A connection between our story and Europe at once suggests itself. “Dr. Knowall” (Grimm, No. 98) is perhaps the best-known, though by no means the fullest, Western version. Bolte and Polívka (2 [1915] : 402) give the skeleton of the cycle as follows:—
A¹ A peasant with the name of Crab (Cricket, Rat), who buys a physician’s costume and calls himself Dr. Knowall, or (A²) who would like to satiate himself once with three days’ eating, (B) discovers the thieves who have stolen from a distinguished gentleman a ring (treasure), by calling out upon the entrance of the servants (or at the end of the three days), “That is the first (second, third)!” (C) He also guesses what is in the covered dish (or closed hand) while commiserating himself, “Poor Crab (Cricket, Rat)!” (D¹) Through a purgative he by chance helps to find a stolen horse, or (D²) he discovers the horse that has previously been concealed by him. (E) He gets a living among the peasants, upon whom he has made an impression with a short or unintelligible sermon or through the crashing-down of the pulpit, which has previously been sawed through by him.
Bolte lists over a hundred and fifty stories containing one or more incidents of this cycle. The discovery of the ring inside a domestic fowl (sometimes animal) is found in most of the European versions, as is likewise the “ejaculation guess” (our C³ and G).
These two details, however, are also found in Oriental forms of the story, which, as a whole, have some peculiarly distinctive traits. These (see Bolte-Polívka, 2 : 407) are (1) the rôle of the wife, (2) the collapsing of the room, (3) the burning of the magic book. The appearance in the Philippine versions of two of these motifs (one in modified form), together with a third (the betting-contest between the two kings, which is undoubtedly Eastern in origin), leads us to believe that our story of “Juan the Guesser” is in large measure descended directly from Oriental tradition, though it may owe something to Occidental influence.
In two of our variants it is the mother who in her fond pride places her son in jeopardy of losing his head. As the hero is a young bachelor when the story opens, the exploitation of his prowess would naturally devolve upon his mother. The burning of the magic book is found in version c, though the incident of the collapsing of the room or house is lacking in all our variants. The most characteristic episode, however, in the Philippine members of this cycle, is the betting-contest between the two kings. It is introduced five times into the four tales. Its only other occurrence that I know of in this cycle is in an Arabian story cited by Cosquin (2 : 192), which follows.
One day, when the king was boasting of his conjurer before some other kings, they said to him, “We too have some diviners. Let us compare their wits with the wisdom of your man.” The kings then buried three pots,—one filled with milk, another with honey, and the third with pitch. The conjurers of the other kings could not say what was in the pots. Then Asfour (the hero) was called. He turned to his wife, and said, “All this (trouble) comes of you. We could have left the country. The first (time) it was milk; the second, honey; the third, pitch.” The kings were dumfounded. “He has named the milk, the honey, and the pitch without hesitation,” they said, and they gave him a pension.
The close resemblance between this detail and the corresponding one (F) in “Juan the Guesser” is immediately evident. The fact that the difficulty in Juan’s career is overcome, not by an “ejaculation guess,” but by a providential accident (much the same thing, however), does not decrease the significance of the two passages.
That the betting-contest between the two kings is an Oriental conception (very likely based on actual early custom) is further borne out by its appearance in a remarkable group of Eastern stories of the “Clever Lass” type (see Child, English and Scottish Ballads, 1 : 11). “The gist of these narratives,” writes Professor Child, “is that one king propounds tasks to another; in the earlier ones, with the intent to discover whether his brother-monarch enjoys the aid of such counsellors as will make an attack on him dangerous; in the later, with the demand that he shall acquit himself satisfactorily, or suffer a forfeit: and the king is delivered from a serious strait by the sagacity either of a minister . . . or of the daughter of his minister, who came to her father’s assistance .... These tasks are always such as require ingenuity of one kind or another, whether in devising practical experiments, in contriving subterfuges, in solving riddles, or even in constructing compliments.”
One other Oriental variant of this story may be cited because of its similarity to two of our tales (cf. our episodes C and C²). This is an Anamese version, printed in the “Chrestomathie cochin-chinoise” (Paris, 1872), 1 : 30:—