Tendencies in «Mio Cid» scholarship, 1943-1973

Alan Deyermond

Research on the Poema de Mio Cid, which seemed to advance very little during the century after Tomás Antonio Sánchez first published the poem (1779), has thereafter developed in cycles of some thirty years¹. Two books provided the much-needed stimulus to research: in 1874, Manuel Milá y Fontanals, in De la poesía heroico-popular castellana, brought the full resources of scholarship to bear on Spanish epic and its origins, and he outlined what is in essence the theory of neotradicionalismo; seven years later, Andrés Bello's valuably annotated edition of the poem, based on work done in the British Museum in 1817-29, continued spasmodically after Bello's return to Chile and left incomplete at his death in 1865, was at last published².

In the 1890s, the firm basis provided by Milá's theoretical framework and Bello's textual and philological skills was used to good effect: in 1893, Menéndez Pidal submitted for a Real Academia prize competition the first version of his edition (this version, which was awarded the prize in 1895, remains unpublished); in 1895, E. Lidforss published his edition; in 1897, the first volume of Archer M. Huntington's edition appeared (it was completed in 1903). Menéndez Pidal, while revising his edition in the light of new discoveries by other scholars and of his own researches, issued a paleographic text in 1898; thus, thanks to him and to Huntington, scholars had a clear and accurate picture of the readings of the unique manuscript. The emphasis of publication shifted temporarily from editions to other matters, with Eduardo de Hinojosa's «El derecho en el Poema del Cid» (1899, and still authoritative) and Alfred Coester's Harvard thesis of 1906, «Compression in the Poema del Cid», which was promptly published in the Revue Hispanique but did not receive the attention it deserved, perhaps because it was quickly followed by two of Menéndez Pidal's most justly famous books, the three-volume edition (1908-11) and L'Épopée castillane à travers la littérature espagnole (1910). From this point onwards, Menéndez Pidal's dominant position was assured, and the appearance in 1913 of his Clásicos Castellanos edition made his theories arid his critical text available to a much wider public.

The final volume of Menéndez Pidal's editio maior brought to a triumphant conclusion the period of research begun by the publication of Milá and Bello; his Clásicos Castellanos volume inaugurated a second period of thirty years during which the great majority of scholars and virtually all readers, in Spain and abroad, regarded his theories of date, authorship and historicity as sell-evidently correct, accepted his critical text as the definitive form of the poem, and displayed surprisingly little interest in its literary qualities. These three decades were not devoid of scholarly work on PMC and related subjects, but the only two works to receive wide attention were by Don Ramón himself: Poesía juglaresca y juglares (1924) offered a wealth of background material about the kind of poet supposed to have written PMC, while La España del Cid (1929) reinforced the impression that the poem is a faithful reflection of historical reality.

When we turn to work by other scholars -principally from America- in this period, two points are immediately apparent: they concentrate heavily on the versification of the poem and on relations between poem and chronicles (topics which, after a decline in interest, have in recent years again received a good deal of attention); and they passed almost unnoticed by the majority of readers. In some cases, their length alone -a 310-page article by Julio Cejador (1920) and a 509-page article by H. R. Lang (1926)- must have deterred all but the hardiest, and not all these studies deserve close attention but the neglect of others which are both important and reasonably short can be explained only by the unrivalled authority of Menéndez Pidal and a consequent unwillingness to look beyond his work. The studies of versification published between 1914 and 1931 by Lang. E. C. Hills and W. E. Leonard are now of greater interest to the historian of scholarship than to the student of PMC, as are the textual emendations proposed by Lang (1926); Menéndez Pidal's comments on these studies are to be found in the «Adiciones» to 64. Cejador, supported by N. Zingarelli (1925), argued that, far from being the source of the Alfonsine chronicle accounts of the Cid. PMC is later than the chronicle texts and derives from them. The Cejador-Zingarelli case is weak, and is treated with contempt by Menéndez Pidal (63, «Adiciones»), though similar views are still advanced from time to time (e. g. 98 pp. 210-34). A much more formidable treatment of chronicle problems is offered by Theodore Babbitt's monograph. La crónica de veinte reyes (New Haven, 1936): Babbitt's revision of the chronology of Alfonsine historiography (a revision long disregarded but today widely accepted) has important implications for the relations between poem and chronicles³. Even more fundamental departures from the prevailing orthodoxy are offered by three articles published between 1929 and 1933. Elijah C. Hills («The Unity of the Poem of the Cid»,1929) marshalled the evidence for dual authorship of PMC, including some points which had been previously overlooked; although Menéndez Pidal had, twenty years earlier, established a conclusive case for single authorship, Hills's arguments deserved careful consideration. They did not receive it, being (apart from the refutation of one argument by Hermenegildo Corbató, 1941) largely ignored for over thirty years, and then uncritically accepted when Menéndez Pidal announced his conversion to the dual-authorship theory. In 1931, Ewald Kullmann published a 65-page literary criticism («Die dichterische und sprachliche Gestalt des CMC»). This was not, of course, the first attempt at such criticism, but it was the first sustained assertion that aesthetic considerations are important in the study of the poem. Although later critics have justifiably complained that Kullmann's study is fragmented and a little mechanical, his treatment of such matters as structure, characterization and rhetorical devices is not only important as a pointer to future research, but also to some extent still useful for reference. Kullmann, however, was before his time; not even the prestige of Américo Castro, writing in 1935 with a different method, could make literary criticism accepted as a normal response to the poem. The supremacy of literary over historical considerations was argued in a major theoretical statement by W. J. Entwistle⁴, but his arguments passed unheeded in Spain and, more surprisingly, had little immediate influence even among English-speaking hispanists.

By the early 1940s, then, the general view of CMC was what it had been thirty years before, when the Clásicos Castellanos edition was first published: the poem was very much Menéndez Pidal's poem. Few readers can have taken exception to Don Ramon's statement in the preface to the second edition of his three-volume CMC: «Publicada por primera vez esta obra hace más de treinta años, cuanto más tiempo pasaba de agotada, más deseaba rehacerla en muchos pormenores. Pero el tiempo y el gusto para refundirla me faltaba siempre, porque no hallaba nada esencial en que hubiera de alterarla» (64 p. v). The picture was, however, to change with increasing rapidity, and nineteen years later Don Ramon's own account of his procedure reflects an unconscious awareness of the change, and of the importance of some work of the period 1914-1943: «Muchos trabajos posteriores... me obligaron a repensar muchas cuestiones sobre el texto, cuando publiqué una segunda edición de mi Cantar de Mio Cid» (74 p. 221). The difference is only one of emphasis, but it is significant.

The opening of a new period of Cid scholarship was marked not so much by a major publication, such as Bello's edition in 1881 or the Clásicos Castellanos Menéndez Pidal in 1913, as by three anniversaries. The eighth centenary of the poem's supposed date of composition fell in 1940, and in 1943 Spain celebrated both the ninth centenary of the Cid's birth and the millenary of Castilian independence. The anniversaries provoked a flood of commemorative speeches, articles and pamphlets, mostly ephemeral, which suited the mood of a badly shaken country seeking inspiration and an assurance of historical continuity after the Civil War. These tributes to the hero and his poem are, with rare exceptions, of little scholarly value (the most obvious exception is an address given by Menéndez Pidal in Valencia in 1940, 65), but collectively they seem to have stimulated interest in CMC research: Dámaso Alonso's brilliant essay, which had attracted relatively little attention on its first publication in the journal Escorial in 1941, began to exercise a powerful and salutary influence when reprinted in a book (5), and Menéndez Pidal's editio maior was again in demand, being reissued with addenda (64) and, when stocks ran low, immediately reprinted.

During the past thirty years, there have been far-reaching changes in almost every aspect of Cid studies, but the most fundamental aspect, the text itself, has been the slowest to change. For the past seventy-five years any scholar who wished to discover the MS readings could easily do so, thanks to Menéndez Pidal's paleographic text, and for the last few decades the task has been even easier, with successive reprintings of this text and, in 1961, the publication of a cheap and reliable MS facsimile (a limited edition had been issued in 1946). The wide differences between the MS and Menéndez Pidal's critical text -differences which Don Ramón had never attempted to conceal- could thus be examined in detail. The critical edition archaizes the language rearranges many lines and on numerous occasions supplies words, hemistichs or even whole lines in order to restore the desired assonance or -more dubiously- because those readings are found in chronicles. Some of these emendations are, of course, not only plausible but essential, but others are not, and the overall effect is to produce a poem very different from that found in Per Abbat's MS.

Nevertheless, it is the critical text which, in a slightly altered form, has been constantly reprinted in Clásicos Castellanos, borrowed (with or without acknowledgment) for numerous editions in other series, translated, and accepted as the canonical text by students, general readers, and even experienced scholars. It is this text which is cited in the majority of critical books and articles, even if they have a strongly linguistic approach. A few scholars, especially in recent years, have used the paleographic text, but the present volume of Mio Cid Studies is the first substantial break with the tradition of more than half a century⁵. A new approach to the editing of the text was late in coming; indeed, until very recently there was no suggestion that such an approach was either desirable or possible. It was, however, urgently needed for two reasons. First, the Menéndez Pidal critical text embodies a series of decisions reached on the basis of Don Ramon's theories on the nature and authorship of the poem: Chapter 3 of 64, «Recursos enmendatorios aplicables al códice único», includes sections on the poet's geographical origin, Old Spanish epic versification, and the relation between the poem and the chronicles. Different theories would thus imply a different text; alternatively, a conservative text, close to the MS readings, would provide a common and neutral point of reference for the exponents of competing theories. Secondly, fashions in the editing of medieval texts have changed very markedly since the late nineteenth century, and it is now generally thought proper to keep conjectural emendation on a much tighter rein⁶. It now comes as a shock to read Menéndez Pidal's words of 1908: «En la edición crítica... me aparto de la mayoría de los eruditos, adoptando un criterio más conservador que el de ellos en cuanto a las lecciones del códice único, y más innovador en cuanto a las asonancias y a las formas de lenguaje. Tanto se peca por quitar y poner palabras en cada verso del manuscrito único, usando de una libertad injustificada...» (64 p. x). What then seemed a conservative attitude to conjectural emendation would now be regarded by most scholars -at least outside the field of Hispanic studies- as over-indulgent, and it was important that readers should be offered an alternative.

In the late 1960s, Colin Smith and Ian Michael were invited to prepare editions of CMC. Working independently, they produced texts which differ frequently in points of detail, but which are both conservative, thus resembling each other (and the Menéndez Pidal paleographic text) far more closely than either resembles the long-familiar Clásicos Castellanos version. Smith (109) gives greatest prominence in introduction and notes to literary qualities and to the relation between historical characters and their counterparts in the poem; Michael (77) concentrates on versification and geography and even more on textual problems⁷. It will, of course, be some time before the relative merits of these editions can be clearly assessed.

The most urgent need of scholars working on any medieval text is, after a reliable edition, a concordance, followed by a sound and comprehensive glossary. The latter need was met long ago by Menéndez Pidal (64 vol. II), now valuably supplemented by Corominas's Diccionario crítico-etimológico. There remains one gap to be filled: we lack a dictionary of Old Spanish, and until the Wisconsin project, under the direction of Lloyd A. Kasten, reaches publication stage this will continue to be a hindrance. The Menéndez Pidal vocabulary volume lists most occurrences, except for the commonest words, but it does not claim to perform all the functions of a concordance, and this essential tool was lacking until Oelschläger supplied it as part of his edition (85). This has limitations (it is based on Menéndez Pidal's critical text, and despite the title page it provides not a concordance but a text-index, without contexts), but it has the great merit of separating homographs and cross-referencing variant forms, and is therefore not wholly superseded by Waltman's computer-generated concordance (121). Waltman is based on the paleographic text, so can be used fairly easily with any conservative edition, but the lack of editorial intervention in the computer printout means that homographs are not distinguished (e. g. estas and estás alternate in a single list), and that variant forms are not cross-referenced. In order to overcome these drawbacks, one needs to use Oelschläger as an adjunct to Waltman.

The date of CMC has been in dispute for much longer than the textual question. In the nineteenth century, widely differing dates were suggested, and some scholars -notably Bello- favoured 1207. Menéndez Pidal's detailed and powerful arguments for composition c1140 (64 pp. 19-28) rapidly gained acceptance, and attempts by Cejador and Zingarelli in the 1920s to move the date forward by more than a century and a half found no support. Occasionally, there was reinforcement for Menéndez Pidal's views, as well as agreement with them: Mateu Llopis (63) uses the evidence of coins to confirm composition in the mid-twelfth century. The first properly documented challenge to the prevailing opinion came in 1952, when Russell showed that the poet's mentions of chancery practice, and especially of seals, are very hard to reconcile with composition as early as 1140, and that c1180 is probably the earliest date consistent with the diplomatic evidence. There are a few weaknesses in Russell's case, as Derek Lomax shows⁸, but the argument as a whole remains strong, and agrees with two observations made in passing by earlier scholars: Hinojosa concluded, from his classic study of law in PMC, that the second half of the twelfth century, rather than the thirteenth, was the most likely date of composition, and Curtius maintained that some stylistic features were borrowed from French epic not earlier than 1180. Curtius's views were shown by Menéndez Pidal (69) to rest on shaky foundations, but the scholars who believe in early composition have never attempted to rebut Hinojosa's case⁹, and have totally ignored Russell's¹⁰. Five years after Russell's article came the first Spanish resistance since Cejador's to Menéndez Pidal's dating: Ubieto (114) gave detailed reasons for rejecting most of Menéndez Pidal's arguments, and advanced a number of his own which pointed to 1207 as the date of the Poema as we know it (he is, however, prepared to believe in a much earlier version, reworked by Per Abbat in 1207). The negative part of Ubieto's article is much stronger than the positive, and Menéndez Pidal had very little difficulty in disposing of most of his late-composition evidence (73 pp. 166-9), though one cannot help noticing the absence of any reply to Ubieto's well-founded criticisms. Since the mid-1950s, discussions of the date have been frequent. Gicovate (40), relying chiefly on the time needed to transform historical events into fiction with mythical elements, places PMC at c1200 (Menéndez Pidal replies briefly and inadequately, 73 p. 166, and Lloyd. much more effectively, 60). In 1961 came Don Ramon's volte-face on the question of unity, and his conclusion that, whereas the extant version was composed c1140, this is a reworking of a poem of c1105 (72). A similar reliance on a series of reworkings as an explanation of conflicting evidence on dating is found in Horrent's article (53), though there are strong differences between his position and Menéndez Pidal's: Horrent is prepared to believe in a first version of the Poema c1120, but he is also prepared to accept that the extant version was composed in 1207 (see also 54 pp. 275-82). The chief difficulty inherent in all such theories is that PMC is totally unlike any other Spanish epics which have survived or which can be traced in the chronicles, and also unlike the generality of non-Spanish epics. It is therefore most improbable that, if such an atypical poem arose from a series of reworkings, the earlier versions were in any way similar to it in tone or technique. If, on the other hand, such earlier versions were similar to the normal run of Spanish epics, they and the extant PMC cannot reasonably be described as versions of the same poem; in that situation, we should be dealing with a poem and its lost sources, not with successive states of a poem¹¹.

Menéndez Pidal's last statement of his opinions on dating (73 pp. 165-9), consists of a favourable account of Mateu Llopis's work and of attacks on Gicovate and Ubieto. It was written too soon to include any discussion of the small but in some ways extremely penetrating book by Fradejas (37), which sees the Poema as propaganda for the crusade against the Almohad invaders, and therefore dates it between 1195 and 1212. Pattison (89) provides a convincing linguistic argument for composition at the beginning of the thirteenth century; Smith (108, 109) reaches the same conclusion after examining the treatment of historical characters in the poem; and Ubieto (115) restates and amplifies his arguments, providing a partial answer to some of Menéndez Pidal's objections. These statements of the evidence for late composition have their weak points, but when the valid parts of each are fitted together, they make a formidable case. Moreover, it is impressive that a number of scholars from differing backgrounds, approaching the problem in very different ways, should reach substantial agreement.

The question of unity of authorship is closely linked to that of date, since if the three cantares of PMC were by different poets, or if one poet subjected the work of another to revision and interpolation, there would inevitably be some evidence of early, and some of late, composition. This line of argument, however, is dangerous as well as attractive, since if every inconvenient piece of evidence can be dismissed as an interpolation, there is unlikely to be common ground for serious discussion. In practice, the question is not hard to resolve, since Menéndez Pidal in 1908 (64 pp. 71-3 and 122-3) gave satisfactory answers to most of the points that have seemed to later scholars (and to Menéndez Pidal himself, fifty years on) to indicate dual authorship. He at that stage acknowledged a concentration of geographical detail in two areas, Medinaceli and San Esteban de Gormaz (in fact, there are more than two such foci, as we shall see), but quite rightly regarded this as perfectly normal and consistent with unified authorship. He also recognised that there were strongly-marked differences between the beginning and the end of PMC in some aspects of versification, but ascribed these to a development in technique as the poem progressed. And, again, he was clearly right. Despite Hills's article, few scholars took seriously the possibility of two authors until Menéndez Pidal announced his conversion to the theory in 1961 (72). When Singleton studied the differing techniques in the first and second halves of the poem (105), he correctly noted that these are due to different types of subject matter, and that therefore, although the difference adds some weight to Hills's theory, it can without difficulty be reconciled with single authorship. The majority of scholars have, in the last dozen years, lost sight of such caution, since just as Menéndez Pidal's authority made belief in a single poet seem natural, that same authority is now responsible for widespread belief in two authors. It hardly needs to be said that the respect felt for Menéndez Pidal's views is the natural result of his unparallelled achievements in the study of medieval Spanish literature, language and history, and especially in research on PMC, but it does perhaps need to be said that respect has in many cases usurped the function of judgment, so that Don Ramon's «Dos poetas» article has been read rather than examined. It is in fact considerably less cogent than most of his work (it is, after all, a product of his nineties): some of the arguments are circular¹², some of the figures for versification are incorrect, and the conjectural reconstruction of the plot of the supposed first (Gormaz) poem rests on an alarmingly slender basis of evidence. One point, however, is uncontroversial: Menéndez Pidal's statement (72 p. 200) that this is a single poem, reflecting a continuity of taste. Whatever view one takes of the dual-authorship theory, it is clear that this is not a pair of poems on the same subject (like the Roman de la Rose) or a poem and its easily identifiable continuation (as with Mena's Coplas contra los siete pecados mortales). The unity of the extant text is demonstrated, either directly or implicitly, in the results of recent studies on style and structure. It is, moreover, noteworthy that even if the authors of such studies accept the theory of two poets (e. g. de Chasca, 24, and Orduna, 88), their findings do nothing to strengthen that theory. Orduna, for example, concludes his excellent analysis by listing the techniques to be attributed to the Gormaz and to the Medinaceli poet, but his list is merely speculative, and in no way arises from the preceding analysis. On the other side of the argument, Waltman examines the evidence of formulas (122) and synonyms (123), and finds that it points to the likelihood of a single poet¹³.

To sum up: the original dual-authorship theory, as advanced by Hills, attempted to divide the poem at approximately its halfway point, though there have also been suggestions that one poet might have been responsible for one of the cantares, and another for the other two. Apart from the strong evidence pointing to a single poet, this type of theory is open to the objection that the dividing-line shifts according to the criterion chosen: it may come between Destierro and Bodas, halfway through Bodas, or between Bodas and Corpes. Menéndez Pidal's refundición theory escapes that difficulty, but, as we have seen, it has other weaknesses, and his original conclusions of 1908 remain sound¹⁴.

It is always tempting to identify the author of a poem long considered anonymous, and students of PMC have felt this temptation from time to time. There have been apparently eccentric or even frivolous identifications of the poet, as when Laza Palacios (58) attributed both PMC and the Chronica Adefonsi imperatoris to Domingo Gundisalvo¹⁵, but the only candidature that needs to be taken seriously is that of Per Abbat. Ubieto (114, 115) and Criado (22) accept Per Abbat as the poet, though without arguing the case in detail, and Riaño (91) and Smith (110) present detailed evidence. Any attempt to prove that Per Abbat composed PMC has to face two major difficulties: the name was common, as Menéndez Pidal shows (64 p. 17), making the identification of PMC's Per Abbat with one named in any given document somewhat risky; and the explicit of the poem says «Per Abbat le escrivió», using a verb that normally meant to copy out, whereas the normal Old Spanish verb for «to compose» is fazer, fer or componer. These considerations, among others, have led most scholars (for example, Horrent, 54 p. 276) to agree with Menéndez Pidal's conclusion that Per Abbat was merely the scribe who copied out the extant MS¹⁶, and no doubt the same reasons caused Smith to say that «Attempts to speculate about a named author of the poem are futile» (109 p. xxxiv). Riaño (91) identifies the author as Pero Abat, priest of Fresno de Caracena, who witnessed a document in 1220. He points out that both date and place (Fresno de Caracena is between San Esteban de Gormaz and Medinaceli) are right, and, though hampered by unawareness of much recent research, he argues interestingly for ecclesiastical authorship. However, his geographical and linguistic arguments fall well short of conviction, and, most seriously, he has forgotten Menéndez Pidal's demonstration of the existence of numerous Per Abbats, and he asserts, without discussing the evidence, that escrivió means «composed». Smith's case (110) is a good deal stronger. A documentary discovery led him to change the attitude he had expressed in 1972: his Per Abbat is a lawyer who was active in 1223, who had a talent for forgery, and who displayed a strong interest in the Cid and his traditions. This is, of all the Per Abbats, by far the most likely to have been involved in some way with PMC, and there would be no difficulty in accepting him as the copyist. To go further, and accept him as the poet, it is necessary to find good reason for reading escrivió as «composed». Smith attempts to do this, but his arguments only partly dispose of this serious difficulty; however, it is worth bearing in mind that if he was the copyist (perhaps an unusual role for a thirteenth-century lawyer), he must have carried out his work very soon after the composition of PMC, and is therefore more likely than not to have known the poet.

Evidence of the kind of man who composed PMC is more plentiful than evidence of his individual identity, but it is also more hotly disputed. Menéndez Pidal maintained, from his earliest work on PMC until his death, that the poet was a layman and a juglar. This view -expressed more strongly as the years went by- is still held by many scholars, but it has lost a good deal of ground, and de Chasca (25) is the only one of its recent supporters to defend it in detail. The case for learned authorship, on the other hand, has been presented with increasing frequency in Spain as well as abroad. There is disagreement about whether the poet was a monk, a secular priest or a lawyer (though, as Russell points out, 99 p. 349, lawyer and ecclesiastic need not be mutually exclusive). Russell's first article on PMC (99) is important not only in the debate on dating, but also because it proves that the poet had considerable legal knowledge and a strong interest in the law. Smith provides further reasons for seeing the poet as a man with a special interest in the law (107, 108, 109 pp. xxxv-xxxvi), though his conclusion is more restrictive than Russell's: even before his identification of Per Abbat, he saw the poet as a lawyer but not a priest. Ecclesiastical links are, however, unmistakably present, as Russell has shown (100), though as he admits, it is virtually impossible to decide whether the Cid legends at the monastery of San Pedro de Cardeña are a source of PMC or vice versa. Rubio García (98) is less tentative but also less soundly based: he argues that PMC, together with the Cid section of the Crónica de veinte reyes, derives from a shorter version of a lost Historia de Cardeña, and that the Cid sections of the Primera crónica general and the Crónica de 1344 derive from a longer version of the same work. Though most scholars would probably now agree that the Primera crónica general borrows heavily from Cardeña legends for the later part of its account of the Cid, and though some would support Russell's suggestion that PMC owes something to such legends, Rubio García's theory is at once too sweeping and too rigid, and the evidence for it is inadequate. Riaño (91), as we have seen, adds some arguments to the case for ecclesiastical authorship, but the most striking recent development is Walsh's demonstration that the afrenta de Corpes owes a good deal to the narratives of virgin martyrs incorporated in the liturgy (120). This, of course, does not prove that a priest wrote PMC: a layman, even an illiterate layman, would be familiar with much of the liturgy. It does, however, cast further doubt on the often-repeated assertion that the epic poets of medieval Spain were uninterested in ecclesiastical matters¹⁷. Against these considerations must be set Menéndez Pidal's reminder (64 p. 1171) that one of the poet's few errors in proper names is the reference to a non-existent Abbot Sancho of Cardeña, and the arguments of de Chasca (25). De Chasca refers to Russell's articles, but since he regards external historical evidence as less reliable and more open to dispute than internal stylistic evidence (pp. 80-1) -a view that is in itself questionable- he prefers to consider the evidence for oral-formulaic composition of the poem. On the basis of his statistics, he concludes that PMC was orally composed in formulaic style, and since he follows Lord in regarding oral and written composition as incompatible, he rules out authorship by a monk (or, one assumes, by a lawyer or secular priest). He differs from Menéndez Pidal, however, in being willing to admit the possibility of ecclesiastical or legal influence on an orally-composing juglar. De Chasca's case clearly depends on the acceptance of his conclusion that PMC was orally composed, but even if this is accepted, we still have to face the very strong evidence of learned authorship which Russell, Smith and others have collected. It is very doubtful whether this can be adequately disposed of by the theory of a juglar who picked up some ecclesiastical and legal knowledge from his audiences, or by Duggan's suggestion (34 p. 269) about orally-transmitted codes of law, since what is often involved is not specific pieces of knowledge but habits of mind which could only be the result of long training. If, therefore, de Chasca is right in believing that PMC is an oral-formulaic poem, the only possible solution seems to be authorship by a clerk (priest or lawyer) who became a juglar, as a few are known to have done. If, on the other hand, one regards the evidence for oral composition as inadequate, then the mistake over Abbot Sancho seems minor in comparison with the clearly documented learned elements in the poem.

Few aspects of PMC can be considered in isolation, and the problem of the poet's home territory is to some extent bound up with that of learned versus popular authorship. Menéndez Pidal (64 pp. 34-76; supplemented, pp. 1171-3) noted that geographical details in PMC are most heavily concentrated in the area of San Esteban de Gormaz and Medinaceli, that the exile and Corpes routes cross very near San Esteban, and that the language of the poem, with some Aragonese tinges, resembles that of the Fuero de Medinaceli. For these reasons, he concluded that the poet was a man of Medinaceli who was also familiar with the region of San Esteban. This conclusion at once superseded both ill-founded speculations which had arisen from time to time since Sánchez published the poem, and the much more serious suggestion of Beer (1898) that the poet belonged to the monastery of Cardeña; and it was almost universally accepted until the late 1950s. Russell (100) calls attention to some evidence which links PMC with the Cid cult at the monastery, though he rightly concedes that this evidence is insufficient to prove a Cardeña origin for the poem (Rubio García, 98, has no such doubts). The more general evidence cited by Russell for origin in the Burgos area (both Cardeña and the Cid's home village of Vivar are within a few miles of the city) is a good deal stronger. He notes (100 pp. 70-2) that the poem begins with scenes in this area, with detailed description and sound geographical knowledge, that these scenes establish Burgos as «the psychological point d'appui of the whole work», and that a number of textual features suggest that the poem was aimed at a Burgos audience. This view is supported by a study of epic epithets, as Hamilton has shown (46), and also by the Cid's care that, in Álvar Fáñez's first two missions to King Alfonso, lavish gifts should be taken to Burgos Cathedral (lines 820-5) and to Cardeña (1270-86)¹⁸. Unwitting support is also given in Gárate Córdoba's popularizing but very useful book on the Cid cult in the Burgos region (39).

Those who believe that they have identified a Per Abbat as the poet have, of course, located him in a particular area. Riaño's Per Abbat (91) was a priest at Fresno de Caracena, and Riaño believes he was born in that area, though not necessarily in the town; the area is, of course, one in which the poem is generous with geographical details. Smith's candidate lived in the area of Aguilar and Cordobilla, on the old Castilian-Leonese border (110); here there are no supporting geographical details, but their absence scarcely affects the issue, since in both cases the identification of an individual is the essential question, and his place of origin stands or falls with the identification. Geographical details are, however, the basis of other theories: not only Menéndez Pidal's but also those of Ubieto and Horrent. Ubieto (115) points out that a great deal of accurate detail is given for the valleys of the Jalón and Jiloca, and suggests Santa María del Albarracín, on the River Turia, as the poet's most likely place of origin; he supports this opinion by reference to Aragonese linguistic features, rejecting Menéndez Pidal's view that such features would be fairly normal in Medinaceli, and suggesting (in a passage based wholly on analogies of the shakiest kind) that the extant text of PMC is a translation. Except for the translation theory, Ubieto's case is substantially documented, but it seems overstated. For example, many of the places on whose mention he relies are considerably nearer to Medinaceli than to Santa María del Albarracín. Horrent (55) notes that there is nothing in the poem's references to Burgos or Valencia which a stranger could not easily know (this may not be entirely true of Burgos), but that the references to places in the San Esteban and Medinaceli area, especially the latter, show detailed knowledge; he concludes that the poet lived in Medinaceli and knew San Esteban.

It is necessary at this point to distinguish a number of problems which have been tacitly confused by some of those who have written on the question of the poet's geographical background. These are: the problem of the poet's birthplace; that of the area where he spent most of his life; that of the areas he knew at first hand; and that of the area for which his poem was intended. The first is insoluble unless the poet can be identified, and the second is hard to solve, chiefly because any evidence for it is equally evidence for the third and fourth problems. By contrast, it is extremely easy to decide which areas the poet knew at first hand, and -as we have seen- not at all hard to agree with Russell and Hamilton that the poem was aimed at a Burgos audience and was probably composed in that area.

Recent investigations have confirmed Menéndez Pidal's finding that PMC's geography is in general highly accurate, even in some minor details. Criado (22), though he appears to have worked only from maps, is able to show that in some cases PMC is more accurate than Menéndez Pidal thought, and that some of the textual emendations in 64 are therefore unnecessary. He also makes the first convincing identification of Alcocer, which is wrongly located by Menéndez Pidal (64 pp. 49-50) and, much more drastically, by Ubieto (115 pp. 85-92)¹⁹. Alcocer, as Michael confirms (76), is exactly where the poet says, and he has described its appearance accurately: it is the modern Castejón de las Armas, on the south bank of the Jalón. Ubieto and Michael both based their studies on personal inspection of the routes, and though they differ on some points (notably on the location of Alcocer), they agree on PMC's accuracy in the Jalón valley and on the vagueness or inaccuracy of several geographical references around San Esteban de Gormaz (115 pp. 74-6). Two points seem to emerge clearly: first, although the poet knew the area of San Esteban, he did not know it as well as the Jalón valley, and it is hard to imagine that he was living there when he wrote PMC. Secondly, the accuracy, and in some cases the vivid description, of so many places shows that the poet had himself travelled the roads which he makes his characters travel. At this point, however, caution is necessary. The poet could well have travelled these roads more than once without living in the area, and the general geographical accuracy of PMC between San Esteban and the Jiloca is entirely consistent with the theory of a learned author (lawyer or ecclesiastical administrator) who lived in Burgos, wrote for the people of Burgos, and travelled far afield on official business. Moreover, the fact that the places named in the poem are normally where the poet tells us is no guarantee that the events described took place. Indeed, fictitious events in a real setting are far from uncommon in epic²⁰.

Such a suggestion would at one time have seemed absurd. In Menéndez Pidal's introduction to the Clásicos Castellanos edition (reprinted in 74 pp. 7-65) there is a section entitled «Elementos ficticios», which contains only three items: the appearance of the archangel Gabriel to the Cid in a vision²¹, the episode of the moneylenders and the chests of sand, and the escape of the lion. All the rest, by implication, is historical fact. Such a view is extreme and untenable, and Menéndez Pidal did not hold it: in passing in the «Elemento histórico» section of his Clásicos Castellanos introduction, and much more fully in La España del Cid, he acknowledges that the poet rearranges or exaggerates history. In particular, he does not attempt to defend the historical accuracy of the second half of PMC -marriages of the Cid's daughters and the Infantes de Carrión, afrenta de Corpes, Toledo cort, and duels- in every detail. Yet he is reluctant to admit that these elements of the poem are fiction: four pages of La España del Cid are taken up with PMC's account of the- afrenta, and the discussion is punctuated by statements such as «el carácter de ficción que este relato ofrece acaso sea más bien aparente que fundado», «es increíble que un poema esencialmente histórico se divulgase tanto y adquiriese el mayor crédito, hasta llegar a formar parte de las historias generales de la nación, si lo que contaba referente a los Beni-Gómez fuese una manifiesta fábula calumniosa sin fundamento alguno», and «No puede ser pura fábula»²². Don Ramon's conclusion is that there was, at the very least, a betrothal broken off when the Cid fell from favour, probably in 1089. This raises more difficulties than it solves: betrothals were at this period a matter of solemn contract and ceremony -often more so than the subsequent marriage- and it is unlikely that betrothals between the children of such eminent and powerful families would leave no documentary traces. The only reason for believing in the broken betrothals is a general belief in PMC's historical accuracy, and that belief inevitably depends in large part on a conviction that the afrenta and the rest have some foundation in history. We are, then, involved in a circular argument; the historicity of this episode is a matter of faith, not evidence ( cf. Chalon's detailed analysis, 17). But even if we accept it, the difficulties are not over: there is such a gap between the breaking off of an engagement and the story as told in PMC that the main plot of the poem's second half must still be regarded as fiction.

The way in which Menéndez Pidal presented his views on historicity, and especially the very limited content of his «Elementos ficticios» section, led to an exaggerated public belief -which still persists- in the poem's accuracy as a historical document. More harmfully, it was responsible for a widespread assumption that the poem's chief value lay in its supposed historicity. This is, of course, a misunderstanding of the nature of literature in general and of epic in particular, as Spitzer pointed out in 1948, in a closely reasoned article full of acute literary insights (112). Menéndez Pidal's prompt reply (66) begins by conceding the essence of Spitzer's case: «Estoy plenamente de acuerdo, y aun la afirmación de Spitzer me parece débil; no digamos 'obra más bien de arte', sino obra enteramente de arte y ficción»; and he maintains that this has always been his view. The bulk of the article, however, takes issue with Spitzer on a number of detailed points, and continues to emphasize the value of PMC's historically accurate elements. Menéndez Pidal's subsequent publications seem unaffected by his admission that the poem is «obra enteramente de arte y ficción», but Spitzer's challenge had a profound influence on the views of other scholars, and research on the relationship between history and poetry in PMC has increasingly revealed a Spitzerian approach (see, for example, Dunn, 36 p. 110). Chalon is careful to point out the cases in which his investigations support Menéndez Pidal -the identification of King Búcar (18), the possible double names of the Cid's daughters (17 pp. 219-21)- but his findings in general add considerable weight to the Spitzerian case: the daughters were probably never betrothed to the Infantes de Carrión (17), and art unhesitatingly remoulds history in the defence of Valencia against Búcar's army (16) and in the division of Búcar himself into two characters (18). Similarly, Vàrvaro shows that the Álvar Fáñez-Cid relationship in the Poema obeys not historical reality but an epic tradition of uncle-nephew pairs (118), and Hook studies the adaptation of history in the conquest of Valencia (51). Comprehensive studies of the characters, especially the minor ones, confirm their historical existence but show the frequently fictional nature of the events in which the poet involves them (98 pp. 81-198, 115 pp. 131-8, and most importantly 108). Even in an episode universally acknowledged as fictitious, that of Raquel and Vidas, Smith shows that the attempts to make the Cid's action semi-respectable, in order to conform to the idealized general impression of his character, have a very shaky foundation (106). There are, of course, historical studies which involve other aspects, notably the studies of institutions, in the Hinojosa tradition: Mateu Llopis on currency (63), Grassotti on ira regia (43), and Ubieto on a variety of institutions (115). Finally, Guglielmi's study of social mobility (44), though it suffers from the still patchy state of scholarship in this area, is not only courageous but often illuminating.

The question of ideology is related to that of history in PMC, but has been much less intensively studied. The majority of critics have concentrated on the manifestly central aspects: honour, the lord-vassal relationship, Castilian patriotism. There have been disagreements on some points (e. g. between Correa and de Chasca, 20-1, 23-4), but there is, rightly, a consensus on the main outlines of the poem's ideology. Three scholars, however, have developed separate lines of thought, all of considerable interest. Fradejas points to the remarkably small number of Christian casualties, and suggests that the Poema may have been intended to encourage recruitment in the period before Las Navas de Tolosa (37; cf. 39a), a theory which is probably overstated but which, in the light of recent conclusions on the date of PMC, seems less far-fetched than when it was first formulated. Rodríguez-Puértolas applies Marxist techniques and concludes that the Cid's prime motive, in both historical reality and the Poema, is economic (97; for a comment, see 10); this article, which sometimes reads like the first sketch for a theory, is not wholly convincing, but the case is developed more fully, and extended beyond the economic field. Another type of ideological study is represented by Alonso Baquer (6a), who traces the attitudes to the Cid of military writers of various periods, but especially the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Turning from the content of the Poema to its form, we find a general recognition that some explanation must be sought for the fluctuating number of syllables in its lines (see 64 pp. 76-103 and 1173-6), but not yet an agreement on what that explanation should be. Attempts to reconstruct an isosyllabic text, never frequent, were effectively abandoned some fifty years ago. If anyone felt inclined to revive them, he must surely be deterred by Adams's proof, from the evidence of names and epithets, that the syllabic irregularity of many lines is to be attributed to the poet and not merely to the process of transmission (1; cf. Gilman, 42 pp. 9-10). At the other extreme, the belief of some nineteenth-century scholars that the poet composed in totally anarchic verse would probably find no defenders today. We are left with a widespread view that regularity is to be found not in number of syllables but in a pattern of stresses, perhaps associated with the beats of the music to which the poem was recited or sung (cf. 64 pp. 102-3 and 1174), perhaps coexisting with a range of permissible line-lengths (cf. 77).

It is worth recalling two facts at this point: first, the combination of a fixed number of stresses with some flexibility in the number of syllables is found in a later and learned Spanish verse form, arte mayor; secondly, almost 90 per cent of the lines of PMC fall within the range of 12 to 16 syllables²³. It seems clear that different explanations are needed for this moderate fluctuation, which is also found in other epic and non-epic texts, and for the extreme variations in line-length, with the reduction of some passages to prose. Harvey's pioneer article (50) rightly emphasizes the importance of the Parry-Lord studies of Yugoslav singers in this context, and especially of their concept of the dictated oral text: this is the only theory that can satisfactorily explain the extreme cases in PMC and other epics, including the prose sections of the Mocedades de Rodrigo (cf. 61 pp. 126-7). On the other hand, as Hall points out (45 p. 227n), a number of thirteenth-century Spanish poems other than epics have some degree of irregularity, and it would be rash to assume that each of them is a dictated oral text. Hall prefers to account for the irregularities by the theory of stress-timed verse, and (reviving W. E. Leonard's arguments) to derive such verse from Spain's Visigothic past²⁴. The second part of his case rests on shaky foundations (for instance, he offers no evidence that the Visigoths were Germanic-speaking at the relevant time, and he neglects the fairly frequent similar cases in medieval Latin); the first part is weakened by his lack of attention to the extreme cases (he seems unaware of the Mocedades). On the evidence so far available from the Poema and other epics, it seems likely that a moderate fluctuation in line-length, which may well have been combined with a pattern of fixed stresses, was an accepted feature of Old Spanish versification, but that more extreme fluctuations and the presence of prose sections in the Mocedades reflect the process of dictation by juglar to scribe. Any attempt by editors to produce full syllabic regularity would thus distort the text, and whereas an attempt to remove the extreme irregularities is legitimate, it is in practice very difficult. So is the formulation of a detailed stress-pattern, as Aubrun found (7).

Assonance has not been much studied since Menéndez Pidal's work (64 pp. 107-24 and 1176-85). An interesting development has, however, been Smith's suggestion (109 pp. xxxix-xlii; also Michael, 77) that the medieval Spanish epic may well have tolerated a number of imperfect assonances; and there has been one major innovation, de Chasca's discovery of frequent, and on the whole consciously used, internal assonance (24 ch. 11). There are flaws in de Chasca's collection and presentation of his material, as Michael has shown (BHS, XLV [1968], 311-12), but even when due allowance is made for this, ample evidence remains to prove the case.

The apparently arbitrary tense usage in the Poema (which has partial analogues in the ballads and in poetry in other medieval languages) has long been a puzzle to readers, but only in the past twenty years have there been serious attempts to solve the puzzle. Two phases are discernible: the establishment of necessary distinctions, as a first step towards producing meaningful order out of apparent chaos, and then the demonstration that the different criteria for tense-choice are interdependent. To the first phase belong Sandmann, who establishes the difference in usage between passages of narrative and passages of direct discourse (104), and Gilman, who shows the importance of verbal aspect (41; conclusions revised, 42 pp. 2-3). In the second phase are the studies of Myers, who emphasizes the role of assonance in influencing tense-choice (cf. de Chasca, 24 ch. 13) and shows how this is linked to the criteria of Sandmann and Gilman (83), Montgomery, whose survey of previous work, lucid evaluation of delicate problems and philological skill make his article probably the most valuable study of the subject (79), and de Chasca, who adds very useful analyses of individual passages (24 ch. 13). Gilman and de Chasca approach the problem from a primarily stylistic point of view, Montgomery from that of linguistics (he gives some substance to the suggestion, made in passing by other scholars, that PMC's tense usage may reflect a much earlier stage of the language). Joseph Szertics's Tiempo y verbo en el romancero viejo (Madrid, 1967), is a useful complement to the studies of PMC²⁵. The work of the past two decades has dispelled the notion that the Poema's tense-usage is the result of the poet's incompetence, but the problem is of such complexity that a final solution is not yet in sight. It seems clear that the poet's choice of tenses is affected in any particular case by at least two of the following factors: assonance, narrative versus direct discourse, singular versus plural verb, aspect, action versus state, positive versus negative sentence, position in the line, and length of verb. This is probably the most daunting of all PMC problems, which may explain the high quality of the studies devoted to it.

Studies of formulaic style in the Poema are even more recent than those of tense-usage. It has long been recognized that PMC is rich in epic epithets, although no detailed work on them was done until the 1960s. Epithets are, however, merely the most noticeable part of a pervasive formulaic style, studied in the Homeric and modern Yugoslav epics by Milman Parry, whose work in the 1920s and 1930s attracted more attention than that of his nineteenth-century predecessors. By the 1950s, research on formulaic style was being carried out in several literatures, notably French, where Rychner's book was especially influential (101), and Old English, but the question was neglected in Spanish apart from a pioneering and still useful monograph by Ruth House Webber on the ballads in 1951. The publication in 1960 of Lord's account of his and Parry's investigations (61), in a book aimed at a wider audience, brought about a decisive change. The first result was Harvey's article (50) which concentrated, as we have seen, on the question of dictated oral texts and the irregularity of PMC's verse. The analogies discussed by Harvey have recently been taken further, in ways that are only apparently farfetched, by Adams (2). I indicated some other respects in which the theory of oral-formulaic composition might illuminate the study of Spanish epic, but also pointed out some of the obstacles to accepting that theory for the extant Spanish texts (28, and 29 ch. 7). Most of those who have subsequently written on the subject have, however, been wholly convinced of the rightness of the oralist case, on the basis of one or more of Lord's three tests for oral composition: formulaic style, thematic composition i. e. the building up of the poem's structure by a series of motifs, which Lord renames «themes»), and the virtual absence of necessary enjambement (i. e. the division of a single thought-group between two lines). The test of formulaic style is applied by Aguirre (3), de Chasca (24 ch. 8-10, 25, 26), Duggan (34a) and Chaplin (19)²⁶; that of thematic composition by Webber (125) and Chaplin (19); and that of enjambement by de Chasca (25). Of these scholars, only Chaplin has been led to doubt that PMC was orally composed, though Aguirre admits that alternative hypotheses might be tenable.

De Chasca, Duggan and Chaplin arrive at percentages for formulaic material, and though they differ in methods and criteria, there is an interesting and probably significant resemblance between their findings: de Chasca has 28.1 per cent²⁷, Duggan 31.7, and Chaplin has four samples with 23, 25, 25 and 21 per cent respectively. It seems that the percentage of true formulas in PMC is, at most, in the middle to upper twenties, and that even if one includes the much looser formulaic phrases the percentage cannot rise above 50. This, as Chaplin points out, is far below the formulaic level for the Yugoslav songs which we know to have been orally composed, though it compares fairly closely with Duggan's figures for French epics, which range from 23 to 39 per cent. On the basis of this evidence, it seems that we must either accept a much lower percentage of formulas as proof of oral composition in the medieval epic (Duggan fixes the threshold at 20 per cent), or seek some other explanation for the presence of the formulas. Since nobody has yet shown why oral composition should produce such divergent percentages of formulas in the Middle Ages and the twentieth century, it seems more prudent to take the second course.

The other tests, of enjambement and thematic composition, do not change the picture appreciably. De Chasca finds that necessary enjambement is much rarer in PMC than in the Libro de Alexandre (it is even rarer than in the Yugoslav songs). While it is possible that this scarcity represents the difference between oral and written composition, it is probable that a poet who intended his work to be orally diffused would, for the sake of easy comprehension, keep necessary enjambement to a minimum, whether he was composing in writing or orally. As to the third test, Webber analyses the distribution of PMC's main motifs, and concludes that the Poema resembles the Yugoslav songs in this respect; it is not clear, however, that the resemblance goes very deep, and Chaplin finds major differences between PMC and modern Yugoslav epic in their use of composition by motif. It seems likely that here, as with formulas, PMC uses an inherited technique in a way that does not indicate oral composition.

Spanish epic presents students of formulaic style with one difficulty not found in other literatures: its metrical irregularity is hard to reconcile with Parry's classic definition of the formula, «a group of words which is regularly employed under the same metrical conditions to express a given essential idea». This is widely recognized (e. g. 34a pp. 262-3, 42 pp. 3-4), and there have been attempts to revise the definition to take account of this, the most thorough being by de Chasca (26). It is perhaps less widely realized that serious methodological and other obstacles beset those who seek formulaic evidence of the way in which any medieval epic was composed, but the recent article by Michael J. Jeffreys, with its clear and balanced appraisal of the problems, should be salutary²⁸. One major difficulty is that the twentieth-century Yugoslav songs, whose oral nature is beyond dispute, are in some ways very unlike the medieval epic, where oral composition cannot be more than an inference based on analogy. It is not only that, as we have seen, the Yugoslav songs are much more heavily formulaic than PMC (or, it seems, other medieval epics). They are also, despite obvious merits, on a lower artistic level than many of the heroic poems to which medievalists are accustomed. We thus have no direct evidence that oral composition could produce a poem as subtle and complex as PMC (or the Chanson de Roland, or the Nibelungenlied).

In this situation, comparative studies offer some hope of progress. Direct Spanish-Yugoslav comparisons yield apparently conflicting results: Lord (61 p. 127), Harvey (50), Adams (2) and others have been impressed by the similarities, whereas Menéndez Pidal, in a scholarly tour-de-force produced at the end of his life (74), points firmly to some significant differences. It may, however, not be too difficult to reconcile these results: the first three scholars refer to the state of the Per Abbat manuscript, and are thus chiefly concerned with the process of transmission, while Menéndez Pidal deals with composition. The hypothesis of written composition and oral diffusion would thus explain their findings (and also the lower percentages of formulas in the medieval poems). Aguirre (3) has compared PMC with ballads, Duggan (34a) with French epic, and Chaplin (19) with other Spanish epics and with clerecía poems. Here again, the results conflict, more directly than in the comparisons with the Yugoslav songs: Aguirre and Duggan conclude in favour of oral composition, Chaplin against.

The debate thus continues, and is likely to do so for some time, since the conclusions that investigators in this field draw from their evidence will largely depend on the criteria that they apply to it. Moreover, there is a growing belief among students of indisputably oral poetry that a formula count is one of the least satisfactory tests to apply; yet it is one of the only two tests susceptible of quantitative analysis, and therefore objective enough to have a chance of convincing doubters (the other is the use of enjambement, which, as we have seen, indicates mode of transmission rather than composition). On the other hand, the working of formulaic style in PMC, or in any other epic, can be studied without the difficulties that beset the question of oral composition. De Chasca's analysis of the poet's use of formulas (24 ch. 8-10) is criticism of the highest order, and its value is independent of de Chasca's belief that the Poema was orally composed. The same is true of Duggan's book on the Chanson de Roland (34), which, like Rychner's book of almost twenty years earlier (101), has much to teach hispanists.

Literary criticism of the Poema is found, in rudimentary form, as early as the eighteenth century, but the first serious and sustained critical analysis dates, as we have seen, from the 1930s: the work of Kullmann and Castro. With Dámaso Alonso's essay of 1941 (5), a new period begins, in which critical studies -often of very high quality- are published with increasing frequency. Alonso's sensitive discussion of direct speech, humour and characterization has in fact served as a model for three decades of PMC critics, though in the first of those decades studies were relatively few. In 1948 Huerta published a book (56) which has, although it makes many critical points about PMC, and especially about its style, been rather neglected. There is, it is true, a good deal of irrelevance and some eccentricities, but a number of Huerta's observations are both original and helpful. Singleton (105) points to stylistic differences between the first and second halves of the poem, but a comparative essay by von Richthofen (92 pp. 274-83), which emphasizes a debt to French epic, finds «una estrecha unidad entre los tres cantares, y muy especialmente en su aspecto estilístico» (p. 278). It is likely that both scholars are, in different ways, right. In the mid-fifties came a development almost as important as Alonso's essay: Edmund de Chasca's Estructura y forma (23)²⁹. Chapters 4 and 5 deal with style: time, landscape, number, gesture and several other aspects. The rest of the book covers structure and the Cid's character. The theoretical framework is that of the Chicago Aristotelians, but the book's value is independent of it. The discussion of the hero is at times over-enthusiastic, but the treatment of structure and style is excellent, and the book's concentration and unity of conception are such that it is not wholly superseded by the revised and greatly amplified Arte juglaresco.

Since Estructura y forma, the most important new areas of stylistic research have been the literary evaluation of the Poema's formulas (discussed above); the study of a special type of formula, the epithet; and the monograph by Smith and Morris on physical phrases (111). These phrases, in which an apparently superfluous mention of a part of the body adds emphasis or solemnity, can now be seen to be an important element of epic style. Smith also has a more general discussion of style (72 pp. xliv-lx; and, in comparison with Latin chronicles, 71). An attempt by Allen (4) to analyse the poem's style in terms of the structural linguistics of the 1950s -«el que en buena ora naçió» is a literary morpheme, the -ó assonance a literary phoneme- was not well received, the chief objection being that the terminology was novel but that the results were not; however her lists provide a useful collection of material for future investigators. Other stylistic work has included very good studies of direct speech by Alonso (6) and, with a rhetorical emphasis, by Caldera (13); Hart's sensitive discussion of the poet's use of foreshadowing, irony, epithets, and direct address to the audience (49); and my own tracing of a number of stylistic patterns (30).

The study of epithets, previously somewhat perfunctory, was raised to a new level in the early 1960s. Michael (75) contrasts the living tradition of epithets in PMC with their relative deadness in the Libro de Alexandre, and the decisive step forward was taken by Hamilton (46) in an examination of the artistic value of epithets in the Poema and of their implications for problems of authorship. Webber's article (124) was unfortunately written before she read Hamilton but work by de Chasca (24 ch. 9), Hart (49 pp. 28-31), and most recently Hathaway (50a) has built on Hamilton's discoveries to produce important new results.

The more strictly linguistic aspect of style has (apart from tense usage) received much less attention, but the work that has been done has been of high quality: Badía (8) compares the syntax of the Poema with that of the Primera crónica general, and Lapesa (57) compares a number of linguistic features in PMC and the ballads.

Humour is one of the subjects discussed by Alonso (5 pp. 90-9), and it plays a large part in Montgomery's study of the episode of the Count of Barcelona (78); two other articles, very different in length and in type of treatment, are devoted to it: a brief essay by Moon (81) and a full-scale analysis by Oleza (86). Irony in the Poema is studied briefly but most effectively by Hart (49 pp. 26-8).

The Poema's structure, now a frequent object of study, was relatively neglected for some time after stylistic analyses began to flourish -apart, that is, from a general recognition that the structure is bipartite and not, as the division into cantares would suggest, tripartite. Salinas's article on Ximena's journey (103) has some notable observations on structure, and Huerta (56 ch. 1) points out that the binary principle operates both here and on the level of stylistic detail. De Chasca deals with structure in the first version of his book (not surprisingly, in view of the title Estructura y forma), and amplifies his study in the latest version (24, especially ch. 3-4). Structure is related by other critics to temporal and spatial amplification (21), to the lion episode as the point at which hierarchical positions shift decisively (87), to the Cid's growth in stature (88b) -these three questions are, obviously, closely linked- to composition in three stages (94), and to patterns of association and contrast (30). Orduna analyses the structure of Cantar de las bodas and its links with the other cantares (88); his analysis is dauntingly technical, but the results justify the effort. The structure of smaller passages is discussed, as an example of composition by motif, by Webber (125) and Chaplin (19), though, as we have seen, they reach opposite conclusions. The variety of critical approaches to the Poema's structure is noteworthy, and each of the studies so far mentioned contributes something useful, though some are, inevitably, deeper and more original than others. The most ambitious study is, however, the least helpful: Dorfman's structuralist analysis (33), with its coinage of the term «narreme» and its claim that the core of all French and Spanish epics studied is a sequence of four elements (family quarrel, insult, treachery or prowess, punishment or reward), has grave defects. As Chaplin has shown (BHS, XLVIII [1971], 58-60), Dorfman's theory requires him to relegate the Cid's exile to the status of prologue, and to reduce the political tensions which shape much of the poem to the dimensions of a family quarrel. The techniques of structuralist linguistics no doubt have something to offer to literary critics, but not along Dorfman's lines.

A question related to PMC's structure is that of the points at which the poet began and ended it. Menéndez Pidal believed that the missing first folio of the Per Abbat MS had contained a section of the poem which explained the Cid's exile, and his critical edition supplies the content, and some reconstructed lines, of this section from the chronicles (64 pp. 1019-25). Almost all scholars have accepted his view, despite the effectiveness of the present line 1 as an opening, but Pardo (88a) has now advanced powerful arguments for regarding «De los sus ojos» as the original opening. By contrast, there is almost unanimous support for the view that the poem originally ended at or just after line 3725 (there is disagreement about how many of the immediately following lines in the Per Abbat MS are due to a performer or scribe), but again a dissenting voice has been raised: Russell (100 pp. 74-6) suggests that the poet may have told of the Cid's death and burial at Cardeña.

Another related question is that of the structural and symbolic value of numbers. Most of the work here has been done by de Chasca: part of a chapter in Estructura y forma (pp. 76-87), a thirty-page chapter in the first edition of Arte juglaresco, and -in the light of Myers's findings set out in his review, HR, XXXVII (1969), 401-7- an expanded chapter in the second edition. This work has since been supplemented by a comparison of numbers in PMC and the ballads (27). Some of de Chasca's conclusions point to a surprisingly complex and subtle use of numbers, but this is in keeping with what we have learned about other aspects of the poet's technique; and de Chasca makes it clear that the poet generally used numbers for realistic rather than symbolic purposes. Henk de Vries, in an appendix to a book on Juan de Padilla, studies numerical structure in the Cantar de las bodas, and concludes that «el poeta... estaba muy preocupado con las exigencias de la composición numérico-simbólica», but his views, expressed with characteristic obscurity and without mention of de Chasca, are unconvincing³⁰.

The role of mythical patterns in the Poema was hinted at by Castro in 1935, but his suggestions were virtually ignored until Dunn developed the subject in 1962 (35). His discussion of threefold patterns overlaps de Chasca's work, and is immediately convincing; in other cases, especially the theory that the poet composed by analogy with archetypal myths, his views at first seemed extreme, but have worn well and become increasingly attractive. Dunn's second article (36) restates his position, with important additions on the relation of mythic patterns to the historical element in the Poema and to contemporary political theory. Myth has also been discussed by Bandera (9), very obscurely; when his views do emerge clearly, they are in general far-fetched or simply wrong, but chapter 3, «El sentimiento religioso», is better than the rest³¹.

Another kind of underlying pattern is figura, or typology. Hart (48) demonstrates the significance of figural patterns in PMC, arguing that the lord-vassal relationship as an analogue of the relation between God and man, and the Cid's exile as an analogue of man's exile on earth, would deepen a medieval audience's response to the poem, and would connect with contemporary political theory (there is thus some common ground between Hart's article and Dunn's simultaneously-published study). What may seem in summary to be a rather unlikely theory is prudently argued and carefully documented by Hart; and it is clear that he is right.

The figural tradition is, of course, ecclesiastical in origin. Other aspects of ecclesiastical tradition have been studied: Russell discusses the Cardeña tomb-cult (100); Nichols reconsiders the relationship between French epics and pilgrim routes, with special reference to buildings and other physical objects (84), in a way that has obvious implications for PMC; and Walsh, in one of the most original and important contributions of the past few years, shows that several passages in epic, and particularly the afrenta de Corpes, echo martyrological sections of the liturgy (120). Walsh's point is, like Hart's in his study of figura (48), that elements in PMC are not seen by poet or audience as religious -the Cid is not a Christ figure, Elvira and Sol are not martyrs- but rather that the religious analogy makes the poem more moving and the audience's experience of it more immediate.

Folklore plays an even larger part than ecclesiastical tradition, and is not inconsistent with it; there is even some overlap of motifs. Menéndez Pidal deals with folkloric connections of the lines immediately preceding the Corpes episode (70), and Uriarte makes a thorough study of the Raquel and Vidas story (116), using the standard tools of modern folklore scholarship. PMC is less obviously rich in folk-motifs than other Spanish epics, not because of any lack of motifs, but because the poet uses them in a characteristically restrained and subtle way. When Chaplin and I analysed the poem, we found that it contained nearly forty of those listed in Stith Thompson's Motif-Index (31 p. 51). At a much deeper and less conscious level than the motif is the Indo-European tendency -identified by Georges Dumézil- to divide society and its functions into three. The title of Montoro's article on the influence of this tendency in the epic (80) at first seems far-fetched, and it is true that he occasionally has to strain his material in order to bring it within his framework, but surprisingly often it fits naturally, and the article sheds a good deal of light on the Poema.

If we now turn to the themes of the Poema, we find general agreement that the chief one is honour (there was more difference of opinion at an earlier stage of PMC scholarship). The point is established in different ways by Salinas (102), Correa (20), and de Chasca (23, 24); and further light is shed on the poet's treatment of the theme by María Rosa Lida de Malkiel³². These critics do not always agree on the classification of different types of honour in the poem, or on the relation of honour to other themes, but there is substantial common ground, and the disagreements are fruitful rather than confusing. Honour is, of course, indissolubly linked to the lord-vassal relationship: the Poema begins with a Cid whose honour is at the mercy of the King's whim, and ends with the assertion that kings gain honour by their descent from the Cid. Correa and de Chasca disagree about the presentation of King Alfonso, but de Chasca's view has, rightly, become generally accepted: Correa's opinion that Alfonso is the perfect king cannot easily be maintained in the face of line 20. Whichever side is right in the protracted dispute over the exact meaning of the line³³, it is clear that the people of Burgos do not, at that point, think of Alfonso as a good lord, and that the poet endorses their view. Other studies shed light on the lord-vassal relationship in a variety of ways: Dunn (36) and Hart (48) link it to wider patterns and to contemporary political thought, as we have already seen; Olson (87) examines the changing balance of power between the Cid and his lord; and Walker (119) makes the interesting suggestion that the first half of the poem shows the testing of the Cid, and the second the testing of Alfonso.

Journeys, meetings and partings are obviously important narrative devices in almost all epics (though not, on the whole, as important as in romances). In PMC, perhaps to a greater extent than in other epics, these necessary pieces of plot mechanism also have thematic importance. The deeply moving separation of the Cid and his family at Cardeña -«agora nos partimos, Dios sabe el ajuntar»- keeps before our eyes one of the exiled hero's chief motives, the reunion of the family and the restoration of its position. In this respect, the Poema is closer to one type of medieval romance (that represented by the Libro de Apolonio) than to other epics. Salinas (103) shows the emotional content of journeys in the Poema, and particularly of the triumphant journey of Ximena and her daughters to Valencia; and Hart (48) points out their typological significance.

In an epic intended for oral delivery, the poet has little opportunity for detailed character analysis, and although PMC is something of an exception to the general practice, its poet still has to come to terms with the restrictions of his medium. The most important characters -the Cid and Alfonso- are presented in some detail, and, as we have seen, critics have commented interestingly on their presentation. Almost as important, and more surprising, is the depiction of the Infantes de Carrión. Hart (47) makes an early, non-anachronistic and notably successful attempt to analyse their psychology. He shows that they are moved by snobbery, lust and greed, that they lack self-sufficiency, and that they are deeply irresponsible -the opposite of the Cid in each respect. There has been some resistance to his views, chiefly on the ground that a pre-Freudian poet would, not be concerned with such matters, but this objection is misconceived: morbid psychological states did not begin with Freud, and the ability to depict them does not depend on the availability of modern labels. Hart's analysis has since been supplemented: 35 pp. 364-5, 36 pp. 11213, 49 pp. 31-2, 59, and 87.

The character of the Infantes is, of course, the dominant factor in the afrenta de Corpes. In this episode, an exceptionally restrained and rational poet steps into the numinous and the irrational. The geography of the episode is hard to reconcile with reality, and the poet describes a landscape unlike any other in his work. There are other impressive landscapes -«alto es el poyo, maravilloso e grant» (864), for instance- but it is always made clear that their strategic importance is what counts. Corpes is terrifying and magical in its own right and for its own sake; it is the topographical counterpart of the Infantes' irrational violence. Such a remarkable departure from the poet's norm has, understandably, engaged the attention of many recent critics (it will be seen that several articles in the present volume deal with the afrenta). What is surprising is the earlier neglect of the episode: apart from a disagreement between Curtius and Menéndez Pidal as to whether the glade in the oak forest is a locus amoenus (see 69), the afrenta received little if any detailed study until Huerta and Hart pointed the way (56 ch. 2, 47 p. 22). Since then, Leo (59) has examined the psychology of the episode. Menéndez Pidal (70) and Dunn (35 pp. 366-7) have discussed its folkloric and mythic connections, Walsh (120) has shown that it echoes liturgical scenes of martyrdom, and Martinez (62a) has traced its presentation in a variety of literary forms³⁴. Despite this varied and thorough study, which is carried further in the present volume, there is probably still room for more investigation of this strange incident.

Other episodes have been much less studied, but useful work has nevertheless been done: Horrent on the capture of Castejón (52), Montgomery on the capture and release of the Count of Barcelona (78), Bénichou (11 pp. 125-59) and Chalon (18) on the battle against King Búcar, and Olson (87) on the lion episode. The escape of the Cid's lion, the loyalty of his followers and the ludicrous and humiliating cowardice of the Infantes, the lion's submission to the Cid, and the Infantes' resentment make this episode not only dramatic but far-reaching in its implications. There is no rational connection between the incident of the lion and the afrenta de Corpes, but the Infantes' belief that there is ,tells us a great deal about them. Olson shrewdly and sensitively balances psychological, structural and thematic considerations; the only gap in his treatment is the symbolic function of the lion. Bandera (9 pp. 82-114), on the other hand, concentrates on that function but misunderstands it: he argues that the Christian symbolism of the lion in the bestiary is the key to the episode, but this is in fact a simple example of medieval hierarchy, in which the king of beasts recognizes a king among men³⁵. The incident of the lion leads, as we have seen, to the afrenta, and that in turn to the Toledo court scene. The legal aspects of the scene were studied long ago by Hinojosa and Menéndez Pidal, but their use in the artistic shaping of the scene was overlooked until it was analysed in outline by de Chasca (23 pp. 116-21, now 24 pp. 142-6) and in much greater detail by Zahareas (126); von Richthofen (93) discusses the function of the Cid's swords as symbols of justice in this scene and in the duels that follow.

There remains to be considered the research carried out in adjoining areas, which by analogy or contrast helps in the study of PMC. Comparison with other Cid epics, whether the extant Mocedades de Rodrigo (67, 29, and cf. 11 pp. 13-39) or the lost Cantar de Sancho II (90), emphasizes the unusual qualities of the Poema, and in particular its individual treatment of epic conventions. Comparison with ballads can also be illuminating: Lapesa studies the language of epic and ballad (57), and Bénichou compares the Cid's exile in PMC and ballads, with some reference to the Mocedades de Rodrigo (11 pp. 13-39), but the greatest attention has been devoted to the ballad which describes the Cid's battle with King Búcar, «Helo, helo por do viene», since in this case the possibility of direct comparison with the text of PMC, and the plentiful supply of modern ballad versions, give exceptionally good opportunities for study; Bénichou (11 pp. 125-59), Catalán (15) and Di Stefano (32) have all made valuable contributions here.

The importance to PMC research of chronicle accounts of the Cid has been recognized almost from the first days of epic scholarship, and Menéndez Pidal makes extensive use of chronicle texts in his edition (64), filling definite and hypothetical gaps, and correcting the MS readings. Much depends on the chronology and the relationship of the vernacular chronicles in the Alfonsine tradition -an area in which Menéndez Pidal's conclusions have been substantially revised by later investigators, notably Diego Catalán- and, partly for this reason, scholars have not been much concerned with the chronicles as a basis for emendation; Horrent (54 pp. 282-9), dealing with the Crónica de veinte reyes, is an exception. Badía (8) makes a linguistic and stylistic comparison between PMC and the Primera crónica general, but most scholars have directed their attention to content (14, 62a, 95 pp. 39-53, 98, 118). These studies are wholly or mainly concerned with the vernacular chronicles, but Smith (107) finds disconcerting similarities of style and outlook between PMC and Hispano-Latin chronicles. The old question of a possible link between medieval Latin epic and vernacular heroic poetry is raised again, with detailed argument and copious documentation, in Salvador Martinez's Toronto doctoral thesis on the Poema de Almería (1972), soon to be published in a revised form. The equally old theory of an Andalusian Arabic epic which influenced the development of epic poetry in Castilian -a theory which had long seemed to be discredited- is revived by a number of scholars, notably Galmés de Fuentes (38), who keeps an open mind, and Marcos Marín (62), who is satisfied that the theory is correct. In an important review of Marcos Marín, L. P. Harvey surveys other contributions to the debate, and concludes that the case is far from being proved (BHS, LI [1974], 280-3).

Research on the epic of other countries is, as we have already seen, of fundamental importance for the study of formulaic style in PMC, and Bowra's book (12) is still, after more than twenty years, an irreplaceable survey of the universal characteristics of epic, against which PMC's originality can be measured. With these two exceptions, it is work on the French epic which helps us most: some studies make explicit comparisons, while others, discussing the French poems alone, implicitly invite comparison. Menéndez Pidal (68, 69, 71) and von Richthofen (92, 93, 95) have published work of this kind most frequently, but useful contributions have come also from Riquer (96, a correlation between types of MS and methods of diffusion), Nichols (84, already discussed), and Van Emden (117, one of the most recent attempts to reconcile conflicting schools of thought, and probably the best). Comparison between PMC and contemporary visual art, on the other hand, has scarcely begun, and it is to be hoped that Moreno Báez's paper (82) will soon be followed by more extensive and deeper studies. Injudicious application of Wölfflin's work to literature of the Golden Age has made this type of comparison suspect among hispanists, but Eugène Vinaver's studies of the interlace structure of some medieval romances have shown what can be achieved by prudent and scholarly comparison with visual art³⁶.

To sum up. PMC research, after a period of relative quiescence, has made as much progress in the past thirty years as in the three decades that followed the publication of Bello's and Milá's books. Change has been least noticeable in the study of the Poema's historical background, and most striking in literary criticism. Much remains to be done: the time has probably come for renewal of linguistic study of the text, an area in which computing techniques have an important part to play; there are still disagreements to be resolved over the best readings even for a conservative edition; the problem of tense usage still awaits a solution, and that of oral composition may yet yield to investigation and argument; the underlying patterns -ecclesiastical, folkloric, psychological, political, and perhaps economic- which helped to shape the Poema have not yet been fully explored; and, as with any literary masterpiece, the last critical word has not been said -and never will be.

Postscript: Since this article was completed, much important work has been published: for example, Ian Michael's edition with full apparatus (1976), Edmund de Chasca's volume in the Twayne series (1976), Miguel Magnotta's history of Mio Cid scholarship (1976), and volumes of collected studies by Tules Horrent (1973) and Louis Chalon (1976). To take account of this work would require an impractical extension of my article, so I have merely inserted publication details of material which I originally listed as being in press.

• 1. Adams, Kenneth: «The Metrical Irregularity of the CMC: a restatement based on the evidence of names, epithets and some other aspects of formulaic diction», BHS, XLIX (1972), 109-19.
• 2. ——: «The Yugoslav Model and the Text of the PMC», in Medieval Hispanic Studies Presented to Rita Hamilton (London: Tamesis, 1976), pp. 1-10.
• 3. Aguirre, J. M.: «Épica oral y épica castellana: tradición creadora y tradición repetitiva», Romanische Forschungen, LXXX (1968), 13-43.
• 4. Allen, Louise H.: «A Structural Analysis of the Epic Style of the Cid», in Structural Studies on Spanish Themes, ed. Henry R. Kahane and Angelina Pietrangeli (Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press, and Salamanca: Univ., 1959), pp. 341-414.
• 5. Alonso, Dámaso: «Estilo y creación en el Poema del Cid», Escorial, III (1941), 333-72; repr. in Ensayos sobre poesía española (Madrid: Revista de Occidente, 1944), pp. 69-111.
• 6. ——: «El anuncio del estilo directo en el Poema del Cid y en la épica francesa. De Valle-Inclán a la épica de la Edad Media», in Mélanges offerts à Rita Lejeune (Gembloux: Duculot, 1969), I, pp. 379-93.
• 6a. Alonso Baquer, Miguel: «La ética del Cid y la pedagogía militar contemporánea», Revista de la Universidad de Madrid, LXIX (1969: Homenaje a Menéndez Pidal, I), 19-38.
• 7. Aubrun, Charles V.: «La Métrique du Mio Cid est régulière», Bulletin Hispanique, XLIX (1947), pp. 332-72.
• 8. Badía Margarit, Antonio M.: «Dos tipos de lengua cara a cara», in Studia philologica: homenaje ofrecido a Dámaso Alonso, I (Madrid: Gredos, 1960), pp. 115-39.
• 9. Bandera Gómez, Cesáreo: El PMC: poesía, historia, mito (Madrid: Gredos, 1969).
• 10. Barbera, Raymond E.: «The Source and Disposition of Wealth in the PMC», Romance Notes, X (1968-69), 393-9.
• 11. Bénichou, Paul: Creación poética en el romancero tradicional (Madrid: Gredos, 1968).
• 12. Bowra, C. M.: Heroic Poetry (London: Macmillan, 1952).
• 13. Caldera, Ermanno: «L'oratoria nel PMC», in Miscellanea di studi ispanici (Istituto di Letteratura Spagnola e Ispano-Americana, Collana di Studi, X, Pisa, 1965), pp. 5-29.
• 14. Catalán, Diego: «Crónicas generales y cantares de gesta. El Mio Cid de Alfonso X y el del pseudo Ben-Alfaraŷ», HR, XXXI (1963), 195-215 and 291-306.
• 15. ——: «La herencia épica en el romancero oral moderno», in Siete siglos de romancero (Madrid: Gredos, 1969), pp. 135-215.
• 16. Chalon, Louis: «La Bataille du Quarte dans le CMC: Histoire et poésie», MA, LXXII (1966), 425-42.
• 17. ——: «A propos des filles du Cid», MA, LXXIII (1967), 217-37.
• 18. ——: «Le Roi Búcar du Maroc dans l'histoire et dans la poésie épique espagnole», MA, LXXV (1969), 39-49.
• 19. Chaplin, Margaret: «Oral-Formulaic Style in the Epic: a progress report», in Medieval Hispanic Studies Presented to Rita Hamilton (London: Tamesis, 1976), pp. 11-20.
• 20. Correa, Gustavo: «El tema de la honra en el Poema del Cid», HR, XX (1952), 185-99.
• 21. ——: «Estructura y forma en el PMC», HR, XXV (1957), 280-90.
• 22. Criado de Val, Manuel: «Geografía, toponimia e itinerarios del CMC», Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie, LXXXVI (1970), 83-107.
• 23. De Chasca, Edmund: Estructura y forma en el PMC (hacia una explicación de la imitación poética de la historia en la epopeya castellana) (State Univ. of Iowa Studies in Spanish Language and Literature, IX, Iowa City: Univ. Press, and México: Patria, 1956).
• 24. ——: El arte juglaresco en el CMC, 2nd ed. (Madrid: Gredos, 1972; first publ., 1967).
• 25. ——: «Composición escrita y oral en el Poema del Cid», Fi, XII (1966-67 [1969]), 77-94; repr. in 24 pp. 320-36.
• 26. ——: «Toward a Redefinition of Epic Formula in the Light of the CMC», HR, XXXVIII (1970), 251-63.
• 27. ——: «Registro comparativo de los números en el romancero del Cid y en el PMC», Fi, XVI (1972 [1973]), 53-9.
• 28. Deyermond, A. D.: «The Singer of Tales and Mediaeval Spanish Epic», BHS, XLII (1965), 1-8.
• 29. ——: Epic Poetry and the Clergy: studies on the Mocedades de Rodrigo (London: Tamesis, 1969).
• 30. ——: «Structural and Stylistic Patterns in the CMC», in Medieval Studies in Honor of Robert White Linker (Madrid: Castalia, 1973), pp. 55-71.
• 31. —— and Margaret Chaplin: «Folk-Motifs in the Medieval Spanish Epic», PQ, LI (1972), 36-53.
• 32. Di Stefano, Giuseppe: Sincronia e diacronia nel Romanzero (Istituto di Letteratura Spagnola e Ispano-Americana, Collana di Studi, XV, Pisa, 1967).
• 33. Dorfman, Eugene: The Narreme in the Medieval Romance Epic: an introduction to narrative structures (Univ. of Toronto Romance Series, XIII, Toronto, 1959).
• 34. Duggan, Joseph J.: The Song of Roland: formulaic style and poetic craft (Publications of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Univ. of California at Los Angeles, VI, Berkeley; Univ. of California Press, 1973).
• 34a. ——: «Formulaic Diction in the CMC and the Old French Epic», Forum for Modern Language Studies, X (1974), 260-9.
• 35. Dunn, Peter N.: «Theme and Myth in the PMC», R, LXXXIII (1962), 348-69.
• 36. ——: «Levels of Meaning in the PMC», MLN, LXXXV (1970), 109-19.
• 37. Fradejas Lebrero, José: Estudios épicos: el Cid (Aula Magna, III, Ceuta: Instituto Nacional de Enseñanza Media, 1962).
• 38. Galmés de Fuentes, Álvaro: «Épica árabe y épica castellana (problema crítico de sus posibles relaciones)», Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, anno CCCLXVII, quaderno 139 (1970: Atti del convegno internazionale sul tema: La poesia epica e la sua formazione), 195-259.
• 39. Gárate Córdoba, José M.: Las huellas del Cid (Burgos: Aldecoa, 1955).
• 39a. ——: «A más moros, más ganancias. Los moros y la ganancia en el CMC», in Espíritu y milicia en la España medieval (Claves de España, V, Madrid: Publicaciones Españolas, 1967), pp. 111-83.
• 40. Gicovate, Bernardo: «La fecha de composición del PMC», HBalt, XXXIX (1956), 419-22.
• 41. Gilman, Stephen: Tiempo y formas temporales en el Poema del Cid (Madrid: Gredos, 1961).
• 42. ——: «The Poetry of the Poema and the Music of the Cantar», PQ, LI (1972), 1-11.
• 43. Grassotti, Hilda: «La ira regia en León y Castilla», Cuadernos de Historia de España, XLI-XLII (1965 [1967]), 5-135.
• 44. Guglielmi, Nilda: «Cambio y movilidad social en el CMC», Anales de Historia Antigua y Medieval (Buenos Aires), XII (1963-65 [1967]), 43-65.
• 45. Hall, Robert A.: «Old Spanish Stress-Timed Verse and Germanic Superstratum», RPh, XIX (1965-66), 227-34.
• 46. Hamilton, Rita: «Epic Epithets in the PMC», Revue de Littérature Comparée, XXXVI (1962), 161-78.
• 47. Hart, Thomas R.: «The Infantes de Carrión», BHS, XXXIII (1956), 17-24.
• 48. ——: «Hierarchical Patterns in the CMC», Romanic Review, LIII (1962), 161-73.
• 49. ——: «The Rhetoric of (Epic) Fiction: narrative technique in the CMC», PQ, LI (1972), 23-35.
• 50. Harvey, L. P.: «The Metrical Irregularity of the CMC», BHS, XL (1963), 137-43.
• 50a. Hathaway, Robert L.: «The Art of the Epic Epithets in the CMC», HR, XLII (1974), 311-21.
• 51. Hook, David: «The Conquest of Valencia in the CMC», BHS, I (1973), 120-6.
• 52. Horrent, Jules: «La Prise de Castejón. Remarques littéraires sur un passage du CMC», MA, LXIX (1963), 289-97.
• 53. ——: «Tradition poétique du CMC au Xlle siècle», Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, VII (1964), 451-77.
• 54. ——: «Notes de critique textuelle sur le CMC», in Mélanges de linguistique romane et de philologie médiévale offerts à M. Maurice Delbouille (Gembloux: Duculot, 1964), II, pp. 275-89.
• 55. ——: «Localisation du CMC», in Mélanges offerts à René Crozet (Poitiers: Société d'Études Médiévales, 1966), I, pp. 609-15.
• 56. Huerta, Eleazar: Poética del Mio Cid (Santiago de Chile: Nuevo Extremo, 1948).
• 57. Lapesa, Rafael: «La lengua de la poesía épica en los cantares de gesta y en el Romancero viejo», Anuario de Letras, IV (1964), 5-24; repr. in De la Edad Media a nuestros días (Madrid: Gredos, 1967), pp. 9-28.
• 58. Laza Palacios, Manuel: La España del poeta de Mio Cid: comentarios a la Crónica de Alfonso VII (Málaga: El Guadalhorce, 1964).
• 59. Leo, Ulrich: «La Afrenta de Corpes, novela psicológica», NRFH, XIII (1959), 291-304.
• 60. Lloyd, Paul M.: «More on the Date of Composition of the CMC», HBalt, XLII (1959), 488-91.
• 61. Lord, Albert B.: The Singer of Tales (Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature, XXIV, Cambridge, Mass., 1960).
• 62. Marcos Marín, Francisco: Poesía narrativa árabe y épica hispánica: elementos árabes en los orígenes de la épica hispánica (Madrid: Gredos, 1971).
• 62a. Martínez, Salvador: «Corpes: historia poética de una afrenta (De la Historia Roderici a Menéndez Pidal)», Anuario de Letras, XI (1973), 59-103.
• 63. Mateu Llopis, Felipe: «La moneda en el Poema del Cid: un ensayo de interpretación numismática del CMC», BRABLB, XX (1947), 43-56.
• 64. Menéndez Pidal, Ramón (ed.): CMC: texto, gramática y vocabulario, 4th ed. (3 vols., Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1964-69; first ed. 1908-11).
• 65. ——: «Mio Cid el de Valencia», in Castilla, la tradición, el idioma (Colección Austral, 501, Buenos Aires: Espasa-Calpe, 1945), pp. 141-69; first publ. as pamphlet, Valencia, 1943.
• 66. ——: «Poesía e historia en el Mio Cid: el problema de la poesía épica», NRFH, III (1949), 113-29; repr. in De primitiva lírica española y antigua épica (Colección Austral, 1051, Buenos Aires: Espasa-Calpe, 1951), pp. 9-33.
• 67. —— (ed.): Reliquias de la poesía épica española (Madrid: Instituto de Cultura Hispánica and CSIC, 1951).
• 68. ——: «La épica medieval en España y Francia», Comparative Literature, IV (1952), 97-117; repr. in 73 pp. 67-94.
• 69. ——: «Fórmulas épicas en el Poema del Cid», RPh, VII (1953-54), 261-7; repr. in Los godos y la epopeya española: chansons de geste y baladas nórdicas (Colección Austral, 1275, Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1956), pp. 241-55, and in 73 pp. 95-105.
• 70. ——: «Mitología en el Poema del Cid», in Studia philologica et litteraria in honorem L. Spitzer (Bern: Francke, 1958), pp. 331-4; repr. in 73 pp. 179-86.
• 71. ——: La Chanson de Roland et la tradition épique des Francs, 2nd ed. [of La Chanson de Roland y el neotradicionalismo, 1959], revised with René Louis, trans. I.-M. Cluzel (Paris: Picard, 1960).
• 72. ——: «Dos poetas en el CMC», R, LXXXII (1961), 145-200; repr. in 73 pp. 107-62.
• 73. ——: En torno al Poema del Cid (Barcelona: EDHASA, 1963).
• 74. ——: «Los cantores épicos yugoeslavos y los occidentales. El Mío Cid y dos refundidores primitivos», BRABLB, XXXI (1965-66), 195-225.
• 75. Michael, Ian: «A Comparison of the Use of Epic Epithets in the PMC and the Libro de Alexandre», BHS, XXXVIII (1961), 32-41.
• 76. ——: «Geographical Problems in the PMC. I. The exile route», in Medieval Hispanic Studies Presented to Rita Hamilton (London: Tamesis, 1976), pp. 117-28.
• 77. —— (ed.): The Poem of the Cid, with prose trans. by Rita Hamilton and Janet Perry (Manchester: Univ. Press, 1975).
• 78. Montgomery, Thomas: «The Cid and the Count of Barcelona», HR, XXX (1962), 1-11.
• 79. ——: «Narrative Tense Preference in the CMC», RPh, XXI (1967-68), 253-74.
• 80. Montoro, Adrián G.: «La épica medieval española y la 'estructura trifuncional' de los indoeuropeos», Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos, XCV (1974), 554-71.
• 81. Moon, Harold: «Humor in the Poema del Cid», HBalt, XLVI (1963), 700-4.
• 82. Moreno Báez, Enrique: «El estilo románico y el Cantar del Cid», in Actas del II Congreso Internacional de Hispanistas (Nijmegen: Instituto Español de la Univ., 1967), pp. 429-38.
• 83. Myers, Oliver T.: «Assonance and Tense in the Poema del Cid», PMLA, LXXXI (1966), 493-8.
• 84. Nichols, Stephen G.: «The Interaction of Life and Literature in the Peregrinationes ad loca sancta and the Chansons de geste», Speculum, XLIV (1969), 51-77.
• 85. Oelschläger, Victor R. B. (ed.): Poema del Cid in Verse and Prose (New Orleans: Tulane Univ., 1948; repr. Tallahassee, Florida: Bill's Bookstore, n.d.).
• 86. Oleza, Juan de: «Análisis estructural del humorismo en el Poema del Cid», Ligarzas (Valencia), IV (1972: Homenaje a Rafael Benítez Claros), 193-234.
• 87. Olson, Paul: «Symbolic Hierarchy in the Lion Episode of the CMC», MLN, LXXVII (1962), 499-511.
• 88. Orduna, Germán: «El Cantar de las bodas. Las técnicas de estructura y la intervención de los dos juglares en el PMC», in Studia hispanica in honorem R. Lapesa, II (Madrid: Gredos and Cátedra-Seminario Menéndez Pidal, 1974), pp. 411-31.
• 88a. Pardo, Aristóbulo: «Los versos 1-9 del PMC: ¿no comenzaba ahí el Poema?», Thesaurus, XXVII (1972), 261-92.
• 88b. ——: «La trayectoria de Mio Cid y la armadura del Poema», Thesaurus, XXVIII (1973), 46-85.
• 89. Pattison, D. G.: «The Date of the CMC: a linguistic approach», MLR, LXII (1967), 443-50.
• 90. Reig, Carola: El cantar de Sancho II y cerco de Zamora (RFE, anejo XXXVII, Madrid, 1947).
• 91. Riaño Rodríguez, Timoteo: «Del autor y fecha del PMC», Prohemio, II (1971), 467-500.
• 92. Richthofen, Erich von: Estudios épicos medievales, trans. José Pérez Riesco (Madrid: Gredos, 1954), pp. 231-94 and 337-48.
• 93. ——: «La Justice dans l'épilogue du Poème du Cid et de la Chanson de Roland», Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, III (1960), 76-8; PMC section expanded in Nuevos estudios épicos medievales (Madrid: Gredos, 1970), pp. 80-3.
• 94. ——: «Le Problème structurel du Poème du Cid», in Lengua-literatura-folklore: estudios dedicados a Rodolfo Oroz (Santiago de Chile: Univ. de Chile, 1967), pp. 421-31; amplified in Nuevos estudios, pp. 136-46.
• 95. ——: Tradicionalismo épico-novelesco (Barcelona: Planeta, 1972), pp. 11-53; first publ. as article in Anuario de Estudios Medievales, V (1968), and parts of an article in Prohemio, I (1970).
• 96. Riquer, Martín de: «Epopée jongleresque à écouter et épopée romanesque à lire», in La Technique littéraire des chansons de geste: Actes du Colloque de Liège (septembre 1957) (Bibl. de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l'Univ. de Liège, CL, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1959), pp. 75-84.
• 97. Rodríguez Puértolas, Julio: «Un aspecto olvidado en el realismo del PMC», PMLA, LXXXII (1967), 170-7; repr. in De la Edad Media a la edad conflictiva: estudios de literatura española (Madrid: Gredos, 1972), pp. 169-87.
• 98. Rubio García, Luis: Realidad y fantasía en el PMC (Murcia: Univ., 1972).
• 99. Russell, P. E.: «Some Problems of Diplomatic in the CMC and their Implications», MLR, XLVII (1952), 340-9.
• 100. ——: «San Pedro de Cardeña and the Heroic History of the Cid», MAe, XXVII (1958), 57-79.
• 101. Rychner, Jean: La Chanson de geste: essai sur l'art épique des jongleurs (Société de Publications Romanes et Françaises, LIII, Genève: Droz, and Lille: Giard, 1955).
• 102. Salinas, Pedro: «El CMC: poema de la honra», in Ensayos de literatura hispánica (Del CMC a García Lorca) (Madrid: Aguilar, 1958), pp. 27-43; first publ. in Revista de la Univ. Nacional de Colombia, IV (1945), 9-24.
• 103. ——: «La vuelta al esposo: ensayo sobre estructura y sensibilidad en el CMC», Bulletin of Spanish Studies, XXIV (1947), 79-88; repr. in Ensayos, pp. 44-56.
• 104. Sandmann, M.: «Narrative Tenses of the Past in the CMC», in Studies in Romance Philology and French Literature Presented to John Orr (Manchester: Univ. Press, 1953), pp. 258-81.
• 105. Singleton, Mack: «The Two Techniques of the PMC: an interpretative essay», RPh, V (1951-52), 222-7.
• 106. Smith, C. Colin: «Did the Cid Repay the Jews?», R, LXXXVI (1965), 520-38.
• 107. ——: «Latin Histories and Vernacular Epic in Twelfth-Century Spain: similarities of spirit and style», BHS, XLVIII (1971), 1-19.
• 108. ——: «The Personages of the PMC and the Date of the Poem», MLR, LXVI (1971), 580-98.
• 109. —— (ed.): PMC (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972).
• 110. ——: «Per Abbat and the PMC», MAe, XLII (1973), 1-17.
• 111. —— and J. Morris: «On 'Physical' Phrases in Old Spanish Epic and Other Texts», Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society, Literary and Historical Section, XII (1967), 129-90.
• 112. Spitzer, Leo: «Sobre el carácter histórico del CMC», NRFH, II (1948), 105-17; repr. in Romanische Literaturstudien 1936-1956 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1959), pp. 647-63, and in Sobre antigua poesía española (Instituto de Literatura Española, Monografías y Estudios, I, Buenos Aires: Univ., 1962), pp. 9-25.
• 113. Strausser, Mary J.: «Alliteration in the PMC», Romance Notes, XI (1969-1970), 439-43.
• 114. Ubieto Arteta, Antonio: «Observaciones al CMC», Arbor, XXXVII (1957), 145-70.
• 115. ——: «El CMC y algunos problemas históricos», Ligarzos (Valencia), IV (1972: Homenaje a Rafael Benítez Claros), 5-192; also publ. as a book (Valencia: Anubar, 1973).
• 116. Uriarte Rebaudi, Lía N.: «Un motivo folklórico en el Poema del Cid», Fi, XVI (1972 [1973]), 215-30.
• 117. Van Emden, W. G.: «'La bataille est aduree endementres': traditionalism and individualism in chanson-de-geste studies», Nottingham Medieval Studies, XIII (1969), 3-26.
• 118. Vàrvaro, Alberto: «Dalla storia alia poesia epica: Álvar Fáñez», in Studi di filologia romanza offerti a Silvio Pellegrini (Padova: Liviani, 1971), pp. 655-65.
• 119. Walker, Roger M.: «The Role of the King and the Poet's Intentions in the PMC», in Medieval Hispanic Studies Presented to Rita Hamilton (London: Tamesis, 1976), pp. 257-66.
• 120. Walsh, John K.: «Religious Motifs in the Early Spanish Epic», Revista Hispánica Moderna, XXXVI (1970-71 [1974]), 165-72.
• 121. Waltman, Franklin M.: Concordance to PMC (University Park: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, 1972).
• 122. ——: «Formulaic Expression and Unity of Authorship in the PMC», HBalt, LVI (1973), 569-78.
• 123. ——: «Synonym Choice in the CMC», HBalt, LVII (1974), 452-61.
• 124. Webber, Ruth House: «Un aspecto estilístico del CMC», Anuario de Estudios Medievales, II (1965), 485-96.
• 125. ——: «Narrative Organization of the CMC, Olifant, I, no. 2 (Dec. 1973), 21-34.
• 126. Zahareas, Anthony: «The Cid's Legal Action at the Court of Toledo», Romanic Review, LV (1964), 161-72.