Language, Knowledge, and Truth Theme Analysis

In several short scenes, the townspeople in Fuente Ovejuna discuss various forms of language, including poetry, prophecy, academic books, or even everyday euphemisms. In each instance, one of the townspeople criticizes these forms of language, noting that flowery, overly sweet, or convoluted language can be intentionally misleading and make others think that someone is knowledgeable even if what they are saying is baseless or empty. Through these short discussions, the play emphasizes that praiseworthy, complex, or intelligent language should not be automatically accepted as expertise or truth.

The townspeople of Fuente Ovejuna emphasize that euphemism or academic writing (particularly language that is typical of people in the city rather than rural areas) can be misleading. When the play introduces the villagers for the first time, the villagers discuss how people in the city follow the fashion of using the opposite of what they mean when they want to insult others. For example, Laurencia criticizes their description of people who show mercy as “weaklings,” or that someone who speaks their mind is considered “rash.” Frondoso also notes that when they want to be polite, they temper their language: a blind person might be called “myopic.” In this way, Laurencia and Frondoso demonstrate that euphemistic language can be used to manipulate others’ perceptions, because this language doesn’t convey the full truth. Leonelo, a villager who has just returned from the University of Salamanca, emphasizes the same point about books, which have just come into fashion. He notes that books allow “so-called experts” to publish “pure rubbish in / The guise of wisdom,” and also explains that people are able to publish in someone else’s name to harm their reputation—and in fact, this often happened to the playwright, Lope de Vega. Thus, the play criticizes how language and books can distort people’s perceptions of an author’s expertise.

Flowery language is equally criticized, because people believe it is praiseworthy—but in reality, it has no substance or truth. Leonelo notes that the only thing he learned from the University of Salamanca is how to write “long-winded stuff, all froth / That only leads to more confusion.” In this way, the play critiques how language that is often praised or believed to convey expertise actually leads to less understanding. And Mengo, who is illiterate, criticizes flowery language and argues that it is unnecessary. He notes that untalented poets are like men making fritters, throwing deformed lumps of dough in the pot and then covering up the fritters’ bad taste afterward with honey. This metaphor speaks to how bad poets try to cover up their lack of talent with sweetness. By contrast, Mengo uses a plain metaphor in order to effectively communicate his message, showing the power of that plain language in contrast to bad poetry’s oversweetness and clumsiness.

The play’s discussions of prophecy and wisdom also illustrate that people who claim expertise are often those who know the least, while a person willing to learn is the wisest of all. Esteban notes that forecasters (prophesiers in the town) are often useless; they “carry on like theologians / Debating what has and will occur,” and that “the one who seems / The wisest is the greatest fool.” This implies that those who try to boost their reputation by claiming their prophecies are accurate or by giving a great debate, in reality usually prove to be the most useless—another critique of those who try to use language to claim expertise. The play contrasts these “experts” with the King and Queen, who listen to reason. When the King learns that the villagers in Fuente Ovejuna killed their lord, the Commander, he sends a judge to investigate what happened and then he and Isabel question the villagers themselves. At first, they call the villagers “assassins” and “villains,” but hearing the villager’s plain tale about the Commander’s abuses convinces the King to change his mind about the villagers, and he does not punish them. For this, Frondoso calls the King “the wisest ruler,” suggesting that true wisdom is not about formal education or complex language. Instead, it’s about a willingness to listen to reason and make proper judgment accordingly.

De Vega had a personal investment in language and knowledge: up until this point, most plays were written in complex language and verse. De Vega countered this standard, saying of the common audience member, “Let us then speak to him in the language of fools, since it is he who pays us.” Thus, the villagers’ attitudes in Fuente Ovejuna are in keeping with this conviction: plain language is the clearest and best, while complex, flowery language doesn’t truly convey knowledge or truth.