of Venus, rather than performing before the Virgin Mary, long before he is ever told that Trotaconventos is named Buen Amor and that the book is named in her honor. Kane translates Ruiz' presentation of Venus in strophe 584 as, “this goddess … she governs this whole terrestrial sphere / And all men at her bidding act when she deigns to appear (Kane-trans.).” Green has pointed out the sexual implications in Ruiz's parody of the Canonical Hours preceding the arrival of Venus and has further linked such parodies to the fertility cults (Green, 14). The Hours also fall within that portion of the Divine Office that can be as varied as the interests of the individual priest (Steiner, 88) and Ruiz convinces the reader that his interest is sex.

Upon the presentation of Venus, the Archpriest establishes her as the mother-figure and himself as the little boy or Cupid, who must be comforted, “E conortadme la llaga con juegos é folgura … (605)”. Much later, he will refer to his childhood when he tells don Amor that he has been his servant since he was a child (1261). He not only places himself in a subservient position when he seeks advice of Amor and Venus, but reveals his failure to “confrontarse con la feminidad interior,” and thus becomes a don Juan character (Ross, 106). The Archpriest's scurrying from one woman to another evidences his inability to conceive of sex as anything other than the intención deliberada condemned by Aristotle (M-Mariño, 91). Even the platonic affair that Garoza finesses him into is of short duration, since she dies. In fact, Ruiz disposes of these partners almost faster than do the writers of present-day soap operas, but, at the same time, the Archpriest is assuming the role of son / lover of Venus-fertility / flower god, Adonis, Cupid, et. al. The Archpriest does not die after he has fulfilled his purpose, procreation, but he nearly always reasserts himself in the Spring or the month of March (463, 945, 951, 1618).

The Archpriest's recourse to the two experts, Amor and Venus, also serves Ruiz as an excuse to present the courtly love tradition, but the advice given the Archpriest is not too courtly although it includes the attentions one must shower upon women to win their favor. Venus, the goddess of love, advises the use of force with women (631-634), revealing the mentality of her creator, Ruiz. It is little wonder that the affair that her advice leads to with Endrina ends in what would amount to rape today.

In the encounters with the serranas, the Archpriest refers several times to the penetrating cold in the mountains, but it is March when he sets out (951), and he later refers to verano (996). In these episodes, which A. D. Deyermond sees as a parody of the pastourelle convention (Deyermond, 63), the Archpriest's role as flower / fertility-god takes a realistic turn, or it presents realistically, the role of man as a service to Lujuria or Venus Naturalis, since he sleeps with them for a warm bed and a meal. Although the women speak of a more lasting relationship, he had statedly set out to “Provar todas las cosas … (950)” and, the reader suspects, to trobar. The serranas embody the simplicity of mountain lasses and the conventional disgust of the representations of the period of Lust. It is especially the monstrous and strange Alda who best represents Lujuria, “a quien la Edad Media achacó raros amores y hechicerías (Malkiel, 53).” Since celibacy was difficult for the monks, they looked upon women as frightening, horrible creatures with exaggerated features and interested only in sex. Gilman compares Ruiz's inclusion and treatment of this material to Shakespeare in his Venus and Adonis, wherein he seems “to be a man enticed by half-dreamed erotic possibilities of childhood (Gilman, 294).”

The Archpriest gives the reader a key to his / Ruiz's gaiety, liveliness, and hot-blooded personality long before Trotaconventos' conventional portrait of don Melón when he says that he is a child of Venus, and when Venus later tells him that the ladies like, “al ome alegre por amigo (626b).” The erotic portrait of Melón conveys the ambiguous impression of him as both a beautiful Adonis and a hairy satyr, according to Kane (Kane-appearance, 105). The combination of youth, beauty, and sexuality occur in the descriptions of Spring and the Sanguine temperament in the encyclopedists Bede, Isidore, and Rabanus Maurus (SC, 141). Being a child of Venus, the Archpriest is of a sanguine temperament,³ and, “A person of Sanguine temperament is described as lively (laetus) and joyous (hilaris) having a body filled with blood (sanguis), which is capable of growth” (vegetatio) and reproduction (Scillia, 142).” Max Singleton says that Melón is always referred to directly or indirectly as a, “mancebo or mancebillo in 727c, 730a, 738c, 1392d, and 1489a (Singleton, vii).” Melon's youth and beauty suggest that of Adonis and Kane finds that all his features, the depth of his voice, etc. denote sexuality (Kane-Appearance, 107).

The role of the Archpriest as Adonis / lover practically ends upon the death of Trotaconventos / Buen amor or the physical manifestation of Venus, and he mainly continues to jograr following the conventions. At this time, the Archpriest's mentions of Jesus Christ and the Virgin reveal Trotaconventos' identity with Eros, or man's defense against death, “Este Eros se puede presentar … bajo muchos ropajes; puede ser una Diosa … o la Virgen, o un Heroe nacido de una virgen … (Ross, 109).” André Michalski believes the indication of the epitaph (1578ba) identifies Trotaconventos as a saint, an intercessor for those who die (Michalski, 63), and, Singleton uses “herald” when referring to Venus and translates strophe 584 as, “With Venus' intercession …,” after saying that she is our “starting-point” and “end (Singleton, 56).” Gilman recognizes Trotaconventos' death as part of a cycle, “(it is) less of a conclusion than a tremendous outstanding event in the essentially, deathless and formless flow of life which is the Libro de Buen Amor (Gilman, 300).”

Ruiz emphasizes the cyclic in his association of the full flowering of Spring and rebirth in the welcoming of don Amor and don Carnal at the end of the work. Ruiz's detailed listing of birds and description of nature at this time is characteristic of April, Venus' month, “when the fields are blooming with flowers, and all the woods resound with birds … Venus claims April, month of fertility (Levi, 259).” Don Amor refuses all offerings of lodging, choosing instead to have his tent pitched in the midst of a meadow that rivals the locus amoenus of Berceo and others, but Berceo used the prado in his Milagros as an inspirational setting for the singing of the praises of the Virgin by her tired juglar, and not for the location of don Amor by his “servant.” The tent of don Amor is described as being of unbelievable beauty, “Nunca pudo ver ome cossa tan acabada / Byen creo que de ángeles fue tal cosa enbiada / Ca ome terrenal non faría desto nada (1265).” Malkiel associates the procession in honor of don Amor with the Trionfi of Petrarch, a time of rejoicing, and a sense of return (Malkiel, 101), but Ruiz again makes light of convention because he refers to the float of don Carnal, “en carro muy preçiado (1216),” and dresses him as a chef in a blood-spattered apron (1218).

Ruiz, like most poets, was impressed by Death and concerned with immortality and Memory, as he states in the introduction, “And these are some of the reasons why books of law and of jurisprudence, of precepts and of good habits … painting and writing and pictures were first invented for the reason that the Memory of man is slippery (Singleton-trans, 2-3).” By choosing the literary form of myth to represent what man must consider physical immortality, since he knows no other, or the repetition of the nature cycle, Ruiz has, at least, marked his own place in human memory for all these centuries.

Notes

1. El Arcipreste de Hita, El Libro de Buen Amor (Madrid, 1963). All future references to the text will be to this edition, unless otherwise indicated, and will follow directly in the text of the paper.

2. Willis summarizes the complicated development on page 361 of his article, “… in the 1343 redaction, from st. 910, the identity of the procuress changes from the old Trotaconventos (of the preceding Endrina story) to another trotaconventos, named Urraca, not to mention her 41 nicknames plus Buen Amor (910-944), then to a different vieja, who remains unnamed (945-949). After an interval, a figure identifiable with the original Trotaconventos reappears (1317-20), but she, in the succeeding episode (1321-1331), bears only the name Urraca and never the nickname Trotaconventos; after this the figure sheds the name Urraca, resuming that of Trotaconventos through two adventures and her death (1332-1507; 1508-12; 1518-20); finally she recovers Urraca as her baptismal name in her epitaph (1575-78). Such were the consequences of the two interpolations.

3. Peter Dunn in the Gybbon-Monypenny Studies, expands Malkiel's short reference to the Archpriest's sanguine temperament, pp. 83-93, strengthening the case for the saturnine influence, but this only reinforces the Eros-Thanatos theory of Michalski.

Works Cited

El Arcipreste de Hita. El Libro de Buen Amor. 8th ed. Espasa-Calpe (Madrid, 1963).

Berceo, Gonzalo de, Los Milagros de Nuestra Señora. 6th ed. Espasa-Calpe (Madrid, 1964).

Deyermond, A. D., “Some Aspects of Parody in the Libro de Buen Amor,” in Studies edited by Gybbon-Monypenny, pp. 53-78.

Dunn, Peter N., “De las figuras del Arçipreste,” in Studies, edited by Monypenny, pp. 79-93.

Gilman, Stephen, “The Juvenile intuition of Juan Ruiz,” Symposium, Nov 1950, pp. 290-303.

Green, Otis, “On Juan Ruiz's Parody of the Canonical Hours,” Hispanic Review, XXVI, 1958, pp. 13-34.

Gybbon-Moneypenny, G. B. Libro de Buen Amor Studies (London, 1970).

———. “Autobiography in the Libro de Buen Amor,” BHS [Bulletin of Hispanic Studies], XXXIV, 1957, pp.63-78.

Kane, Elisha Kent, “The Personal Appearance of Juan Ruiz,” MLN, 45, Feb. 1930, pp. 103-109.

———. The Book of Good Love, Introd. Study by John Keller. Univ. of N.C. Press (Chapel Hill, 1968).

Levi, Doro, “The Allegories of the Months in Classical Art,” Art Bulletin, XXIII, 1941, pp. 251-291.

Lida de Malkiel, María Rosa. Selección del Libro de Buen Amor y Estudios Críticos (Buenos Aires, 1973).

Michalski, André, “La parodia hagiográfica y el dualismo Eros-Thanatos en el Libro de Buen Amor’.” in ACTAS [Actas y Memorias de Sociedad Español de Anthropologia, Etnografia, y Prehistoria] I, pp. 57-77.

Muñoz-Mariño, Enrique, “La filosofía de la Naturaleza en el Libro de Buen Amor,’ in ACTAS I, pp. 87-94.

Ross, Waldo, “Nota Sobre el Sentido de la muerte en El libro de buen amor.” in ACTAS, I, pp. 104-112.

Scillia, Charles E., “Meaning and the Cluny Capitals: Music as Metaphor,” GESTA [Gezetzgebunsstand], XXVII / 1 and 2, pp. 133-148.

Singleton, Mack. The Book of the Archpriest of Hita (Madison, 1975).

Steiner, Ruth, “The Music for a Cluny Office for Saint Benedict,” in Monasticism and the Arts, T. Verdon (Syracuse, 1984).

Willis, Raymond, “Dos Trotaconventos,” Rom. Phil., XVII, No. 2, November 1963, pp. 353-362.

Val, M. Criado de. ACTAS, I, EDITA:S.E.R.E.S.A. (Barcelona, 1973).