Menéndez Pidal in Paris, 1939: His Private Note to Félix Lecoy about Juan Ruiz

MENÉNDEZ PIDAL IN PARIS, 1939: HIS PRIVATE NOTE TO FÉLIX LECOY ABOUTJUAN RUIZ Steven D. Kirby Eastern Michigan University In early 2005, it was my good fortune to acquire what had been Félix Lecoy's personal copy of his classic study Recherches sur le Libro de buen amor de Juan Ruiz, Archiprêtre de Hita (Paris: Droz, 1938).1 One thing that makes this particular copy special is die fact that it contains original, autograph letters of acknowledgement (all dated in late February, 1939)'- from three eminent scholars to whom Lecoy had sent copies ofhis book: Clovis Brunei,3 AlfredJeanroy,4 and Ramón Menéndez Pidal. Aside from these, it contains a few scattered handwritten additions (in pencil or ballpoint pen) by Lecoy to the printed text of his study. These include a list of die seven published reviews ofthe book (1939-1944), supplementary bibliographical references to notes on six pages of the text, and correction of one J Lecoy lived from 23 December 1003 until 23 November 1997, exactly one month prior to his ninety-fourth birthday. I purchased the volume from one of Paris's leading antiquarian dealers in scholarly books. ': As the colophon makes clear, Lecoy's book finished its press run on 20 September, 1938. Allowing for binding and distribution, and tojudge from the dates ofthe tliree letters, it apparently began circulating in late 1938 or very early 1939. 3 Brunei was chiefly known for his work on medieval French courtly romances and for studies of Old Provençal texts: D.C. Cabeen 94, 221, 231, 233 and 267. 4Jeanrovwas chiefly known for his work on the origins and history ofFrench poetry, particularly that ofthe troubadours: Cabeen-Holmes 1, 24, 60, 61. 86, 141, 143, 144, 14547 , 148, 150, 157, 160, 161, 174, 177, 189, 221-22, 224, 225, 226-27, 231 and 235. But his reputation in medieval French studies liad a breadth comparable to that ofMenéndez Pidal in medieval Spanish, despite a strong tendency to view things from a gallocentric perspective: Deyermond, "Prologue" to Recherches reprint, xi. La corónica 34.1 (Fall, 2005): 71-78 72Steven D. KirbyLa colònica 34.1, 2005 minor typographical error (on > ont, noted in the erratum [sic], p. 372) on p. 344, line 18." It is impossible to date these scattered additions in Lecoy's own hand with any great precision. Certainly the listed reviews all postdate, ofcourse, the publication dates ofthe respective published evaluations, though thev could also have been noted manv years later, when the end of World War II permitted normal communication to resume. Other changes or additions in pencil could have been written at any time. The few additions in ballpoint pen must be from 1951 or later, when, according to forensic evidence, the ballpoint pen reached the open marketplace.''1 The respective letters from Clovis Brunei and „Vlfred Jcanroy fundamentally express each man's gratitude for the volume received and hearty congratulations to Lecov for His achievement. Brunei's letter also indicates that he had previously seen the underlying thesis in connection with his duties at the École des Hautes Etudes in Paris. Jeanrov's letter records his ovni long-standing and deep interest in "' The list ofreviews is a routine mntlei for viituallv all authors and so nothing special can be deduced from this particular addition. But the fact that his bibliographical additions fall exclusively in two categories (chapter VI. "Juan Ruiz conteur' about the Archpriest as a storv teller. 155 n3. 15!) n4. H53 n2. 164 n2. 165 n3; and chapter VIIl, "L'inspiration goliardique" on Goliardie influences. 221 n5) suggests that these areas were the only ones which continued to inspire his attention in later years (after 19 17) when he was principally involved with the study of medieval French !iteratine m his chair at the Collège de France. To the best ofmy knowledge, these meager notes ale the only trace of subsequent work by Lecov on the LBA after publication ofhis book and thev certainly do not appear to constitute material intended for am meaningful revision ofhis study, which was twice reprinted (in 1974 and in 1 ',19S) with no textual changes...