%\ "m 'm ^ -m n ^ l^ '^ % H. M, 1^^ ■^? H m in ^^ >a ^ ' • ■ 1 ..^- -..g^i^ tt rt al^ 1^ I'f^ m M k ^n. '^■. 1^. t^^ ^, H 'f^: Pi l\.f^^ ?^i: I'v l\ i\ 1^ 1^^ Pi K ^- ; ,^ i' iSit #is!$^' ^fmM M ^ m ¥. u M )*\ ^, ^^i ^^. m. m. i^. i^v u h U. m '^, ¥. m.^ i •. v\' 1 i^#f*iltt^^:-^-^ -■ ■^•■- -H w "W fs li f^. ^B^ IH %\ r.: « )i^ )is.. !■;? 114 k i« m^ w_ m^ ]^. r^
i i'llwimkm iM ^ . -^^^ - -m u m ¥' n ^Ji K H H .» )\ n n h u ^. m.. k m }\ i •
■.•i I'if i^g^'i^tsi^i^ ■# ii^ M la 1^ ¥ K M w. M M i^. k K*^ ^- ^^ H ;?«^ ^i, ;?«r, )^ i. ^^'
I ili*i3t5#M#rii -^i^ ^/^ m m w m m ^ ^^ m m ^ u u m u i^ w H u^^. m i\ :
l'iH% ^^' - - ■-.r-^ W'^ .w ^ :m M w ^ ^ 1^ ^ !^ ^'^^ t Be 1^ fe i*f i» lij nf, N^ ^5^ 1'^ !-^
m m m¥ ^ '^^ M '^m ^ ^^ ¥\ ^ ¥i n u ¥. t^. n ^k j^^.i^, ^- '>i .H P, ¥., 1^, '*^, k^, ^^> '-j I viir -m 'M m \i \l^ mm "^ ¥' ^. \i^ P; )c « 1^, M i^, m. M m ^, ^'\ \^^ IK m.. H '^'^ J*^. ^\ ^^,
% -11 //^^ ti w ^ W W^if It :m # ^ » ^' W "m mn n n. ^, i^ % u n fk m, r h
f w\ / W W » V ^ K m ^ % w n^ w. ^ )^ ^ ¥ it^ K ^^ W 1^. .^* ?\ 1^ 1^, fe^ 1^, w^ ^
^^W 'M w M W\ w w /^M "^ ^' M M 11 ^. w * ^ ife K ^ >?^ « ri II ife b:^ III .^. i^^^ i\ V w aV^^^i \t V ^ w^ n '1^ y^ m lii n n r ^? 5« m i^ ^« j^ t^ h.. m u ¥ n. m i,
■^ *'^^ ■>^i ^^^ VV V ¥ ¥ w W li It M ^ )i )*! -^^ M. P. 14 1^ u M iri ^ 14 a u 1/ ' -^^ W 1 "iVm ¥V Mtf'^m -^^ 1^ fti ^ 1?^ 1^ >i M p{ B m ^1 II it II 1^, 1\ ^«, t?, 1^, ^ "■^ W ¥ 'i/^ w 1^ M M ^i ^1 w k i«s- IS u m )4 )^ ^^ U l^. iti\ .'
s W k W \| W ¥ M II M% ^^ U W M m ¥ l^ U U k II -m u Kp. M )l 1^ >^ W n >;r
« ^^V if m B » ¥ ^ li % 1^ M n '|i^ ^^4 !% 1^ ^ ^ iv ^ H 1^^ m ^ !ri n n '^
, :/i.!i4 /■■■^ ■■ ^/#W% -Will li M m m w ^^ 1^' p t^ ^ 1^ m ^; ^ i^o« ^n^ r^ ^ i*f ^ I r !■ !■ 1^ y WM i^«' ill M P 103^ ¥ f^- r »■ K M M :^ 1^ ^,¥ m y F '^^ '5.^ f
^^^^^^%m^:::-0im^
^y^N^N
fttn-
iiv
^A^^^A^^^Ai
■^^^^.A)
.^A.AAA^O^
i^f^m^f^/mh
^T^;:^:-'2:^>^^
W(%A4^A«f,;
.'--^-SJ^?^^»?*^'*«
«^.!«»«ft:
„fism-
aC^W^aK
!MftA«/AC':^'}
tmm
v^o^^^i^^^^^^ol^^
t?S:;:-^c%^«^»^?«S?!^v
\^A/^A'*^A»A.'-^'-'"■'^/
>A>^^.^^^fi,^AAi
^f\f^m^^h^,^f\f\rf^^
s«*?Mt*»«8»s*S:^sr^
.A/(n/^' "^nAryAnUm
-aA^'^aAm/
^^'C
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE AKSOPIC FABLE
IN NICOLE BOZON.
A dissertation submitted to the Board of University Studies of the Johns Hopkins Uni- versity in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
by
Philip Warner Harry.
Baltimore, June, 1903.
1^43^1
Table of Contents.
page
Prefatory Note i^ ii
1, Introduction ■ ■ i
a. Account of Nicole Bozon 1
b. Account of the Manuscripts 3
c. Character of the Contes 6
d. Account of the Sources of th^ Fables 8
e. Difficulties of the Subject 14
f. Plan of the Work 16
g. Division of the Subject 19
h. Scheme of Fable Collections 20
i. Comparative Table of Versions 22
j. Objects of Investigation 27
2. PART I: Sources of the Individual Fables
a. Fables derived from f!arie de France, or
a Common Source 29
b. Fables derived from Odo of Sherington 109
c. Fables derived from fUscellaneous
Soixrc es 126
d. Fables derived from Undetermined Sources- -153
3. PART II: General Discussion of Bozon's Sources --158
a. An English Fable Collection as a Source -- 159
b. A French Fable Collection as a Source 171
c. The Animal Epic as a Source 179
d. The Sources of Bozon's florals 183
e. Conclusion 189
4, Bibliography 194
A. Original Texts 194
B. Editions and Studies 204
C. Books of Reference 217
D. On Nicole Bozon 221
a. Manuscripts 221
b. Descriptions of Manuscripts 222
c. Biographical Notices 223
d. Text Editions 225
e. Reviews 226
f. Studies and Notes 228
g. Extracts and References
List of Abbreviations 230
Biography. 231
Prefatory Note. -oo-
For some years past the v/ork of the Romance Seminary of the Johns Hopkins University has been centered upon the Fables of Marie de France. Soon after my admission to the Seminary in the autiamn of 1899, my attention was directed to the French fables contained in the Pontes Moralises of Nicole Bozon. The evident relationship existing between certain fables of Bozon and the corresponding fables of Marie de France, together with the peculiar character of the majority of Bozon' s fables, have led me to undertake a comparative study of the Aesopic fable as found in his ser- mons.
Since the text was published in 1S89, the stray fa- bles contained therein have been the subject of but one study; namely, that of Herlet in his Asopisehe Fabel im Mittelalter. Herlet points out in this monograph the close agreement between the versions of Bozon and those of Marie de France in a few instances only, but he has not discussed any of the other questions connected with Bozon' s fables.
My aim in the present investigation is to ascertain, as far as possible, the various sources to which Bozon is
ii
indebted, and to determine his method of treatinf;: the ma- terial thus borx-O'ved. Of special interest are the ques- tions raised by his use of Enfrlish phrases, as well as French rimes, in his prose text.
The materials for this monograph have b"en feathered mainly from the libraries of the Johns Hopkins University and the Peabody Institute of Baltimore. The Boston Public Library and the Library of Congress at V/ashington have also been drawn upon for material, as well as the data on fable literature that have been collected by the members of the Romance Seminary of the Johns Hopkins University. Purine the Academic year, 1901-1902, while I held the position of Instructor of Modern Languages at the University of Maine, I was able to continue the investigation of my subject through books on Fable Literature sent to me from various public libraries. To the officials of these libraries I desire herewith to extend my thanks for the courtesy they have shown to me.
P. H.
Introduction.
a. Account of Nicole Bozon.
In the year 1889, the Societe des Anciens Textes Prancais published a book entitled "Les Pontes Moralises
c ^
de Nicole Bozon, edited by Paul Meyer in collaboration with
(1) Miss L. Toulmin Smith.
Nicole Bozon was an English writer whose works in the French language W'^re discovered by M. Meyer in the course of his researches in the libraries of England. So little is known of this author, that in order to gain any infomiation concex-ning his personality we must depend upon the text itself, and, even here, biographical data are un- fortunately scarce. The editor states that his language is the degenerate French spoken, and especially written^ in Eng- land at the end of the thirteenth and in the first half of the fourteenth centuries. Judging from the character of the language and from certain details gather-ed from the text itself, as -./ell as from the probable age of the manu-
(1) I draw from this work the facts concerning the manu- scripts and the Latin translation, as well as the little that is known of the author's life.
scripts, it appears that the contes must have been written
about 1320.
In determining Bozon's nationality and the place
where he lived, M. Mever cites two passages which are found
(1) in his seinnons. In one place, Bozon speaks of the sheep
thao have come from Scotland:
Com .1 eo mesmes ay veu de berbitz qe
vyndront de Escoce. (2) In another place he mentions two rivers of North-
eni England, the Trent and the Derwent. From these two
facts the editor draws the conclusion that Bozon lived in
the Northern part of England. Another point may be noted
(S) which confirms this view. Bozon x-elates a story which he
says was common in suth pays :
Sicom 1 ' em dit .ladys de un peipineresce en
suth pays de un femme ge fust apelle
Leve in yi rokke.
En suth pays can mean here only the Southern part of England. Leve in yi rokke is a fictitious English name.
(2) Cf. C._W^_de_B_ozon, par. 78, p. 96.
(3) " " " "96, p. 117,
and, moreover, Bozon ends his story with two English verses.
b. Account of the Manuscripts,
The editor ori-^inally discovered the contes in two
manuscripts, one at London, the other at Cheltenham, and in
continuing his researches he found, in a Harley manuscript
of the British f'useum, a translation in Latin prose of part
of the work of Bozon. The London manuscript belongs to the
library of the Society of Gray's Inn (where it bears the
number 12) ; the Cheltenham manuscript was formerly of the
library of Sir Thomas Phillipps, having the shelf mmber
(1) 8366. As a^ basis for his text the editor has taken the
(2) manuscript of Gray's Inn.
The Latin version, v/hich is published along vdth the
Old-French taxt, would bear witness to the fact that these
(1) For a description of the Cheltenham manuscripts see Rom. XIII (1884), pp. 497-541.
(2) His reasons for selecting this text are the following: (1) The disappearance of leaf 145, which has caused to
disappear the exemplum of paragraph 44, and also paragraphs 45, 46, and the omission by the copyist of paragraphs 87 to 96, together v/ith the absence of paragraphs 144-145, which in the other manuscript are the final paragraphs. (2) In the manuscript of Gray's Inn the sermons ^rn divided in- to paragraphs and are provided with suitable titles, and thebe paragraphs in turn are generally in two parts: one
(over)
contes had, for a time at least, a certain vogue. It is
only fragmentary, however, and is contained in a Harley
mamiscript (no. 1288), '.vhich was written at the end of the
(1) fourteenth century. The translator seems to have m'-ide use
of a good text, which he has translated, though in a some- what mediocre way, with fidelity. It is not evident, how- ever, that he had under his eye either of the two extant
(2) manuscripts of the original Old-French texts. In some
places he has apparently developed his thesis, Avhile in other places he has modified Bozon's text. There is no proof that the text he translated was a more developed form of them than that which we have had preserved to us. A pe- culiarity of this version is that it cont^.ins a certain niunber of English words which are not found in the original text; but it is to be noted that these are simply irlosses,
part the philosophic theme, the other the moral applica- tion.
(1) In the printed catalogue it is indicated thus:
Denique sequitur Tractatus (in fine mancus) aliena manu. partim super mambranas. atque partim super chartas exaratus ; qui ab his verbis incipit: "In is to parvo Libel- lo sive Opusculo potest gixis invenire multipl ex_Exemplum pro materi.js diversis unde possit addisci ad reprobandum Malum, scilicet Peccatum ; et ad eligendum sive amplexandum Bontun. scilicet Virtutes et Opera bona. "
(2) Cf. C. M.^ de Bo^zon, p. LXXI , note 2.
introduced in order to aid the English reader.
In the Latin version of the contes only thirty-seven paragraphs have been preserved, which correspond to the following numbers of the London manuscript: 1-20, 142, 143, 121-133, 21, 22. These thirty-seven paragraphs con- tain fourteen Aesopic fables. They are:
Bozon.
1. Lion as Judge 4.
2. Fox and Crow 8.
3. Crow and Flies 10.
4. Kite and Crow 14,
5. Thrush and Starling 1!3.
6. Owl and Hawk 17.
7. Peacock and Destiny 18.
8. Ass' Pleart 142.
9. Cat and Mice 121.
10. Sheep and Fox 123.
11. Lion and House 129.
12. Man and Oxen 130.
13. Lion and Companions 131.
14. Wolf and Rabbit 21.
Character of the Contes.
Nicole Bozon was a preacher, a frere mineur, who wrote both in prose and in verse. It is only with his prose wox'ks, however,- that the present dissertation will deal. These consist of a series of short sermons which are in re- ality little more than a collection of exempla; that is, of stories, real or fictitious, followed by a moral appli- cation. At The time when Bozon wrote, the authors of ser- mons had the custom, without doubt in order to render their homilies more attractive, of interspersing them with anec- dotes of various sorts, to which they gave the general name of parables, Instiij.ction through such parables is a prac- tice dating from remote antiquity; preachers were induced to adopt this method, not so much for the sake of illiistrat- ing their discourses, as making a lasting impression on '^he minds of their illiterate hearers, Bozon' s prose works are full of such ex empl a , and many of them are extremely inter- esting from a number of points of vipw.
The special features of the work in question may be considered to belong to three general cl=.sses, distinguish- ed as follows: (1) Facts of Natural History, (2) Tales, (S)
Fables,
The purpose of this dissertation is to discover, if possible, to what collection (or collections) of fables Bo- zon had access, as well as to discuss the /?;eneral character of the fables contained in the v/ork of oixr author. .
There are several features that distin^ruish the fa- bles found in Bozon from those occurring in works of a sim- ilar character, and that make them worthy of serious study.
In the first place, some of his fables end with Eneiish
(1) verses or an English proverb. The ending of a fable with
English verses was not at all uncomrrion amonfr Eozon's con-
(2) temporaries, but those occurring in his fables are of es- pecial interest as probably indicating an English source for the fables in question.
A second noteworthy feature in certain fables of our
author is the occurrence in the body of the text of what
(3)
appear to be the debris of French verses.
This character-
istic IS so evident in the case of one fable that the edit-
(4) ors have printed nearly the whole of it in verse form.
(1) Cf. C.M.de Pozon. paragraphs 14,17,34,121,128.
(2) Cf. numerous examples in Thomas Wright's Latin Stories.
(3) Cf. C.M.de Eozon, paragraphs 28,30,32,56,120,121,129,
135.
(4) Cf. C. M. de Bozon, par. 135.
A third .characteristic peculiar to Rozon is the
large prororti on of fables which occur in his wox-k only. ^Vhether these were actually invented by our author- himself , or whether he derived them from sources which have not come down to us as far as known, is a question v;hich cannot be definitely settled.
d. Account of the Sources of the Fables.
In a collection of notes which follow the text of
the contes , the editor has sought, wherever T;ossible, to
note the source on which Bozon drew for each fable. Here
(1) are his results: Of the thirty-nine fables which he has
discussed, he is sure of having discovered the original source of only five fables (fables 5, J, 16, 28 from Odo of Sherington; fable 32 from Marie de France); for seven oth- ers (fables 47,61,75,91,94,130,142) he has indicated the probable source. In these seven cases M. Moyer holds it as necessary to suppose that Bozon thought best to modify the fables, yet he sees no reason for this supposition,
(1) Two fables are omitted in the table (p. XVII), but are mentioned on page XIX and in the notes.
since the details of the fable (or story) must have been for the author only of secondary imrortance. Neither do the modifications appear to come fron an imperfect memory. Finally, for seven fables (fables 10,14,50,53 b ,56 ,114 ,155) the editor does not indicate parallel versions, and yet he does not believe it probable that Bozon invented them.
To explain this difficulty M. Meyer sur^-ests that in the cases mentioned, and in others still, Bozon might have made use of a collection of fables closely related to that of Marie de France. Marie translated into French verse a book of English fables at the end of tl^ie twelfth century. Rozon could have known it, in a rejuvenated form, at the beginning of the fourteenth century. One could con- sider then as coming from the original English col"" ection,
(1) the English verses which form the moral of certain fables.
The editor, however, apparently not v/holly convinced that this is the case, offers another hypothesis which he says is worthy of examination. In certain fables and apo- logues one may rocognize debris of French verses. Mow, it is suggested that Bozon iiay have made use of a book of An-
il) Cf. C.M.de Bozon. par. 14,121,123.
(2) Cf. " " " 50,55,120,121,129.
10
glo-Norrnan fables, to-day lost, which would have had^ in part, the same soui'ce as Marie de France, and contained, in addition certain fables of v/hich the source is not kno-vn to-day: In this manner the English verses could be ex- plained.
The distinguished editor, however, does not insist on this hypothesis. He points out that irarments of verse
exist in Bozon's works also, thoup;h rarely, outside of the
(1) fables; that is, in The sermons proper, and he suf^gests
that Bozon, who was a poet as well as a rrose writer, may
have wished to embellish his prose works with rimes.
The only definite result drawn from this discussion
is that Bozon knew a collection of fables, written very
probably in England, either in English or in French, which
had in part the same source as the collection of Ka-vie de
France.
(2) Gaston Paris, in speaking of Bozon, states that the
fables and contes in his sennons appear to be from an Eng- lish source, '.vhile Hrane in his introduction to Jacques de
(1) Cf. CM. de Bozon, pp. 9,115,121,133. See also Pt. II,P.;7;^-
(2) Cf. La Litterature Fran^aise au Moyen&ge (Deuxieme edi- tion) . p»119. On page 223 of this same wo A , M.Paris places Bozon in the thirteenth century; in the chronological table however, he is put in the fourteenth century.
11
(1)
Vitry expresses the belief that the exempla of Bozon are
taken largely from some An^lo-Norman collection now lost.
There has been but one critical study of the fables
of Eozon since the edition of the ',ext, and this is merely
a brief discussion by Herlet in his work on Fable Litera-
(2) ture in the Middle Ages. The author believes that M. ??ey-
er has not shomi clearly enoiigh the relationship between
Bozon and Marie de France. He adds the following fables to
the editor's list of those fables which depend upon Marie
de France:
( 20 ) (1) Fables taken directly from Marie:
23(Marie JvXI)s); 42 (Marie LXXI ) ; 47
(Marie LI); 50 (Marie CI); 130 (Marie LXXXIV).
(2) Fables dependent in part on Marie: 17 (Marie LXXIX) ; 18 (Marie XXXI); 55 (Marie IV); 61 (Marie LVI ) ; 94 (Marie XLIX) ; 116 (Marie XCVIII, Odo XXXIX); 142 (Marie LXX).
For the following fables Herlet "-ives Odo of Sherington
(1) Cf. Crane, F.xempla of Jacques de Vitry, p. CXTI,
(2) Cf. Herlet, Asopische Fabel im Mittelelter, Bamberg,
1892, pp. 51-60.
(3) The references here to Marie de France correspond to Warnke's edition of Marie's fables, and not to Roquefort's edition as given by Herlet.
12
as t>ie source of Rozon:
S (Odo LXX); 15 (Odo XI); 17 (Odo IV); 21
(Odo LVIII); 46 (Odo LXXIv) ; 53 (Odo LXIV) ;
120 (Odo X.<XIII); 121 (Odo LIV a); 128 (Odo XIX).
According to Herlet, Bozon has been influenced by the Romulus Vule^aris tradition in regard to the following fa- bles :
26 (Rom. Vulgaris, Bk. I. 1); SO (Rom. Vulgaris , Bk, IV., 3); 49 (Rom. Vulgaris, Bk . I . , 2); 131 (xRom. Vulgaris, Bk . I., 6).
Such, in general, are the results reached by Herlet. It is clear that many points in reference to the true char- acter of the work of Bozon remain unsettled. Herlet has neither discussed the chief characteristics of the fables of Bozon, nor the probability of an English or a French source.
Nothing further had been written concerning the fa- bles of Bozon until the year 1896, when Hervieux, in his
(1) work on Odo of Sherington, placed Bozon as dependent for
(1) Cf. Hervieux, Etude sur les Fables et las Paraboles
d'Eudes de Cheriton. p. 92.
13
the greater part of his fables, at least, on Odo. Hervieux holds that Bozon made use of a collection containing the fables of Odo of Sherington and other fables, but that the borrowings were made mostly from Odo, •md for this reason he assigns Bozon a place among the imitators of this fabu- list. He is convinced that Bozon really translated the
text of Odo of Sherington in other cases than tliose indicat-
(1) ed by M. Meyer. In short, he holds that Bozon has trans- lated, or at least paraphrased, the the majority of his fables from this fabulist.
It is evident, therefore, from these differences of opinion regarding the character of the fables of Bozon, that numerous questions arise which have not, and perhaps cannot, receive a perfectly satisfactory solution. But since the appearance of the text of Nicole Bozon, Hervieux has published a second edition of his work on the Latin Fabulists, in which several fables appear that were not noted in his first edition. He has also edited the fables
of Odo of Sherington, the introduction to which throws much
(2) light upon related fable collections. Warnke has also is-
(1) Cf. p. 8 .
(2) Warnke, Die Fabelin der Marie de France. Halle, 1S9S, (vol. VI. of Bibliotheca Normannica, edited by H. SuchierA
14
sued a new edition of the fables of Mario de Prance, with a valuable introduction to the same. A renewed and more car-efiil study of the fables of Bozon, made ^vith the aid of these works, leads to a nimiber of interesting results.
^ . Difficulties of the Subject.
To detennine the exact relation existing among the fables of the various fable collections is, in most cases, extrsTiely difficult, owing to the complexity of the problem presented to the investigator. Each fable niust be careful- ly compared with the corresponding fables in other collec- tions in order to ascertain the relationship, if any, which exists among them. To do this it is necessary to take up each separate motif and make it the subject of a compara- tive study. Thus, it is only by a careful comparison of the fables of Bozon v/ith the corresponding versions found in the various fable collections that any tnie ligiit can be thrown on the sources of the fables cited here and there in his work.
One reason why this subject is especially difficult is the fact that in the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth
15
centuries pious authors, under the pretext of edifying and, at the same time, amusing their readers, put into their collections all sorts of legends, jests, tales and fables. These stories were of Oriental, Latin, French and English origin, and in their passage from one language to another, it is not surprising that they have not, as a rule, pre- served their original character. They fall into the hands of redactors who have, or think they have, literary ability, and who do not feel obliged to respect the original text. To folloAv four or five authors through their versions of these fables, to study v/hat the fables have become in the hands of the different poets, to note the changes to which the fables have been subjected, to examine the new moral applications tiiat have been dravm from them,- all this is necessary and can be accomplished only by dealing with the subject systematically in the minutest details.
Two things make this comparison especially difficult in regard to the fables of Bozon; namely, the fact that many of his fables are only given summarily, the fable be- ing introduced frequently in the following manner: "Ici on
(1),
peut conter de -; or "ici on peut conter une fable, coment —
(1) Cf. C.M^ de Eozgyi, par. 8,10,21,
16
(1)
In one place there is nothing more than a mere reference
to a fable: Ici peot 1 * en dire coment le sienp:e ]>ria le
r:opil qe il lui feist solaz de une partie de sa cowe en
allef;eance del im e en avancement del autre". At rimes it
would seem that Bozon had developed a fable orally before
(2) his hearers; in other cases, ho'vever, the fable is suffi-
(5) ciently amplified in written forms. Again, m several
of the fables of Bozon, motifs are frequently introduced
which are not foiond in any known collection of fables. For
this reason it is often a most difficult question to decide
whether or not Bozon knew some fable collection which is
to-day not extant.
f Plan of the Work.
In discussing the fables of Bozon, I have endeavored to point out the relation, if any, which exist between Bo- zon and the chief fable collections of the Middle Ages made prior to his time. I have shown, wherever it v/as possible,
(1) Cf. C.M.de Bozon. par, 74.
(2) Cf. " " " " 34,42,72,74, etc.
(3) Cf. " " " " 120,145.
17
whether Bozon follou'ed the Romulus Vulgaris tr'adition or the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition i as these are the two chief branches with which wo are here concerned. It has not been thought necessary to mention any collection con- nected with either of these two important .croups which do not offer any variant motifs, or show that Bozon had made use of it. A comparison has also been made of the Bozon material v;ith the more important woi'ks of a religious type containing certain stray fables, v/hich Bozon could well
have known; such as, Odo of Sherington, Jacques de Vitry,
(1) Bromiardus, etc. Many minor collections have also been ex- amined and whenever any connection betv/een them and Bozon is apparent, such relationship is noted.
A study of the fables of Bozon will readily convince one that Bozon was acquainted with the fables of Marie de France in some form or other. Marie's poetical version of Aesopic fables were vorj' popular in England in the thir- teenth and fourteenth centuries. To judge from the number of manuscripts of her fables still extant, it won.ld seem that copies of them must have been, at the time of Bozon, in many of the important libraries and monasteries of Eng-
(1) For a list of the works consu.lt ed, see p./?^.
18
land, and also in the North of Prance, Moreover, it was not uncommon for the nobles to possess a few books of lit- erary character such as Marie's fables. Although it is, perhaps, hardly probable that a preacher of so humble a sta- tion in life as Bozon appears to have been, was himself the possessor of such a work, it woti.ld be remarkable if he were not, at least, acquainted with the excellent collection of fables of his illustrious countrywoman.
Another work of the same character as Bozon' s ser- mons is the Fables and Parabolae of Odo of Sherin.'Tton, Odo lived in the first half of the thirteenth century, Kis col- lection of sermons v/as very popular with the clergy through out England since it was constantly used by them in the am- plification of their sermons, and the moralized fables and
parables therein contained were frequently copied by later
(1) fabulists and other writers. Bozon' s sennons show clearly
(2) that he was familiar with the work of Odo.
These two authors, Marie de France and Odo of Sher-
ington, aeem, therefore, to have been the chief sources for
(1) Cf, Hervieux, Vol, IV,, p, 146,
(2) Cf, p, /O? et seq.
19
Bozon s fables. For the rest of his fables, '.vhich are not
derived from either of the authors jnst mentioned, it wo\ild
seem that he v/as dependent on ^- variety of soiirces. We
must give him the credit for being f familiar v/ith some of
the chief religious works of his time; as those of Jacques
de Vitry. Vitae PatriTO, the Disciplina Clericalis. etc. ,
(1) since to these he is indebted for some of his exempli.
Again, we may well suppose that in his relations with other men of his profession, he probably became acquainted with a certain number of ne':r fables not contained in the liter- ary collections noted, or with familiar fables in nevf forms.
£^ Division of the Subject.
In this study of the fables of Bozon I have first treated those fables that seem to be dependent on Marie de France (or at least on the Anglo-Latin Romixlus tradition) , and which I have placed under section a(Part I.). In sec- tion b^ . come those fables dependent on Odo of Sherington,
(1) M. Meyer is of the opinion that Bozon drew the great majority of his exempl.a . at least, from a work closely re- sembling the De proprietatibus rerum of Barthelemy the Eng- lishman (or Glanville).
20
and in section c_ . those fables which are drawn from vari- ous sources. Finally, those fables -^'hich show no extant parallels are treated in a group by themselves. Part II. is reserved for the discussion of certain c^iiestions connect- ed with oiir subject.
h Scheme of Fable Collections.
The position to which Bozon should be assigned among the writers of stray fables in the Middle Ages, is next to be determined. On one side, from Marie de France, he is a continuator of the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition; on the other hand, as a follower of Odo of Sherington, he is de- pendent, in part, on the Romulus Vulgaris tradition. From a study of the fables of Bozon it does not appear that he knew the collections of Nilantius, the Romulus Treverensis or the Romulus Roberti. Nor do his fables bear the ear marks of the Avianus type of Aesopic fables, Bozon' s place in fable literature will, then, probably be shown by the following scheme.
21
Rom. Primitivus
(cir.900
A.D. - lost)
Rom. {cir.950
Vulgaris A.D. )
Rom. Nilantii (cir.1050 A.D,
Anglo- Latin Rom, (cir.lino A.D. - lost)
Alfred of England (cir.1150 A.D. - lost)
Rom. ireverensis (cir.1175 A.D.
trie de F/^ance Kso£e, (cir.llY^^ A.D,
Odo of [^ Sherington (cir, 1250 A.D. )
Ysopef d'Evreiix (cir, 1275 A.D. )
NicoZe Bozon
— \
(cir,l?>2n A.D. )
Rom, Harleianii^ (ab.l375 A.D. )
22
_i Comparative Table of Versions
The following table will show Kt a glance the fable collections, and other works, containing voi'sions parallel to the fables found in Bozon. Only those vei'sions have beon included in this table which may reasonably be considered as perhaps closely related to those of our author.
23
Table of Parallel Versions.
Bozon Rom. Vul- Rom. Ni- Marie de
garis lantii France
1-4 Lion as Judge
2-8 Fox and Crow I. 14 I. 14 13
3 -10 Crow ^nd Bees
4 -14 Kite and Crow
5 -15 Thrush and Starling 80
6 -17 Owl and Hawk 79
7 -18 Peacock and Destiny IV, 4 III,:^. 31 S -21 Wolf and Rabbit
9 -23 Lion Reigning
10 -26 Cock and Jewel
11-30 Fox and Plowman
12 -34,121. Sheep and Crow
13 -42 Wolf and Hedgehog
14 -46 Wolf and Fox
15 -47 Monkey and Child 51
16 -49 Wolf and Lamb 1,2 1,2 2
17 -50 Cat as Bishop 101
18 -53a Roaming Cat
19 -530 Birds seeking Wife for
Eagle,
|
111,20 |
11,20 |
29 |
|
1,1 |
I, 1 |
1 |
|
I, 3 |
30 |
|
|
IV, 21 |
111,11 |
40 71 |
Rom.Trev- Odo of Miscellaneous, erensis. Sherington.
23
51 Jacques de Vitrj'-, 20.
9 6 Jacques de Vitry, 156.
76 Jacques de Vitry, 171.
116 63 Rom. Bern. Pr. 42.
8 Jacques de Vitry, 142.
32 John of Sheppey, 66.
129 39 Rom. Monacensis , 31.
33 Gesta Romano r^am, 50.
54a Ps. - Gualt. Angl . 3. Disc Clericalis, 21.
17 Spec. Doct.,Bk. II., c. 116,
63 Rom. Robert i, IS.
6 Jacques de Vitry, 156.
51 Avianus, 30.
150 Jacques de Vitry, 174.
M-
Table of Parallel Versions (continued)
Bozon Rom. Vul- Rom. Ni- Marie d?
garis lantii France
20 - 55 Sheep and Wolf before
Lion 1,4 1,4
21 - 56 Rabbit elected Judge
22 - 61 Fox and Dove.
23 - 72 Wolf and Crane. 24-74 Fox and Monkey
25 - 75 Rat seeking Wife,
26 - 91 Sun seeking Wife,
27 - 94 Man and Trees,
28 -114 Bear proud of Hands,
29 -116 Fox and Pigeon 98
30 -120 Ass and Pig
31 -121 Cat and Mice,
32 -128 Fox and Sheep,
33 -129 Lion and Mouse, I , 17 I , 17 16
34 -130 Man and Oxen 84
35 -131 Lion and Companions, 1,6 1,6 11
36 -135 Hen married to Hawk,
37 -142 Ass* Heart 70
38 -145 Fox and Cat.
|
61 |
||||
|
I, |
s |
I, |
9 |
7 |
|
III, |
17 |
II, |
19 |
28 73 |
|
I, |
1 |
I, |
8 |
6 |
|
III, |
14 |
II, |
16 |
49 |
•2b
Rom.Trov- Odo of Miscellaneous, erensis, Sherington.
81 Paris Promptuarium, 3. 14 70 Bromiardus , G. IV., 16,
123 11 Rom. Vratislav[ensis , 27.
122 4 Rom. Roberti , 12. 79
58 Gest-d Ronanoriirn, 57.
77 Rom. Roberti, 22.
1 Bromiardus, A. XXVI., 32.
78 Bromiardus, C. VI., 14. 88
62
74 R. de Renart, III., 374 - 510.
41 Jacqiies do Vitry, 143.
2 24 Spec. Kist. , Bk.IV. , c. 132
56 Jacques de Vitry, 209.
27
j_. Objects of Investigation.
In the following Comparative Study of the Aesoplc Fable in Nicole Bozon, I shall endeavor to point out, above all, the unusually close relationship that exists botween Bozon and Marie de France. Herlet has recognized the in- terdependence of the two collections, but he has shown it
(1) for only a few fables.
The dependence of Bozon on Odo of Sherington I have found to be much less extensive than that on Marie de France, although the general character of his work more closolj'- re- sembles that of Odo than that of his more illustrious coun- try-woman. The place, as a follower of Odo, given him by Hervieux, is, therefore, not so well deserved as that of a follower of Mai'ie de France,- a fact which will become man- ifest, I hope, in the course of the present investigations.
The ni;irnber, as well as the varied types of the fa- bles found in the sermons of Bazon, prove tha-. he v^ras a diligent collector and adapter of Aesopic material. Not only has he taken his material from books of a religious character, but also from oral traditions, both monkish and popular.
(1) cf. p. 96.
23
Finally, I shall endeavor to point out in the fol- lov/ing pages the chief characteristics of Bozon in his t i'eatment of the Aesopic Fable, as a constituent part of B/Iediaeval literature. In general, it may be said that Bo- zon's fables have a peculiar cast, since well known fables frequently show no! only an addition of new motifs, but al- so a notable difference in the characters introduced as ac- tors of the fable.
These striking features can be adequately explained only by a careful and detailed study of the individual fa- bles, combined with a more general view embracing a consid- eration both of the special character and the chief aim of his v;ork»
29
PART I.
SOURCES OF THE INDIVIDUAL FABLES.
ji. Fables derived from Ilarie de France, or a Common Source.
The fables of Bozon which appear to be clorived from Marie dp France, or at least belong tc the Anglo-Latin Rom- ulus tradition as opposed to the Romulus Vulgaris tradition in some way or other, are the following:
Bozon 17 (Marie 79), Owl and Hawk;
Bozon 18 (Marie 31), Peacock and Destiny;
Bozon 23 (Marie 29), Lion as ICing;
Bozon 42 (Marie 71), Wolf and Hedgehog;
Bozon 47 (Marie 51), Monkey and Child;
Bozon 50 (Marie 101), Cat as Bishop;
Bozon 55 (Marie 4) , Sheep and Wolf before Lion;
Bozon 61 (Marie 61), Fox and Dove;
Bozon 75 (Marie 73), Rat seeking Wife;
Bozon 91 (Marie 6), Sun seeking Wife;
Bozon 94 (Marie 49), Man and Trees;
Bozon 129 (Marie 16), Lion and Mouse;
Bozon 130 (Marie 84), Man and Oxen;
Bozon 131 (Marie 11), Lion and Companions;
Bozon 142 (Marie 70), Ass' Heart.
30
Each fable in this list will be taken up and compar- ed in detail with the parallel versions found in the vari- ous fable collections, or in other such works as it lias been possible to control. The order followed in the dis- cussion of these fables is the same as that in which they occur in Bozon's text.
I . Owl and Hawk.
Versions: Marie de France 79; Rom. Treverensis 122; Odo of
(1) Sherington 4; Rom. Roberti 12; Bozon 17; John of Sheppey 51.
(2; This fable, as M. Meyer states in his notes on Bozon
exists under two different forms. In Odo of Sherington and in John of Sheppey it bears the name Buzzard and Kawk ; while in Bozon, the Rom. Treverensis and Marie de France it bears the title of Owl and Hawk. That there is a crossing here of both traditions, as indicated by the difi'erent names just noted, is evident from the version in John of Sheppey, where tl-ie young of the hawk speak of the young owl thus: "Domine, iste est cum magno capite. "
This is the same answer as given in the Rom. Trever- ensis and in the Rom. Roberti, where such an answer is fit-
(1) The references to parallel versions are arranged in chronological order.
(2) Of. C. M. Bozon. p. 232, note 17.
31
ting; biit. whoi-e it x-efers to the buzzard (busardus) , as in John of Sheppcy, it must be regarded as peculiar. It ap- pears that John of Sheppey knev/ also the version which is common to Marie de France, the Rom. Trev?rensis and the Rom. Roberti; that is, the Owl and Hawk type; and that a confusion arose in his mind between this version and the Buzzard and Hawk type. This supposition v/-ill help to ex- plain the resemblance in this fable which Bozon's version has with that of Odo of Sherington and also with that of Marie de France. Bozon, as v;ell as John of Sheppey, may have known both versions.
This fable probably belonged to the collection of Alfred of England, as English verses are found in the ver- sions as given both by Odo of Sherington and by Bozon. In Odo, the English verses:
Of eie hi the brothte Of athele hi ne mythte,
are similar to verses 29-32 of Marie de France:
De I'oef les poi j eo bien geter E par chalur e par cover, Mais nient fors de lur nature. Maldite seit tels nurreture.'
Bozon has a similar expression in:
"Stroke oule and schrape oule and evere is oule oule. "
32
(1)
Professor Mall believes that the English verses in Odo of
Sherington are a remnant of the collection of Alfred of England.
This fable appears to have been foiinded n.pon, or to have been the origin of, a very old and popular proverb, which is found in most of the Teu.tonic languages.
Bozon is indebted to Marie de France, or at least to the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition, for the title of his fa- ble, and not to Odo of Sherington. There are, moreover, some unnastakable similarities botv/een Bozon and Marie de France which do not appear in Bozon and Odo. The principal motifs of the I'able will now be taken up and discussed in detail I
A. In Mai'ie de France and in Bozon we find Huans and Ostur; in Odo of Sherington and in John of Sheppey, Busard- us and Accipiter.
B. Marie de France and the Rom. Treverensis agree in that the Hawk and the Owl have formed a friendship. In Odo of Sherington and in John of Sheppey the Busardus secretly deposits an egg in the nest of the Hawk; -vhile in Bozon, the Owl, by begging the Hawk to bring up its f iz , natural- ly presupposes a friendship as existing between the Owl and
(1) Cf. E.Mall, Zur Geschichte der mittelalterllchen Fa-
I I.
53
the Hawk.
C. Both Mario de France and Bozon stete that the Hawk
goes for food and on returning finds its nest befouled.
Compare Bozon:
Tan que le ostur voleit qere lur viunde, revynt et trova son ny ordement soilli,
and Marie de France:
Puis lur ala querre viande,
Mes quant a els fii repairiez, Esteit sis niz orz e suilliez. (vv. 12-14)
The similarity here in the use of words is very striking. Neither Odo of Sherington nor John of Sh'^ppey, on the other hand, speak of the Hawk as going for food.
D. The phrase in Bozon:
Qe est ceo que j eo trove encontre norture? Qui ad ceo fet?
which M. Meyer compares with Odo:
Quis vestiiim est qui nidum siium Contra naturam cominaculavit?
and by which he thinks there is shown an incontestable re- lationship between Odo and Bozon in regard to this fable,
bel-litteratur. Z F R P, vol. IX., (1880) pp. 161-204.
34
seems to ine , to say the least, somewhat doubtful. The same
(1) idea is expressed in Marie de France. As was noted above,
Bozon m.ay have known both forms ( Owl -Hawk , Euz^ard-Hawk )of the fable and, since he knew Odo , he may have been indi- rectly influenced by him, but the r;;eneral motifs of the fa- ble, as will appear, are similar to those in ^larie de France.
A^ain, it should be observed that there is a differ- ence, as will be seen below, in manuscript reading between
(2) the text as quoted by M. Meyer and that found in Hervieux'
edition of the fables of Odo of Sherington. The version in
Hervieux (vol, IV., p. 181) has simply:
Quis est 'lU.i nidum maculat? (3) (as also in Oesterley's edition), and not as Hervieux (vol.
(4) II., first edition) has it:
Qui nidum suvim contra naturam cornmaculavit?
If this last reading be not adopted the relation between
Odo of Sherington and Bozon in this fable is not at all
clear.
(1) Cf, page 3 /.
(2) Cf. CM. de Bozon. p. 233.
(3) Cf. Oesterley, Die Narrationes des Odo de Ciringtonia. Jahrb. f, roman und engl. lit . ^ vol. IX., (1868) p. 150.
(4) Cf. Hervieux, vol. II. (first edition), p. 601.
35
E. Bozon and Marie de France agree in that the Hark
says, in both versions, that its young (f iz , in Bozon) are
in the ri^ht , and both authors (Bozon and Marie) follow this
statement with a sort of proverb:
"Stroke oule and schrape oule and evore is oule oule,"
of Bozon has the same sip;nif ication as Marie's
De I'oef les poi .j eo bien geter, E par chalur e par cover, Mais nient fors de lur nature.
(vv. 29 - 31)
The English verses which are found at the end of the fable
in Odo of Sherington prove that the fable originally came
from the same source as that of Marie de France; that is,
fi-om the collection of Alfred of England, Vfhether Bozon
knew a collection of English fables closely connected to
that of Miarie de France or not will be discussed in another
(1) chapter. It is probable, however, in this case, that Bo- zon, being familiar with the old English proverb, and hav- ing an audience composed, in large measiare, of Englishmen, preferred to use the English rather than the French words to illustrate his thought.
(1) Cf. Part II.. An English Fable Collection as a Source, p./^f.
36
F. In Bozon and in Marie de France, it is not noted that the young are thrown out of the nest, as is stated in Odo of Sherington and in John of Sheppey.
G. The moral of the fable in Odo differs totally from that in Bozon. Compare, on the other hand, the moral in Marie de France with that in Bozon.
Marie de France:
Pur ceo dit hum en repnxvier De la "pvane del dulz pumier, S'elle chiet sur un fust amer, Ja ne savra tant rueler Qu'al mordre ne seit cuneue, Desur quel arbre ele est creiie. (vv. 33-38)
Bozon:
"Trendle the appel nevere so fer he conyes fro what tree he cam.' "
There can be no doubt here that Bozon has taken the moral of his fable directly from Marie de France. The use of the English instead of the French is to be explained as above. In resume, then, for this fable we have the follow- ing considerations: Taking into account the number of mo- tifs that are common to Bozon and Marie de France, as op- posed to Odo of Sherington and John of Sheppey, it is read- ily seen that the two former agree in almost every partic- ular. Any divergence in our author from the version of
37
Marie de France can, I think, be explained by individual taste.
In Hervieux (vol, II.) this fable is found only in the Rom, Treverensis and the Rom. Roberti, It is evident, therefore, that Bozon must either have drawn it from Marie de France (or, at least, from the same or similar source on which Marie drew for her version) or from some fable- collection composed for the use of pi-eachers. It shoixld be stated here that the versions of this fable in the Rom. Treverensis and the Rom. Roberti agree, naturally, very closely with Marie de France. Since this is true of the majority of the fables which are cotninon v/ith these collec- tions a>-!d with Marie rle France, I shall not discuss them in respect to their relation to Rozon, except in certain cases
where motifs are added which do not a-npear in Marie. Be-
(1) sides, it will be shown later that Bozon, for certain fa- bles, could not have been dependent on the Rom. Treverensis or the Rom. Roberti.
There is no c^ood reason why Bozon, since he was an Anf^lo-Norman and wrote in French, should not have been ac- quainted with the fables of Marie de France. A study of
(1) For example, compare fable of Wolf and Hedf^ehog, p. V^ and fable of Man and Oxen, p. 7o.
58
the forep;oin^ comparison of this fable of Bozon with anala- gous fables in the various fable collections convinces one that Bozon did draw this fable directly fron Marie de France and not from some collection of fables intended more especially for church ase.
II. PEACOCK ATTD DESTINY.
Versions : Rom, Vulgaris, IV. 4; Rom. Milantii , III. 2\
Marie de France 31; Rom, Treveronsis 79; Bozon 18.
Bozon' s use of the word "Destiny" for goddess, or
Juno, recalls fable n in Marie de France (De sole nubenje) :
Les creatures s' assemblerent ; A la destinee en alerent.
(vv. 5-6)
Our author also uses the same expression in paragraph 91,
fable of Sun seel^ing Wife:
Les autres alerent a Destinee.
It is remarkable that while the Rom. Nilanti, the Rom., Vulgaris and all the Latin versions dependent on the latter designate the Deity as Juno, the An;'^lo-Latln Romulus tradition; that is, Marie de France and the Rom. Treveren- sis, use a different appellation. In Marie de France it is
39
djsuesse (MSS. AD destinee . B nature) , in the Rom. Treveren- sis creator. This fact is sufficient to show that Bozon was not inspired by the Rom. Vul,^aris tradition for his ap- pellation of the Deity, but by the Anglo-Latin Romulus tra- dition, Th? fre(iuent interchange in the mar.uscripts of Marie de France of the words destinee , deU'?sse , nature , would lead one to suspect that it is to this author that Bozon is indebted for the word destinee.
The fable in Bozon presents some motifs which are coniT'ion to both the Rom. Vulgaris and the Anglo-Latin Romu- lus tradition. Both traditions agree in the motif that the Peacock is grieved because it could not sing as rell as the Nig?itingale. In the reply of the goddess to the Peacock, consoling it by speaking of its beautiful person, it is worth notice that Bozon agrees in a striking manner with the Rom. Vulgaris. Compare Bozon:
Tu as le col si gent, la cowe longe qe a terre pent, voz pennez sont si colurez les ^^ns de porpre, les autres blieus, les uns com saunke, les autres desorrea.
and the Rom. Vulgaris:
Visus tuus superat vocem, et formatua superat lusciniam colore ot nitore smaragdi
40
profusus es ; nullus similis tibi; pictisque plumis f3einn-,qe cauda et collo refulgent.
Marie de France and the Ron. Treverensis, on the other
hand, merely mention the beautiful feathers of the Peacock.
Tho Rom. Vulgaris and Bozon a.":ree, again, in another
motif. In the Rom. Nilantii, Marie de France and the Rom.
Treverensis the Peacock is despised (or mocked) by all. In
Bozon and the Rom, Vulgaris the motif of mocked does not
enter.
Bozon and Marie cle Prance agree in th'^ final answer
of the goddess.
Bozon:
Soyez paye de ceo qe avez.
Marie de France:
Bien te deit ta bealtez suffire.
The Rom. Treverensis here agrees with Marie de France, but
the other versions mentioned have nothing similar to it.
(1) It has been pointed out that Bozon agrees with Marie
de France in two important motifs, and with the Rom. Vul-
(2) gar is an equal number of times. It v/ould be difficult to
(1) Cf. pagejg 3<g' i^\,'^]a^ut^'40(j.ic].
(2) Cf. pages ^ T' ^.-v<^L- ij-Cj .
41
state, therefore, to which collection Bozon was indebted fox- this fable. I do not venture to decide the question. It will be noticed, hov/ever, that Bozon and Marie d e France agree at the bep-inning and at the end of the fable. This being a very popular fable it is possible that Bozon is not here dependent on any particular fable collection, but that he was well acquainted with it from oral tradition and that ho wrote it down from memory. This 'vould accoixnt for the occurrence in his fable of motifs that are common to both the Rom. Vulgaris and the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition.
III. LION AS KING. Versions: Rom. Vulgaris, III., 20; Rom. Nilantii, II., 20; Marie de France, 29; Rom. Treverensis 77; Rom. Ro- berti 22; Bozon 2.3.
This fable also exists .under two different forms. In the group: Rom. Vulgaris, the Rom. Nilantii and in Eozon it is the Lion that is the despot; in Marie de France, the Rom. Treverensis and the Rom. Roberti^the Wolf plays the role of the despot after the abdication, of the Lion. Eo- zon may have taken the Lion from the Rom. Vulgaris tradi-
42
(1) tion, but the more likely supposition is that, knowing the
fable in Marie de France, where the Lion is introduced as
King of the Beasts, he did not choose to introduce the V/olf
in his version, since tliis is but a simple abridgment of
the longer fable.
It should be noticed that in paragraph 23 of Bozon's (2) sermons, in vihich the fable occurs, it is the nature of the
lion that is discussed. Bozon may have wished to retain
the same actor in the fable as that mentioned in the exemp-
Ivm. There are numerous examples occurring throughout the
text of Bozon where the names of the animals employed in
the Exempla appear, at times, to have some influence on the
(3) actors in the fable vrtiich immediately follows. Such an ex- planation would not be necessary but for the fact that Bo- zon in other particulars agrees closely enough with Marie
(4) de France. Herlet suggests that fable 73 of flarie de
France (Roquefort's edition) may have here influenced Bo- zon. The fable begins thus:
(1) That is, the Romulus Vulgaris, or fable collections de- pendent on the Romizlus Vulgaris, as opposed to the Anglo- Latin Romulus tradition.
(2) Cf. CM. de Bozon. par. 23, p. 37.
(3) Cf. Fable of Fox and Pigeon, par. 116.
(4) Cf. Herlet, Asopische Fabel im Mittelalter, p. 56.
43
Jadis avint qu'uns lous pramist Que char ne mangereit, ceo dist, Les quarante jurs de quaresme. (vv. 1-3)
which recalls Bozon:
Le l9on fist serement que il ne mangereit char tot le quarasme.
But here also the fable speaks of the Wolf 'j.nd not of the
Lion:
In spite of the fact that Bozon has, in common with
the Rom. Vulgaris tradition, the Lion as the despot, it
will be clearly shown from what follows, I believe, that
for this fable he must have been indebted to Marie de
Prance.
A. In Bozon the Lion first approaches a chievere. In Marie de France the Wolf calls a chevruel ; in the Rom. Ro- bcrti a capreolum. The Rom. Vulgaris, the Rom. Nilantii and the Rom. Treverensis, on the other hand, mention no an- imal except the Ape as being devoured by the Wolf.
B. Two important motifs which appear throughout the
Rom. Vulgaris tradition are: (1) the Lion leads the beasts
to a secret place and (2):
Omnes bestias que dixerunt os suum
putero e que dicebant non putere, equaliteT
44
crudeliter necabat, ita ut saturaretur sanguine. ^
Those two motifs do not appear in the An^'lo-Latin Romulizs
tradition (except in the Rom. Nilantii), nor in Rozon.
C. In Bozon the Lion calls an assembly and demands
judgment on the Goat, who had insulted the "bailiff de terr<i
Compare this v/ith Marie de France:
A tuz ensemble demanda Quel jugement chescuns fera De celui ki dit sun seignur Hunte e leidesce e deshonur. {vv. 51-54)
The Rom. Treverensis and the Rom. Roberti a-ree -vith this motif except that in the former the victims are merely called bestia . the Ape alone being mentioned more partic- ularly.
D. In Marie de France and in Bozon the Goat is con- demned tc death.
E. In Bozon the Lion next approaches a poleyn. In Marie do France we have une altere beste; in the Rom. Trev- erensis bestia , and in the Rom. Roberti, d^m.nula (or damnu- lurn) . It appears that Marie's source had not mentioned
(1) Cf. Hervieux, vol. II., Rom. Nilantii , p. 538. The Rom. Nilantii here follows the Rom. Vulgaris tradition.
45
here any pax-ticular animal, vrhile the Rom. Robert! has sub-
stitiited damnula and Bozon poleyn. Such substitutions at
the will of the author are very common. For example,
(1) M. Meyer, in his note on this fable, reives a version taken
from the moral treatise known under the name of Cy nous dit.
'.'.'here the Lion's victims are successively a Lamb, Sow and
Pox.
With Bozon the poleyn answers:
Sire, vostre aleyne pluz douce odure que mirre ou canele.
Marie de France:
* * * Plus suef odur
Ne senti unkes a nul jur
(vv. 67-68)
It is evident that Bozon has followed the Anp-lo- Latin Romulus tradition, since there is nothing in the Rom. Vulgaris tradition that corresponds to the poleyn of Bozon or to the altre beste of Marie de France. The poleyn' s an- swer in Bozon raninds one of the answer of the Ape in the Rom. Nilanti, where it says the breath of the Lion is like
F. Bozon: The Lion accuses the poleyn of lying. Marie (1) Cf. CM. de Bozon. p. 238, note 23.
46
de France: the same accusation against altre beste«
G. The Lion in Bozon next meets a I.'orkey, wliich being
questioned in regard to the Lion's breath, releases to
speak. In Harie de France, the Wolf puts the same question
to the Ape whose answer is: entre dous ert.
In the Rom, Roberti we have:
Quae dixit, quod nee mult\im gravis erat , nee multum suavis, sed medio modo se habens.
Rom» Treverensis:
Quae utranque partem responsionis metuens , invenit medium, dicens, "Domine, anhelitus tuns ad utrumque se habet. "
The Ape's answer in Marie de France, and in her de- pendents, is entirely different from that w^iich the Rom. Vulgaris tradition offers, where the Ape answers: Ille quasi cynn^monnum dixit frarrare.
In Marie de France and in her dependents, and also in Bozon, the first animal questioned is eaten by the V/olf (in Bozon Lion) , because it spoke the tx'uth; a second an- imal is killed because it lied; and the third animal, re- fusing to commit itself, is silent in Bozon, wliile in Marie de France, and in her dependents, it says, the breath of
47
the Wolf is entre dous. This gradation is found only here,
and hence Bozon could have gotten it nowhere else.
The motif of the Ape keeping silent is P'^culiar to
Bozon. Whether or not he knew a version of this fable with
such a motif cnn only be conjectured. It may be that for
this motif Bozon is dependent upon an oral version with
which he became acquainted through the folk. It is also
possible that this motif is original with him, for we find
another variant in the Cy nous dit collection -mentioned
(1) above. Here the Pox replies to the Lion:
Certes, Monseigneur, je sui^ tous enreumez , je ne sens riens ^.' ' .'
It is plain, then, that Bozon has not taken this fa- ble from the Rom. Vulgaris tradition. The general motifs agree closely with those in Marie de France. The beginning and end are wanting in Bozon, but his fable is only a sim- ple abridgment of the longer fable of Mai-ie. It is to be noted that this fable is not in Odo of Sherington.
IV. WOLF AMD HEDGEHOG. Vers ions : Marie de France 71; Rom. Treverensis 62; Bo- zon 42.
(1) Cf. page ^ r
(2) Cf. CM. de Bozon. p. 238, note 23.
48
This fable has not been widely current. Outside of
Marie de France and the texts dependent on her, it is found
(1) only in a collection of stories published by von Hahn.
It is not surprising, therefore, to find that Bozon agrees, throughout, very closely with Marie de Prance,
Both fables begin in the same manner, Conpare Bo- zon:
Le lou prist un agneile e fui sui des chiens et des hastons, e prist son congee del hericeoun d'eschaper au bois
and Marie de France:
Un aignel prist li lous un jour, Si I'escrierent li pastur Li chien li vunt apres huant, E il s'en vet al bois fui ant, (vv, 9-12)
Compare also Bozon:
"Ha".' dist le herison, "baisez moy conge prendre,"
and Marie de France;
Li hericuns li a crie:
"Baise raei veals, par charite"
(vv, 19-20)
(1) Of. J. G, von Hahn, Griechische u.nd Albanesische Marchen, 2 Vol^., Leipzig, 1864 (cited by Warnke, 'Die Quel- len der Marie de France' , Forschungen zur ronanischen Phil- ologie (Festgabe fi!lr Suchier^^p, 221.)
49
Still further, Bozon
Marie:
Au beisere le hericeon lui erda al menton, I'aiitre escowe la teste e ceo veut deliverer, mes ceo ne f\ist pur rien: od lui maugree le seon lui porta.
Li lous baisa le hericun E il s'aert a sun mentun
U il volist , u ne deignast
Al lou estut qu'il 1 ' en portast.
(vv. 25-30)
Here there can be no doubt as to Bozon' s dependence on Marie de Prance. In the Rom. Treverensis , the fable is more elaborate and offers several peculiarities which are foreign to Marie de France ^nd to Bozon. One example may- serve to illustrate this fact. The Wolf says to the Hedge- hog:
Jace, misera bestiola, et defenda canibus.' ego vero fugiam in latebras silvarum ut salvus effugiam.
The fable, as represented by Bozon, is an abridgment
of the fable of Marie de France, but unless the one were an
actual translation of the other, two fables could hardly be
more similar. Bozon' s use of words and phrases that occixr
also in the version of Marie de France is especially strik-
50
mg.
V, MOroCEY AND CHILD.
VTi-sions: Marie de France 51; Rom. Treverensis 44; Alex. Nequam (De Naturis Rerun) chap. 129; Jacques de Vitry 143; Rom. Bernensis Primus, 27; Bozon 47,
One meets with this fable but twice in Hervieux (Vol. II.); namely, in the Rom. Treverensis and in the Rom. Bern- ensis Primus . It occurs also in Marie de France. The Rom. Treverensis and Marie de France, which, naturally, re- semble each other, hav" some traits in coroinon v/ith Bozon as opposed to every other known version of this fable.
A. In Bozon, Marie de France and the Rom. Treveren- sis, the Monkey first shows its child to the Lion. In the Rom. Bernensis, Alexander Neqiiam and Jacques de Vitry no mention is made of the Lion.
B. In Bozon, Marie de Prance and the Rom. Treveren- sis, the Monkey is j^rieved at the answer of the Lion and approaches the Bear.
Compare Bozon:
Le sienge s ' en departi corucee e vynt al curse e demanda ooment lui fust avys de son beal f iz ,
and Marie de France;
51
Cele s'en va triste e dolente. Un urs '^ncuntre en mi la sente. Li urs estut, si I'esguarda.
(vv. 13-15)
C. Bozon:
"Hay"I fet le ours, "est celui le heal enfant de qi homme parle tant"?
larie de France:
"Vei j eo , " fet-il, "iluec 1 enfant, Dunt les bastes parol ent tant Ki tant par est bels- e gentiz"? (vv. 17-19)
In the Rom, Treverensis the Monkey has two cliildren
instead of one, as in Marie de France and Bozon. The Bear
says to the Monkey:
Illi essent filii quos omnes bestie sic laud— assent?
This is but one of many examples which tend to prove
that Bozon is not dependent on the Rom. Treverensis for f=.r\y
(1) of his fables.
D, Bozon:
"Soffrez," dit 1-3 ours, "qe j eo lui beise, qe tant ay desire de aver veij."
Marie de France:
(1) Cf. page *7"!^'
52
Bailliez le c a , tant quo jol bes; Kar jeol vueil veeir de plus j^res, (vv. PA-22).
E. In Bozon and in Ma.-ie de France thn Lion takes the Monkey's child -^.nd devours it.
The reflection, of the Monlcey in Bozon w'.en it sees its child devoured, is lacking in all other versions of this fable. Possibly it is orie;inal with our author. In the Rom. Bernensis Primus and in Jacques de Vitry, the fable is fxirther extended by a description of the revenge
of the Monkey.
(1) This fable, as has just been I'Ointed out, oc- curs in tivo different forms. In the first ";roup of texts: Nequam, the Rom. Bernensis Primus and Jacques de Vitry, the Bear alone is mentioned; in the second r;roup: Marie de Prance, the Row. Treverensis and Bozon, the Monkey first
approaches the Lion and then the Bear.
(2) As has b'^en stated, this fable does not seen to have
been very popular; it is not found in the Rom. Vulgaris
tradition, nor in Odo of Sherington. A comparison of the
texts of Bozon and Marie de Prance, as shovm above, is, I
think, sufficient proof that Bozon has here follovred Marie
(1) Cf. page 6~5.
(2) Cf. page 4-/3.
53
de France.
VI. CAT AS BISHOP. Versions: Mai-ie de France 101; Rom. Treverensis 132; Bo- zon 50.
Outside of the sermons of Bozon, this fable is met v/ith only in Marie de Fj'ance and the Rom. Treverensis. Fa- ble 14 or Odo of Sherin^ton, onlitled: Do Catto qui se fecit Monach-um, has nothing to do with our fable. It is strange that the editors of the Pontes did not observe the relation which exists between Bozor\ and Marie d" Prance 101 (pe Cat- to infulato). The fable in both authors begins in the same manner. Bozon:
Le chat sit sur le fourure e vynt la sorice champestre e la sorice ervestre.
Marie de France:
Uns chaz seeit desur un fur
Vit le mulet e la suriz. (vv. 1-3)
In Bozon three species of mice come before the Cat;
in Marie de France the Cat sees le mulet ot la suriz. The
use of the three species of mice by Bozon can be explained
by i-.he fact that throughout his fables are foimd many ex-
54
pressions of a light, jocular tone which wore well adapted
to a-ffaken interest among the class of people with whom he
(1) had to deal.
Compare further Bozonl
Ordrel Ordrel vous estez de ijia subicion,
j eo sui vostre evesque; venez,{si) pernez ma
benicoon ;
and Marie de France:
Sis epela * • * * * • • E dist que lur evesijues fu E que mal ciinseil unt eu Que sa beneicun n'aveient.
(vv. 4-8)
The nice, on refusing to approach, say in Marie de
France that they would rather die than come under the Cat's
claws. In the Rom. Treverensis :
Carius est michi ut moriar paganus quam quod sub vestra raanu fiam christianus.
Bozon shows his humor with:
Nenil , j eo voil r.eux estre ici od ta malic eon. q« vonir plus pres pur aver ta beneiceon.
Except in the case of a literal translation it would be hard to find two versions more similar t?ian those of Marie de France and Bozon. Bozon, assiiredly, knew the fa- ll) Cf. fable of Wolf ^.nd Lamb, p.//5.
55
bles of Marie de France and it is from this colloction that he drew his fable.
VII. SHEEP AMD WOLF BEFORE LION.
Versions : Rom. Vulgaris 1,4; Rom. Nil ant i, 1,4; Marie o e
France 4; Rom. Treverensis 4; Odo of Sherington 23; Bozon 55.
We have here the familiar fable of Ovis, Canis et (1) Lupus of Phaedrus. This fable has been widely known; it
is found in the Rom.Nilanti, the Rom.Treverensis , the Rom.
Vulgaris, Marie de Fi'ance and Odo of Sherington.
In Bozon the actors are loup. gopil . corf, mastyn
and berbys ; in Marie de France, chiens , escufles , lous and
berbiz ; in the Rom.Treverensis, canis. lupus. mil'"^us and
ovis. In short, there is no known version of this fable in
which the actors correspond with those in Bozon, nor is it
hardly possible that he knew of any such version in which
these characters figure.
It will be noticed that the exemplum immediately
(2) preceding the fable under discussion in Bozon says some- thing in regard to the nature of the Crow and of the Fox. This fact may have influenced onr author in the employment
(1) Of. Havet, fable 18, p. 19; Hervieux, vol. II., fable 17, p. 13.
(2) Cf. CM. de Bozon. par. 55, p. 77.
56
(1)
of witnesses for the V/olf, Mastyn recalls the Doj^ in
Marie de France which acts there, and in other versions also, as accuser of the Sheep.
This fable, as presented by Bozon, offers other striking peculiarities. In the first place, in all the versions mentioned above, except in Bozon and in Odo of Sherington, the Dog accuses the Wolf. Secondly, all ver- sions, v;ith the exception of Odo of Sherington and Bozon, agree in that the Dog sv/ears to have loaned the Sheep some bread; Bozon and Odo alone agree in that the Wolf is acciis- ed of devouring the companions of the Sheep and its Lamb. It would appear from this that Bozon knew the fable as found in Odo of Sherington. Compare Bozon:
Le lion tient sa court e vynt le berbys, si se pleint del lou qe il out toilet son aiguel;
and Odo of Sherington:
Oves conquestao sunt Leoni de Lupo , eo quod furtive et aperte socias suas devoravit. Leo congregavit conciliimi.
Thus far only does Bozon agree v/ith Odo of Shering- ton. In the latter, the Lion orders the Wolf to be hung,
(1) Cf. fable of Pox and Pigeon, p. / 7
57
together v/ith his witnesses. In Bozon, althoiigh not stated
distinctly, the Sheep suffers the same fate as in the Rom.
Vulgaris tradition and in Marie de France; that is, it has
to part with its v;ool. This fact shov/s that the fable has
become disintegrated, and leads one to suspect that the
Rom. Vulgaris and the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition have
(1) been compressed here. Another concliisive proof of this
confusion is that in Bozon the Sheep is condemned, -is in the Rom. Vulgaris and the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition, although, in Bozon, it is accused of nothing. It would seem strange that the Sheep, v/hich came before the Lion to make complaint against the Wolf for the loss of her Lamb, should be condemned. In Odo of Sherington, on the other hand, the 7/olf and v/itnesses are condemned, not the Sheep.
To explain this incongruity in the fable of Bozon; namely, that the plaintiff ( ^heep) is condemned, it is necessary to suppose that he v/as acquainted with a version which belonged to the Rom. Vulgaris , or to the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition, as well as with the version in Odo of Sherington, and that he confounded the two versions. Doubt- less his sermons had been preached more than once before
(1) Another example of this crossing of traditions occurs in the fable of Owl and Hawk; see page 3^-
58
they were written down, so that there v/ere many opportuni- ties for such a confusion as occurs in the fable in ques- tion to arise. It is in this way only, according to my view, that the pecu.liar features in the fable under discus- sion can be explained.
But Bozon is dependent, for the most part, upon Ma- rie de Prance rather than upon the Rom. Vulgaris tradition for this fable. Compare Bozon:
Quant le lou ad pris ceo qe lui plest, lors vynt le gopil tot Rrest , e le corf ne veut mye tart . ne le mastyn de prendre sa part .
and Marie de France:
Li chiens i vient, sa part en porte, E li escufles d'altre part , E puis li lous, trop li est ta,rt. (vv. 28-30)
A glance at the above is sufficient to recognize that Bozon is here imitating ^!arie de France. The Rom. Vul- garis simply offers:
Coacta vero ante tempus lanas suas vendidisse dicitur, ut quod non accepit redderet.
VIII. FOX AND DOVE. Versions : Marie de France 61; Rom. Treverensis 51; Jacques
59
de Vitr^r 20; Rom. Bernensis Primus 32; Bozon 61,
Bozon in this fable closely resembles Marie de France in De Vulpe et Columbe. In all versions not con- nected 'vith the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition, a substitu- tion of some other animal for the Dove is made. In the
Rom. Bernensis Primus w^ find avicula ; in the Roman de
(1) Renart , a Titriouse, and also a bird called mas_ang_e; in
YsengrinE.us , a Hen; in Caxton, a Cock; in Jacques de Vitry,
a masange. The fact that Bozon has the Dove will place
him as dependent on the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition. The
fable is not in Odo of Sherington.
In Bozon, as in Marie de France and the Rom.Trever-
ensis, the Fox seeing a Dove on a perch (rock, in Bozon)
begs it to come down. The use of the word rock, or stones
in Bozon (les freides pieres., 1.4), instead of perch, or
tree, ^s in Marie de France and the Rom. Treverensis, can,
I think, be exj^lained from the exemplum v/hich immediately
precedes the fable.
We find there:
Columbe est de tiel nature qe james
ne est seure en villa ne en champe • ♦ •
Sicom dit Jere. le prophete par ensample
(1) Branch, II., vv. 469-602.
60
del coliimbe , "Seitetz , " dit il , " semblablez al columbe, e pernez vostre recet en la piere percee. "
By having the Dove perched among the rocks, a place of safety, the fable -.vould, in this manner, be brought in closer touch with the exemplum» This dependence of f=ible on exempluin is one of the chief characteristics of litera- ture of the Bozon type.
In Bozon and in Marie de France the Fox tells the Dove of the universal peace that has been declared by the King of Beasts. Bozon:
Les lettres sont venuz de la court le roy qe touz serroms de un acord, e nul ne fra grevance a autre desornemes;
and Marie do France:
Uns bries i vint de part le rei }(i comanda par dreite fei Que beste a altre ne mesface N ' a nul oisel* • • • •
(vv. 13-16)
We have, next, in Bozon a horseman, v/ho approaches v;ith four greyhounds; in Marie de France, there are two horsemen and two dogs; in the Rom, Treverensis , two men on horses, v/ith dogs.
The Fox's reason for fleeing from the dogs is the same in Bozon as in Marie de France.
61
Bozon:
Jeo ne sui pas certeyn qe les chienz ont vei!l les lettres.
Marie de France:
Ne sai s'il unt le brief oi, Ki Vint del rei , jo vus af i ;
(vv. 29-30)
This fable throughout, in rep;ard to its p;eneral mo- tifs, agrees with the corresponding fable in Marie de France. Versions not dependent on Marie, except Caxton, bring in a new motif. The Fox, in order to capture the
bird, begs it to close its eyes while he kisses it. This
(1) sar.-ie motif is found in a fable entitled Vulpes et Avicula
(2) and also in De Gallo et Vulpe of the Rom. Treverensis. There
seems to be a confusion between this fable as found in Eo-
zon and that of the universal peace fable as found in Marie
do France and her dependents. The version in Jacques de
Vitry, also, is influenced by the episode in the Roman de-
Renart . as is shown by the use of the -vord Masange. This
confusion is not apparent in the fable of Bozon, for he has
followed the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition, v/here the kiss-
(3) ing motif mentioned above does not occur.
(1) Cf, Hervieux, vol. II., Rom. Bornensis Primus ,p.311,
(2) Cf. " " " Treverensis, p.59S.
(3) Cf. X/-'
62
Whether Marie de France v;as here the direct source of Bozon ennnot be deter-mined with any decree of certainty, althouf^h bis fable is nearer that of Marie de France than any other versiont It is at least certain that the fable belongs to the Anf^lo-Latin Romulus tradition.
IX. RAT SEEKING WIFE.
Versions : Marie de France 73; Rom. Treverensis 116; Odo of
Sherington 63, and 25 (Pseudo-Odo of Sherinr^ton (Collectio
Prima)); Rom. Bernensis Primus 42; Bozon 75.
The oldest fonn of this fable known to us is found (1) in the Pants chat antra. But the fable was already known in
England at least as early as the end of the tv/elfth centu- ry, since we find it in Marie de France and in her depend- ents. At this time the story-collections of the East had not penetrated into Western Eiirope, hence this fable must have come to England through folk tradition. Many changes, therefore, in the fable could easily have taken place, and it is not suri rising to find that it exists in the Aesopic fable colle<;tions under two different forms.
In one foni! of the fable the mother of the Rat ap-
U) Cf. Benfey, bk. III., 12, p. 262.
65
pears, vvhilo in the other form the mother is omitted and the fable makes mention only of the Rat, '■'^Iiich ,althoiigh fem- inine in the older versions, becomes ;:)asculine in Marie de France and in her dependents, and seeks a v.'ife for itself. The first of these two foi-ros exists in a Latin fable of the
thirteenth centn.ry, which is found, aiaong cithers, in the
(1) Pseudo-Odo of Sherini^ton (Collectio Prima). The second
form of our fable also occurs in Odo 63. Here, as in Bo- zon, it is the mus that wishes to marry. Although the fa- ble in Bozon belongs to this last type it differs in one point, especially, from both of the versions found in Odo of Srieri'igton. In Odo G'S the mus (feminine gender) desires as a husband the most powerful creature in t}:;e world, ""hile the second form of this fable in Odo (Pseudo-Odo of Sher- ington (Collectio Prim-i )) introduces a Mouse (masculine) that wishes to marry its daugh.ter to some powerful creature. This motif is entirely different from that in the fable in Bozon, where it is narrated that the Rat (masculine) wished to marry the daughter of the Sun. Now, it is the versions in Marie de Prance and the Rom. Treverensis, only, that agree with Bozon in this respect. The fable in the Rom.
(1) The date of this collection is probably the middle of the fourteenth century. See Hervieixx, vol. IV., p. 154, and Herlet, p. 44.
64
Bernensis Pi'imus , altViough it appears to be derived from
tlie Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition, has the r.iulotus , which
wishes to marry the Sun, not tlie daughter of the Sun.
The fact that no known version of this fable, except
that of Marie de France, the Rom. Treverensis and Bozon,
states that the motxse desires to marry the daughter of the
Sun, is sufficient to shov/ that Bozon has drawn this fable
from the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition. He could not have
(1) taken it from the Rom. Treverensis, for here v/o find mulus ;
hence he mu.st have b'^en inspired by the version in Marie de France.
The fable, as it appears in Bozon, proves to be somewhat original as regards the series of the objects ap- proached by the Rat. Odo of Sherington 63 (v/hose source, perhaps, is Marie de France) reduced the series of this author, while Bozon has enlarged it. In Bozon, are men- tioned sun, cloud, v/ind, rain, barn and mouse. The series in Bozon is as logical as that in Marie de France, and when one considers the liberty that Bozon frequently takes in
regard to his fables, it is not surprising that we find the
(2) series with him increased. As M. Meyer explains this se-
ll) Cf.Mall.op.cit. . p.lSi, and CT.Paris,Rom.XV(l8So) ,p.629, (2) Cf. C.M.de Bozon. p. 259, note 75.
65
ries the I'ain lowers thr; v/ind and tho barn prevents the rain from penetrating. Bozon I'robably considerd the barn •is a fiore fitting place than a wall ox- tower for rats to inhabit.lt does not appear that Bozon knew either of the two versions foiind in Odo of Sherington; for while with one version (LXIII), the objects approached by the Mouse are red^^ced to wind, castle and mouse, v;ith the other version (Pseudo-Odo of Sherington , (Collectio Prirnaj XXV. )three neii motifs enter: (a) the Mou.se first approaches the Moon,
(b) the castle replies, that the Domina is more pov^erful ,
(c) a Cat kills the Mo\ise. vrnether Odo of Sherington got his fable fnm Alfred of England, oi- i'rom Marie de Franco is not to be discussed here, but it is evident from what has preceded that Bozon aid not draw his fable from Odo of Shei'ington.
This fable does not occur in the Rom. Vulgaris nor
in its dependents. It is found in Hervieux II. but twice;
namely, in the Rom. Treverensi s collection and in the Ron.
(1) Bernensis Primus . It has been pointed out above that
Bozon differs in two or more important notifs from the Rom.
Treverensis and the Rom. Bernensis Primus, but that v/ith
Marie de Prance the agreement is complete, with the excep-
(1) Cf. page 6
66
tion of the increase of the series of tlie visits, v;hich, I think, has been sufficiently accounted for.
X. SUN SEEKING WIFE.
Versions : Rom. Vulgaris I, 7; Rom.Nilantii , I, 8; M'arie
de Prance 6; Rom. Trever^nsis 8; Jacques de Vitry 142;
Bozon 91,
This is a variation of the fable, Ranae ad Sol em of (1) Phaedrus; it has been widely circulated and consequently
has undergone much change. The form wliich we have here seems to be more closely connected with, fable 6 of Marie de Prance than with any other known version. Bozon, ho'vevor, offers some i^eculiarities on account of which the connec- tion between the two fables is not so clear. Below, each principal riotif is taken up and discussed in ref^ard to its relation to other versions to which Bozon night have been indebted for tiiis fable.
(2)
A. In Bozon the San suifarnoned the (creatures ) to its
court and asked for a rich wife. In Marie de Prance the
(1) Cf. Havet, fable 7, p. 8; Hervieux, vol. II., fable VI^p. S.
(2) The text reads: Le soleil fist jadis somondre a sa court • • • • ^ (here the copyist ?ias omitted some
words).
67
Sun desired the ^lid of the creatures in the selection of a wife. The Rom. Treverensis: the Sun wished to marry; the report went through the world and frightened the creatures. Rom. Nilantii (and also throughout the Rom. Vulgaris tradi- tion): robbers attend a wedding-feast; an old nan tells a story of the Sun wishing to marry.
Prom the indications given above it is seen that Bo- zon and Marie de Franco stand ou.t alone, in one respect, against the Rom. Nilantii, and the v/hole Rom. Vulgaris tra- dition; that is, in the motif of the Sun asking the advice of the creatures in the selection of a wife. It should be noted that the Rom. Treverensis has many points here in common with the Rom. Vulgaris.
In Marie de France and in Bozon only, the Sun ap- peals to the creatures. Compare Bozon:
Le soleil fist jadis somondre a sa court
(les creatures?); si les pria qe ils purveissent
de un i'iche dame a sa f emme ;
and Marie de France:
Que le soleiz volt femme prendre,
A tute creature dist
Que chescune se pu.rveist.
{vv. 2-4)
B. Compare Bozon:
Les autres alerent a Destinee a lui prierent de conseil ,
68
and Marie cle France:
Les crentau'es s' as arable rent ; A la destinee en alerent; Que de femme requiert conseil. (vv. 5-S).
In the Rom. Nilantii the p^^ople raise a clamor and
Jupiter demands the cause of it. In the Rom. Trev^rensi s
the people ask Jupiter how to avert such a calamity as
would arise from the marriage of the Sun. Bozon and Marie
de France a2;ree, therefore, in that the creatures r;o to
Cestiny for counsel, ^vhile the Rom. Treverensis and the
Rom. Nilantii substitute Jupiter.
C. The primary reason in Bozon and in Marie de France why the creatures go to Destiny, is in order to get counsel
in regard to the marriage of the Sun. This motif does not
(1)
occur in the other fable collections mentioned above. Here
again, it is seen that Bozon does not follow the Rom. Vul- garis tradition or the Rom. Treverensis.
D. In all the versions of this fable, that I have ex- (3) amined, v;ith the excep-tion of the version in Bozon, the
people (creatures in Marie de France) fear to have the Sun
(1) Cf, page <^^-
(2) Of. list of fable collections consulted, p. /^f:
69
(1)
marry. In Bozcn, Destiny tells the cre=^^tures (?) of their
folly in v:ishing the Sun to marry. V/he'^her this last trait is original witii Bozon, or whether he has borrowed it from some version v;ith which I am not acquainted, cannot be de- cided. It may be that this fable was not very clear in the mind of our author.
The reason given in Marie de Prance for the Sun not marrying, differs in part from Bozon. In Marie, the crea- tures fear that the earth would become so hot and dry that notliing would grow; in Bozon, Destiny says if the Sun be reinforced, all the creatures v/ould burn up. But compare this '.vith Marie de France:
Nule riens nel purra suffrir, Desuz lui vivre ne guai-ir.
(vv. 19-20).
This fable, though the ];'oint has in this instance been less conclusively shown than in the case of the pre- ceding fables, is to be classed as coming from Marie de France.
XI. MAN AND TREES. Versions: Rom. Vulgaris, III, 14; Rom. Nilantii, II, ir>;
(1) As a word, or words, are lacking in the text, I have supplied creatures (as in Marie de France).
70
Marie de ?rance 49; Rom. Treverensis 32; Bozon 94; John of Sheppey 66.
This WHS a very popular fable in the Middle A^es and is found throughout the Anglo-Latin Rormilus tradition, as well as in the Rom. Vulf^aris and its dependents. The gen- eral motifs of the several versions and their relation to one another will be seen below.
A. In Bozon it is a f ievre who makes an axe; also Marie de France has f evre and the Rom. Treverensis, faber. The Rom. Vulgaris, the Rom. Nilantii and Jol^m of Sheppey simply have homo.
B. In Bozon, -.nd also in John of Sheppey, the f evre (in John of Sheppey, homo) begs of the trees a handle. In the Rom. Nilantii, Marie de France and the Rom. Treverensis toj'-ether with the Rom. Vulgaris, the f evre (or homo ) asks the trees what kind of wood is best for an axe-handle.
C. In Bozon, all the trees refuse to furnish a handle for the axe, but at last the aubespine offers itself for this purpose. In John of Sheppey, the trees consent to fur- nish the handle, but no particular tree is mentioned. In Marie de France a new motif appears. After consultation.
71
the trees tell the fevre to take the neire espine. In the Rom. Tr ever ensis there is no c;jnsi.iltation ; the ornus ('.vild ash) gives t'-e handle to tr-.e Sinith. In the Rom. Nilantii the trees oru-iand the olive to furnish the handle; in the Rom. Vulgaris, the wild olive (olea strut?.) is chosen by the other trees.
There appears to be no general af];reement in this iiotif among the versions mentioned above, except that in Marie de France and in Bozon the thorn is procured by the smith for the handle of the axe.
D. Bozon:
The smith attacks the hav/thorn and cuts it down; Marie de France:
The smith cuts doi-Tn the thorn (1 ' espine) ; Rom. T rev er ensis:
The smith first cuts down the alder and then all
trees. The Rom. Vulgaris, the Rom. Nilantii and John of Shep- pey agree in that the smith cuts down all trees.
E. In Bozon the thorn reproaches the axe. In Marie d? France there is no dialogue between the smith {or the axe) and the tree. In all the other Latin versions mentioned
72
above the Table ends with:
Quercus ad fractinum, etc.
It will be observed that there are several motifs
here which are cominon to Marie de Prance and Bozon, but
which are no"^. fo-md in other versions.
(1) Compare Bozon*.
Un fievre fesayt un foiz un hasche bien trenchant; et pur ceo il ne out poynt manche pi*est , vynt al boys;
Marie de France:
Uns fevre fist une cuignic^e Dure e trenchant e bien forgiee; Mes ne s'en pot nient aidier Ne od li ne pot rion trenchier, De ci qu'ele fust enmanchiee. E d' 'dlcun fust apareilli^e. Al bois ala ••••••
(vv. 1-7)
As noted above (A) the Rom. Vulgaris and the Rom. Nilantii tradition substitute homo for fevre.
The motif in Bozon "all the trees refused, but at last the aubespine offered itself," is peculiar to our author, although in the Rom. Treverensis the wild ash of- fers itself. In all other versions of this fable, except in John of Sheppey, where the trees willingly offer them- selves, the trees consult and select one of their number to
73
furnish the handle. We must consider this motif as orig- inal with Bozon, just as in the Rom. Treverensis the motif of the wild ash off'^ring itself to the smith appears to be original with that collection. Bozon, no doubt, recounted the fables in his seraions many times before they were writ- ten down, hence many cases of divergences from the original text would naturally arise.
(2)
In Bozon and in Marie de France, only, the smith gets his handle from the thorn (in Bozon, aubespine; in Marie de France, espine neire) »
(3)
In Bozon and in Marie de France the smith cuts down
(1) the thorn only. In all the other versions mentioned above,
he begins to cu.t down all the trees.
(4)
In all the versions of this fable, except that of
Bozon and Marie de France, the fable ends with:
Q,uercus ad Praxinum, etc.
(5)
In Bozon the aubespine reproaches the axe:
De moy receflstez vostre honur, e ore me fetez tiel deshonurl
(1) Cf. page ^y.
74
ComparG this with Mai'io de France:
Mai gueredim li a rendu, Que do li ot sun inancheieiy
(vv. '23-24)
It has been shovm from what precedes that the fable undor discussion in Bozon bears no resemblance to the vari- ous versions belonging to the Rom. Vulgaris tradition. From the number and agreement of motifs which are common to Bo- zon and Mario de France aloae, it is plain that our author is indebted to Marie for this fable.
XII. LION AND MOUSE. Versions: Rom. Vulgaris I, 17; Rom. Nilantii I, 17; Marie de France 15; Rom. Trevorensis 17; Jacques de Vitry 145; Spec. Doct. II, 116; Bozon 129.
For this fable there are two important motifs that Bozon has in common with Rom. Nilantii and Marie de France, but which do not occur in anj' of the other familiar fable collections of the Middle A:';;;es.
In the first place, in Bozon as in Marie de France and the Rom, Nilantii, the mouse with the aid of its com- panions frees the lion. All the other versions of this
(1) fable that I have examined have a single mouse as the de-
(1) Cf. list of fable collections consulted, p./f^-
75
liverer of the Lion.
We come now to the second motif which is conmon with
Bozon, Hax'io de France and the Rom. Nilantii, but which
does not ai pear in the Rom. Vulgaris, in Jacques de Vitry
Of in the SiJeculiom Doctrinale.
Bozon saj/s:
Et assemble ses compaignons e rongerent les cordez de la reye dont la fosse fust covert, a lui enseignerent coment deveit romper la corde e eschaper.
Compare this with Mario de France:
Gratez la terre e vostre pif/ Tant qu' aferraer vus i puissiez. E puis a munt bien vus sachiez. Que si purrez ca hors eissir. E j eo ferai od ;aei venir Altres suriz pur mei aidier As cordes , ki ci sunt, trenchier (vv. 52-38)
Compare also the Rom. Trevorensis:
Terram ungulis tuis effossam in cumulum trahes, et de cujnulo saliendo laciiin superare pot oris.
With the Rom. Vulgaris, Jacques de Vitry and the Speculum Doctrinale, the Mouse alone gnaws the not. No mention is made of instnacting the Lion how to act.
These facts show conclusively, I think, that Bozon has dravm this fable from the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition
76
-incl not from the Rom. Vulgaris, or its dependents. No^v, as
it appears to be reasonably certain tliat Bozon did not know
(1) the Rom. Nilantii or the Rom. Treverensis, he moat prob- ably drew it i'rom tho collection of Marie di Fj-ance. The fable is not in Odo of Shei'ington or in John of Sheppey.
XIII. MAN AND OXEN. Versions : Marie de Fi-ar. ce 84; Rom. Treverensis 63; Rom. Robert! 18; Bozon 130.
Jl-^re Bozon must have followed the An":lo-Latin Rom- ulus tradition; the fable is not in the Rom. Vuln;aris or in Odo of Sherin?:ton, but it is found in Marie de France, the Rom. Treverensis and the Rom. Roberti.
In the Rom. Treverensis the rusticus uses a goad on the ox'^n and loads them heavily, so that th. ey con.pl ain. In Bozon and in Marie de France no mention is m.ade of harsh treatment, but it is the vile work of which the oxen com- plain. This last motif is not brought out in the Rom. Ro- berti.
On comparing the following passages it will be seen that Bozon follows Marie de France vecy closely.
(1) Cf. page YT'^-'^^/^^/-
77
Bozon:
Marie;
Malment alowez le payn e la cerveyse qe avez par nostre travailles, quant de tiel travaille nous avez encombree.
Li buef par tencun 1 ' assailirent , Si repruverent al vilein. La bone cerveise e le pelu. Que par lur travail ot ei!i. ; Mes malement lur a rendu: Qu' a grant hunte les dernena. (vv. 4-9)
Bozon must have taken this directly from I!arie de
France. Thg phrase in Bozon:
Malment alowez le payn e la cerveyse qe avez par nostre travailles,
shows an unmistakable relationship with Marie's.
Si repruverent al vilein La bone cerveise e le pein Que par lur travail ot e^. (vv. 5-7)
Bozon:
Pax' qui fust la meison de fienz enpl^?
resembles the Rom. Treverensis:
Interrogo te quis is concessit?
but compare also flarie de France:
• • • • • Yus le femastes E la maison en encumbrastes.
(vv. 13-14)
78
Notice that in the Rom. Treverensis there is but one
ox, while in Bozon, Karie de France and the Rom. Roberti
two oxen are mentioned. Finally, compare Bozon:
Ne est ceo donq reison qe vous la deliverez?
and Marie de France:
Si lur respunt que hors le traient Bien est dreiz que le peine en aient. (vv. 17-18)
Outside the Anp;lo-Latin Romulus tradition this fable
is rarely found. There is a version in the Dyalop^us Crea-
(1) ■turariim, but it has nothing in cornmon with Bozon. Certain
passages in Bozon and Marie de France agree so closely, as
(2) shown above that hardly any doubt can exist as to the one
being directly dependent on the other.
XIV. LION AND COMPANIONS.
Vers ions :
Rom. Vulgaris I, 6; Rom. Nilantii I, 6; Marie
de France 11; Rom. Treverensis 6; Jacques de Vitry 156; Bozon 131; John of Sheppey 4.
This fable exists in two different forms. In the Rom. Nilantii are found two fables closely resembling each
(1) Of, Nicolaus Pergamenus, Dyalogus Creatararum, Biblio- thek des literarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, Vol. 148.
(2) Of. page 7 7.
79
other, the one entitled: 'Pe Leone Bubalo et Lupo Venatum perg^entibus* , and the other (which ininiediately follows the first): 'Vacca. Capra et Ove. que Leoni se sociaverunt ' . In the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition these two fables also ap- pear, occupying the same relative position as in the Rom. Nilantii.
The companions of the Lion in Bozon; namely, the chievre and the poleyne are peculiar to our author, and, indeed, their appearance here is in itself strange. But the use of poleyne may be explained, perhaps, by the fact thai, the exemplum treats of the nature of the Ass and its Colt, while in the second part of the doiible fable in ^1arie de France the Goat is one of the companions of the Lion. Bozon again offers us here a peculiar feature in that the prize is a veel (calf) and not a Stag, as is found in Marie de France and in the majority of the other versions. It is, therefore, not probable that Bozon knew a version of this fable in which these unusual animals occur, for the Colt and the Calf are not characters commonly appearing in fable literature. Such substitutions and divergences as we find them in Bozon and other writers, must frequently have had their origin in the desire of some author to make inno- vations and thus to distinguish himself from his predeces-
80
sors. In other cases he was probably endeavoring to better adapt the fable to the understanding of his readers. This is the reason that motifs not authorized by tradition, or even without any resei'iblance at all to the original, have been inserted in fables of the Bozon type.
Bozon probably knew both forms of the fable (that (1) is, no, 1 and no. 2 above) since we find in his fable mo- tifs which belong to the first as well as to the second part. In fable No. 1 of the Rom. Milantii (fable 6), which corresponds to the first part of the fable in Marie de France, the prize is divided into three parts, while in the second part of the fable (fable 8), as also in ?'arie de France (second part of fable), the Rom, Vulgaris, the Rom. Treverensis (fable 7) and John of Sheppey (fable 4) the di- vision is made into four parts, Bozon in this respect fol- lows fable Mo, 1, There is here a close resemblance with Marie de France. Compare Bozon:
A moi apent le tierz partie par reison de seignurie,
and Ifarie de France:
Li leuns a dit e jure
Que la primiere part arreit Pur ceo qu'ert reis e dreiz esteii (vv, 15-18)
?1)" Cf. page 7, .
81
In regard to the second division of the prize by the Lion, -another peculiarity in the fable of Bozon is to be noted, which, so far as I know, is found no'.vhere else ex- cept in fable no. 2 of the Rom. Nilantii (Vacca, Capra et Oye) . Here we find "Leo cerviam prostravit". It is only in Bozon and in the Rom, Nilantii that the Lion alone captures the prize. This motif is, naturally, introduced in the di- vision of the same. So Bozon:
L'autre partie a moy apent paijceo qe j eo le pris.
The Rom. Nilantii has simply:
Tertiam mihi defendo, eo quod plus omnibus cucurri ,
which is the same as in F.arie de France.
But Bozon has not taken this motif directly from the Rom. Nilanti no. 2, because here four divisions of the booty are made, while in his fable there are but three divisions. For the same reason he has not drawn his fable either from the Rom. Vulgaris tradition or from John of Sheppey no, 1, where also the booty is divided into four parts.
In Bozon, the reason which the Lion gives for taking unto himself the third part, agrees 7/ith the second part of the fable in Marie de France, where four divisions of the booty are made:
82
Compare Rozont
Ore covienl entre nous combatre pur la tierce partie;
and Marie de France:
La quatre ai j eo si divis^e
Que nuls ne l' avra senz meslee,
(vv. 37-38)
Bozon here follows \'dthout doubt Marie, for in all the other versions of this fable the motif of fighting for the third (or fourth part) does not appear. In the other versions, both in no. 1 and no. 2, the Lion warns his com- panions that if they touch the third (or fourth) part they v/ill incur his displeasure. This motif occurs in the sec- ond part of the fable of Marie de France, where four di-
(1) visions of the booty are made, but as mentioned above Bozon
was evidently acquainted with both parts, so it is not sur- pi'ising to meet in his fable a motif belonging to fable no. 2, although for the rest he follov;s no. 1.
In the version as found in Jacques de Vitry, the companions of the Lion (Ove. Capra et .Timienta) seize a Stag, just as is represented in ^1arie de France. The booty is divided into three parts. This motif is found elsewhere only in Marie de France (and in the versions dependent on Marie) and in Bozon. For the rest of -the fable, the ver-
(1) Cf. page tC
8S
sion in Jacques de Vi'^ry agrees throarhout very closely with the first part of the fable of Marie de France, but there is one point which proves that Bozon did not draw his fable from this collection. In regard to the third divis- ion the Lion in Jacques de Vitry says:
Terciam si quis acceperit sciat qtiod amicus non erit meus. (1) As stated above, Bozon and Mario de Prance alone
agree in that the Lion says that whoever touches the third
part will have to fight him.
It should be noted that the episode of the Lion's (2) Share in the Roman de Renart bears no resemblance to our
fable. Here the Lion asks first the Wolf and, then, the
Pox, to divide the spoil. This episode is taken from the
(3) Aesopic fable oi' the Lion hunting with the Ass and the Fox,
(4) and not from that of the Lion and Ass, from v/hich the fa- ble in Bozon is derived, although the two fables are no doubt, originally, the development of the same theme. The two versions in Odo of Sherington XX. and XXIX. (Pseudo- Odo of Sherington) (Collectio Tertia) and Jo?m of Shep-
(1) Cf. page d-L
(2) Cf. Brar^ch, XVI., vv. 721-1504. (5) Cf. Halhi , CCLX.
(4) Cf. " , CCLVIII; Babrius, fable LXVII
84
pey (V) resemble the episode in the Roman de Renart,
In this fable Bozon offers only a short abridgment of the longer fable as it occurs in other fable collections. Hence, a comparison with other texts cnn be made only in regard to the chief motifs of the fable. It has been shown above that ol" all the versions it is with Mario de France that Bozon agrees throughout, except that the Lion himself in Bozon seizes the prize. This fable, therefore, should be placed, as dependent on Marie de France.
XV. ASS' HEART.
Versions :Babrius 95; Avianus 30; Marie de France 70; Rom.
Treverensis 61; Kirchhof 84; Bozon 142.
(1) This fable is of Indian origin. In the Indian ver- (?) sion 's.s represented by Baldo, Kirchhof and Johannes de Cap-
(3) ua, the story is told, as in Bozon, of an Ass, which, v/hen
killed, was found to have no heart; while in Pabrius, Marie
de France, che Rom. Treverensis, and also in the versions
(4) (5)
found in the chronicles of Fredegarius and Aimoinus it is
(1) Cf.Benfey, Pantschatantra , Bk.I, IV, 2, p. 295.
(2) Cf. Du Meril. Poesies Inedites du moyen age. Baldo .p. 255.
(3) Cf. Hervieux, vol.V,ch.VI, fol. K.
(4) Cf. Hervieux, vol. Ill, p. 502.
(5) Ibid. , vol. Ill, p. 503.
35
(1)
the heart of the Sta^^ that the Lion demands.
There is also another version of this fable, which
belongs to the Middle Ages, concerning a Boar which ^vas
found to have no heart. The circTJmstances here , however , are
ver.v different from the earlier version, having nothing in
common with our fable. The later version seems to have been
(2) a popiilar story.
The various versions of this fable may be most con- veniently divided into three groups:
1. The Oriental Groupj with the i
2. The Cl^issical Group, where the Stag is slain.
3. The Mediaeval Group, where it is the question of a
(3) boar without a heart.
Another grouping may be made of the versions of this
fable as represented by the fabulists mentioned above. Bozon,
Marie de Prance, the Rom. Treverensis, Philip of Navarre in
(1) This foi^i of the fable also occurs in a manuscript of the Biblioth^que de Rheims (cf. Hervieux, vol. Ill, p. 508) and in a version published by Hervieux, vol. Ill, p. 507.
(2) Cf. Avianus 30, and the Gesta Romano rum, ch. 83.
(3) This group is called Mediaeval as a convenient con- trast, although the earliest version occurs in Avianus. Cf. Zeitschrift ftlr Vergleichende Litteratur geschichte , vol. VII, (1894) pp. 264-267; George C. Keidel,'Die Eselherz - (Hirschherz -, Eberherz - ) Fabel'.
86
(1)
his Gestes des Chiprois (mentioned by M, fleyerjj the Rheims
manuscript and also the Greek tradition agree in the fact
that the Lion is sick and needs, in order to be cured, the
heart of the Stag (Bozon, heart of the Ass). In Raldo ,
Bredegarius and Aimoinus, on the other hand, the Lion is not
sick, but demands the death of the Stag because it did not
(2) appear at court. If Bozon, in respect to this last motif,
agrees with the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition, why is it that we find v(?ith him the Ass, as in the oldest version, and noT; the Stag, which is made the victim of the Lion?
There arc several ways in which Bozon could have be- come acciuainted with the version as found in the Pantschat- antra. He may have known, for example, the woi'k of Johannes de Capua and analagous fable compilations, or he may have become acquainted with the fable through oral tradition. The mere fact, however, that one of the actors of the fable agrees with the older versions, rather than with the later ones, is not sufficient proof, to cause it to be placed in the Oriental Group. The whole trend of the fable as found in Bozon agrees closely with the Clfsssical Group, to which
(1) Cf. CM. de Bozon, p. 294, note 142.
(2) This motif also occurs in a version printed by Hervieux, vol. Ill, p. 507. In Johannes de Capua the Lion desires the heart and ears of the Ass; no mention is made of the Lion sumraoning the animals to court.
87
the Anglo-Litin Romulus tradition most certainly belongs.
It is possible, however, that Bozon may have known an oral tradition of this fable in which the Ass is the vic- tim, as In the Indian version, thovigh agreeing for the rest of the fable with the Anglo-La*- in Romulus tradition. But if such was the case no similar version is known to-day; there- fore, an explanation based on the probability of Bozon being acquainted with a version of this f-^ble in vmich the Ass is
substituted for the Stag a'lOiild not be received too readily.
(1) M, Meyer believes that because Bozon introduced this example
in a chapter where it is a question of the na'^'ure of "^he Ass , he must have kncm a version in which the Ass 'vas si;b- stituted for the Stag. It vould seem to me, however, - since we know of no version outside of Bozon where the Ass is sub- stituted for the Stag - more logical to suppose that, for this very reason; namely, that Bozon introduced this example in a chapter where it is a question of the nature of the Ass, this substitution was made so as to bring the fable in- to closer agreement with the preceding exemplum on which the
fable depends. Examples of a similar kind will be found
(2) throughout the Pontes of Bozon and need cause no surprise.
(1) Cf. C_5_JLL_de, Bo zon , p. 294.
(2) Cf. fable of Fox and Pigeon, p.//'
88
Bozon, in common with other writers of his class, proceeded generally in the followinf^ manner: He introduc- ed the "property" of an animal, a plant or a rock and dra'vs therefrom a moral which, furthermore, the author confirms by the recital of some suitable fable, tale or anecdote. But the order adopted by Bozon is different from that of the other similar collections, where the fables are the principal subject; with Bozon, however, it is the philo- sophic theme which occupies the first rank, and the fable or anecdote, instead of pi-ecedinf^, follows the exemplum. The fable, although important, is only an accessory to the exemplum. It is not surprising, then, that Bozon, wherever he deemed it fitting, should make some slight changes in the body of the fable; such, for example, as the substitu- tion of a different actor in the fable, or the addition of some new motif.
That preachers, in making use of fables and apo- logues, allowed themselves such a license as the changing at will of the actors of the fable, we have abundant proof. The celebrated editor of Bozon' s Pontes Moralises makes an intc-resting study of a collection of exempla composed between 1275 and 1279 by an Englishman who belonged to the Francis-
89
(1) ciscan order of monks. According to M. Me;er, the author
in more than one place carefully points o\it how certain exempla ought to be modified dccording to the audience ad- dressed, and, as an illustration, the writer rives an ex- aniple of two versions of the story, very different in cir- cumstances, which has as its base the legend of Jean Gane- bei-t. This fact, I think, will explain in a great measure the peculiarities which appear in some of the fables of
Bozon. It may be noted, however, that the exomplum in par-
(2) agraph 23 may also have influenced Bozon, where the Lion
is represented as having great hatred toward the Ass be- cause it greatly desired to eat the flesh of the latter, (3) As has been said, the fable in Bozon does not agree
except in title, v/ith the oldest version; that is, with the Oriental Group, but rather with the Classical Group. fore- over, a comparison of the fable of our author with the ver- sion of Marie de France will show how closely the former has followed the latter in this fable.
A. Bozon agrees with Mai'ie de France (and the Rom. Treverensis) in the fact that the Lion is sick and that the beasts assemble in order to advise him in x-egard to his
(1) Cf. Romania, vol. XXI, (1892), p. 303: Notices et ex- traits des manuscrits. XXXIV, P. Meyer.
(2) Cf. C. M. de Bozon. par. 23, p. 37.
(3) Cf. page 8:- .
90
(1) disease. In Baldo, Fredegarius , Airnoinus and others still,
the motif of the Lion being sick doos not enter.
B, In Bozon and in Marie de France (and also in the Rom. Trevorensis which naturally agrees -vith Marie) the an- imals advise the Lion to eat the heart of a Stag (in Bozon, Ass). This is directly opposed to the other versions men- tioned above, vfhere the life of the Stag is demanded be- cause the Stag alone of all the beasts did not appear at court.
C. In Mai'ie de France and in Bozon the victim is
present, but while the Stag in Marie escapes, the Ass in
(2) Bozon begs to be allowed to go home to make its will.
D. Instead of being siimmoned three times to court, as is the Stag in Marie de France, the Ass in Bozon is be- guiled to the court by the Fox. This same motif occurs in
(3) the chronicles of Fredegarius, of Airnoinus and of Fromundus
In all the other versions mentioned above, the Stag (or Ass) returns after the third summons.
The fable of Stag without a Heart 'yas a very popular
(1) Cf. note Ct page T ,
(2) Cf. Fable of Wolf and Lamb, p.//;^
(3) In Fromundus we have the Bear instead of the Lion who summons the Stag. Cf.Hervieux, vol. Ill, p. 505.
91
story and it is possible that Bozon knew it as it existed in the chronicles just mentioned, but that he knew it only through oral tradition is still more likely; at any rate, he could not have draurn his fable from these sources, for here, as noted before, the Lion is not sick (as in Rozon) , but he demands the death of the Stag because it did not ap- pear at court. It would seem that the motif of sending the Fox for the Stag (or Ass) has been added b^' later writers in order to explain more closely the return of this animal.
Th-?re is a fable, however, in Odo of Sherington (Pseudo-Odo of Sherington (Oollectio Prima), VII, entitled De Asino nolente venire ad Parliamentum Leonis, in which the same motif occurs. The Lion summons the animals in general assembly; when they had assembled he asked if there were not some absent. It was found that the Ass was not px'esent. The Lion immediately sends the Wolf and the Fox to seek the Ass and bring him by force, if necessary, to the court. The remainder of the fable bears no resemblance
to Bozon, but has a likeness to the well-known fable in the
(1) Romuliis tradition, where the Horse asks the Lion to exam- ine his hoof and then kills the Lion with a kick. Rozon
(1) Cf. Hervieux, vol. II, pp. 214,256,336,360,405,455,470 493,532, etc.
92
may have known this i'able and been infli^enced by it for this motif; or he may have been influenced by th'^ episode in the Roman de Renart . where the Fox is siunmoned to the coui't of the Lion, and on his non-appearance the Bear and the Cat ai-e sent to conduct him thither.
E. Compare Bozon:
Tost fust le asne tuee e deschorchee overt et defet. Et en defasaunt le gopil embla le queor e privement le mangea ;
and Marie de France:
Einz qu'il fust bien parescorchiez , S'est 11 gupiz tant aprismiez Qu'il lur aveit le quer emblee, Si I'a mangie e devore.
(vv. 19-22)
F. The reason given by the Fox as to why the Stag (Ass in Bozon) has no heart is the same for Bozon and Marie de France.
Compare Bozon:
Remembraunce vient hors de queor, e
il out perdu remembraunce de son
peril quant autre foiz retorna a sa mort.
and Marie de France:
Saciez qu'il n' aveit point de quer; Car il n'i venist a nul fuer. Senz quer fu e senz remembrance; Pur ceo revint par iibliance. I (vv. 59-62)
93
G. Bozon:
"Bien avet dit,''fet le leoun." Retornez sanz chalange (a meson).
Marie de France:
Li liuns respunt que veir dist: S'il ei'^.s+ quer, ja n' i venist. Bien devum le gupil laissier. Que seins s ' en puisse repairier. (vv. 67-70)
To sum up, then, the motifs of this fable that are
corniion to Bozon and Mai-ie de Fi-ance:
(1) Tho Lion i^ sick; in all other versions (except the Rom. Treverensis and the Rheims manuscript) that have been examined this motif does not enter,
(2) The heart of the Stag (or Ass) is to cure the Lion.
(3) The victim is present only in Bozon, Marie de France and the Rom. Treverensis. The Ass, in Bozon, not
being so swift as the Stag, could not escape so easily.
Bozon, therefore, represents the Ass as r^oing home to make
(1) his will. The motif that the Fox is sent for the Ass may
(2) be original with Bozon. But perhaps, as already noted, he
may have known one of the popular versions of the fable as
found in the chronicles of Fredegarius or Aimoinus.
(1) Cf. page IIH-.
(2) Cf. page ^
94
(4) A conparison of the phraseology of the two texts (Bozon and Marie de France) shows great similarity.
This fable is not in the collection of Odo of Sher- ington. It occurs but once in Hervieux, ''^ol. II., namely, in the Rom, Treverensis. There can be no doubt but that Bozon is here dependent on the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradi- tion and not on the Oriental versions of the fable. That he has follov.'ed Marie de France is, I think, evident.
In the discussion of the particular fables already (1) mentioned, the resemblance between Bozon and Karie de
France in each of the fables examined has been clearly shown, although this resemblance has naturally been more ev- ident for cex'tain fables than for others. The next ques- tion to \e discussed is, whether for these particular fa- bles Bozon is directly dependent on Mario de France, or whether he was acquainted with a collection of fables, now lost, closely allied to Marie's fables, but which had been somev/hat modified, either by influence of other fable col- lections upon the author, or by reason of the author's own
individuality.
(2) M. Meyer, as noted in the Introdiiction, has conclud-
(1) Cf. page 2ff.
(2) Cf, Intro duel, ion, p. /-O
95
ed that Bozon must have known a collection of fables, writ- ton either in English or in French, and which had in part
the same soiirce a^ i.hose of Max'ie de France. Of the thirty- ID seven Aesopic fables which the distinn;uished editor of the
Pontes Moralises notes as being contained ir. the Pontes of
Bozon, the following fables are pointed out by him as those
which more closely resemble the corresponding versions in
Marie de France:
Bozon 47, Monkey and Child ( Marie 51);
Eozon 61, Fox and Dove ( Marie 61);
Bozon 75, Rat seeking Wife ( Mario 73);
Bozon 91, Sun wishing to Marry ( Marie 6);
Bozon 94; Man and Trees ( Jlarie 49);
Bozon 130, Man and Oxen ( Marie S4) ;
Boxon 142, Ass' Heart ( Marie 70).
For these seven fables, M. Meyer, in his coinmentary
to the Pontes . has pointed out the resemblance between Bo-
(2) 2on and Marie de France, but he states that the resemblance
is not complete enough to justify the conclusion that Bozon
(1) This number may be increased by two fables. The ti- tles of those fables, noL given in the list on page XVII (C.M.de Bozon) . are as follows: par. 4, Lion as Judge; par. 42, Wolf and Hedgehog. These two fables, however, are not- ed in the commentary to the Bozon text.
(2) Pf. P. M. de Bozon. p. XIX.
96
boxTowed them directly fx-om Marie. This hypothesis, he thinks, can be admitted only for the Table of Man and Oxen (Bozon 130). For the other six fables it is necessary to suppose that Bozon desired to modify the original text. The editor, however, does not believe that Bozon did so al- ter his text, since the details of the fable must have been to him only of secondary importance; nor does he believe that the modifications found in Bozon are due to an imper- fect memory on his part. (1) Herlet holds that sufficient attention has not been
given to the connection between the fables of Bozon and those of Marie de France. In addition to the fables of Bo- zon noted by M, Meyer as being dependent on Marie's fables, Herlet adds the following:
Bozon 18, Peacock and Juno ( Marie 31);
Bozon 25, Lion as King ( Marie 29);
Bozon 42, V/olf and Hedgehog ( Marie 71);
Bozon 50, Cat as Bishop ( Marie 101);
Bozon 55, Sheep and Wolf before Lion ( Marie 4).
Herlet is convinced that Marie de. France is one of the chief sources of Bozon's fables. If the agreement be- tween these two authors is at times only imperfect, this
(1) Cf. Introduction, p.//
97
fact should not hinder one from acknowled^ring it, since it
was charactei'istic of Bozon not to follo'.v strictly his
original.
After a careful study of the fables of Bozon, I have
come to the conclusion that three other fables can be added
to the list of fables that Mess^rs. Meyer and Herlet have
already given as dependent on Marie de France. They are:
(1) Bozon 17, Owl and Hawk ( Marie 79);
(2) Bozon 129, Lion and Mouse ( Marie 16);
(3) Bozon 131, Lion and Companions ( Marie 11).
These fables, I believe, can be reckoned as dependent on
Marie de France with as much certainty as those already
noted by M. Meyer and Herlet.
In the discussion of the fables treated in this sec- (4) tion, attention has frequently been called to the fact that
if certain fables of Bozon, in part at least, do not show a close resemblance with Marie, they possess, however, giv- en motifs which prove that they belong to the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition, as differentiated from the Rom. Vulgaris tradition. It would at first glance seem probable then.
(1) Cf. page 30.
(2) Cf. page 7-^.
(3) Cf. page 7t.
(4) Cf. page :i1.
9S
that Eozon might have had recourse for some of his lebles to collections outside of Marie ^vhich belonged to the Anglo- Latin Romulus tradition; such as, the Rom. Treverensis, the Rom, Roberti; or even, perhaps, to the Rom. Kilantii:
A comparison of the fables of Bozon with the corres- ponding fables in the Rom, Treverensis, however, vill show that Bozon was not acquainted with this collection, al- though there is naturally a great similarity between it and certain fables of I'larie de France, and also, those ex Bo- zon, The following examples of non-agreement bet'^een Bozon and the Rom. Treverensis have been noted:
(1) Bozon 42; Wolf and Hedgehog ( Rom, Treverensis 62): In the Rom. Treverensis the fable is more expanded than in either Marie de France or Bozon, Bozon here closely follows Marie.
(2) Bozon 47; Monkey and Child ( Rom, Treverensis 41): The Monkey in Bozon and in Marie has but one child; in the Rom, Treverensis two children are mentioned,
(3) Bozon 75; Rat seeking Wife ( Rom, Treverensis 116): Bozon has rat, Marie, inulez_, or suriz ; the Rom. Treverensis has mulus .
(4) Bozon 130, Man and Oxen ( Rom. Treverensis 63): In the Rom. Treverensis, the rusticus usep a goad on the
99
oxen and loads them heavily, so that they complain. Bozon and Marie agree in that no mention is made of harsh treat- ment by the Man, bat it is the vile work of which the oxen complain. This last motif is not brourjht out in the Rom. Roberti.
In addition to the above examples other suggestions might be made which wo\ild go to prove the improbability of Bozon' s ac'{Li aintance with a Rom. Treverensis manuscript. For example:
(1) As most manuscripts -vere both rare and expensive in the fliddle Ages, and as Bozon himself was but a poor Fran- ciscan monk, it is probable that he possessed only a few works of his own. Since he evidently made frequent use of a French fable collection in his sermons (t?iat is, the col- lection of Marie de France), it is likely that he had be- fore him a manuscript volume containing various French works, among v/hich was a fable collection. It is certain also that he was acquainted with the fables of Odo of Sher- ington, both in his re:3ular collection and in his Parabo- lae, where they occur sporadically. These two works of Odo
were probably contained in separate manuscripts including a
(1) variety of Latin treatises. As Bozon do'^'s not frequently
(1) Cf. Hervieux' descriptions of the extant manuscripts of the fables of Odo of Sherington, Hervieux, vol. IV, p. 47 sq.
100
take his fables from any other Latin author, it is probable that no other m an i:i script containing a Latin fable collec- tion was known to him,
(2) Just as Alfred translated tho Anf^lo-Latin Romiilus in English for the lay folk, so Marie de Prance translated Alfred's collection for the French speakinjt people of Eng- land. Bozon, in r:riting for the common folk, ^rould nat- urally pr'^fer fables related in a vulgar tongue to those given in a Latin version.
(3) It must have been noticed in the discussion of the
(1) fables of this group that no fable is foiind in both Bozon
and in the Rom. Treverensis that does not also occixr in
Marie de France. If Bozon had drawn at random from the
Rom. Treverensis, in all probability he woiild have selected
a few fables among the many which are not in Marie.
(4) The greater mutiber of the Rom. Treverensis nanu- (2)
scripts are at the present time preserved in German libra- ries. This fact would tend to prove that the collection in question was originally written in that country, since the majority of the manuscripts of a given author wov^ld
(1) Cf. page 7_ ,
(2) The extant mamiscripts of the Rom. Treverensis, as far as is known, are preserved only in the following libraries:
1. Brxixelles, Bibl.Royale, 536.
2. Copenhagen, Kgl.Bibliothek , GKS, 4 , 1978.
(also
101
natui'ally reraain in the coiintry in -vhich they were copied.
Again, we have evidence that the Rom. Treverensis was knovn
in Germany in the thirteenth century, for xf=i still have the
translation made there by Gerhard von Minden in 1270 A.D.
The Rom. Treverensis in the British Museiun, the only man- ID iiscript now in England, is both late and very incomplete. It
is not probable, therefore, that Bozon was acquainted with
a work which seems to have been unknovm in England during
(2) the Middle Ages.
As for the Rom. Kilantii, a few examples will suf- fice to show its non-agreement v/ith Bozon:
(3) (1) Bozon 91, Sun seeking Wife ( Rom. Milantii, 1,8).
The fable in the Rom. Nilantii resembles the version in the Rom. Vulgaris as differentiated from that in Marie de France and in Bozon.
3. Gflttingen, Universitatsbibl. Theol. 126.
4. " " " 140.
5. London, British Museum, Royal, 15, A. VII.
6. Mainz, Stadtbibliothek , Univ. Mogunt. 27.
7. Trier, " 215 num. loc. 11.
8. " " 1107
9. " " 1108.
(1) Cf. Catalogue of Romances in the_D apartment of Man- uscripts in the British Museum, vol. II., p. 286; H. L.D.Ward London, 1893.
(2) For this suggestion I am indebted to Dr. G.C.Keidel, of the Johns Hopkins University.
(3) Cf , page C
102
(1)
(2) Bozon 94, Man axid Trees (Rom. Nilantii, II., 16):
In the Rom. Nilantii the fable ends:
Quercus ad Fraxinum, etc. (as also throughout the
whole Rom. Vulgaris tradition). Bozon and Marie de France
have nothing like this.
(2)
(3) Bozon 131; Lion and Companions ( Rom.Nil'-Jntii I., 5)
In the Rom. Nilantii the Lion divides the booty into four parts; in Bozon and in Marie de France but three divisions are made.
(4) Bozon makes use of several fables that are not found
(3) in the Rom. Nilantii.
There is no doubt that Bozon, for a part of his fa- bles, is dependent on Marie de France. But how close is this dependence? Is there any evidence that Bozon copied
directly from the Marie text? M. Meyer is conservative in
(4) this matter and prefers to posit an int ern/iedi ary text,
either English or French, betv.reen Bozon and Marie. Herlet,
on the other hand, believes that there is a closer rela-
(5) tion than this second remove between the ^,wo authors.
(1) Cf. page ^7.
(2) Cf. page !%■
(3) Cf. pages ^0, ^1, 7fo,>,^.
(4) Cf. C.M.de Bozon. p.XXII. For convenience sake I v.ould suggest that this intermediary text posited by M.Meyer be called the Ysopet d' Angleterre.
(5) Cf. Herlet, op.cit. . p,51.
103
On comparing the fables of Bozon with those of Marie de France, I have been frequently impressed with the close re- semblance that exists among the words and phrases of the two authors thus compared for certain fables. The follow- ing example will show the resemblance:
(1)
(1) Bozon 17; Owl and Hawk ( Marie 79):
Besides the general motifs which are common to Bozon and to
Marie de France, there is a striking resemblance between
the two versions in the following phrases:
Compare Bozon:
Tan que le ostur voleit gere lur viunde. revynt et trova son ny ordement soilli,
and Marie de France:
Puis lur ala cjuerra viunde
Mes quant a els fu repairiez Esteit sis niz orz e suillez,
Bozon, moreover, for this fable has made use of the
moral in Marie.
(2)
(2) Bozon 42, Wolf and Hedgehog ( Marie 71):
Bozon and Marie de France begin their fable in the same manner: Bozon:
Le lou prist un agneile e fui sui
(1) Cf. page SO. [2] Gf. page Af-~
104
des chiens et des bsastons, e prist son congee del hericeoim d'eschaper au bois;
and Marie:
Un aiKUel prist 11 lous un .jour.
Li chien li vunt apres huant , E il s'en vet al bois fuiant.
(vv. 9-12)
Compare again Bozon:
Au beisere Xe herieeon lui erda al menton.
and Marie:
Li lous balsa le hericun , E il s'aert a sun men tun.
(VV25-26)
(1) (3) Bozon 50, Cat as Bishop. ( Marie 101)
Bozon:
Le chat sit sur le fourure e vynt la sorice champestre * * *.
Marie de France:
Uns chaz seeit desur un fur. • ••«•••••
Vit le mulet e la suriz
(vv. 1-3) (2) Here, as in the preceding example, it will be noticed
that Bozon' s agreement with Marie is especially striking in
the beginning of the fables.
(1) Cf. page 6^3.
(2) Cf. page /
105
(1)
(4) Bozon 55, Sheep and Wolf before Lion ( Marie 4).
Bozon:
Quant le lou ad pris ceo qe lui pi est .
lors vynt le gopil tot prest ,
e le corf ne veut mye tart ,
ne le mastyn de prendre sa part
Marie de France:
Li chiens i vient, sa part en porte
E li escufles d'altre part
E puis li lous, trop li est tart«
(vv. 28-30)
Notice that, just as in (2) and (3), wo have examples of
Bozon shovving close agreement vrith Marie at the ber;inning of
his fables, so here at the end of the fable it v'ould seem
that he was imitating her version.
(2) (5) Bozon 91, Sun seeking Wife { Marie 6):
Bozon:
Les autres alerent a Destinee • • •
Marie de France:
Les creatures s* asemblerent ; A la destinee en alerent.
(vv. 5-6)
Bozon, as well as Marie, makes frequent use of the
(3) word, destinee. in exactly the same circumstances.
(1) Cf. page 3-5-
(2) Cf. page- rs) Cf. C. M. de Bozon. fable of Peacock and Juno, par, 18.
106
(1) (6) Bozon 130, Man and Oxen ( Marie 84):
Compare Bozon:
Malment alowez le payn e la cerveyse qe avez par nostre travailles. quant de tiel travaille nous avez encombree.
and Marie de France:
Li buef par tencun 1* assaillirent ,
Si repruverent al vilein.
La bonne cerveise e le pein .
Que par lur ti-avail ot eu;
Mes malement lur a rendu :
Q,u'a grant hunte les demena,
(vv. 4-9).
(2) In this last example, M. Meyer concedes that the
resemblance between Bozon and Marie is strong enough to
v;>irrant the conclusion that he has taken this fable from
her collection. But if the facts would seem to justify us
in holding that Bozon, for one fable, is directly dependent
on Marie, '.vhy cannot the same be said for those fables also
whose resemblance to Marie is almost as striking as that
for the fables just noted?
If ono will take into consideration the character as
well as the aim of Bozon' s fables, the freedom with which
he treats his original material vrill be better undei'stood.
The fable to him was only a means to an end, so he often
(1) Of. page ^
(2) Cf. CM. de Bozon. p. XIX.
107
abridged it. In many cases, also he may have relied on his
memory, and in this way a confi'-sion with a different ver-
(1) sion, or with a different faiole could arise.
It is interesting to note that Bozon, if he has
drawn directly from Marie, de France for his fables, must
have had recourse to a not very incomplete m'snuscript. Of
the extant manuscripts of Marie whose dates are anterior to
the fifteenth century, there are five only which contain
all of those fables in Bozon which have been assigned by me
(2)
as dependent on Marie; they are:
1. London, British Musoiun, Karley 978. 4-fe, 162 ^.
2. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Coll. Douce, 132.
3. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, 1593 4-fe, 218 &4.
4. Paris, " " 2168, 4-t^ 241 44.
5. " " " 3142, lol. , 321 ^.
Since Bozon wrote his fables in England, it is not likely that he had access to those manuscripts now in France, for we have no record that the French manuscripts
JUrtt ■"-•pr the country where they were written. The Harley
j
and Oxford manuscripts, then, alone remain of the extant
(1) Cf. fable of Sheep and Wolf before Lion, p.
(2) Cf. Warnke, Dle,Fabeln der_ Marie de France, pp. Ill -XI t.
108
manuscripts oi' Mari'? de France from which Bozon could have
drawn his fables. According to the scheme of the x-elations
(1) of the Marie manuscripts worked out by Warnk", the manu- scripts A D belong to Groiip a. Hence, Bozon must have boon acquainted with one of the follovring manuscripts: a', a'^% A or D; at least, he must have known a manuscript closely- related to these manuscripts.
I tinist I am not over-confident in holding that my investigation of this siibject shows that Bozon is probably indebted to Marie de France for fifteen of his fables. These constitute nearly two-fifths (S"^ per cont.jof the whole n'unber of fables proper contained in the Pontes. But
if only those fables are taken into account which are most
(2) corarionly found in the principal fable collentions, it is
possible to reduce the niomber of fables proper in the Pon- tes to thirty-two. According to this reckoning Bozon has drawn nearly one-half of his fables from Mario de France, or, at least, from a collection closely related to hers,
and which I have already referred to as the Ysopet d'Angle-
(3) terre. This differentiation of the regular Aesopic fables
in Bozon from those wriich belong to a more general category
(1) Cf. ibid.^ p.XLlll.
(2) Such as the Rom. Vulgaris , Marie de France, Odo of Sherington, etc.
(3) Cf. page /OZ.
109
is just, and it leaves us at liberty to conclude that for the remaining seven or eight fables, not covered by this computation, Bozon must have drawn either on oral tradition or on sundry works that contain merely stray fables.
b. FABLES DERIVED PROM ODO OF SHERINGTON.
For the folio ving fables, Odo of Sherington appears to be the source of Bozon:
Bozon S (Odo 70), Fox and Crow; Bozon 21 (Odo 58), Wolf and Rabbit; Bozon 49 (Odo 24), Wolf and Lamb; Bozon 53 (Odo 56), Roaming Cat; Bozon 116 (Odo 39), Pox and Pigeon; Bozon 120 (Odo X3) , Ass and Pig.
The fables just mentioned will now be discixssed, sep- arately, in regard to their relationship with the various parallel versions. The order followed is the same as that in which the fables occur in Bozon' s text.
110
I. POX AND CROW.
Versions: Rom. Vulgaris , I, 14; Rom. Nilantii, I, 14; Marie
de France 13; Rom.Treverensis 14; Jacqties de Vitry 91; Odo
of Sherington 70; Specul^om Ilistoriale 13; Rom. Roberti 17;
Bozon 8; John of Sheppey 7; Bromiardus G. IV, 16; Caxton,
p. 21.
In this fable there is one motif that distinguishes
it from the majority of the versions of the fable, v/hether
in Latin or in French; that is, the Fox praises the father
of the Crow, This motif is not found in any of the Latin
ver'sions occurring in Hervieux, Vol. II., nor in Marie de
(1) France. For this reason M. Meyer believes that Fozon could
not have been dependent, for this fable, ipon a Latin text, bat that he drew it from the Roman de Renart or from the Ysopet I. de Pgjiis.. since, in these two redactions also, the voice of the father ol' the Crow is praised. There is, hoviever, no indication that the Ysopet I. dg Paris ^as known in England at this tine. By a mere accident the ver- sion in Odo of Sherington must have been overlooked. In fable 70 we find:
Q,uam bene cantabat pater tuus.' Veil em audire vocem tuam.
(1) Cf. C.M.de Bozon. p. 231, note 8.
Ill
Compare this with Bozon:
Com vous estez beal oysel, e bien seriez apreiser, si votis chaunt-assez auxi cler cijun fist jadys vostre pierel
Outside of Bozon and Odo of Sherington this motif of
the Fox praising the father of the Crow is found only in
one other Latin version; namely, in that of Jacques de
Vitry. The phrase "vulpecula. quam renardum appellant"
would susf^est that he is indebted to the Ysopet I. de
(1) (2)
Paris . or, to the Roman de Renart for this fable.
In Marie de France r.he Fox praises the Crow's body only. It should bo noted in passing, howevof, that in Marie 60, fable of De Vulpe et Gallo , '".^e find the Fox prais- ing the voice of the f-ither of i,he Cock:
Clere voiz as sur tute rien Fors tun pere, que j eo vi bien, Unkes oisels mielz ne chanta.
(vv. 7-9)
In Caxton's fable of the Fox and the Cock . the Fox
wishes to know if the Cock can sing as its father sang.
(3) Also, in the fable De Gallo et Vulpe of the Rom,Treveren3is
the father of the ?Ien is mentioned.
It is possible that Bozon may have confounded the
fable of Fox nnd Crow with that of the Fox and Cock , and
(1) Cf, Robert, Fables Inedites. Ysopet, I,, fable XV, p. 9.
(2) Branch II., v,843 sq.
(3) Cf, Hervieux, vol, II., p. 598,
Ill
that this motif; namely, that of the Fox praising the void of the father of the Cock, crept into his fable of the Fox and Crow. But it is unnecessary to go beyond Odo of Sher- ington for the source of Bozon for this fable. The two versions agree throughout.
II. WOLF AND RABBIT.
Versions : Odo of Sherington 58; Oesta Romanorum 57; Bozon
21; John of Sheppey 70; Bromiardus, 0 , Vl , 17.
The source of this fable is Odo of Sherington, as (1) M.Meyer has pointed out. Not only the general motifs of
the fable in Bozon agree with Odo, but also the moral ap- plication is the same from be;^^inning to end, even to the
(2) citation from St. Paul. The only other version of this
fable that I have found, are in the Gesta Romanorum, the Summa Praedicantium of Bromiardus and John of Sheppey. Odo of Sherington in the source of all three versions.
It is interesting to note how closely Bozon follows Odo here. This is one proof that he knew and had before him the fables of Odo of Sherington. Presumably the fable
(1) Cf. C.M.de Bozon . par. 21, p. 28.
(2) Cor, VI, 18.
113
v/as not very well known since it is not found in the im- portant falil^? collections; such as the Rom. Vulgaris , th« Rom.Nilantii , Marie de France, etc. The fables and anec- dotes which were more popular and better known our aiithor did not have to transcribe, hnt he repeated them from mem- ory, often bringing in, purposely, as it seems, new motifs, or motifs that are found in another collection of fables v/ith wliich our author had perhaps at some time, been fa- I'liliar.
III. WOLF AND L/WB. Versions : Rom. Vulgaris, I, 2; Rom. Nilantii, I, 2; Marie de Prance 2; Rom. Trevei'ensis 2; Walter of England 3; Jacques de Vitry 135; Odo of Sherington 24; Speculum His- toriale R.V. , 1,2. , Bozon 49; John of Sheppey 1;
Bromiardus, A, 12,45.
The distinctive feature in this fable is that the Wolf and the Lamb come to the river to wash their feet. It would be in vain, I think, to search for a version in which this motif is found. I see, in the use of this phrase the expression of a light vein of humor which is common v/ith our author and which crops out in other places in the fa- bles. Several such examples may be noted:
114
(1)
1, Par. 26, Cock and Jewel: the Cock finds a g-old
rinr., ^nd not, as in all the other versions of this fable,
a precious stone.
(2)
2. Par, ZO , Fox and Plowman: the Fox keeps one eye
open.
(3)
3. Par, 116. Fox and Pip;eon: the Fox says its sack is
torn and all its t ricks have escaped ,
(4)
4, Par. 142, Ass' Heart: (a) the Fox .1i;idg:es the urine
of the Lion and (b) the Ass begs leave to r,o home to make its will.
Still other such examples may be found. All these just mentioned bring in new motifs, as in this fable of the V/olf and Lamb washing their feet in the river, I doubt whether this motif can be explained in my other manner.
There is one iraportant motif that is found in the Rom, Vulgaris, the Rom, Nilantii, Karie de France, the Rom. Treverensis, Walter of England, Jacques de Vitry, the Spec- ulum Historiale , and Bromiardus; namely, all these agree in having the Wolf say that the father of the Lamb formerly
insulted him. In Odo of Sherington, Bozon and John of
(5) Sheppey, however, this motif is wanting, Kerlet shows that
(1) Cf. page /S/.
(2) Cf. page/33-
(3) Cf. page///-
(4) Cf. page fJ;-^
(5) Cf.Herlet, Asopische Fab el im Mitt el alter, p. 64.
115
John of Sheppey, in this fable, h^3 folio ^'ed the Rom. Vul- gai-is, transcribing it, in some cases, word for word. The fable in Odo of Sherington is short, and although it agrees in general with Bozon, there is nothing which proves that it has been inspired by this text. He might equally as w^ll havo drawn it from Marie de France, omitting, since his fa- ble is but an abridgment, the motif of the father of the Lamb. The multiplicity of the Latin versions of the more common fables, together with the unusual foiTns given by Bo::on to many of his versions, and the possibility of there hiving bo-m other intermediate texts, now lost, does not permit one, except in rare instances, to indicate definite- ly, the exact source which our author followed.
From the evidence, however, that we can control, Odo of Sherington rather than Marie de France would seem to be the model that Bozon has follov/'ed. Compare Odo of Sherington:
Non turbo, quia vos bibitis superius, et aqua fluit de vobis ad me,
and Bozon;
Yous estez amont de moy dount vostre lavure descent a moy.
There is -mother motif of this fable that appears
throughout the Rom. Vulgaris tradition; namely, the Wolf
116
does not blush before the triith:
Lupus non erubescens veritati, which motif does not occur in Marie de France, Odo of Sher- ington or Bozon.
IV. ROAI.IIMG CAT.
Versions : Jacques de vitry 209;0do of Sherington LVI^ Par-
abolae; Bozon 53; Bromiardus , 0, VII., 18.
(1) As M. Meyer aj propriately points on.t , this fable i£
a rather free translation of Odo of Sherington, 56, De Mu-
rilepio cu.jus cauda abscissa est. This fable occurs three
times in M. Hervieux' edition of the fables of Odo of
(3) Sherington and his imitators; all three versions are al- most exactly alike. Not only does the fable itself in Bo- zon agree with Odo 56, but there is also a close agreement between the morals of the two versions. Compare Bozon:
Auxint vous di des femmes: affolez fussent, lour cowes escourtez ou lour chiefs amenusez e lour vestures des- colourez, ne serreient donque (taunt boutees ne ) de la gent tant desires;
(1) Cf. C.M.de Bozon. p. 253, note'53.
(2) Cf. Hervieux, vol. IV,, pp. 236,287,390.
117
and Odo of Sherington:
Sic caude mulienun essent abscindende, capilli tondendi vel comburendi , et sic remanens in domo extra non vagaretur.
There can be no doubt here that Bozon drew this fa- bl^ directly from Odo of Sherington. It '^Tould appear also that he was acqn.ainted with the Parabolae of Odo v/hich are met with in the sermons of this writer. The version in Jacques de Vitry shows no close agreement with Bozon. An entirely diffei-ent story appears in Bromyard, the subject of which is a Foal whose master cut off its tail and mane so that his neighbor would not covet it.
V. FOX AND PIGEON.
Versions : Marie de France 98; Rom. Treverensis 129; Rom. Monacensis 51; Odo of Sherington 39; Rom. Roberti 6; Bozon 116; John of Sheppey 58; Bromiardus S, III., 15.
Bozon in this fable agrees, in general, with the conmon form of all the Western versions. He has, however, one very striking peculiarity; that is, the Dove plays the role attributed to the Cat in all other kno\m versions, the
118
(1)
Latin as v/ell as the French. Herlet wishes to explain
this remarkable variation by assuming that Bozon has co^n- founded two fables found in Marie de France; namely, (1) fa- ble 98, T)e Catto nt vulpe, and (2) fable 61, T)e Vulpe et Columba. Herlet believes that Bozon has, through a failing of manory, brought the Dove into his fable. This supposi- tion is possible, of course, and it would not be an uniqixe
(2) case since in the fable of Sheep and Wolf before Lion
there appears to be a ccnfusion in Bozon' s mind between the
t:vD traditions of this fable. But it seems strange that
Bozon, who appears to know the fables so well, should be
guilty of such an error.
I believe that the substitution of the Dove for the
Cat was for a definite purpose. If one v/ill examine par-
(3) agraph 11 6, on which th'^ fable depends, one will find that
a certain kind of dove is mentioned which lives on the
fruit of a tree found in India. The fable begins thus:
En la terre de India est trovee un arbre, com dit le livre, de merveillouse grandour • • • Enqi habitent une manere de colombes qe sunt sustenus de cest fruit.
and further on:
La ai'bre de vie est la croiz joign^nt
(1) Cf. Kerlet, Asopische Fab el im Mitt el alter, p. 55.
(2) Gf. page 6-r-
(3) Cf, C.M.de Bozon, p. 131.
119
a la rivere de ces costez qe fruit nous rende de sustenance e de savacion. En la iimbre de cest arbre meynent les columbes, • • • mes soulement le columbe meynt en eel arbre.
Bozon has chosen the fable of Cat and Foz to illus- trate this exemplun;. With the usiial freedom with v/hich our author treats his subjects, and especially his fables, it is not surprising that ho has substitxited for the Cat the Dove, to a certain species of v/?iich the exetnplum has refer- ence, for the Dove, of course, can take refuge in a tree as
v/ell as the Cat, It must be remembered that the fables of
(1) Bozon are dependent on the exempltxm, and not vice versa.
The order adopted by Bozon is different from that of col- lections in which fables are the principal features of dis- course; it is the philosophic thesis that occupies the first ranlc -vith Bozon, and the fable instead of preceding, follows it. With Odo of Sherington, for example, the exemp- la are r:ore Independent, and the allegorical explanation (that is, the fable, or story) appended to them possess distinctive featui-es. They form a collection of interest- ing stor-ies. With Bozon, however, the fable or si;ory which
(1) Note that the v/ord exemplum with the ecclesiastical writers had two meanings; it vas used, first, ^ith^r for "example" proper; or, socond, an illustrative story.
120
follov/s the exgmpliim serves as a symbolical interpretation.
It is interesting to note how many sirriilar cases There are in Bozon m which it a^peai-s that the subject of the exeraplurn in question has an influence on the choice of actors in the fable that follows. I h.ave found th^ follow- ing instances:
(1) In paragraph 21 the exemplum treats of the nature of
the Rabbit; the fable of the Wolf and Rabbit itninediately
(1) follows.
(2) In paragraph 55 it is stated that the Crow has a
great friendship for the Fox; the fable of the Sheep and
V/olf before the Lion folio v's. The witnesses of the V/olf
(2) are the Crow, Fox and Mastyn.
(3) In paragraph 61 v;e find:
Columbe est de tiel nature que, etc. ; -
The fable of Fox and Dove follows.
Compare also (same chapter)!
Sicom dit Jere, le prophete par ensample del colimbe: "Seite^z", dit-il, "semblablez al columbe. e pernez vostre recet en la piere perc^e" • • •
In line 1 and 4 of the fable we find:
(1) Cf. C. M. de Bozon. p. 27. p. 76.
121
Le gopil pass'-i desouz un roche, si -^arda amont e vist un columbe seer en hiut * * •(line 4) qe de (1) seer anion t entre les freides pieres
All the other versions of this fable have the Dove
sitting in a tree, or on a perch, not, as in Bozon, among
the rocks.
(4) Paragraph 120 cone srns the nature of the Pig and
(2) Ass; the fable of Ass and Pig follows.
(5) Paragraph 131 speaks of the nature of the Ass and
Colt.
In the fable which follows (Lion and Companions),
(3) the companions of the Lion are the Goat and Colt.
(6) Paragraph 132 discusses the natiire of the Ass and
(4) Sheep; the fable of Man, Son and Ass follow^.
(V) Para.^rraph 142:
Grant diversetee de nature est entre le asne e le motoun, * • * ;
the fable of Ass' Heart (which has as its actors the Lion,
(5) the Fox and the Ass) follows. In all other versions of
this fable, except in the oldest, the Stag and not the As£
(6)^ as in Bozon, is the victim of the Lion.
(1) Cf. C.M.de Bozon. p. 83.
(2) Cf. Cai.de Bozon, p. 141.
(3) Cf. ibid., p. 155.
(4) Cf. lUid. ; p. 157.
(5) Cf. ibid* , p. 175.
(6) Cf. page. 8f.
122
It seems to me that a close examination of the ex- amples Just :P;iven will throw some new light upon the char- acter of the vYork of Bozon, and will, in a preat Pleasure, explain th'3 peculiarities which are prominent in some of his fables. However, it is not v/ise to depend too much on this explanation, for fables are met with throup;hout the text
which are not affected at all by the preceding exemplum in
(1) regard to the choice of actors in ■•he fable.
In some particulars the fable under discussion in
Bozon agrees closely with Odo of Sh^rington 39 and John of
Sheppey 58, as oj.^posed to the parallel versions in Marie de
France, the Rom. Treverensis, the Rom. Roberti and the Rom.
Monacensis. With the latter group the Car questions the
Fox first, while with Bozon, Odo of Sherington and John of
Sheppey, the Fox questions the Cat.
Compare Bozon:
"Combien savez de voydiez, si mestier fust"? Respondi le columbe, "fors un soul",
and Odo of Sherington:
"Q,uot fraudes vol artificia novisti"? Et ait Catus: "Certe nescio nisi ummi".
Still farther Bozonl
Quant tempeste sourd ou egle ou ostour
(1) Cf. C.M.de Bozon. pp. 150,151,164.
123
moy vient atteignant , j eo ne ay autre socoars foi's un arbre cros ,
is parallel to Odo:
Quando canes me insequuntur
scio repere super arbores et evaiere.
There is nothing similar to this motif in the other ver-
(1) sions mentioned above, for Bozon substitutes "birds of
prey" and "tempest" for dogs, in order to correspond to the
change from Cat to Dove which he has made.
In Bozon the Fox has a sackful of wiles and also a pocketful ; in Odo of Sherington, seventeen wiles and a sackful; in John of Sheppey, a sackful and twenty; in Marie de Prance, twelve and also a pocketful; in the Rom. Trev- erensis, eighty and a sackful; in the Rom. Monacensis, one hundred; in Bromiardus, a sackful.
Bozon and Marie alone agree in the Fox having a pocketful of wiles, but this is not sufficient proof that Bozon in this fable, depends at all on Marie de France. As for ti-ie rest of the fable, Bozon does not agree very close- ly with iivj known version. The Fox's reply to the Dove:
"Nenyl • • • il est decirez, et touz mes queyntisez sont eschapez",
is found only in our author, and may be due to the fact
that he not unfrequently puts into the mouths of the dif-
(1) Cf. page //7
124
(1)
ferent actors in the fable naive and witty sayings.
In conclusion, it may be said that, according to the evidence at hand, Bozon has made iise ol" the fable in Odo of Sherinston, but that he has taken some liberties with it.
VI. ASS MD PIG.
Versions : Odo of Sher-in."-ton 33; Bozon 120; John of Shep-
pey 33; Gesta Romanorum 50.
The source of Bozon for this fable, as stated by (2) M.Meyer, is Odo of Sherington 33. Bozon follows the text
in Odo closely, inti-oducmg no new motifs.
Compare Bozon:
Aperceut le asne qe le porke fust chescun jour bien pieiH e rien ne fist, e il touz jours fust entravaille e malment servy,
and Odo of Sherington:
Cogitavit Asinus: Porcus iste bene se habet, bene cora(m)edit et bibit, et nichil laborat; ego tota die laboro e parvum com(m)edo.
In both versions the Ass, feigning sickness, is well
fed:
Bozon:
Gy a bone vye
(1) Cf. fable of Wolf and Lamb, p.//3
(2) Cf. C.M.de Bozon, p. 280.
125
Odo oJ' Sherington".
Modo habeo bonum seculum.
^Mhea the Ass sees the Pig led out and slaughtered it
reflects:
Veir.' meux est de travailler e sauver la peel qe de estre un poy a eese.
Odo of Sherington:
Certe male laborare et vitarn pristinam due ere quam sic interfici.
The fable in Bozon, though somewhat abx'idged, agrees
with Odo of Sherington from beginning to end. If not from
Odo, where could Bozon have got it? No such fable is found
in the whole body of P/Iediaeval fable literature, apart from
Odo and Bozon, except in the Gesta Romano rum and in John of
Sheppey, both of which have as their source the fable in
Odo of Sherington. Odo himself must have drawn the fable
either from oral tradition or from a Latin or* English fable
collection now lost, since his version shows some connec-
(1) tion v/ith a fable found in Phaedrus, entitled Asinus et
Porcellus. It is clearly impossible, however, that he
could have known the text of Phaedrus in its original fonn.
With Odo of Sherington as a reference book for
(1) ilavet, p. 108, fable 94; Hervieux, p. 59, fable 5.
126
preachers seeking fables to illustrate their sermons, it i; not necessary to go back farther than Odo oi' Shenngton for the source of Bozon for this fable.
c. FABLES DERIVED FROM MISCELLAMEOITS SOURCES.
I. LION AS JUDGE.
Versions: Odo of Sherin^'-ton SI; Rom. Bernensis Primus.
Paris PromptuariuiTi 3; Bozon 4; Holkot, Libor super Sapien-
tiam Galomonis , lectio 187.
This fable is not Aesopic, but is plainly Mediaeval,
and belongs to that class of fables called apologues which
were largely made use of by the early Christian preachers
in their sermons. The earliest form of this fable is in
(1) the P>intschatantra(bk. I, 12), but it is in the thirteenth
C'^ntury and in Germany that is found for the first time
written, the tradition which has inspired Bozon. Hugo von
(2) Trimberg inserted this fable in his Per Renner
and it occurs also in a poem entitled Penitentiarius (li-
(3) ber) Lupi. Vulpis et Asini.
(1) Cf. C.M.de Bozon. p. 229.
(2) Cf. Les Grands Efcrivains de la France (La Fontaine II)
(3) This poai. occurs in a collection of Flacus Illyricus, entitled: Va ria do c to rum p i o rum qu e vjlvo rum de cqrruxv^, Ec-
(over
127
It is not probable that the fable under discussion
belongs to Odo's collection, since it is fbi.md only in one
(1) m^inuscript (Breslau MS,). Here it is the Y/olf who hears
the confession of the Fox and Ass, while in Bozon the Lion
(2) passes judgment on the Wolf, Fox and Ass, M. Meyer cites
another version of this fable in which it is the Fox which
acts as confessor successively to the Lion, Wolf and Ass.
In Holkot the Ass and Wolf onl;- ar-e accused of com- mitting a ci'ime. The version in Bozon iior-e closely resem- bles the foiTii oi' the fable as found in the Rom. Bemensis Primus and in the Promptuarium Exemplorum than any other version, since in all three versions the same actors ap- pear, but the crimes of the different animals, and the pen- ance which they have to suffer^ are the same.
None of the versions just noted are the source of
Bozon. The fable bears the stamp of those fables which
(3) have their origin in the cloisters. Bozon is probably not
dependent on any fable collection for this fable, but drew
it either from some pious compilation corrj^osed for t?ie use
of preachers, or from oral tradition. The story was float-
clesiae statu poemata. Bale, 1557 (pp. 199-214) . Jacob Grimin has published this poem in his Reinhart Fuchs. pp. 397-409. He gives also another form of the fable, pp. 392-396.
(1) Cf. Hervieux, vol. IV, p. 431.
(2) Cf. C.M.de Bozon. p. 229, note 1.
(3) Cf. fable of Cat and Fox, p. .-'ii
128
ing about fi-orn mouth to mouth and occasionally written dovm by a preacher for use in his sermons, or added b:' a fabu- list to his fable collection. This fact ■■/ill explain the
(1) wide divergences in the different versions of the fable.
II. THRUSH AND STARLING. Versions: Marie de France 80; Rom. Trev-ronsis 123; Nequam, Novus Aesopus, 38; Odo of Sherington 11; Rom. Vratislavien- sis 27; Rom. Robert! 13; Bozon 15; John of Sheppey 70.
This v/as a ven' popular story in the Middle Ages and appears to have had its origin in a fable v/Viich belonged to the Anglo-Latin Romulus, since the earliest versions vre have of it, are fable 80 of Marie de France and fable 123 of the Rom. Treverensis. It belongs to a rather wide- spread family, being found in the Latin, German and French.
(2) In a Gem-ian version a Heron wishes to leave its land be- cause it befouls itself (sich schempt) and is by another bird turned from its purpose. In Odo of Sherington, a stork, having quarrelled with its mate, destroys her eye with its beak and flees. In John of Sheppey the Heron
(1) Th'^ Latin translation from Bozon' s text(MS, Harley 12SS) of part of the Pontes offers a variation for this fable.
(2) Cf .Forschungen der Roman. Philologie.Warnke . p. 235, fable LXXX.
129
(ardea) desires to =iccompany the Eagle to foreign lands, but is rejected by the Eagle because the Heron would have to take its posterius along with it.
Another version of this story, though not resembling any one of those mentioned above, is found in Nequam.Novus Aeso£us , 38, where a magpie (pica) . on account of an offen- sive habit to which it was addicted, resolved to cross the sea to another country.
We have, therefore, several versions of this fable, which, in some respects, resemble one another and which seem to have for r.heir origin a fable belonging to the An- glo-Latin Romulus. Outside of the collections named above
(1) this fable is found only in the Rom. Vratislaviennis and the
Rom. Roberti, Is Bozon in this case indebted to a fable collection for his fable or has he, as other fable writers seem to have done, merely transcribed a popiilar story? In some respects the versions in Odo of Sherington and Bozon resemble each other. In both versions the Stork (Starling, in Bozon) flees because it has harmed another bird, not as in Marie de Franco, the Rom. Treverensis, the Rom. Roberti and the Rom. Vratislaviensis .because it had befouled its
(1) The Breslau manuscript; cf. Kerlet, Asopisehe Fabel im Mittelalter. p. 112.
130
companion. Again, in Odo of Sh^rinrton the Stork says that it was the beak that did the mischiof; in Bozon, the Thrush gives uhe same answer.
On the other hand, Bozon offers some resemblances to Marie de France. In the former the Thriish meets the Star- ling on the sea; in J'arie de France it is a Seagull (mane) that meets the Stork on the sea. The motif "on the sea" is not found elsewhere except in the Rom. Treverensis, Nequam and the Rom. Roberti. In the Rom. "^''ratislaviensis it is the Stork that befouled its companions and flees to another flock of storks. For the rest of the fable there is noth- ing in comiaon with Marie de France or with Odo of Shering-
ton.
(1)
It has been pointed out that this popular story was
frequently met with in the Middle Ages under a variety of forms. It is not strange, then, that a version should arise, as in Bozon, in which traits appear that are common to Marie de France and to Odo of Sherington. Bozon, fol- lowing the example of other preachers of his time, made a collection of stories and fables for his own use; these stories and fables he seems to have gathered, for the most part, from the mouths of his acquaintances. This fact ex-
(1) Cf. page J^%.
131
plains why, in different collections of f cables, we find the same tal'-^ told in a variety of fonns.
Ill, COCK AND JEWEL.
Versions: Rom. Vulgaris, bk . I., 1; Rom. Nil^ntii, bk.I.,
1; Marie de France 1; Rom. Treverensis 1; Jacques de Vitry
54; Bozon 26; Bromiardus, A, 26, 32.
The distinctive feature of this fable, as found in
Bozon, is that the Cock finds a gold ring and not, as in
(1) Phaedrus and in his more direct imitators, a re^J^l> or a
precious stone.
V/e should seek in vain, I believe, for a reason, where, as in Bozon, the Cock finds a gold ring. All the texts that have come out of England speak of a precious stone. I see in ou.r author's use of a gold ring, the ex- pression of a light vein of humor which is common with him
(2) and wliich shows itself in several places. As far as I can
see no other explanation of this particular motif in Bozon can be made.
On account of the great freedom used by Bozon in re- gard to the fables quoted in his sermons, it is difficult
(1) Cf. Havet, 62, fable 56; Hervieux, vol.11., pp.3:
131, 190.
(2) Cf. fable of Wolf and Lamb, p. / S-
131a
to sajr v/h'3ther he has been inspired for this fable by the version in the Rom. Vulgaris, or that in Marie de France. The fable is so much -ibridged in our author tha"- it is dif- ficult to decide this question. There is one motif, howev- er, that is common to Bozon and the Rom. Vulgaris tradi- tion, but is not found in Marie de Prance: Compare Bozon:
Meux vodrie trover une grein de furnent qe tey e tieux cent;
and the Rom. Vulgaris:
Potius mihi escam quero.
Similar to this is the version in Bromiardus:
Pocius escam quam te quesivi.
Marie offers nothing similar to this.
If Bozon is not dependent for this fable on Marie de
France, he must have been acaxainted wi^i; tiie Rom. Vulgaris
or its dependents, since the fable is not in Odo of Sher-
ington. It is hardly probable that for a fable so well
known he v/ould have recourse to the collections of sermons,
such, for example, as that of Jacqixes de Vitry, for this
popular fable.
From a study of the fables of Bozon it is clear that
he was acquainted at least with the fable collections of
132
Marie de France and Odo of Sherington. It is not strange that a ■■vriter such as Bozon, "rho made frequent use of fa- bles as illustrative material for his sermons, in some way or other, was acqiiainted with so linportant a collection as the Rom. Vulgaris, That the Rom. Vulgaris was known to writers of fable literature in the time of Bozon, is evi- dent. It is the source of several fable collections, as
for example; V/alter of En/rland, Vincentius Bellovacensis ,
(1) Odo of Sherington and others, Hervieux shows, conclusive- ly, I think, that John of Sheppey, in regard to several of his fables, has followed the Rom, Vulgaris and not Odo; for other fables he appears to have been inspired at the same time by the text of both collections. I quote: "Jean de Sheppey ne s'est pas contente de recou'^xrir tantot a Eudes , tantot au Romulus ordinaire, Quelques-unes de ses fables autorisent a penser qu'il s'est quelquefois inspire simul- tanement de I'un et de l' autre".
It does not appear, however, that Bozon had this collection before him, but that he drew from it from mem- ory. In the discussion of the preceding fables it has been shown that Bozon for his fables has drawn upon Marie de Prance and Odo of Sherington; there are no indications that (1) Cf, Hervieux, Eudes, vol. IV,, p,167.
133
he is dep-^ndsnt solely on the Rom. Vulgaris for- any single
fable. Note, for exai-nple, the fable of the Peacock and
(1) Destiny where it has been pointed out that Bozon, in his
fable, has motifs that are common both to the Rom, Vulgaris and to Marie de Prance, A knowledge on Bozon' s part of both collections is the only explanation of this resem- blance. The fable under discussion, therefore, appears to have been inspired by the Rom, Vulgaris or its iiiimediate dependents.
IV. FOX AND PL0W1AN.
Versions: Rom. Vulgaris, bk. 4, 3; Rom. Nilantii, bk. 1,3;
Marie de France 30; Rom. Treverensis 78; Bozon 30; Bromiar-
dus C, VI, 14; Caxton, p. 103.
(2) In the oldest version of this fable it is the Hare
that is pursued by the Hxmter, and not, as in the Rom. Vul- garis tradition, the Rom. Nilantii and the Anglo-Latin Rom- ulus tradition, the Wolf. Bozon and Bromiardus, however, stand alone in substituting the Fox for the Wolf. Besides this substitution of Fox for Wolf, Bozon offers other pe- ciAliaritios which are foreign to the collections noted above.
(1) Gf. page -■ '^•.
(2) Cf. Hervieux, vol. II., p. 78.
134
A. In Bozon, and also in Bromiard\i3 , the Pox approaches a Plowman and asks for a hiding-place. In the Rom. Vulgar- is, and throughout the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition, it is a Shepherd whom the Wolf asks for protection from the Hunt- er. Only Bozon and Brnmiardus make the Fox accost a Plow- man. The Rom. Nilantii, however, has Bubul cus .
B. As regards the place of concealment of the Fox (or Wolf) none of the various versions are consistent. In Bo- zon the Fox conceals himself in a furrow and the Plov/man covers him with his mantle. In Marie de France, also, the Shepherd places his mantle over the Wolf; in the Rom. Trev- erensis the Wolf hides in the briars; in the Rom. Vulgaris no particular place of concealment is mentioned; in the Rom. Nilantii the Bubul cus places the Wolf in a "very safe place" (lociun tutissimum) , and in Bromiardus under a gar- ment.
C. The not if of the Fox keeping one eye open is pecu- liar to Bozon. It may be explained, perhaps, by his dry humor v/hich constantly appears in his fables.
(1)
D. All the versions mentioned above agree, in general,
(1) Cf. CM. de Bozon. p. 332, note 30.
135
in that the Plo\TOan (or Shepherd) tells the Hunter that he knows notliing of the Fox (or Wolf), or else, that the Fox had r;one in a certain direction, but at the same time indi- cates by means of his hand (or oyes) the place of conceal- ment of the Fox (or Wolf).
E, In all the versions of this fable which I know, it is in Bozon and Bromiardus only that the Fox is discovered and captured by the Hunter.
We have, then, in Bozon and in Bromiardus a version of the fable of the Wolf and Shepherd very different in form from that of the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition or the Rom. Vulgaris tradition. ^lYiy is it that the Fox is substi- tuted for the Wolf, and why does it suffer a different fate from that of the Wolf in the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition. It seems to me that the word Reneward, used by Bozon in his fable, throws some light on the origin of the form of the
fable. Reneward. as M, Meyer states in his note on this
(1) fable, is one of the forms of the name Renard in English.
This fonn is found in the fragmentary poem entitled The Vox (1) Cf. C.M.de Bozon. p. 332, note 30.
136
(1)
and the V/olf , which belonf^s to the thirteenth century. It
would not, perhaps, be too rash to st-ite that the form of the i'hible of the Wolf and Sliepherd, as it occurs in Bozon, belongs to that class of fables that appear to have been inspired by the Roman de Renart. Nuraerous fables v/ritten during the thirteenth century in Latin, English and French,
v,'ere invented in iiiiitation of the episodes in the Roman de
(2) Renart. There appears to be such an exarnnle in Bozon 12S,
(3) fable of Fox and Sheep; here we have the v/ell-known epi- sode in the Roman de Renart of the Fox and Wolf in the Fell. In Bozon, the fable ends with the following English verses:
Y/as it nevere my kynd
Chese in wellez grond to fynde.
It vould appear that this fable goes back to an English
source.
With the Roman de Renart tradition as the indirect
source of this fable for Bozon, it is not strange that a
version of the fable under discussion shou.ld arise in which
the Pox is substit ited for the Wolf, since the Fox is the
l^rincipal hero of the Roman de Renart. The motif of the
Fox being caught, can only be explained as the invention
(1) Cf. Thomas "/right and Halliwell-Phillipps , Reliquiae Ant i quae, vol. II. , p. 275.
(2) Cf. Part II. , p. ys-o-
(3) Cf. page / ^7:
137
or a writer of the times of Bozon. I do not believe Bozon to have been the inventor of this motif, al thoo.gh it brings the moral ont more strongly than the form as found in the Anglo-Lytin Romulus tradition. This form of i.he fable was known by both Bozon and Bromiardus. There are no indica- tions that Br'omiardus ig dependent on Bozon for any of his fables. Whether they knew this fonn of the fable in writ- ten form, or simply from oral tradition, it v/ould be diffi- cult to say,
V. CROV/ Aim SHEEP. Vers ions : Rom. Viilgaris, bk. IV., 21; Rom. Nilantii, bk . III., 11; Marie de France 40; Rom. Treverensis '^.H ; Bozon oA and 121.
This fable occurs twice in the sermons of Bozon, but in both places only in a vex'y abridged form. The peculiar feature here is that English words appear in both for-ms of the fable. In pax-agrapli 34 "Over me ^^'ou may" spoken by the Sheep, and also in paragraph 121: Vous ne feissez issi al mastyn qe est aripelle Griffin. This last phrase recalls the fable in paragraph 121, Cat and t!ice, where the Cat is kno-im. as Sir Badde.
The English in the fable shows that it was formu-
l'6i
lated, if nut written, in English at the time of Bozon, and that it '.vas well known. Bozon either know this fable in a collection of English fybl3S, or he has drawn it from oral tradition. Tiiat such a fable did once exist in English is certain, since the same fable occurs in Marie de France and she must have either translated it from the English, or drawn it from oral tradition.
Tno source of Bozon here, is probably an English fa- ble, now lost, but whether it belonged to a rejuvenated
form of the Anglo-Latin Romulus, or had simply lived in the
(1) mouths of the people, cannot be determined.
VI. WOLF AND FOX. Vers ions : Odo of Sherington 74; Rom. Monacensis 35 and 35a; Disciplina Cloricalis 31; Rom. Bernensis Primus 23 and 23a; Bozon 46; Roman de Renart, Branch III., vv. 374-510; Caxton,p. 199.
We have here a blending of two fables, both of which were very popular in the Middle Ages. The Wolf, seeing the reflection of the moon in a pond, believes it to be a
(1) For farther discussion of English sources of Bozon, see Part II., p./?/
139
cheese, and the Fox confinns him in this belief. This mo- til' recalls fable 58 of Marie de France, where the Fox tries to drin]^ up all the v/ater in a stream in order to get what he believes to be a cheese. It is to the Disciplina Cler- icalis . liowever, that Bozon is indebted for this motif. Here the Fox leads the Wolf to a deep well and shov/s him the half-moon shining in the -.vater:
Hie est ea^us quern tibi promisi, descends si placet et comede.
For the rest of the fable, Bozon follows Odo of
Sherington. Here the Fox gets the Wolf to [mt his tail in
the vvater in order to catch fish. The water freezes and
(1) part of his tail is left in the ice. Tho motif of catching
fish with the tail is one of the most wide-spread episodes
in the cycle of Reynard, and is frequ.ently found in fable
literature. The many allusions to this episode thx'oughout
che Roman de Renart have given rise to numerous and varied
versions of the Soory, In the Rom. Monaconis the Fox fills
the basket, v;hich h? has tied to the Wolf's tail, full of
stones, in order to cause him to believe that the basket is
full of fish. In the Roman de Renart . the Fox persuades
(1) In z-egard to this story consult Martin, Observations sur le Roman de Renart, p.3G, and also an article by M.Su- dre on Branch III. of the Roman de Renart. Romania, XVH (ISRS) 1 -.3.
140
the Wolf that it is with a saw that the monks catch their
fish and so ties it to the tail of the V^olf.
(1) Bozon, as noted above, follo.vs the version in the
r)isciTJlina Clericalis only in the motif whe i^e the Wolf be- lieves the r-eflection of the moon to be a cheese. For the rest of the fable, v;-e have an entirely different set of mo- tifs; namely, that of -;lie Wolf fishing '/i th his tail. Th- fables of the Fox (Sheep, in Bozon), who leads the Wolf into a pit (or well), has been made iise of by Bozon in Par- agraph 12R. It is ijrobable that this confusion of the two fables did not arise in the mind of our author, but rather the idea of a Wolf taking the reflection of the moon for a cheese, v/hich appears in the Disciplina Clericalis, and also in Marie de France, has, through the influence of the episode of the Wolf fishing with his tail in the Roman de Renart . given rise to such a version as the one we have in Bozon. As yoon as the fable v/as dissociated with its writ- ten fox-m, it suffered changes; new motifs were added. These changes v/ere made both consciously and unconsciously; if the narrator forgot the beginning or ending of a fable he constructed one. In this way different fables became merg-
(1) Cf. page /a:
141
ed into one another,
VII. WOLF AND CRANE. Versions : Rom. Vulgai-is, bk . I., 8; Rom. Nilantii, bk . I.. 9; Mai'io ae France 7; Rom. Treverensis 9; Jacques de Vitry 136; Odo of Sherington 6; Bozon 72.
V/e have hnre, as in comraon with Bozon, an abridgment onl:/ of a longer fable. There is nothing in the fable, as presented by Bozon, '.vhich would enable one to state that he has taken it from one fable collection rather than from an- other.
Compare Bozon*.
Seiez paie de vostre vie: quant vostre col fust dedenz ma bouche, en ma cortesie fust de vous sauver o;^ tuer;
and Mai'ie de France:
Q,riant sa teste en sa buche mist Q,u'il ne I'estrangla e oscist. "Tu ies ", fet-il, fole pruve'e, Quant de mei ies vive eschapee,
(vv, 25-28)
Odo of Sherington offers the same:
Nonne, quando caput tuioni fait in ore nieo, potui te interficere? Nonne sufficit tibi (iuod permisi te vivere?
Fables as popular as that of the Wolf and Crane were
no doubt well known to Bozon, so that he did not have to
resort directly to any given collection for them. For this
142
reason there is often no clue as to what collection our author was originally indebted for a given fable. The only expedient left to us, tiien, is to compare the moral of the different fables witri that of Bozon. But for this partic- ular fable, Bozon has drawn no laoral, -.Ithough the moral to the exemplian on which the fable is dependent is directed against the great lords who make many premises, but do not fulfil them. Marie's moral to this fable also attacks the evil lords who do not keep their promises. But this is hardly suflicient proof to establish any relationship b?- tv/een Bozon and Marie for this fable.
VIII. I-'OX MD MONI^EY.
Versions: Rom. Vulgaris, bk . III., 17; Rom. Nilantii . II.,
19; Marie de France 28; Rom. Treverensis 76; Bozon 74.
Bozon in his text has simply referred here to the
well-knov/n fable of the Monkey who begged the Fox for part
of his tail :
Ici peot I'em dire coment le sienge pria le gopil qe il lui feist solaz de une partie de sa cowe en allegeance del un e en avancement del autre.
Here, as in the preceding fable(Wolf and Crane), it
does not appear that Bozon is directly dependent upon any
143
collection, but that he drew it i'rom his memory,
IX. CAT AND MICE. Vers ions : Calila-et-Dimna ; Pseudo-Gualter](us Anglicus 3; Odo of Sherington 54a; Bozon 121»
This fable is not found in many of the fable collec- tions of the Middle Ages. It occurs in Calila-et-Dimna ,
and in Odo of Sherington; it also is found in a Latin ver-
(1) sion published by M. Hervieux and in the Ysopet I. de Par-
(2) is , both of the fcairt r?enth century. (3) M. Meyer attributes i:his fable to Odo of Sherington,
but thinks that the direct source must have been an English
fable on account of the use of Sir Badde for the Cat's
(4) name. Herlet holds that possibly this fabl^ is original
with Odo of Shorington.
Bozon must have drawn this fable either from Odo, an
English or French fable collection now lost, or from oral
tradition. There is nothing to indicate that Bozon has
followed Odo here; although th^ general motifs are the same,
(1) Cf. Hervieux, vol, II., p. 368.
(2) Cf. Robert, Fables Inedites. p. 100.
(3) Cf. C.M.de Bozon. p. 280.
(4) Cf. Herlet, Asopischen Fabel im Mittel alter, p. 34,
144
the fable in Bozon is nore expanded in form. The use of
the word Sir Badde for the name of the Cat, on the other
hand, recalls the name Griffin which our author uses in the
(1) fable of the Crow and the Sheep, and also the En,p:lish phrase
"Clyin.' clam! cat lep over dam.' "would rather point to an Eng- lish fable, now lost. This fable was, no doubt, very pop- ular and was repeated often in the Enroll sh language. Loi'd Douglas, fifth Earl of Angus, in speaking to the Scottish
barons of their conspiracy against the favorites of James
(2) said: "I will attach tlie bell myself" An allusion to this
fable occurs also in tlie opening chapter of Piers Plowman. But whether Bozon knew this fable in an English book of fa- bles, or only from oral tradition coming from Calila-et-
Dimna , and never written down until Odo of Sherington added
(3) it to his collection, would be difficult to determine.
This fable has another peculiar feature; namely, it
(4) ends with French verses, M. Meyer suggests as a probable
source for such fables, and indeed for th^ whole of the fa- bles in Bozon, a collection of Anglo-Nonnan fables,- which
(1) Cf. C.M.de Bozon. pp. 54 and 144.
(2) Cf. Les Grands Ecrivains de la France (La Fontaine, I. ,) P.1S3.
(3) The English phrases occurring in this fable, as well as the French verses, together with similar English and French phrases and verses occii.rring throixghout the text of Bozon^vdll be discussed more in detail in another chapter
(cf. Part II., v^,/^jy,
(4) Cf. C.M.de Bozon. p." XXI.
145
I have called the Ysopet d* Anklet erre^^now lost, which had in part the same source as flarie de France, This would ac- count, the writer thinks, for the English as i-vell -.s the French verses which are foimd at the end of some of the fa- bles. This hypothesis might be adinissable as far as the English verses are concerned; the French versos, however, are so obviously original with Bozon that it is unnecessary to seek further for their source.
I see in Bozon' s use of French rimes in his fables two different motives. One was in order to embellish his fables with rimes, a thing which our author could well do since he was a poet himself, as well as a writer of prose;
his second object was to scatter throughout his fables short epigrammatic sentences. Examine, for example, the following:
1. Par. 30 - Fox and Plowman;
Ta lange moy fist conf ort .
me 8 par ta meyn si ay la mort.
2. Par. 50 - Cat as Bishop:
Jeo voil meux estre ici od ta maliceon . qe venir plus pres pur aver ta beneiceon.
3. Par. 94 - Man and Trees:
De moy receustez vostre honur, e ore me fetez tiel deshonur.
146
Par. 120 - Ass and Pig:
Meux est de travailles e sauver la peel qe de est re un poy a eese e puis poynt de cot el.
Examiiles of fables which end in French rimes, and v;hich serve as an embellishment to the fable are as fol- lows :
1. Par. 121 - Cat and Mice:
Touz diseient qe le consoil est seyn , mes nul ne voleit mettre la meyn. E Badde s ' en ala corn avant et destruit petit e p;raunt .
2. Par. 129 - Lion and Mouse:
Vous mn feistez curtesye ,
e j eo V01X3 saverai vostre vie.
3. Par. 55 - Sheep and Wolf before Lion:
Quant le lou ad pris ceo qe lui plost ,
lors vynt le gopil la tot prest ,
e le corf ne vent mye tart .
ne le mastyn de prendre sa part.
If these last verses ai-e not original with Bozon, it is necessary to suppose tiiat he knew a version of this fa- ble where the actors were the Wolf, Pox, Crow and Dog. I
thinJ? it has been sufficiently explained under th° fable of
(1) Sheep and Wolf before Lion how it is hardly possible that
Bozon knev; such a fable; and, moreover, the probable rea.JO! (1) Cf. page 6":^
147
vmy he used these aninmls in his fable has been noted: Finally, it has also been 3ho?/n that Bozon, in this fable, shows some ixnrust akable resemblances to Marie de France 4. It is possible, 'chen, th.at his use of these rimes is an im- itation of Marie:
Yvers esteit, de freit fu morte. Li chiens i vient, sa part en porte, E li escufles d'altre part , E puis li lous, trop li est tart, (vv. 27-30)
X. FOX AND SHEEP. Versions: Disc. Clericalis 21; Roman de Renart , Branch, I'^^ V. 162 sq, ; Boson 12n; John of Sheppey b9 ; Caxton, p. 195.
Bozon is inspired here by the version of the Discip- lina Clericalis, -although it is not, perhaps, his direct source. In lihis version the Fox makes the Wolf descend into a pit for the cheese. The Fox goes in first but pre- tends he is unable to bi'ing it up:
"Cur non affers mihi caseuin?" Vulpes ait;"Ke^queo prae magnitudine; sed intra aliam ur-«eolam et veni sicut mihi spopondisti. "
Compare this with Bozon:
"Pur quoy demorrez tant?" - "Le fuirnage" fet 1' autre, "est si graund q' i moy
148
covient de aver eyde. "Saillez", dit-il -.1 moton'en l' autre boket".
Some\vh';t oimil-ir to ^his last motif is the version (1) in Rabbi Raschi of Troyes. Here the Fox says there are
I'-.eat and cheese to eat in tl;e "/ell (or pit). In all the
(2) other versions of this fable, except in Bozon and the T)is-
ciplina Cleric.alis , the Fox descends, or protends that he
has descended into the well either in order to quench his
(Z) thirst, or to catch fish. Leopold Sndre holds that the Ro-
in-j.n ae Renart does net", seem to have knovm this form of the
stoi'y* He mentions, however, an allusion to tliis episode
found in Branch I., "hich speaks of ^ he reflection of the
moon tfjien by the Wolf for a cheese:
Gel fis pecher en la fonteine
Par nuit quant la lune estoit plene.
De 1* ombre de la blanc lunage
Qui de voir, ce fi^st furmage.
{n, 1057 sq. )
T?ie fable in Bozon clearly bears the stamp of the
folk-lore of his time and seems to have been a part of the
Roman de Renart f.radition. The reflection of the moon in
(1) Cf, Gelbhaus, Uber Stoffe alt, deutscher Poesie. Ber- lin, 1383, p.S8 (cited by Sudre, Les Sources du Roman de Renart. p. 233).
(2) That is, in the fable collections named above, and also in the Roman de Renart.
(3) Cf. Sudre, Les Sources du Roman de Renart. p. 233.
149
the v^ater is not mentioned by Bozon, biU it is clear that
(1) this fable arose from this illusion. Tne Fox himself is
not deceived, but desires to deceive the Sheep. This fact is sho'A'n in the x'eply of the Pox, as he ^-scends in one buc!; et , wliile the Sheep descends in the o*:herI "Est le furmagc bon e savoree".' As may be noted throughout the Roiaan de Renart, the Fox is especially kno^.vn for the tricks he plays on the animals 'vith whom he comes in contact.
The illiision produced by the reflection of the moon in the v^ater, has been introduced as a motif by Mediaeval authors in their stories in a variety of forms. The ef- fects of this simple illixsion on the minds of the varioiis animals are represented in many ways. For example, in Odo of Siierington the Fox says he has eaten so many fish that he is bursting. This motif must have come from a popular source. There is also a new departure in Bozon' s fable from the more cormion version of the fable as found in Cax- ton and the Roman de Renart . when the Pox says:
Jeo vy un homme porter furmage pres de un fontaigne, e le homme cesta, e un furmage lui eschape o chey en le fontaigne.
We have here simply an invention, either of Bozon himself,
(1) Cf. also fable of Vfolf and Fox, p. ' ■
150
or of a writer of his time, and which, perh'^.ps, h*id not ap- peared in literature ^mtil Bozon v/rote it down in his ser- mons .
Another remarkable feature in the fable of Bozon, is that the Fox is associated with a Sheep, and not, as in the
niajoritv of the other versions of this fable, 'vith a Wolf.
(1) It is in Caxton and Phaedrus only that the Goat is the as- sociate of the Fox., There is also another resemblance be- tween the version in Caxton and that in Phaedrus; n^aely, the Fox escapes from the well, not by means of a bucket, as in Bozon and the other versions of the fable, but n-ith the aid of the Goat himself. Compare Caxton:
For if thou v/ilt set thy two feet ar^ainst the wall, I shall well 1 -^ap upon thee, and upon thj'' horns, and then I shall leap out of the well.
and Phaedrus :
*•***•• Turn Uulpicula
Euasit puteo, nixa celsis cornibus.
Does Caxton, as well as Bozon, .30 back to the fable
Vulpis et Capra of Phaedrus? It is hardly possible that
(1) Cf. Havet, p. 101, fable 86; Hervieux, vol. II., p. 45, fable IX.
151
either knew Phaednis, but those fable collections that v/ere
'.written in England, especially those of Odo of Sherington,
Bozon, Caxton ajid also the Rom. Treverensis, are made up of
many folk elements that unmistakable traces of Phaedrus oc-
(1) cur in many fables. These resemblances can be explained
only by the fact that the old fables, as they appeared in
Phaedrus, lived in the moiaths of ^he people and are found
again in later fable collections.
In concliision, this fable in Bozon has as its soiirce
the version found in the Disciplina Clericalis. but so many
folk elemonts have crept into it thdt it is hard to i-ecog-
nize it m its new dress. The new features in the fable
appear to h^ve risen, in part, from a confusion v/ith the
fable Vulpes et Caper of Phaedrus. This confusion, as
(2) M. Meyer suggests, may have already taken place in an Eng- lish fable, no'.'V lost. This hypothesis is strengthened by the farther fact that the fable ends •.•ri th tivo English vers- es which appear to be a part of the original fable.
(1) Herlet, Die Asopischen Fabel im Mittelalter (p.l8)men- tions the similarity that Odo and Rom. Treverensis have with Phaedrus.
(2) Examples have b'^en noted where Bozon has seemingly in- troduced, purposely, new actors in a fable where these same animals are mentioned in the exemplum on y/hich the fable depends (cf. page //J ) ; we have not, however, a similar case here.
1:12
XI, CAT AND FOX. Vero ions : Odo of Sherins^on 150; Jacques de Vitry 174; Bozon 145; John oi' Shoppny 50.
This fable is not Aesopic; it appears to have had its ori[jin in the cloisters of the Middle Ages. Odo of Sherinr;ton is not here the source of Bozon. Not only is the text of Bozon more expanded th-in that of Odo, but the actors in the fable are diffefent. With Bozon, the Cat leads the Fox to the larder; in all other kno'.vn versions it is the Wolf, not the Fox, that plays the role of the dupe.
Th^ fable begins very much like that of the Fox and
Cat in Odo of Sh^rington 39, in v/hich the Fox meets the Cat
and asks how many wiles it has. But it is hardly possible
(1) that Bozon has purposely changed the actors in the fable.
His sor;rce, as well as that of John of Sheppey is v;hat Her- let calls the "Klosterliche Tiersago. " This class of fa- bles, invented by the monies, or as old fables in a new dress, were often repeated in different monasteries, expand- ed by some writers, abridged by others. It is not strange, therefore, that a variant of this fable should arise in
(1)^/ A/r/..^^.2.
'f-f
153
(1)
which the Cat is ^.ssociated with the Fox.
It is probable that the old Aesopic fable of Fox :vith (2) Belly full has given rise to the "cloister" versions of the
fable lender discussion. There is a set of fables in Odo of
Sherington, as in John of Sheppey, which appear to have
(3) some connection v/ith the original Phaedrus collection.
These "cloister" fables must have been one of the mediums
through which this collection was knov/n in the Middle Ages.
d FABLES DERIVED FROM UNDETERJ.IINED SOURCES.
Among the fables made use of by Bozon in his sermons, there are six fables in paragraphs 10, 14, 53a, 56, 114, 135, v/hich are not foimd elsewhere; they are entitled: Crow and Bees , Kite and Crow, !3irds in Parliament, Rabbit elect- ed Judge . Bear proud of Hands, and Hen laarried to Hawk. Is it probable that Bozon has invented them? It -oixld p^^rhaps not be vase to acknov/ledge this too readily, since the li-
(1) Two mere versions of this fable have been published b; Du Meril , Po-^sies Inc^dites (pp. 134-135, note). One is tak- en from the Historia ecclesiastica Francoriim, I, IV, col. 147, ed. Riwnart; the other from von Aretin, Beytraege zur Qeschichte und Literatur, t, IX, p. 124.
(2) This is fable 86 of Babrius.
(3) Cf, page /^-/.
154
braries of Great Britain and of the Continent have not yet
been thoroughly searched for fable collections. Again,
from what can bo gathered from Bozon's Pontes as a whole,
it would not seem that Bozon, apart from the fact that he
was a poet as well as a writer of p^'ose, had a particiilarly
(1) inventive or original mind, or even anj'' very great learning.
On the other hand, some facts would lead us to suspect that
he might be the author of at least a part of these fables:
1. He has seemingly expanded some fables which are de- pendent on Odo of Sherington; these expanded versions are
improvements on the original. For example, tlie fable of
(2) Ass ind Pig; if Bozon drew this fable from Odo - it does
not occur, as far as I know, outside of Odo, Bozon and the Gesta Romanorurn - one miist ascribe to him not a little inge- nuity in the construction of a fable.
2. His originality in presenting a fable, and also his
custom of introducing at v:ill any animal as actor in the
fable, and of wilfully changing the actors in order, it
would seom^ to make the fable correspond more closelv with
(3) the exempla.
(1) Cf. C.M.de Bozon. p.XXVll.
(2) Cf. page /^a.
(3) Cf. page:-;/-£^.
155
There is, Iiowevor, nothing uncotnrnon in discovoring
strange fables in the collections of tho various fabulists.
Hervieiax, in his dissertation on the Fables and Parables
(1) of Odo of Sherington, states that sone of the fables found
in this collection are perhaps original vith Odo. Four
strange fables occur ai-.ong the fables of John of Sheppey.
(2) Hervieux has given them the follov^ing titles: fable 38, Les
Levriers. les Matins et les Loups ; fable 52, Le H^ron et I'AJgle; fable 65, Le Lion et la Licotne; fable 69, L e j^up La Truie et ses Petits. M. Hervieux is of the opinion that John of Sheppey is not the author of any of these fables. In short, in nearly all the more important fable collections of the Middle Ages some new fables appear. Many of the fa- bles belonging to the collection from 'vhich Marie de France drew her fables must have come from a popular source. Al- fred collected this material; he made use of oral versions or fables in circulation in the monasteries and among the people at the time in which he lived. The friars also were accustomed to go through towns and villages, preaching to the people on the public squares, as well as in the church- es. They had most often to do with simple folk; they did
(1) Cf. Hervieux, vol. lY. , p. 150.
15f
not recite learned discourses; they improvised and related stories. These stories and fables, at times, foiond their way into books,
A great many oi" these strange fables, hoivevor, I be- lieve, can be explained by assuming that the fabixlists, Al- fred and Odo of Sherington, as well as Bozon and John of Sheppey, drew not only from written sources, but often from oral tradition. It is to be noted also that, frequently, the actors in a given fable are not retained in the various mamxscripts of the same fables, or in the translations, but that substitutions are sometimes made of a different ani- m^al. It would seem that, in some cases, before being v/rit- ten doivn the fables were recited several times, and did not always preserve the same form or the same actors in every case.
Tv/o of these strange fables in Bozon offer peculiar- ities in themselves. The fable of Kite and Crow, (par. 14)on account of the English verses attached to it, has the ap- pearance of being dependent on an English soiarce. There is
no reason for denying that Bozon has drawn this J'able from
(1) the English folk with whom he frequently camo in contact.
The fable of Hen married to Hawk (par. 135) is pecu- (1) Cf. pagey6<>
157
liar in that a part of the fable can bo put into rime, as M, Meyer has done. The fable is well developed and one might well hesitate, for this reaiion, to admit that it was drawn from oral tradition.
Perhaps some, at least, of these stray fables can be found in books or namiscripts not yet examined with this special object in view; or fable collections at present un- known and containing new fables may be brou'^ht to light in
the future. It is certain, however, that these fables to
(1) which reference has just been made, do not belong to any of
those fable collections which were widely current in the
Middle Ages.
(1) Cf. page /^~S.
158
PART II.
GENERAL DISCUSSION OF BOZON'S SOURCES.
159 PART II.
GENERAL DISCUSSION OF EOZON'S SOURCES.
000
3, An English Eable Collection as a Source.
Did Bozon know a collection of English fables from
which he drew a part, at least, of his fables? This, at
first siff'ht, would a-'jpear plausible enough, since not only
\l) in sorae of his fables En-relish citations and English names
occur, but in these same fables, and in others also, motifs occur which are not found in the Latin or French versions of the same fable.
It is a well established fact that the Enrlish lit- erature of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries has cone down to us only in fran;ments. The works that appeared in
English were, for the nos''" part, addressed to the common
(2) people and little appreciated by the edu.cated classes. Con- sequently they were i-arely copied and had many chances of entirely disappearing, even from the memory oV men. In this way a large number of tales, fables, etc., com.posed in English, may have been soon forgotten. It is reraarkable that although the fables of Aesop, in French, were found
(1) Cf. C.M.de Bozon, par. 55, 121, 128.
(2) Cf. Jusser-ind, Histoire litteraire dvi pouple anglais, p. 209.
160
in all the c^^^t libraries of England in the fci^rteenth and
fifteenth centuries, yet none, apparently, have descended
to our own times. There is now no conclu.sive evidence of
an English translation of Aesop's fables as a regular col- ID lection previous to that of Caxtont
It is knovm c(mst fuct ively , however, tha+ a book of
English fables did at one time exist in England, although
it is now lost, Marie de France says in her Prologue to
her fables that she translated siich a collection into
French verse, and this translation was probably made by her
toward the end of the twelfth century. Thus, Nicole Bozon
could have known this English version, at the beginning of
the fourteenth centu.ry, though perhaps in a rejuvenated
form. One might consider, therefore, those fables in which
English words and phrases appear as coming from an English
collection, having, in part, the same source as the French
version of Marie de France. On the other nand, they may
merely be reri'tnants of the lost English collection, and
knovm to our author onl'" through oral tradition, wr.ile his
(2) use of English proverbs in certain fables may be du.e to his
individuality.
(1) Cf. Jacobs, Aesop's Fables (Caxton's edition), vol.11.
p. 15Ssq.
(2) Cf. G.M.de Bozon. par. 14, 17, D5.
161
Throughout the fablos of Bozon expressions, usuall^^
i'ound at ■*he end of the fable, occur suc?i as:
(1)
1. "Veires est dist", f et-il , "en engleis • • •"
(here follow a proverb or verses in English).
(2).
2. Pur ceo dit 1 ' em en engleys • • «. (3)
3. Le corf dont respond en son engleys • « • (4) 4« "Veirel " dit le berbis en son engleis • • •
It -would appear from the examples just quoted that Bozon, for these particular fables, goes back to an English source.
Another peculiarity of Bozon is his use of English
names for the personages in some of his fables. In the fa-
(5) ble of the Sheep and Crow, the dog's name is given as Grif- fin; Sir Badde is the name of the cat in the fable of Cat
(6) and Mice. In regard to the anecdotes, at least, certain
significant English names that are used at times, such as
(V) Croket . Hoket and Loket , oi- William V/erldeschame and f'audo
(8) Mikilmisaunter . seem to indicate that Bozon' s redaction be- longs to oral tradition rather than to the v/ritten liter-
ID Cf. C.M.de Bozon. par. 17. (2) Cf. ibid.
(3) Cf. ibid, par. 14. (4) Cf. ibid, par, 55.
(5) Cf. Ibid. pa.. /^U (G) Cf. ibid, joa-i./^/.
(7) Cf. Ibid. p. 137. (8) Cf. ibid. p. 166.
162
ature.
In oi-dei" CO sriow the character of those fables in
which Bozon has mti-oduced English words and phrases, such
fables will now bo taken up and discussed in regard to the
(1) use of the English citations.
(2) A. KITE AND CROW.
The origin of this fable is unknown and it is not pi-obable that Bozon invented it. It resembles somewhat, es- pecially in the beginning, fable 29 of Marie de France. The f abl e ends thus :
Le corf dont respond en son engleys:
"Wei wurth suffraunce yat abatez strif ,
And wo wurth hastinence yat reves man his lif . "
It would seem, at first sight, Lhat this fable belonged to that collection of fabl(5S v/hich is ihe soiirce of Mai-ie de France. Marie ti-anslated from the English only those fa- bles which pleased her most. Did Bozon, then, find this fable in some Latin collection or other work, or in a French foim with the two English verses attached as a mor- al; or did he know the fable in an English di-ess and merely repeated the moral in English, since his audience, no doubt was for the greater part of English bix'th and speech? Be-
(1) The order followed in the treatment of ''hese fables is the same as in the Pontes of Bozon.
(2) Cf. C.M.de Bozon. par, 14.
163
foi'e chese q.:esiions can