75le H323 P Q 1439 B25 H3 1905 MAIN Digitized &y the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/comparativestudyOOharrrich A Comparative Study of the Aesopic Fable m Nicole Bozon A Dissertation Submitted to the Board of University Studies of the Johns Hopkins University in Conformity with the Requirements for the Deg-ree of Doctor of Philosophy. hy PHILIP WARNER HARRY 1903 Excerpts from the above printed in accordance with the regulations of the University. TABLE OF CONTENTS. J^ ■\j PAGE Introductory 5 a. Account of the Sources of the Fables 6 d. Difficulties of the Subject 10 c. Plan of the Work 11 d. Scheme of Fable Collections 13 e. Comparative Table of Versions 15 /. Objects of Investigations 16 Sources of the Individual. Fables 17 a. Fables Derived from Marie de France or a Common Source 17 Conclusion 71 Bibliography 74 a. Original Texts 74 d. Editions and Studies 78 c. Manuscripts 82 d. Biographical Notices 82 a. Reviews 83 144012 OfTHI VNfVERSITY INTRODUCTORY. In the year 1889, the Sociite des Anciens Textes Frangais published a book entitled Les Contes Moralises de Nicole Bozon^ edited by Paul Meyer in collaboration with Miss P. Toulmin Smiths These contes of Bozon, which were discovered by M. Meyer in the course of his researches in the libraries of England, have been, on account of their character, the subject of some discussion among- students of fable literature during the past several years. Nicole Bozon was a preacher, a frhre mineur^ who wrote both in prose and in verse. His prose works are by far the more important. These consist of a series of short sermons which are in reality little more than a collection of exemfla; that is, of stories real or ficti- tious, followed by a moral application. At the time when Bozon wrote, the authors of sermons had the cus- tom, without doubt in order to render their homilies more attractive, of interspersing them with anecdotes of various sorts, to which they gave the general name of parables. Instruction through such parables is a practice dating from remote antiquity ; preachers were induced to adopt this method, not so much for the sake of illustrating their discourses, as making a lasting im- pression on the minds of their illiterate hearers. Boz- on's prose works are full of such exemfla^ and many of them are extremelj^ interesting from a number of points of view. The special features of the work in question may be considered to belong to three general classes, distin- guished as follows: (1) Pacts of Natural History; (2) Tales ; (3) Fables. ^ Ives Contes Moralises de Nicole Bozon (Soci^t^ des Anciens Textes Frangais, 1889), Paris, 1889. The purpose of this dissertation is to discover, if possible, to what collection (or collections) of fables Bozon had access, as well as to discuss the general char- acter of the fables contained in the work of our author. Th^re are several features that distingnish the fables found in Bozon from those occurring in works of a similar character, and that make them worthy of serious study. In the fiist place, some of his fables end with English verses or an English proverb^. The end- ing of a fable with English verses was not at all uncom- mon among Bozon's contemporaries^, but those occur- ring in his fables are of especial 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 appear to be the dihris of French verses*. This characteristic is so evident in the case of one fable that the editors have printed nearly the whole of it in verse form^. A third characteristic peculiar to Bozon is the large proportion of fables which occur in his work only. Whether 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 which can not be definitely settled. a, ACCOUNT OF THK SOURCES OF THK FABLKS. In a collection of notes which follow the text of the conies^ the editor has sought, wherever possible, to note the source on which Bozon drew for each fable. Here are his results : Of the thirty-nine fables^ which he has discussed, he is sure of having discovered the orig- inal source of only five fables (fables 5, 7, 16, 28 from Odo of Sherington; fable 32 from Marie de France); 2. Cf. C. M. de Bozon, parag^raphs 14, 17, 34, 121, 128. 3. Cf . numerous examples in Thomas Wrig-ht's lyatin Stories. 4. Cf. C. M. de Bozon, par. 28, 30, 32, 56, 120, 121, 129, 135. 5. Cf. C. M. de Bozon, par. 135. 6. Two fables are omitted in the table (p. XVII), but are mentioned on pag-e XIX and in the notes. for seven others (fables 47, 61, 75, 91, 94, 130, 142) he has indicated the probable source. In these seven cases M. Meyer holds it as necessary to suppose that Bozon thought best to modify the fables, yet he sees no reason for this supposition, since the details of the fable (or story) must have been for the author only of secondary importance. Neither do the modifications appear to come from an imperfect memory. Finally, for seven fables (fables 10, 14, 50, 53<5, 56, 114, 135), 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 sug-gfests 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 Prance. Marie translated into French verse a book of English fables at the end of the twelfth century. Bozon could have known it, in a rejuvenated form, at the beginning of the fourteenth century. One could consider, then as coming from the original English collection, the English verses which form the moral of certain fables''^. The editor, however, apparently not wholly con- vinced that this is the case, offers another hypothesis which he says is worthy of examination. In certain fables and apologues one may recognize dibris of French verses^. Now, it is suggested that Bozon may have made use of a book of Anglo-Norman fables, today lost, which would have had in part the same source as Marie de France, and contained, in addition, certain fables of which the source is not known today. In this manner the English verses could be explained. The distinguished editor, however, does not insist on this hypothesis. He points out that fragments of verse exist in Bozon's works also, though rarely, outside of the fables; that is, in the sermons proper®, and he 7. Cf. C M. de Bozon, par. 14, yi\, 128. 8. Cf. C. M. de Bozon, pp. 3O, 55, 120, 121, 129. 9. Cf. C. M, de Bozon, par. 9, 115, 121, 133. sugfgests that Bozon, who was a poet as well as a prose 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 Marie de Prance. Gaston Paris, in speaking- of Bozon^^, states that the fables and contes in his sermons appear to be from an English source, while Crane in his introduction to Jacques de Vi'try^^ expresses the belief that the exempla of Bozon are taken largely from some Anglo-Norman collection now lost. There has been but one critical study of the fables of Bozon since the edition of the text, and this is merely a brief discussion by Herlet in his work on Fable Liter- ature in the Middle Ages^^. The author believes that M. Meyer has not shown clearly enough the relationship between Bozon and Marie de France. He adds the fol- lowing fables to the editor's list of those fables which depend upon Marie de France : 1. Fables taken directly from Marie^^: 23 (Marie XXIX); 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 LXI); 94 (Marie XLIX); 116 (Marie XCVIII, Odo XXXIX); 142 (Marie LXX). For the following fables Herlet gives Odo of Sher- ington as the source of Bozon : 10. Cf. La Litterature Frangaise au Moyen age {Deuxieme Edition), p. 119. On page 223 of this same work, M. Paris places Bozon in the thirteenth century ; in the chronolog-ical table, however, he is put in the four- teenth century. 11. Cf. Crane, Exempla of Jacques de Vitry, p. 132. 12. Cf. Herlet, Asopische Fable itn Mittelalter, Hamburg, 1892, pp. 51-60. 13. The references here to Marie de France correspond to Warnke's edition of Marie's fables, and not to Roque- fort's edition as given by Herlet. 8 8 (Odo LXX); 15 (Odo XI); 17 (Odo IV); 21 (Odo LVIII); 46 (Odo LXXIV); 53 (Odo LXIV); 120 (Odo XXXIII); 121 (Odo hlVa); 128 (Odo XIX). According- to Herlet, Bozon has been influenced by the Romulus Vulgaris tradition in regard to the follow- ing fables : 26 (Rom. Vulgaris, Bk. I, 1); 30 (Rom. Vulgaris, Bk. IV, 3); 49 (Rom. Vulgaris, Bk. I, 2); 131 (Rom. Vulgaris, Bk. I, 6). Such, in general, are the results reached by Herlet. It is clear that many points in reference to the true character of the work of Bozon remain unsettled. Her- let 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 fables of Bozon until the year 1896, when Hervieux, in his work on Odo of Sherington^*, placed Bozon as de- pendent for the greater part of his fables, at least, on Odo. Hervieux holds that Bozon made use of a collec- tion containing the fables of Odo of Sherington and other fables, but that the borrowings were made mostly from Odo, and for this reason he assigns Bozon a place among the imitators of this fabulist. He is convinced that Bozon really translated the text of Odo of Shering- ton in other cases than thos^ indicated by M. Meyer^^. In short, he holds that Bozon has translated or, at least, paraphrased 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 per- haps can not, 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 new fables appear that were not noted in his first edition.*" He has also edited the fables of Odo of Sherington, the introduction 14. Cf. Hervieux, Etude sur les Fables et les Paraboles d'Efidus de Cheriton, p. 92. 15. Cf. p. 6 of this Introduction. to which throws much lig-ht upon related fable collec- tions. Warnke^^ has also issued a new edition of the fables of Marie de France, with a valuable introduction to the same. A renewed and more careful study of the fables of Bozon, made with the aid of these works, leads to a number of interesting" results. b. DIFFICUI.TIKS OF THK SUBJECT. To determine the exact relations existing- among the fables of the various fable collections is, in most cases, extremely difficult, owing- to the complexity of the problem presented to the investigator. Each fable must be carefully compared with the corresponding fables in other collections 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 comparative study. Thus, it is only by a careful comparison of the fables of Bozon with the corresponding versions found in the various fable collections that any true light 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 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 lan- guage to another it is not surprising that they have not, as a rule, preserved 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 follow four or five authors through their versions of these fables, to study what the fables have become in the hands of the different 16. Warnke, Die Fabeln der Marie de France, Halle, 1898 (Vol. VI of Bibliotheca Normanuica, edited by H. Suchier). 10 poets, to note the changes to which the fables have been subjected, to examine the new moral applications that have been drawn from them — all this is necessary and can be accomplished only by dealing with the subject systematically in the minutest details. Two thing's 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 being introduced frequently in the following manner: ^^Ici on i>eut conter de — "; or, "/<:/' on feut conter une fahle^ co?nent — "^'^. In one place ^^ there is nothing more than a mere reference to a fable: "/<:/ i>eot Vern dire content le sienge pria le gofil qe il lui fei'st solaz de ii7ie fartie de sa cowe en allegeance del une en avancement del autre^ At times it would seem that Bozon had developed a fable orally before his hearers^ ^; in other cases, however, the fable is sufficiently amplified in written forms^^. Again, in several of the fables of Bozon, motifs are frequently introduced which are not found in any known collection of fables. For this rea- son it is often a most difficult question to decide whether or not Bozon knew some fable collection which is today not extant. C. PI. AN OF THE WORK. In discussing the fables of Bozon, I have endeavored to point out the relation, if any, which exist between Bozon and the chief fable collections of the Middle Ages made prior to his time. I have shown, whenever it was possible, whether Bozon followed the Romulus Vulgaris tradition or the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition, as these are the two chief branches with which we are here concerned. It has not been thought necessary to mention any collection connected with either of these two important groups which do not offer any variant motifs, or show that Bozon had made use of it. A com- 17. Cf. C. M. de Bozon, par. 8, 10, 21. 18. Cf. C M. de Bozon, par. 74. 19. Cf. C. M. de Bozon, par. 34, 42, 72, 74, etc. 20. Cf . C. M. de Bozon, par. 120, 145. 11 parison has also been made of the Bozon material with the more important works of a religious type containing- certain stray fables, which Bozon could well have known; such as, Odo of Sherington, Jacques de Vitry, Bromiar- dus, etc. Many minor collections^^ have also been examined, and whenever any connection between them and Bozon is apparent, such relationship is noted. A study of the fables of Bozon will readily con- vince one that Bozon was acquainted with the fables of Marie de Prance in some form or other. Marie's poetical version of ^^sopic fables were very popular in England in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. To judge from the number of manuscripts of her fables still extant, it would seem that copies of them must have been at the time of Bozon in many of the im- portant libraries and monasteries of England, and also in the North of France. Moreover, it was not uncom- mon for the nobles to possess a few books of literary character such as Marie's fables. Although it is per- haps hardly probable that a preacher of so humble a station in life as Bozon appears to have been, was him- self the possessor of such a work, it would be remark- able if he were not, at least, acquainted with the excellent collection of fables of his illustrious country- woman. Another work of the same character as Bozon's sermons is the Fables and Paraholae of Odo of Sher- ington. Odo lived in the first half of the thirteenth century. His collection of sermons was verv popular with the clergy throughout England, since it was con- stantly used by them in the amplification of their sermons, and the moralized fables and parables therein contained were frequently copied by later fabulists and other writers ^^. Bozon's sermons show clearly that he was familiar with the works of Odo. These two authors, Marie de France and Odo of Sherington, seem, therefore, to have been the chief 21. For a list of the works consulted, see Bibliography. 22. Cf. Hervieux, Vol. IV, p. 146. 12 ( of hK. 23. M. Meyer is of the opinion that Bozon drew the great majority of his exempla at least, from a work closely resembling the De proprietatibus rerum of Bar- thelemy the Englishman (or Glanville). \\>- i/NIVERSfTY sources for Bozon's fables. For the rest of hJk-Jables^^ which are not derived from either of the authors just- mentioned, it would seem that he was dependent on a variety of sources. We must give him the credit for being familiar with some of the chief religious works of his time ; as those of facqtces de Vitry, Vitae Patrum, the Bisciplina Clericalis^ etc., since to these he is indebted for some of his exempla ^^. Again we may well suppose that in his relations with other men of his profession, he probably became acquainted with a certain number of new fables not contained in the literary collections noted, or with familiar fables in new forms. d. SCHEMK OF FABLK COI.I.KCTIONS. 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 dependent, 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 ^sopic fables. Bozon's place in fable literature will, then, probably be shown by the follow- ing scheme : 13 Rom. Vulgaris (cir. 950 A. D.) Odo of Sherinerton (cir. 1250 A. D.) Ysopet d' Evreux (cir. 1275 A. D.) Romulus Primitivus (cir. 900 A. D.— lost) Rom. Nilantii (cir. 1050 A. D.) Anerlo-Latin Rom. (cir. 1100 A. D.— lost. Alfred of Entrland (cir. 1150 A. D.— lost.) Rom. Treverensis Marie de France, Esope (cir. 1175 A. D.) (cir. 1175 A. D. Nicole Bozon (cir. 1320 A. D.) Rom. Harleianus (cir. 1375 A. D.) (14) e. COMPARATIVE TABLE OF VERSIONS. The following- table will show at a glance the fable collections, and other works, containing versions par- allel to the fables found in Bozon. Only those versions have been included in this table which may reasonably be considered as perhaps closely related to those of our author. TABI.E OF PARALLEI. VERSIONS. Bozon .22 > c ii s o t -a > o bs "u m o o Miscellaneous 1 — IT 4. L/ion as Judge. 81 70 Paris Promptuarium 3. 1.14 L14 13 14 Bromiardus, G. IV. 16. 3— 10. Crow and Bees 4— ]4. Kite and Crow 5— 15. Thrush and Starling-... 80 79 31 123 122 79 11 4 58' '74' ■24' 56' Rom. Vratislavensis 27. 6— 17. Owl and Hawk Rom, Roberti 12. 7— 18. Peacock and Destiny... 8— 21. Wolf and Rabbit IV, 4 III, 2 Gesta Romanorum 57. 9 — 23. Lion Reigning- 111,20 L 1 IL 20 I, 1 I, 3 in, 11 29 1 30 40 71 77 1 78 88 62 Rom, Roberti 22. 10— 26. Cock and Jewel Bromiardus, A. XXVI. 32 11 — 30. Fox and Plowman. Bromiardus, C. VI. 14. 12— 34,121. Sheep and Crow 13— 42. Wolf and Hedgehog.... IV, 21 14— 46. Wolf and Fox . R. de Renart, III. 374-510. 15— 47. Monkey and Child... . 51 2 101 41 2 132 Jacques de Vitry 143. 16— 49. Wolf and Lamb 17= 50. Cat as Bishop L 2 I. 2 Spec, Hist., Bk. IV. c. 18— 53a. Roaming Cat Jacques de Vitry 209. 19— 53b. Birds Seeking Wife\ for Eagle / 20— 55. Sheep and Wolf be- ( fore Lion j L 4 L 4 4 4 23 21— 56. Rabbit Elected Judge.. 22— 61. Fox and Dove 51 7 28 73 6 49 61 9 76 116 8 32 '6' ■63' Jacques de Vitry 20. 23— 72. Wolf and Crane. I. 8 III, 17 I, 9 n,i9 24— 74. Fox and Monkey 25— 75. Rat Seeking Wife Jacques de Vitry 171. Rom. Bern. Pr. 42. 26- 91. Sun Seeking Wife 27— 94. Man and Trees L 1 III, 14 L 8 n,i6 Jacques de Vitry 142. 28— 114. Bear Proud of Hands.. 29— 116. Fox and Pigeon 98 129 39 33 54a 30— 120. Ass and Pig . Gesta Romanorum 50. 31— 121. Cat and Mice. Ps. Gault. Angl. 3. 32— 128. Fox and Sheep Disc. Clericalis 21. 33 — 129. Lion and Mouse L17 L17 16 84 11 17 63 6 Spec. Doct., Bk. II. c. 116. 34— 130. Man and Oxen Rom. Roberti 18. 35— 131. Lion and Companions.. 36— 135. Hen Married to Hawk.. I. 6 L 6 Jacques de Vitry 156. 37— 142, Ass' Heart 70 61 156' Avianus 30. 38—145. FoxandCat Jacques de Vitry 174, 15 y. OBJECTS OF INVESTIGATION. In the following: Comparative Study of the ^sopic Fable in Nicole Bozon, I shall endeavor to point out, above all, the unusually close relationship that exists between Bozon and Marie de France. Herlet has rec- ognized the interdependence of the two collections, but he has shown it 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 closely resembles that of Odo than that of his more illustrious country-woman. The place, as a fol- lower of Odo, given him by Hervieux, is, therefore, not so well deserved as that of a follower of Marie de France — a fact which will become manifest, I hope, in the course of the present investigation. The numbers, as well as the varied types of the fables found in the sermons of Bozon, prove that he was a diligent collector and adapter of ^sopic material. Not only has he taken his material from books of a religious character, but also from oral tradition, both monkish and popular. Finally, I shall endeavor to point out in the follow- ing pages the chief characteristics of Bozon in his treat- ment of the ^sopic Fable, as a constituent part of Mediaeval Literature. In general, it may be said that Bozon's fables have a peculiar cast, since well known fables frequently show not only an addition of new motifs, but also a notable difference in the characters introduced as actors of the fable. These striking features can be adequately ex- plained only by a careful and detailed study of the individual fables, combined with a more general view embracing a consideration both of the special character and the chief aim of his work. 24. Cf. p. 8. 16 SOURCES OP THE INDIVIDUAL FABLES. FABI^KS DERIVED FROM MARIK DIE FRANCE), OR A COMMON SOURCE. The fables of Bozon which appear to be derived from Marie de France, or at least belong- to the Ang-lo- Latin Romulus 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 King; 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. Each fable in this list will be taken up and com- pared in detail with the parallel versions found in the various fable collections, or in other such works as it has been possible to control. The order followed in the discussion of these fables is the same as that in which they occur in Bozon's text. I. OWIy AND HAWK. Versions: Marie de France 79 ; Rom. Treverensis 122 ; Odo of Sherington 4 ; Rom. Roberti 12 ; Bozon 17 ; John of Sheppey 51 ^ . This fable, as M. Meyer states in his notes on Bozon ^, exists under two different forms. In Odo of 1. The references to the parallel versions are arrang-ed in chronolog-ical order. 2. Cf. C. M. de Bozon, p. 232, note 17. 17 Sherington and in John of Sheppey it bears the name of Blizzard and Hawk^ while in Bozon, the Rom. Treverensis and Marie de Prance it bears the title of Owl and Hawk. That there is a crossing: here of both traditions, as indicated by the different names just noted, is evident from the version in John of Sheppey, where the 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. Treverensis and in the Rom. Roberti, where such an answer is fitting- ; but where it refers to the buzzard (busardus), as in John of Sheppey, it must be regarded as peculiar. It appears that John of Sheppey knew also the version which is common to Marie de France, the Rom. Treverensis 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 will help to explain the resemblance in this fable which Bozon's version has with that of Odo of Sherington and also with that of Marie de Prance. Bozon, as well 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 versions 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 Prance : De r oef les poi jeo 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." 18 Prof. Mall ^ believes that the English verses in Odo of Sheringfton are a remnant of the collection of Alfred of Eng-land. This fable appears to have been founded upon, or to have been the origin of, a very old and popular proverb, which is found in most of the Teutonic langfuag-es. Bozon is indebted to Marie de Prance, or at least to the Ang-lo-Latin Romulus tradition, for the title of his fable, and not to Odo of Sherington. There are, more- over, some unmistakable similarities between Bozon and Marie de Prance which do not appear in Bozon and Odo. The principal motifs of the fable will now be taken up and discussed in detail. a. In Marie de Prance and in Bozon we find Huans and Ostiir; in Odo of Shering-ton and in John of Sheppey, Busardus and Accii)iter. b. Marie de Prance 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 Biisardiis secretly deposits an ^^^ in the nest of the Hawk ; while in Bozon the Owl, by begging the Hawk to bring up its jiz^ naturally presupposes a friendship as existing between the Owl and the Hawk. c. Both Marie de Prance and Bozon state that the Hawk goes for food and on returning finds its nest be- fouled. Compare Bozon : Tan que le ostur voleit qere lur viaunde, revynt et trova son ny ordement soilli, and Marie de Prance : Puis lur ala querre viande, Mes quant a els fu 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 3. Cf. E. Mall, Zur Geschichte der mittelalterlicken Fabel- litteratur, Z F R P, Vol. IX (1880) pp. 161-204. 19 Sheppey, on the other hand, speak of the Hawk as going- for food. d. The phrase in Bozon : Qe est ceo que jeo trove encontre norture ? Qui ad ceo fet ? which M. Meyer compares with Odo : Quis vestrum est qui nidum suum contra naturam commaculavit ? and by which he thinks there is shown an incontestable relationship between Odo and Bozon in regard to this fable, seems to me, to say the least, somewhat doubtful. The same idea is expressed in Marie de France. As was noted above * Bozon may have known both forms (Owl-Hawk, Buzzard-Hawk) of the fable and since he knew Odo, he may have been indirectly influenced by him, but the general motifs of the fable, as will appear, are similar to those in Marie de Prance. Again, it should be observed that there is a differ- ence, as will be seen below, in manuscript reading be- tween the text as quoted by M. Meyer ^ and that found in Hervieux's edition of the fables of Odo of Shering- ington. The version in Hervieux (vol. IV, p. 181) has simply : Quis est qui nidum maculat ? (as also in Oesterley's edition ^), and not as Hervieux (vol. n, first edition) has it "^ : Qui nidum suum contra naturam commaculavit ? If this last reading be not adopted the relation between Odo of Sherington and Bozon in this fable is not at all clear. e. Bozon and Marie de France agree in that the Hawk says, in both versions, that its young (y^^, in 4. Cf . pag-e 18. 5. Cf . C. M. de Bozon, p. 233. 6. Cf. Oesterley, Die Narrationes des Odo de Ciringtonia, Jahrb. f. roman. und engl. lit. Vol. IX (1868), p. ISO. 7. Cf. Hervieux, Vol. II (first edition), p. 601. 20 Bozon) are in the rig-ht, and both authors (Bozon and Marie) follow this statement with a sort of proverb : *' Stroke oule and schrape oule and evere is oule oule," of Bozon has the same signification as Marie's De r oef les poi jeo bien geter, E par chalur e par cover, Mais nient fors de lur nature. (vv. 29-31.) The Kng-lish verses which are found at the end of the fable in Odo of Shering-ton prove that the fable origin- ally came from the same source as that of Marie de France ; that is, from the collection of Alfred of Eng-- land. Whether Bozon knew a collection of English fables closely connected to that of Marie de Prance or not will be discussed in a subsequent publication. It is probable, however, in this case, that Bozon being- familiar with the old Engflish proverb, and having an audience composed, in larg-e measure, of Eng-lishmen, preferred to use the Eng-lish rather than the French words to illustrate his thought. f. In Bozon and 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 repruvier De la pume del dulz pumier, S' elle chief sur un fust amer, Ja ne savra tant rueler Qu 'al mordre ne seit cuneiie, Desur quel arbre ele est ere tie. (vv. 33-38.) Bozon : *'Trendle the appel nevere so fer he conyes fro what tree he cam ! " 21 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 (e). In resumd^ then, for this fable we have the follow- ing- considerations : Taking- into account the number of motifs that are common to Bozon and Marie de France, as opposed to Odo of Sherington and John of Slieppe}^ it is readily seen that the two former agree in almost every particular. Any divergence in our author from the version of 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 preachers. It should 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 common with these collections and with Marie de France, I shall not discuss them in respect to their rela- tion to Bozon, except in certain cases where motifs are added which do not appear in Marie. Besides, it will be shown later ^ that Bozon for certain fables, could not have been dependent on the Rom. Treverensis or the Rom. Roberti. There is no good reason why Bozon, since he was an Anglo-Norman and wrote in French, should not have been acquainted with the fables of Marie de France. A study of the foregoing comparison of this fable of Bozon with analagous fables in the various fable collec- tions convinces one that Bozon did draw this fable directly from Marie de France and not from some col- lection of fables intended more especially for church use. 8. For example, compare fable of Wolf and Hedgehog-, p. 30. 22 II. PBACOCK AND DKSTINY. Versions: Rom. Vulg-aris, IV, 4 ; Rom. Nilantii, III, 2 ; Marie de Prance 31 ; Rom. Treverensic 79 ; Bozon 18. Bozon's use of the word 'Destiny' for g-oddess, or Juno, recalls fable 6 in Marie de France (De sole nubente): Les creatures s' assemblerent ; A la destinee en alerent. (vv. 5-6.) Our author also uses the same expression in parag-raph 91, fable of Sun Seeking Wife: Les autres alerent a Destinee. It is remarkable that while the Rom. Nilantii, the Rom. Vulg-aris and all the Latin versions dependent on the latter desigfnate the Deity as Juno, the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition ; that is, Marie de France and the Rom. Treverensis, use a different appelation. In Marie de Prance it is deuesse (Mss. A D destinee^ Q nature^ ^ in the Rom. Treverensis creato7\ This fact is sujfficient to show that Bozon was not inspired by the Rom. Vulgaris tradition for his appellation of the Deity, but by the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition. The frequent interchange in the manuscripts of Marie de Prance of the words destinee^ deuesse^ 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 common to both the Rom. Vulgaris and the Anglo- Latin Romulus tradition. Both traditions agree in the motif that the Peacock is grieved because it could not sing as well as the Nightingale. 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. 23 Compare Bozon : Tu as le col si g'ent, la cowe long-e qe a terre pent, voz pennez sont si colurez les uns de porpre, les autres blieus, les uns com saunke, les autres desorrez and the Rom. Vulg^aris : Visus tuus superat vocem, et formatua superat lusciniam colore et nitore smarag-di profusus es ; nuUus similis tibi ; pictisque plumis gemmae Cauda et coUo refulgent. Marie de France and the Rom. Treverensis, on the other hand, merely mention the beautiful feathers of the Peacock. The Rom. Vulgaris and Bozon agree, 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 de France agree in the 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. It has been pointed out ^ that Bozon agrees with Marie de France in two important motifs, and with the Rom. Vulgaris an equal number of times ^^. It would be difficult to state, therefore, to which collection Bozon was indebted for this fable. I do not venture to decide the question. It will be noticed, however, that Bozon and Marie de France agree at the beginning and at the end of the fable. This being a very popular fable, it is possible that Bozon is not here dependent on any par- 9. Cf. p. 23. 10. Cf. examples above. 24 ticular fable collection, but that he was well acquainted with it from oral tradition and that he wrote it down from memory. This would account for the occurrences in his fable of motifs that are common to both the Rom. Vulgaris and the Ang-lo-Latin Romulus tradition. III. LION AS KING. Versions: Rom. Vulg*aris, III, 20; Rom. Nilantii, II, 20 ; Marie de Prance 29 ; Rom. Treverensis 77 ; Rom. Roberti 22 ; Bozon 23. This fable also exists under two different forms. In the g-roup : Rom. Vulgaris, the Rom. Nilantii and in Bozon it is the Lion that is the despot ; in Marie de Prance, the Rom. Treverensis and the Rom. Roberti the Wolf plays the role of the despot after the abdication of the Lion. Bozon may have taken the Lion from the Rom. Vulgaris tradition ^\ but the more likely suppo- sition is that, knowing the fable in Marie de Prance, where the Lion is introduced as King of the Beasts, he did not choose to introduce the Wolf in his version, since this is but a simple abridgment of the longer fable. It should be noticed that in paragraph 23 of Bozon's sermons ^ '^ in which 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 exemflum. There are numerous examples occurring throughout the text of Bozon where the names of the animals employed in the Exemi)la appear, at times, to have some influence on the actors in the fable which immediately follows ^^. Such an explanation would not be necessary but for the fact that Bozon in other particulars agrees closely enough with Marie de France. Herlet ^* suggests that fable 73 of Marie de Prance 11. That is, the Romulus Vulg-aris, or fable collections de- pendent on the Romulus Vulg-aris, as opposed to the Anglo-Ivatin Romulus tradition. 12. Cf. C. M. de Bozon, par. 23, p. 37. 13. Cf. Fable of Fox and Pig-eon (par. 116), p. 34, note. 14. Cf. Herlet, Asopiscke Fabel ini Mittelalter^ p. 56. 25 (Roquefort's edition) may have here influenced Bozon. The fable beg"ins thus : Jadis avint qu' uns lous pramist Que char ne mangereit, ceo dist, Les quarante jurs de quaresme, (vv. 1-3.) which recalls Bozon : Le leon fist serement que il ne mang-ereit char tot le quarasme. But here also the fable speaks of the Wolf and not of the Lion. In spite of the fact that Bozon has, in common with the Rom. Vulgraris tradition, the Lion as the des- pot, it will be clearly shown from what follows, I believe, that for this fable he must have been indebted to Marie de France. a. In Bozon the Lion first approaches a chievere. In Marie de Prance the Wolf calls a chcvrtieU in the Rom. Roberti a capreolimi. The Rom. Vulg-aris, the Rom. Nilantii and the Rom. Treverensis, on the other hand, mention no animal except the Ape as being- devoured by the wolf. b. Two important motifs which appear through- out the Rom. Vulgaris tradition are : (l) the lion leads the beasts to a secret place and (2) : Omnes bestias que dixerunt os suum putere e que dicebant non putere, equaliter crudeliter necabat, ita ut saturaretur sang-uine ^^. These two motifs do not appear in the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition (except in the Rom. Nilantii), nor in Bozon. c. In Bozon the Lion calls an assembly and demands judgment on the Goat, who had insulted the " bailiff de tei'rey Compare this with Marie de France : A tuz ensemble demanda Quel jugement chescuns fera De celui ki dit sun seigmir Hunte e leidesce e deshonur, (vv. 51-54.) 15. Cf. Hervieux, Vol. II, Rom. Nilantii, p. 538. The Rom. Nilantii here follows the Rom. Vulgfaris tradition. 26 The Rom. Treverensis and the Rom. Robert! agree with this motif, except that in the former the victims are merely called bestia, the Ape alone being" mentioned more particular}-. d. In Marie de France and in Bozon the Goat is condemned to death. e. In Bozon the Lion next approaches Tipoleyn. In Marie de France we have tme alterc beste; in the I^om. Treverensis bcslla, and in the Rom. Roberti, damntila {or damnidiim^ . It appears that Marie's source had not mentioned here any particular animal, while the Rom. Roberti has substituted damniiJa and Bozon foleyn. Such substitutions at the will of the author are very common. For example, M. Mej^er in his note on this fable ^^ g"ives a version taken from the moral treatise known under the name of Cy nous dit^ where the Lion's victims are successively a Lamb, Sow and Fox. With Bozon the foleyn answers : Sire, vostre aleyne pluz douce odure que mirre on canele. Marie de France : . . . Plus suef odur Ne senti unkes a nul jur. (vv. 67-68.) It is evident that Bozon has followed the Ang-lo- Latin Romulus tradition, since there is nothing- in the Rom. Vulg-aris tradition that corresponds to the -poleyn of Bozon or to the altre beste of Marie de France. The poleyn's answer in Bozon reminds one of the answer of the Ape in the Rom. Nilantii, where it says the breath of the Lion is like cinomyn. f. Bozon : the Lion accuses the -poleyn of lying-. Marie De France : the same accusation ag-ainst altre beste. g. The Lion in Bozon next meets a Monkey, which being- questioned in reg-ard to the Lion's breath, refuses to speak. In Marie de France, the Wolf puts the same 16. Cf. C. M, de Bozon, p. 238, note 23. 27 \ question to the Ape whose answer is : entre dons ert. In the Rom. Roberti we have : Quae dixit, quod nee multum gravis erat, nee multum suavis, sed medio modo se habens. Rom. Treverensis : Quae utranque partem responsionis metuens, invenit medium, dicens, "Domine, anhelitus tuus ad utrumque se habet." The Ape's answer in Marie de France, and in her dependents, is entirely different from that which the Rom. Vulgaris tradition offers, where the Ape answers : Ille quasi cynnamonnum dixit fragare. The same answer is given in the Rom. Nilantii. In Marie de France and in her dependents, and also in Bozon, the first animal questioned is eaten by the Wolf (in Bozon, Lion), because it spoke the truth ; a second animal is killed because it lied ; and the third animal, refusing to commit itself, is silent in Bozon, while in Marie de France and in her dependents, it says, the breath of the Wolf is cnUx dons. This gradation is found only here, and hence Bozon could have gotten it nowhere else. The motif of the Ape keeping- silent is peculiar to Bozon. Whether or not he knew a version of this fable with such a motif can 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 col- lection mentioned above ^^. Here the Fox replies to the Lion : Certes, Monseigrneur, je sui tons enreumez, je ne sens riens ^^ ! It is plain, then, that Bozon has not taken this 17. Cf. p. 27. 18. Cf. C. M. de Bozon, p. 238, note 23. 28 fable from the Rom. Vulg-aris tradition. The g:eneral motifs agree closely with those in Marie de Prance. The beg-inning- and end are wanting- in Bozon, but his fable is only a simple abridg-ment of the longer fable of Marie. It is to be noted that this fable is not in Odo of Sherington. IV. WOLF AND HKDGF^HOG. Versions: Marie de France 71 ; Rom. Treverensis 62 ; Bozon 42. This fable has not been widely current. Outside of Marie de Prance and the texts dependent on her, it is found only in a collection of stories published by von Hahn ^^. It is not surprising-, therefore, to find that Bozon ag-rees, throughout, very closely with Marie de Prance. Both fables begin in the same manner. Compare Bozon : Le lou prist un agneile e fui sui des chiens et des bastons, e prist son congee del hericeoun d' eschaper au bo is, and Marie de Prance : Un aignel prist li lous un jour. Si r escrierent li pastur Li chien li vunt apres huant, K il s' en vet al bois fuiant. (vv. 9-12.) Compare also Bozon : *' Ha" ! dist le herison, " baisez moy a conge prendre," and Marie de Prance : Li hericuns li a crie : **Baise mei veals, par charite." (vv. 19-20.) 19. Cf. J. G. von Hahn, Griechische und Albanesische Mar- cheti, 2 Vol., lyeipzig-, 1864 (cited by Warnke, 'Die Quellen der Marie de France,' Forschungen zur ro- manischen Philologie (Festg^abe fiir Suchier), p. 221). 29 still, further, Bozon : Au beisere le hericeon lui erda al menton, 1' autre escowe la teste e ceo veut deliverer, mes ceo ne fust pur rien : od lui maugree le seon lui porta. Marie : Li lous baisa le hericun K il s' aert a sun mentun U il volist, u ne deigfnast Al lou estut qu' il 1' en portast. (vv. 25-30.) Here there can be no doubt as to Bozon's depen- dence on Marie de France. In the Rom. Treverensis, the fable is more elaborate and offers several peculiari- ties which are foreig-n to Marie de Prance and to Bozon. One example may serve to illustrate this fact. The Wolf says to the Hedg-ehog- : Jace, misera bestiola, et defenda te a canibus ! ego vero fug-iam in latebras silvarum ut salvus effugiam. The fable, as represented by Bozon, is an abridg- ment of the fable of Marie de Prance, 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 occur also in the version of Marie de Prance is especially striking. V. MONKKY AND CHILD. Versions: Marie de France 51; Rom. Treverensis 41 ; Alex. Nequam (De Naturis Rerum) 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 the Rom. Bernensis, (Primus). It occurs also in Marie de France. The Rom. Treverensis and Marie de France, which, naturally, resemble each other, have some traits in common with Bozon as opposed to every other known version of this fable. 30 a. In Bozon, Marie de France and the Rom. Trev- erensis, the Monkey first shows its child to the Lion. In the Rom. Bernensis, Alexander Nequam and Jacques de Vitry no mention is made of the Lion. h. In Bozon, Marie de France and the Rom. Trev- erensis, the Monkey is grieved at the answer of the Lion and approaches the Bear. Compare Bozon : Le sieng-e s' en departi corucee e vynt al ourse e demanda coment liii fust avys de son beal fiz. and Marie de France : Cele s' en va triste e dolente. Un urs encuntree en mi la sente. Li urs estut, si 1' esg-uarda. (vv. 13-15.) c. Bozon : "Hay ! " fet le ours, "est celui le beal enfant de qi homme parle tant ? " Marie de France : "Vei jeo," fet il, "iluec 1' enfant, Dunt les bestes parolent tant Ki tant par est bels e g-entiz ? " (vv. 17-19.) In the Rom. Treverensis the Monkey has two children instead of one, as in Marie de France and Bozon. The Bear says to the Monkey : Illi essent fiUii quos omnes bestie sic laudassent? This is but one of many examples which tend to prove that Bozon is not dependent on the Rom. Trever- ensis for any of his fables ^^. d, Bozon : " Soffrez," dit le ours, "qe jeo lui beise, qe tant ay desire de aver veii." Marie de France : Bailliez le 9a, tant que jol bes ; Kar jeol vueil veeir de plus pres. (vv. 21-22.) 20. Cf. p. 30. 31 e. In Bozon and in Marie de France the Lion takes the Monkey's child and devours it. The reflection of the Monkey in Bozon when it sees its child devoured, is lacking- in all other versions of this fable. Possibly it is original with our author. In the Rom. Bernensis (Primus) and in Jacques de Vitry, the fable is further extended by a description of the revenge of the Monkey. This fable, as has just been pointed out ~\ occurs in two different forms. In the first g-roup of texts : Nequam, the Rom. Bernensis (Primus) and Jacques de Vitry, the Bear alone is mentioned; in the second g-roup: Marie de France, the Rom. Treverensis and Bozon, the Monkey first approaches the Lion and then the Bear. As has been stated, this fable does not seem to have been very popular ; it is not found in the Rom. Vulg-aris tradition, nor in Odo of Sherington. A com- parison of the texts of Bozon and Marie de France, as shown above, is, I think, sufficient proof that Bozon has here followed Marie de France. VI. CAT AS BISHOP. Versions: Marie de France 101; Rom. Treverensis 132 ; Bozon 50. Outside of the sermons of Bozon, this fable is met with only in Marie de France and the Rom. Treverensis. Fable 14 of Odo of Sherington, entitled : De Catto qui se fecit Monachiini^ has nothing to do with this fable. It is strange that the editors of the Contes did not observe the relation which exists between Bozon and Marie de France 101 (DeCatto 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 ewestre . . . Marie de France : Unz chaz seeit desur un fur Vit le mulet e la suriz. (vv. 1-3.) 21. Cf. p. 31. 32 In Bozon three species of mice come before the Cat; in Marie de France the Cat sees le mulet et la suriz. The use of the three species of mice by Bozon can be explained by the fact that throughout his fables are found many expressions of a light, jocular tone which were well adapted to awaken interest among the class of people with whom he had to deal ^^. Compare further Bozon : Ordre ! Ordre ! vous estez de una subicion, jeo sui vostre evesque ; venez, (si) pernez ma beniceon ; and Marie de France : Sis apela B dist que lur evesques fu E que mal cunseil unt eu Que sa benei^un n' aveient. (vv. 4-8.) The Mice, 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 manu fiam christianus. Bozon shows his humor with : Nenil, jeo voil meu'x estre ici od ta maliceon^ qe venir plus pres pur aver ta beneiceoil. 22. For example, in the fable Wolf and Lamb (Bozon par. 49) : 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 with our author and which crops out in other places in the fables. Several such examples may be noted : 1. Par. 26, Cock and Jewel: the Cock finds a gold ring, and not, as in all the other versions of this fable, a precious stone. 2. Par. 30, Fox and Plowman : the Fox keeps one eye open. 3. Par. 116, Fox and Pigeon : the Fox says its sack is torn and all its tricks have escaped. 4. Par. 142, Ass' Heart : the Fox judges the urine of the Lion, and the Ass beg-s leave to g-o home to make its will. Still other such examples may be found. All these just men- tioned bring- in new motifs, as in this fable of the Wolf and Ivarab washing- their feet in the river. I doubt whether this motif can be explained in any other manner. 33 Except in the case of a literal translation it would be hard to find two versions more similar than those of Marie de France and Bozon. Bozon, assuredly, knew the fables of Marie de France and it is from this collec- tion that he drew his fable. VII. SHKKP AND WOI.F BEJFORB LION. Versions: Rom. Vulgaris I, 4; Rom. Nilantii I, 4; Marie de France 4 ; Rom. Treverensis 4 ; Odo of Sher- ing-ton 23 ; Bozon 55. We have here the familiar fable of Ovis^ Cants et Lufus of Phaedrus '^"^ . This fable has been widlely known ; it is found in the Rom. Nilantii, the Rom. Treverensis, the Rom. Vulgaris, Marie de France and Odo of Sherington. In Bozon the actors are louf^ gofil^ corf^ mastyn and herhys; in Marie de France, chiens^ escujles^ lous and herhiz; in the Rom. Treverensis, canis^ lupus^ milvus 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 preceding the fable under discussion in Bozon ^* says something in regard to the nature of the Crov7 and of the Fox. This fact may have influended our author in the employment of witnesses for the Wolf ^ ^ . Mastyn 23. Cf. Havet, fable 18, pag-e 19 ; Hervieux, Vol. 11, fable 17, p. 13. 24. Cf. C. M. dc Bozon, par. 55, p. 77. 25. A similar dependence, apparently, of fable upon exertip- luni in reg-ard to the actors in the fable will be found in Bozon, par. 116 (fable of Fox and Pig-eon). Bozon in this fable ag-rees, in g-eneral, with the common 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 known versions, the Ivatin as well as the French. Herlet wishes to explain this remarkable variation by assuming- that Bozon has confounded two fables found in Marie de France ; namely, (i) fable 98, De Caito et Vulpe, and (2) fable 61, De Vulpe et Columba. Herlet believes that Bozon has, throug-h a failing- of memory, broug-ht the Dove into his fable. This supposition is possible, of course, and it would not be an unique case, since in the fable of Sheep and Wolf before Lion there appears to be a con- fusion in Bozon's mind between the two traditions of this fable. 34 recalls the Dog- 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 ver- sions mentioned above, except in Bozon and Odo of Shering-ton, the Dog accuses the Wolf. Secondly, all versions, with the exception of Odo of Shering-ton and Bozon, ag-ree in that the Dog swears to have loaned the Sheep some bread ; Bozon and Odo alone ag^ree in that the Wolf is accused of devouring- the companions of 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 will examine par. 116, on which the fable depends, one will find that a certain kind of dove is men- tioned which lives on the fruit of a tree fonnd in India. The fable begins thus . Kn la terre de Inde est trovee un arbre, com dit le livre, de merveillouse grandour. . . . Knqi habitent une manere de colombes qe sunt sustenus de cest fruit. And farther on . I^a arbre de vie est la croiz joignant a la rivere de ces costez qe fruit nous rend de sustenance e de savacion, IJn la umbre de cest arbre meynent les columbes, . . . mes soulement le columbe meynt en eel arbre. Bozon has chosen the fable of Cat and Fox to illustrate this exemplum. With the usual freedom with which our author treats his subjects, and especially his fables, it is not surprising that he has substituted for the Cat the Dove, to a certain species of which the exemplum has reference, for the Dove, of course, can take refuge in a tree as well as the Cat. It must be remembered that the fables of Bozon are dependent on the exemplum, and not vice versa. The order adopted by Bozon is difi^erent from that of col- lections in which fables are the principal feature of discourse ; it is the philosophic thesis that occupies the first rank with Bozon, and the fable, instead of preceding, follows it. With Odo of Sherington, for example, the exempla are more independent, and the allegorical explanations (that is, the fable, or story) appended to them possess distinctive features. They form a collection of interesting stories. With Bozon, however, the fable or story which follows the exemplum. serves as a symbolical interpretation. It is interesting to note how many similar cases there are in Bozon in which it appears that the subject of the exem.plum, in question has an influence on the choice of actors in the fable that follows. I have found the following instances : (1) In par. 21 the exemplum treats of the nature of the Rabbit ; the fable of the Wolf and Rabbit immediately follows. (2) In par. 55 it is stated that the Crow has a great friend- ship for the Fox ; the fable of the Sheep and Wolf before the Lion follows. The witnesses of the Wolf are the Crow, Fox and Mastyn. 35 the Sheep and its Lamb. It would appear from this that Bozon knew the fable as found in Odo of Shering-ton. Compare Bozon : Le lion tient sa court e vynt le berb5^s, si se pleint del lou qe il out toilet son aig-nel; and Odo of Shering-ton : Oves conquestae sunt Leoni de Lupo, eo quod furtive et aperte socias suas devoravit. Leo cong^reg-avit concilium. Thus far only does Bozon agree with Odo of Sher- ingfton. In the latter, the lion orders the Wolf to be hung", tog-ether with his witnesses. In Bozon, althougfh not stated distinctly, the Sheep suffers the same fate as (3) In par. 61 we 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 columbe : "Seitetz," dit il," semblablez al columbe, e pernez vostre recet en la piere perc^e . . . In line 1 and 4 of the fable we find : Le g"opil passa desouz un roche, si g-arda amont e vist U7i colutnbe seer en haut . . . (line 4) qe de seer amont 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) Par. 120 concerns the nature of the pig- and ass ; the fable of Ass atid Pig follows. (5) Par. 131 speaks of the nature of the ass and colt. In the fable which follows {Lion and Companions) the companions of the L/ion are the Goat and Colt. (6) Par. 132 discusses the nature of the ass and sheep ; the fable of Man, Son and Ass follows. (7) Par. 142 : Grant diversetee de nature est entre le asne e le motoun, . . . ; the fable of Ass' Heart (which has as its actors the Lion, the Fox and the Ass) follows. In all other versions of this fable, except in the oldest, the Stag and not the Ass, as in Bozon, is the victim of the lyion. It seems to me that a close examination of the examples just given will throw some new light upon the character of the work of Bozon, and will, in a great measure, explain the peculiarities which are prominent in some of his fables. However, it is not wise to depend too much on this explanation, for fables are met with thronghout the text which are not affected at all by the pre- ceding exemplum in regard to the choice of actors in the fable. - 36 in the Rom. Vulg-aris tradition and in Marie de Prance ; that is, it has to part with its wool. This fact shows that the fable has become disintegfrated, and leads one to suspect that the Rom. Vulg-aris and the Ang-lo-Latin Romulus tradition have been compressed here ^^. An- other conclusive proof of this confusion is that in Bozon the sheep is condemned, as in the Rom. Vulgaris and the Ang-lo-Latin Romulus tradition, although, in Bozon, it is accused of nothing. It would seem strange that the Sheep, which came before the Lion to make com- plaint against the Wolf for the loss of her lamb, should be condemned. In Odo of Sherington, on the other hand, the Wolf and witnesses are condemned, not the sheep. To explain this incong-ruity in the fable of Bozon ; namely, that the plaintiff (sheep) is condemned, it is necessary to suppose that he was acquainted with a ver- sion 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. Doubtless his sermons had been preached more than once before they were written down, so that they were many opportunities for such a confu- sion as occurs in the fable in question to arise. It is in this way only, according to my view, that the peculiar features in the fable under discussion can be explained. But Bozon is dependent, for the most part, upon Marie de France rather than upon the Rom. Vulgaris tradition for this fable. Compare Bozon : Quant le lou ad pris ceo qe lui flest, lors vynt le gopil tot ^r^5/, e le corf ne veut mye tart^ ne le mastyn de prendre sa :^art^ and Marie de Prance : Li chiens i vient, sa part en porte, K li escufles d' altre part, E puis li lous, trop li est tart. (vv. 28-30.) 26. Another example of this crossing- of traditions occurs in the fable of Owl and Hawk ; see p. 18. 37 A g-lance at the above is sufficient to recognize that Bozon is here imitating Marie de France. The Rom. Vulgaris 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 de Vitry 20 ; Rom. Bernensis, Primus 32 ; Bozon 61. Bozon in this fable closely resembles Marie de France in De Vulfe et Columhe. In all versions not connected with the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition, a substitution of some other animal for the dove is made. In the Rom. Bernensis (Primus) we find aviciila; in the Roman de Renart^ a titmouse, and also a bird called masange ^''^; in Tsengrimus^ 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. Tre- verensis, 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, as in Marie de France and the Rom. Treverensis, can, I think, be explained from the exem- plum which immediately precedes the fable. We find there: Columbe est de tiel nature qe james ne est seiire en ville ne en champe. . . . Sicom dit Jere. le prophete par ensample del columbe, "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 would, in this manner, be 27. Branch II, vv. 469-602. 38 brought in closer touch with the exemplum. This de- pendence of fable on exefn-plum is one of the chief char- acteristics of literature 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 de France: Uns bries i vint de part le rei Ki comanda par dreite fei Que beste a altre ne mesface N'a nul oisel .... (vv. 13-16.) We have, next, in Bozon a horseman who approaches with four greyhounds; in Marie de France there are two horsemen and two dogs; in the Rom. Treverensis, two men on horses with dogs. The Fox's reason for fleeing from the dogs is the same in Bozon as in Marie de France. Bozon: Jeo ne sui pas certeyn qe les chienz ont veil les lettres. Marie de France: Ne sai s'il unt le brief oi, Ki vint del rei, jo vus afi. (vv. 29-30.) This fable throughout, in regard to its general motifs, agrees with the corresponding fable in Marie de France. Versions not dependent on Marie, except Cax- ton, bring in a new motif. The Fox, in order to capture the bird, begs it to close its eyes while he kisses it. This same motif is found in a fable entitled Vulpes et Avicula "^^ and also in De Gallo et Vtdpe of the Rom. Treverensis ^®. There seems to be a confusion be- 28. Cf. Hervieux, Vol. II, Rom. Bernensis, (Primus) p. 311. 29. Cf. Hervieux, Vol. II, Rom. Treverensis, p. 598. 39 tween this fable as found in Bozon and that of the uni- versal peace fable as found in Marie de 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 word Ttiasange. This confusion is not apparent in the fable of Bozon, for he has fol- lowed the Angflo-Latin Romulus tradition, where the kissing- motif mentioned above does not occur. Whether Marie de France was here the direct source of Bozon can not be determined with any degree of cer- tainty, although his fable is nearer that of Marie de France than any other version. It is at least certain that the fable belongs to the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition. IX. RAT SEEKING WIFK. Versions: Marie de France 73; Rom. Treverensis 116; Odo of Sherington 63 and 25 (Pseudo-Odo of Sher- ington, Collectio Prima); Rom. Bernensis, Prin^us 42; Bozon 75. The oldest form of this fable known to us is found in the Pantschatantra ^^. But the fable was already known in England at least as early as the end of the twelfth century, since we find it in Marie de France and in her dependents. At this time the story collections of the East had not penetrated into Western Europe, hence this fable must have come to England through folk tradition. Many changes, therefore, in the fable could easil}^ have taken place, and it is not surprising to find that it exists in the ^sopic fable collections under two different forms. In one form of the fable the mother of the Rat appears, while in the other form the mother is omitted and the fable makes mention only of the Rat, which, although feminine in the older versions, becomes mascu- line in Marie de France and in her dependents, and seeks a wife for itself. The first of these two forms exists in a Latin fable of the thirteenth century, which 30. Cf. Benfey, Bk. Ill, 12, p. 262. 40 is found, among- others, in the Pseudo-Odo of Shering:- ton (Collectio Prima) ^'^. The second form of our fable also occurs in Odo 63. Here, as in Bozon, it is the mus that wishes to marry. Althoug-h the fable in Bozon belongs to this last type it differs in one point, especially from both of the versions found in Odo of Shering-ton. In Odo 63 the mus (feminine g-ender) desires as a husband the most powerful creature in the world, while the second form of this fable in Odo (Pseudo-Odo of Shering-ton, Collectio Prima) introduces a Mouse (masculine) that wishes to marry its daug-hter to some powerful creature. This motif is entirely dif- ferent from that in the fable in Bozon, where it is nar- rated that the Rat (masculine) wished to marry the daughter of the Sun. Now, it is the versions in Marie de France and the Rom. Treverensis only that agree with Bozon in this respect. The fable in the Rom. Bernensis (Primus), although it appears to be derived from the Anglo -Latin Romulus tradition, has the tnulotiis^ which wishes to marry the Sun, not the daug-h- ter 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 mouse desires to marry the daug-hter of the Sun, is sufficient to show that Bozon has drawn this fable from the Ang-lo-Latin Romulus tradition. He could not have taken it from the Rom. Treverensis, for here we find imilus ^^\ hence he must have been inspired by the version in Marie de France. The fable, as it appears in Bozon, proves to be somewhat^ original as reg-ards the series of the objects approached b}^ the Rat. Odo of Sherington 63 (whose source, perhaps, is Marie de France) reduced the series of this author, while Bozon has enlarg-ed it. In Bozon are mentioned sun, cloud, wind, rain, barn and mouse. The series in Bozon is as log-ical as that in Marie de 31. The date of this collection is probably the middle of the fourteenth century. See Hervieux, Vol. IV, p. 154, and Herlet, p. 44. 32. Cf. Mall, op. cit., p. 185 and G. Paris, Rom. XV (1886), p. 629. 41 Prance, and when one considers the liberty that Bozon frequently takes in reg-ard to his fables, it is not sur- prising that we find the series with him increased. As M. Mej^er ^^ explains this series the rain lowers the wind and the barn prevents the rain from penetrating. Bozon probably considered the barn as a more fitting place than a wall or tower for rats to inhabit. It does not appear that Bozon knew either of the two versions found in Odo of Sherington; for while with one version (Ixiii) the objects approached by the Mouse are reduced to wind, castle and mouse, with the other version (Pseudo-Odo of Sherington, CoUectio Prima, xxv) three new motifs enter: the Mouse first approaches the Moon, the Castle replies that the Domina is more powerful, a Cat kills the Mouse. Whether Odo of Sher- ington got his fable from Alfred of England or from Marie de France is not to be discussed here, but it is evident from what has preceded that Bozon did not draw his fable from Odo of Sherington. 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. Treverensis collection and in the Rom. Bernensis (Primus). It has been pointed out above ^* that Bozon differs in two or more important motifs from the Rom. Treverensis and the Rom. Bernen- sis (Primus), but that with Marie de France the agree- ment is complete, with the exception of the increase of the series of the visits, which, I think, has been suffi- ciently accounted for. X. SUN SB:eKING WIFK. Versions: Rom. Vulgaris I, 7; Rom. Nilantii I, 8; Marie de France 6; Rom. Treverensis 8; Jacques de Vitry 142; Bozon 91. This is a variation of the fable Ranae ad Soleni of Phaedrus ^^; it has been widely circulated and conse- 33. Cf . C. M. de Bozon, p. 259, note 75. 34. Cf. pag-e 41. 35. Cf. Havet, fable 7, p. 8; Hervieux, Vol. II, fable VI, p. 8. 42 quently has underg-one much change. The form which we have here seems to be more closely connected with fable 6 of Marie de France than with any other known version. Bozon, however, offers some peculiarities on account of which the connection between the two fables is not so clear. Below, each principal motif is taken up and discussed in regard to its relation to other versions to which Bozon might have been indebted for this fable. a. In Bozon the Sun summoned the creatures (?) ^® to its court and asked for a rich wife. In Marie de France the Sun desired the aid of the C7'eaUires in the selection of a wife. The Rom. Treverensis: the Sun wished to marry; the report went throug-h the world and frightened the creatures. Rom. Vilantii (and also throughout the Rom. Vulg-aris tradition): robbers attend a wedding- feast; an old man tells a story of the Sun wishing- to marry. From the indications g-iven above it is seen that Bozon and Marie de France stand out alone in one respect against the Rom. Nilantii and the whole Rom. Vulgaris tradition; that is, in the motif of the Sun ask- ing- 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. Vulg-aris. In Marie de France and in Bozon only, the Sun appeals to the creatures. Compare Bozon : Le soleil fist jadis somondre a sa court (les creatures ?) ; si les pria qe ils purveissent de un riche dame a sa femme ; and Marie de France : Que le soleiz volt femme prendre, A tute creature dist Que chescune se purveist. (vv. 2-4.) b. Compare Bozon : Les autres alerent a Destinee a lui prierent de conseil ; and Marie de France : Les creatures s' asemblerent ; A la destinee en alerent, Si li mustrerent del soleil Que de femme requiert cunseil. (vv. 5-8.) 36. The text reads : Le soleil fist jadis somondre a sa court , . . . ., (here the copyist has omitted some words). 43 In the Rom. Nilantii the people raise a clamor and Jupiter demands the cause of it. In the Rom. Trever- ensis the people ask Jupiter how to avert such a calamity as would arise from the marriage of the Sun. Bozon and Marie de France ag"ree, therefore, in that the creatures go to Destiny for counsel, while 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 occur in the other fable collections men- tioned above ^"^. Here, again, it is seen that Bozon does not follow the Rom. Vulgaris tradition or the Rom. Treverensis. d. In all the versions of this fable, that I have examined ^^, with the exception of the version in Bozon, the people {creatures in Marie de France) fear to have the Sun marry. In Bozon, Destiny tells the crea- tures {?) ^^ of their folly in wishing the Sun to marry. Whether this last trait is original with Bozon, or whether he has borrowed it from some version with which I am not acquainted, cannot be decided. It may be that this fable was not very clear in the mind of our author. The reason given in Marie de France for the Sun not marrying, differs in part from Bozon. In Marie, the creatures fear that the earth would become so hot and dry that nothing would grow ; in Bozon, Destiny says if the Sun be reinforced, all the creatures would burn up. But compare this with Marie de France : Nule riens nel purra suffrir, Desuz lui vivre ne guarir. (vv. 19-20.) This fable, though the point has in this instance been less conclusively shown than in the case of the preceding fables, is to be classed as coming from Marie de France. 37. Cf . page 42. 38. Cf. list of fable collections consulted, see Bibliography. 39. As a word, or words, are lacking in the text, I have sup- plied creatures (as in Marie de France). 44 XI. MAN AND TRKKS. Versions: Rom. Vulg-aris, III, 14 ; Rom. Nilantii, II, 16 ; Marie de France 49 ; Rom. Treverensis 32 ; Bozon94; John of Sheppe5'^ 66. This was a very popular fable in the Middle Ages and is found throughout the Anglo-Latin Romulus tra- dition, as well as in the Rom. Vulgaris and its depend" ents. The general motifs of the several versions and their relation to one another will be seen below. a. In Bozon it is ^. fievre who makes an axe ; also Marie de Prance has fevre and the Rom. Treverensis, faher. The Rom. Vulgaris, the Rom. Nilantii and John of Sheppey simply have homo, b. In Bozon, and also in John of Sheppey, the fevre (in John of Sheppey homo) begs of the tree a handle. In the Rom. Nilantii, Marie de France and the Rom. Treverensis, together with the Rom. Vulgaris, ih.Qfev7'e (or ho7no) 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 auhespine offers itself for this purpose. In John of Sheppey the trees consent to furnish the handle, but no particular tree is mentioned. In Marie de France a new motif appears. After con- sultation the trees tell fho. fevre to take the neire esi>ine. In the Rom. Treverensis there is no consultation ; the orniLS (wild ash) gives the handle to the smith. In the Rom. Nilantii the trees command the olive to furnish the handle ; in the Rom. Vulgaris, the wild olive {okas- trum) is chosen by the other trees. There appears to be no general agreement in this motif 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 hawthorn and cuts it down ; Marie de France '- The smith cuts down the thorn (/' esfine) ; 45 Rom. Treverensis: The smith first cuts down the alder and then all the trees. The Rom. Vulgaris, the Rom. Nilantii and John of Sheppey agree in that the smith cuts down all trees. e. In Bozon the thorn reproaches the axe. In Marie de France there is no dialogue between the smith (or the axe) and the tree. In all the other Latin ver- sions mentioned above the fable ends with : Quercus ad fractinum, etc. It will be observed that there are several motifs here which are common to Marie de Prance and Bozon, but which are not found in other versions. (1) Compare Bozon : Un fievre fesayt un foiz un hasche bien trenchant ; et pur ceo il no out poynt manche prest, vynt al boys; Marie de France : Uns fevre fist une cuigniee Dure e trenchant e bien forgiee ; Mes ne s' en pot nient aidier Ne od li ne pot rien trenchier, De ci qu' ele fust enmanchiee. B d' alcun fust apareilliee. Al bois ala (vv. 1-7.) As noted above («) the Rom. Vulgaris and the Rom. Nilantii tradition substitute homo ior fevre. The motif in Bozon "all the trees refused, but at last the aubespme offered itself," is peculiar to our author, although in the Rom. Treverensis the wild ash offers itself. In all other versions of this fable, except in John of Sheppey, where the trees willingly offer themselves, the trees consult and select one of their number to furnish the handle. We must consider this motif as original with Bozon, just as in the Rom. Trev- erensis the motif of the wild ash offering itself to the smith appears to be original with that collection. Bozon, no doubt, recounted the fables in his sermons many times before they were written down, hence many cases of divergences from the original text might nat- urally arise. 46 (2) In Bozon and Marie de France, only, the smith g-ets his handle from the thorn (in Bozon, auhesi>ine; in Marie de France, espine neire). (3) In Bozon and Marie de France the smith cuts down the thorn only. In all the other versions men- tioned above *", he begins to cut down all the trees. (4) In all the versions of this fable, except that of Bozon and Marie de France, the fable ends with : Quercus ad Fraxino, etc. (5) In Bozon the auhesi)ine reproaches the axe : De moy receiistez vostre honur, e ore me fetez tiel deshonur I Compare this with Marie de France : Mai gueredun li a rendu. Que de li ot sun mancheeii (vv. 23-24.) • It has been shown from what precedes that the fable under discussion in Bozon bears no resemblance to the various versions belong-ing- to the Rom. Vulgaris tradition. From the number and agreement of motifs which are common to Bozon and Marie de France alone, it is plain that our author is indebted to Marie for this fable. XII. LION AND MOUSK. Versions: Rom. Vulgaris I, 17 ; Rom. Nilantii I, 17 ; Marie de France 16 ; Rom. Treverensis 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 the Rom. Nilantii and Marie de France, but which do not occur in any of the other familiar fable collections of the Middle Ages. In the first place, in Bozon as in Marie de France and the Rom. Nilantii, the mouse with the aid of its companions frees the lion. All the other versions of this fable that I have examined * ^ have a single mouse as the deliverer of the lion. 40. Cf . page 45. 41. Cf. list of fable collections consulted, see Bibliography. 47 We come now to the second motif which is common with Bozon, Marie de France and the Rom. Nilantii, but which does not appear in the Rom. Vulgaris, in Jacques de Vitry or in the Speculum Doctrinale. Bozon says : Bt assemble ses compaig-nons, e rongferent les cordez de la reye dont la fosse fust covert, a lui enseignerent coment deveit romper la corde e eschaper Compare this with Marie de France : Gratez la terre e vostre pie Tant qu' afermer vus i puissiez. E puis a munt bien vus sachiez. Que si purrez 9a hors eissir. E jeo ferai od mei venir Altres suriz pur mei aidier As cordes, ki ci sunt, trenchier. (vv. 32-38.) Compare also the Rom. Treverensis : Terram ungfulis tuis effossam in cumulum trahes, et de cumulo saliendo lacum superare poteris. With the Rom. Vulgaris, Jacques de Vitry and the Speculum Doctrinale, the Mouse alone gnaws the net. No mention is made of instructing the Lion how to act. These facts show conclusively, I think, that Bozon has drawn this fable from the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition and not from the Rom. Vulgaris, or its dependents. Now, as it appears to be reasonably cer- tain that Bozon did not know the Rom. Nilantii or the Rom. Treverensis '^^, he most probably drew it from the collection of Marie de France. The fable is not in Odo of Sherington or in John of Sheppey. 42. Cf. pagres 30, 31. 48 XIII. MAN AND OXEN. Versions: Marie de France 84; Rom. Treverensis 63 ; Rom. Robert! 18 ; Bozon 130. Here Bozon must have followed the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition ; the fable is not in the Rom. Vul- garis or in Odo of Sherington, but it is found in Marie de Prance, the Rom. Treverensis and the Rom. Roberti. Here again Marie de France seems to be the source of Bozon, since our fable resembles more closely her version than that found in the Rom. Treverensis or in the Rom. Roberti. In the Rom. Treverensis the riistictis uses a goad on the oxen and loads them heavily, so that they complain. In Bozon and Marie de France no mention is made of harsh treatment, but it is the vile work of which the oxen complain. This last motif is not brought out in the Rom. Roberti. On comparing the following passages it will be seen that Bozon follows Marie de France very closely. Bozon : Malment alowez le payn e la cerveyse qe avez par nostre travailles, quant de tiel travaille nous avez encombree. Marie : Li buef par ten9un 1' assailirent, Si repruverent al vilein. La bone cerveise e le pain. Que par lur travail ot eii ; Mes malement lur a rendu : Qu' a grant hunte les demena. (vv. 4-9.) Bozon must have taken this directly from Marie de France. The 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 eii. (vv. 5-7.) 49 Bozon : Par qui fust la meison de fienz emple ? resembles the Rom. Treverensis : Interrogo te quis istum fumum concessit ? but compare also Marie de France : Vus le femastes K la maison en encumbrastes. (vv. 13-14.) Notice that in the Rom. Treverensis there is but one ox, while in Bozon, Marie 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 la peine en aient. (vv. 17-18.) Outside of the Ang-lo-Latin Romulus tradition this fable is rarely found. There is a version in the Dyalogiis Creaturarum ^^, but it has nothing- in com- mon with Bozon. Certain passages in Bozon and Marie de France agree so closel}^ as shown above, that hardly any doubt can exist as to the one being directly dependent on the other. XIV. LION AND COMPANIONS. Versions: 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 other, the one entitled : ' De Leo7ie Btibalo et Lupo Venatum perg-entibus^^ and the other (which immediately follows the first): Vacca^ Capra et Ove^ que: Leoni se sociaverunt.'' In the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition these two fables also appear, occupying the same rela- tive position as in the Rom. Nilantii. 43. Cf. Nicolaus Perg-amenus, Dyalogus Creaturarum^ Bib- liothek des literarischen Vereins in Stuttg-art, Vol. 148. 50 The companions of the Lion in Bozon ; namely, the chievre and the foleyne are peculiar to our author, and indeed, their appearance here is in itself strange. But the use of j)oleyne may be explained, perhaps, by the fact that the exernfliim treats of the nature of the Ass and its Colt, while in the second part of this double fable in Marie de France the Goat is one of the com- panions of the Lion. Bozon again offers us here a peculiar feature in that the prize is a vcel (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 innovations and thus to distinguish himself from his predecessors. In other cases he was probably endeavoring to better adapt the fable to the under- standing of his readers. This is the reason that motifs not authorized by tradition, or even without any resem- blance at all to the original, have been inserted in fables of the Bozon type. Bozon probably knew both forms of the fable (that is. No. 1 and No. 2 above) **, since we find in his fable motifs which belong to the first as well as to the second part. In fable No. 1 of the Rom. Nilantii (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 Marie de France (second part of the fable), the Rom. Vulgaris, the Rom. Treverensis (fable 7) and John of Sheppey (fable 4) the division is made into four parts. Bozon in this respect follows fable No. 1. There is here a close resemblance with Marie de France. 44. Cf. pag-e 50. 51 Compare Bozon : A moi apent le tierz partie par reison de seig-nurie. and Marie de France : Li letins a dit e jure. Que la primiere part arreit Pur ceo qu' ert reis e dreiz esteit. (vv. 15-18.) In reg-ard 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 nowhere else except in fable No. 2 of the Rom. Nilantii ( Vacca Capra et Ove). Here we find ^^ Leo cervtim prostravit.'''' It is only in Bozon and the Rom. Nilantii that the Lion alone captures the prize. This motif is, naturally, in- troduced in the division of the same. So Bozon : L' autre partie a moy apent par ceo qe jeo le pris. The Rom. Nilantii has simply : Tertiam mihi defendo, eo quod plus omnibus cucurri. which is the same as in Marie de France. But Bozon has not taken this motif directly from the Rom, Nilantii 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 tak- ing unto himself the third part, agrees with the second part of the fable in Marie de France, where four divi- sions of the booty are made : Compare Bozon : Ore covient entre nous combatre pur la tierce partie ; and Marie de France : La quatre ai jeo si divisee Que nuls ne 1' avra senz meslee. (vv. 37-38.) 52 Bozon here follows without doubt Marie, for in all the other versions of this fable the motif of fig-hting- for the third (or fouth part) does not appear. In the other versions, both in No. 1 and No. 2, the Lion warns its companions that if they touch the third (or fourth) part they will incur his displeasure. This motif occurs in the second part of the fable of Marie de France, where four divisions of the bootj^ are made, but as men- tioned above *^ Bozon was evidently acquainted with both parts, so it is not surprising- to meet in his fable a motif belong-ing- to fable No. 2, althoug-h for the rest he follows No. 1. In the version as found in Jacques de Vitr)^, the companions of the Lion ( Ove^ Cafra et Jtmieiitci) seizes a Stag", just as is represented in Marie 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 version in Jacques de Vitry ag-rees throug-h- out 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 reg-ard to the third division the Lion in Jacques de Vitry say : Terciam si quis acceperit sciat quod amicus non erit meus. As stated above *^ Bozon and Marie de France alone agfree in that the Lion says that whoever touches the third part will have to fig"ht him. It should be noted that the episode of the Lion's share in the Roman de Renart *'^ bears no resemblance to our fable. Here the Lion asks first the Wolf and, then, the Fox, to divide the spoil. This episode is taken from the ^Esopic fable of the Lion hunting- with the Ass and the Fox *^ and not from that of the Lion 45. Cf. pag-eSl. 46. Cf . pag-e 52. 47. Cf. Branch XVI, vv. 721-1504. 48. Cf. Hahn, CCLX. 53 and Ass *'', from which the fable in Bozon is derived, althoug-h the two fables are no doubt, originally, the development of the same theme. The two versions in Odo of Shering-ton [XX and XXIX, (Pseudo-Odo of Sherington) [CoUectio Tertia] and John of Sheppey (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 can be made only in regard to the chief motifs of the fable. It has been shown above that of all the versions it is with Marie 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. Vei'sions: Babrius 95; Avianus 30; Marie de France 70; Rom. Treverensis 61; Kirchhof 84; Bozon 142. This fable is of Indian origin ^^. In the Indian version as represented by Baldo ^\ Kirchhof and Johan- nes de Capua ^^, the story is told, as in Bozon, of an Ass, which, when killed, was found to have no heart; while in Babrius, Marie de France, the Rom. Treveren- sis, and also in the versions found in the chronicles of Fredegarius ^^ and Aimoinus ^*, it is the heart of the Stag that the Lion demands ^^. There is also another version of the fable, which belongs to the Middle Ages, concerning a Boar which was found to have no heart. The circumstances here, however, are very different from the earlier version, having nothing in common with our fable. The later version seems to have been a popular story ^^. 49. Cf. Hahn, CCI^VIII ; Babrius, fable LXVII. 50. Cf. Benfey, Pantschatantra Bk. I, IV, 2, p. 295. 51. Cf . Du Mlril, Podsies InMites du moyen age, Baldo p. 233. 52. Cf. Hervieux, Vol. V, ch. VI, fol. K-. 53. Cf. Hervieux, Vol. Ill, p. 502. 54. Cf. Ibid, Vol. Ill, p. 503. 55. This form of the fable also occurs in the manuscript of the Bibliotheque de Rheims (cf. Hervieux, Vol. Ill, p. 508), and in a version published by Hervieux, Vol. Ill, p. 507. 56. Cf. Avianus 30, and the Gesta Romanomon, ch. 83. 54 The various versions of this fable may be most con- veniently divided into three groups: (1) The Oriental Group, with the Ass as the victim. (2) The Classical Group, where the Stag" is slain. (3) The Mediaeval Group, where it is the question of a Boar without a heart ^'^ . Another g-rouping 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 his Gestes des Chii)rois (mentioned by M. Meyer ^^), 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 Baldo, Fredeg-arius and Aimoinus, on the other hand, the Lion is not sick, but demands the death of the Stag* because it did not appear at court ^^. If Bozon, in respect to this last motif, ag-rees with the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition, why is it that we find with him the Ass, as in the oldest ver- sion, and not the Stag-, which is made the victim of the Lion?. There are several wa3"s in which Bozon could have become acquainted with the version as found in the Pantschatantra. He may have known, for example, the work of Johannes de Capua and analagous fable compil- ations, 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 ver- sions, 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 57. This group is called Mediaeval as a convenient contrast, although the earliest version occurs in Avianus. Cf. Zeitschrift fiir Vergleichende Litteraim-geschichte, YoX.Yll (1894), pp. 264-267, Georg-e C. Keidel, 'Die Eselherz — (Hirschherz— , Kberherz— ) Fabel.' 58. Cf. C. M. de Bozon, p. 294, note 142. 59. This motif also occurs in a version printed by Hervieux, Vol. Ill, p. 507. In Johannes de Capua the Lion desired the heart and ears of the Ass ; no mention is made of the Lion summoning the animals to court. 55 closely with the Classical Group, to which the Ang-lo- Latin Romulus tradition most certainly belong^s. It is possible, however, that Bozon may have known an oral tradition of this fable in which the Ass is the victim, as in the Indian version, though agreeing- for the rest of the fable with the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition. But, if such was the case, no similar version is known to-day; therefore, an explanation based on the probability of Bozon being acquainted with a version of this fable in which the Ass is substituted for the Stag should not be received too readily. M. Meyer believes^ ^ that because Bozon introduced this example in a chap- ter where it is a question of the nature of the Ass, he must have known a version in which the Ass was sub- stituted for the Stag. It would seem to me, however — since we know of no version outside of Bozon where the Ass is substituted for the Stag — more logical to suppose that, for this very reason; namely, that Bozon intro- duced 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 into closer agreement with the preceding exemflum on which the fable depends. Ex- amples of a similar kind will be found throughout the Contes of Bozon, and need cause no surprise ^ ^ . Bozon, in common with other writers of his class, proceeded generally in the following manner: He intro- duced the ''property" of an animal, a plant or a rock, and draws 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 philosophic theme which occupies the first rank, and the fable or anecdote instead of preced- ing follows the exemflicm. The fable, although im- portant, is only an accessory to the cxejuplum. It is not surprising, then, that Bozon, wherever he deemed it 60. Cf. C. M. de Bozon, p. 294. 61. Cf. fable of Fox and Pig-eon, p. 34, note. 56 fitting-, should make some slight changes in the body of the fable; such, for example, as the substitution 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 chang- ing at will of the actors of the fable, we have abundant proof. The celebrated editor of Bozon's Contes Moralises makes an interesting study of a collection of exernpla composed between 1275 and 1279 by an Englishman who belonged to the Franciscan order of monks ^'^. Accord- ing to M. Meyer, the author in more than one place carefully points out how certain exempla ought to be modified according to the audience addressed, and, as an illustration, the writer gives an example of two versions of the story, very different in circumstances, which has as its base the legend of Jean Ganebert. 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 excmphim in par. 23 *^^ may also have influenced Bozon, where the Lion is repre- sented as having great hatred toward the Ass because it greatly desires to eat the flesh of the latter. As has been said ^*, the fable in Bozon does not agree, except in title, with the oldest versions; that is, with the Oriental Group, but rather with the Classical Group. Moreover, a comparison of the fable of our author with the version of Marie de Prance will show how closely the former has followed the latter in this fable. a. Bozon agrees with Marie 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 regard to his disease. In Baldo, Fredegarius, Aimoinus and others still ^^, the motif of the Lion being sick does not enter. 62. Cf. Romania, Vol. XXI (1892), p. 303 : Notices et exiraits des manuscrits, XXXIV, P. Meyer. 63. Cf. C. M. de Bozon, par. 23, p. 37. 64. Cf. page 55. 65. Cf. note 59, page 55. 57 /;. In Bozon and in Marie de France (and also in the Rom. Treverensis, which naturally agrees with Marie') the animals advise the Lion to eat the heart of a Stag: (in Bozon, Ass). This is directly opposed to the other versions mentioned above, where the life of the Stag- is demanded because the Stag- alone of all the beasts did not appear at court. c. In Marie de France and in Bozon the victim is. present, but while the Stag in Marie escapes, the Ass in Bozon begs to be allowed to go home to make its will »^^ d. Instead of being summoned three times to court, as is the Stag in Marie de France, the Ass in Bozon is beguiled to the court by the Fox. This same motif occurs in the chronicles of Fredegarius, of Aimoinus and of Fromundus ^'^. In all the other versions men- tioned above, the Stag (or Ass) returns after the third summons. The fable of Stag without a heart was a very popu- lar 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 drawn his fable from these sources, for here, as noted before, the Lion is not sick (as in Bozon), but he demands the death of the Stag because it did not appear at court. It would seem that the motif of sending the Fox for the Stag (or Ass) has been added by later writers in order to explain more clearly the return of this animal. There is a fable, however, in Odo of Sherington (Pseudo-Odo of Sherington, Collectio Prima) VII entitled, De Asino noleiite venire ad Pai'liamentum Leonis^ in which the same motif occurs. The Lion summons the animals in general assembly ; when the}" had assembled he asked if there were not some absent. It was found that the Ass was not present. The Lion 66. Cf. page 33, note 22. 67. In Fromundus we have the Bear instead of the lyion who summons the Stag-. Cf. Hervieux, Vol. Ill, p. 505. 58 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 resembance to Bozon, but has a likeness to the well-known fable in the Romulus tradition ®^, where the Horse asks the lyion to examine his hoof and then kills the Lion with a kick. Bozon may have known this fable and been influenced by it for this motif ; or he may have been influenced by the episode in the Roman de Renart^ where the Fox is summoned to the court of the Lion, and on his non-appearance the Bear and the Cat are sent to conduct him thither. e. Compare Bozon : Tost fust le asne tuee e deschorchee overet et defet. Kt en defasaunt le g-opil embla le queor e privement le mang-ea ; and Marie de France : Kinz qu' il fust bien parescorchiez, S' est li gfupiz tant aprismiez Qu' il lur aveit le quer emblee. Si r a mang-ie e devore. (vv. 19-22.) f. The reason g-iven 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 u' aveit point de quer; Car il n' i venist a nul fuer. Senz quer fu e senz remembrance: Pur ceo revint par ubliance. (vv. 59-62.) g. Bozon: **Bien avet dit," fet le leoun. "Retornez sanz chalang^e (a meson)." 68. Cf. Hervieux, Vol. II, pp. 214, 256, 336, 360, 405, 435, 470, 493, 532, etc. 59 Marie de France: Ivi Huns respunt que veir dist: S' il eiist quer, ja n' i venist. Bien devum le g'upil laissier, Que seins s'en puisse repairier. (vv. 67-70.) To sum up, then, the motifs of this fable that are common to Bozon and Marie de Prance: (1) The Lion is 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 Prance 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 going home to make his will ^^. The motif that the Pox is sent for the Ass may be original with Bozon. But, per- haps, as already noted '^^, he may have known one of the popular versions of the fable as found in the chron- icles of Predegarius or Aimoinus. (4) A comparison of the phraseology of the two texts (Bozon and Marie de Prance) shows great simil- arity. This fable is not in the collection of Odo of Sher- ington. It occurs but once in Hervieux, Vol. II; name- ly, in the Rom. Treverensis. There can be no doubt but that Bozon is here dependent on the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition, and not on the Oriental versions of the fable. That he has followed Marie de Prance is, I think, evident. In the discussion of the particular fables already mentioned "^ the resemblance between Bozon and Marie de Prance in each of the fables examined has been clearly shown, although this resemblance has nat- urally been more evident for certain fables than for 69. Cf . pag^e 58, note 66. 70. Cf. page 55. 71. Cf. page 54, Versions. 60 others. The next question to be discussed is, whether for these particular fables Bozon is directly dependent on Marie de Prance, or whether he was acquainted with a collection of fables, now lost, closely allied to Marie's fables, but which had been somewhat modified, either by influence of other fable collections upon the author, or by reason of the author's own individuality. M. Meyer, as noted in the Introduction '^'^, has con- cluded that Bozon must have known a collection of fables, written either in English or in French, and which had in part the same source as those of Marie de France. Of the thirty -seven '^^ iE^sopic fables which the distinguished editor of the Contes Moralisi-s notes as being- contained in the Contes 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); Bozon 61, Fox and Dove (Marie 61); Bozon 75, Rat seeking Wife (Marie 73); Bozon 91, Sun wishing to Marry (Marie 6); Bozon 94, Man and Trees (Marie 49); Bozon 130, Man and Oxen (Marie 84); Bozon 142, Ass' Heart (Marie 70). For these seven fables, M. Meyer, in his comment- ary to the Contes^ has pointed out the resemblance between Bozon and Marie de France, but he states "^^ that the resemblance is not complete enough to justify the conclusion that Bozon borrowed them directly from Marie. This hypothesis, he thinks, can be admitted only for the fable 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 alter his 72. Introduction, p. 8. 73. This number may be increased by two fables. The titles of these fables, (not g-iven in the list on page XVII) (C M. dc Bozon), are as follows: par. 4, Lion as Judge; par. 42, Wolf and Hedgehog. These two fables, however, are noted in the com- mentary to the Bozon text. 74. Cf. C. M. de Bozon, p. XIX. 61 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 imperfect memory on his part. Herlet ^^ holds that sufficient attention has not been g-iven to the connection between the fables of Bozon and those of Marie de Prance. In addition to the fables of Bozon noted by M. Meyer as being: dependent on Marie's fables, Herlet adds the followingf : Bozon 18, Peacock and Juno (Marie 31); Bozon 23, Lion as King* (Marie 29); Bozon 42, Wolf 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 ag-reement between these two authors is at times only imperfect, this fact should not hinder one from acknowledg-ing: it, since it was characteristic of Bozon not to follow strictly his orig-inal. 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 Messrs. Meyer and Her- let have already g-iven as dependent on Marie de France. They are : Bozon 17, Owl and Hawk (Marie 17) '^; Bozon 129, Lion and Mouse (Marie 16) '^'^; 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- 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. 75. Cf. Introduction, p. 76. Cf. page 17. 77. Cf . pag-e 47. 78. Cf . pag-e 50. 79. Cf. pag-e 17. 62 however, certain motifs which prove that they belong" to the Ang"lo-Latin Romulus tradition, as differentiated from the Rom. Vulgaris tradition. It would at first glance seem probable, then, that Bozon might have had recourse for some of his fables to collections outside of Marie which belonged to the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition; such as, the Rom. Treverensis, the Rom. Roberti, or even perhaps, the Rom. Nilantii. A comparison of the fables of Bozon with the corresponding fables in the Rom. Treverensis, however, will show that Bozon was not acquainted with this col- lection, although there is naturally a great similarity between it and certain fables of Marie de France, and also those of Bozon. The following examples of non- agreement between Bozon and the Rom. Treverensis have already been noted : ' (1) Bozon 42, Wol/ and Hedgehog (Rom. Trever- ensis 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. Trever- ensis 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. Treveren- sis 116): Bozon has r^/,- yi-axio. miilez ox suriz ; the Rom. Treverensis has ?ntilus. (4) Bozon 130, Maji and Oxen (Rom. Treverensis 63): In the Rom. Treverensis, the rtisticus uses a goad on the oxen and loads them heavily, so that they com- plain. Bozon and Marie agree in that no mention is made of harsh treatment by the Man, but it is the vile work of which the oxen complain. This last motif is not brought out in the Rom. Roberti. In addition to the above examples other suggestions might be made which go to prove the improbability of Bozon's acquaintance with a Rom. Treverensis manu- script. For example: (1) As most manuscripts were both rare and ex- pensive in the Middle Ages, and as Bozon himself was 63 but a poor Franciscan monk, it is probable that he pos- sessed only a few works of his own. Since he evidently made frequent use of a French fable collection in his sermons (that is, the collection of Marie de France), it is likely that lie had before him a manuscript volume containing- various French works, among which was a fable collection. It is certain also that he was acquaint- ed with the fables of Odo of Sherington, both in his reg-ular collection and in his Pai'abolae^ where they occur sporadically. These two works of Odo were probably contained in separate manuscripts, including- a variety of Latin treatises ^^ . As Bozon does not frequently take his fables from any other Latin author, it is proba- ble that no other manuscript containing a Latin fable collection was known to him. (2) Just as Alfred translated the Anglo-Latin Romulus in English for the la}^ folk, so Marie de France translated Alfred's collection for the French-speaking people of England. Bozon, in writing- for the common folk, would naturally prefer fables related in a vulg-ar tongue to those given in a Latin version. (3) It must have been noticed in the discussion of the fables of this g-roup ^ ^ that no fable is found in both Bozon and in the Rom. Treverensis that does not also occur in Marie de France. If Bozon had drawn at ran- dom from the Rom. Treverensis, in all probability he would have selected a few fables among the many which are not in Marie. (4) The greater number of the Rom. Treverensis manuscripts ^''^ are at the present time preserved in 80. Cf. Hervieux's descriptions of the extant manuscripts of the fables of Odo of Sherington, Hervieux, Vol. IV, p. 47 sq. 81. Cf. pagre 17. 82. The extant manuscripts of the Rom. Trevereniis, as far as is known, are preserved only in the following" libraries : (1) Bruxelles, Bibl. Royale, 536. (2) Copenhagen, Kgl. Bibliothek, GKS. 4° , 1978. (3) Gottingen, Universitatsbibl., Theol. 126. (4) Gottingen, Universitatsbibl., Theol. 140. (5) Ivondon, British Museum, Royal 15. A. VII. (6) Mainz, Stadtbibliothek, Univ. Mogunt. 27. (7) Trier, Stadtbibliothek, 215 num. loc. 11. (8) Trier, Stadtbibliothek, 1107. (9) Trier, Stadtbibliothek, 1108. 64 German libraries. This fact would tend to prove that the collection in question was orig-inally written in that country, since the majority of the manuscripts of a gfiven author would naturally remain in the country in which they were copied. Again, we have evidence that the Rom. Treverensis was known in Germany in the thirteenth century, for we still have the translation made there by Gerhard von Minden in 1270 A. D. The Rom. Treverensis in the British Museum, the only manuscript now in Eng-land, is both late and very in- complete ^^. It is not probable, therefore, that Bozon was acquainted with a work which seems to have been unknown in Eng-land during- the Middle Ages ^*. As for the Rom. Nilantii, a few examples will suf- fice to show its non-agreement with Bozon: (1) Bozon 91, Sun seeking Wife (Rom. Nilantii, 18) ^^. The fable in the Rom. Nilantii resembles the version in the Rom. Vulgaris as differentiated from that in Marie de France and in Bozon. (2) Bozon 94, Man and Trees (Rom. Nilantii II, 16) ^^ In the Rom. Nilantii the fable ends: Quercus ad Fraximim^ etc. (as also throughout the whole Rom. Vulgaris tradition). Bozon and Marie de Prance have nothing like this. (3) Bozon 131, Lion tmd Companions (Rom. Ni- lantii I, 6) ^^'. In the Rom. Nilantii the Lion divides the booty into four parts; in Bozon and in Marie de Prance but three divisions are made. (4) Bozon makes use of several fables that are not found in the Rom. Nilantii ^^. There is no doubt that Bozon, for a part of his fables, is dependent on Marie de Pi«ance. But how 83. Cf. catalog-ue of Romances in the Department of manu- scripts in the British Museum, Vol. II, p. 286 ; H. L<. D. Ward, lyondon, 1893. 84. For this sug-gestion I am indebted to Dr. G. C. Keidel, of the Johns Hopkins University. 85. Cf . page 42. 86. Cf. page 45. 87. Cf. page 50. 88. See table of parallel versions, p. 15. 65 close is this dependence? Is there any evidence that Bozon copied directly from the Marie text? M. Meyer is conservative in this matter and prefers to posit an intermediary text ^^, either Kng-lish or French, between Bozon and Marie. Herlet, on the other hand, believes that there is a closer relation ^^ than this second remove between the two authors. On comparing- the fables of Bozon with those of Marie de France, I have been frequently impressed with the close resemblance that exists among- the words and phrases of the two authors thus compared for certain fables. The following- examples will show this resem- blance: (1) Bozon 17, Owl and Hawk (Marie 79) ^^r Be- sides the g-eneral 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 qere lur vitmde^ revynt et trova sofi ny ordefnent soilli^ and Marie de France: Puis lur ala qiierra viunde Mes quant a els fu repairiez Ksteit 5/5 niz orz e suillez, Bozon, moreover, for this fable has made use of the moral in Marie. (2) Bozon 42, Wolf and Hedgehog (Marie 71) ^'^\ Bozon and Marie de France begin their fable in the same manner: Bozon: Lc Ion i)rist un agneile e fui sui des chiens et des bastons, e prist son congee del hericeoun d' eschaper au bo is; and Marie: Un aignel -prist li lous un jour^ Li chien li vunt apres huant, K il s' en vet al bois fuiant. (vv. 9-12.) 89. Cf. C. M. de Bozon, p. XXII. For conveience sake I would sugg-est that this intermediary text posited by M. Meyer be called the Ysopet d' Angleterre. 90. Cf. Herlet, op. cit. p. 51. 91. Cf. pag-e 17. 92. Cf. pag-e 29. 66 Compare ag-ain Bozon : Au beisere le hericeon lui erda al menton^ and Marie : Li loiis baisa le herifun^ E il 5' aert a sun mentun, (vv. 25-26.) (3) Bozon 50, Cat as Blsho:p (Marie 101) ^^ Bozon : Le chat sit sur le fourure e vy nt la sorice champestre .... Marie de France : Uns chaz seeit desur un fur^ Vit le mulet e la suriz. (vv. 1-3.) Here, as in the preceding- example (2) it will be noticed that Bozon's ag-reement with Marie is especially strik- ing in the beginning- of the fables. (4) Bozon 55, Sheet cind Wolf before Lion (Marie 4) «*. Bozon: Quant le lou ad pris ceo qe lui flest^ lors vynt le gopil tot -prest^ e le corf ne veut mye tart^ ne le mastyn de prendre sa fart, Marie de France : Li chiens i vient, sa part en porte K li escufles d' altre fart K puis li lous, trop li est tart. (vv. 28-30.) Notice that, just as in (2) and (3), we have examples of Bozon showing- close agreement with Marie at the be- ginnings of his fables, so here at the end of the fable it would seem that he was imitating her version. (5) Bozon 91, Sun Seeking Wife (Marie 6) ^^: Bozon : Le autres alerent a Destinee . . . 93. Cf. page 32. 94. Cf. pag-e34. 95. Cf . page 42. 67 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 word destinee in exactly the same circumstances ^^. (6) Bozon 130, Man and Oxen (Marie 84) ^^ Compare Bozon : Malment alowez le i>ayn e la cerveyse ge avez i>ar nostre travailles^ quant de tiel travaille nous avez encombree* and Marie de France : Li buef par tengun V assaillirent, Si repruverent al vilein. La bonne cerveise e le pein^ Que -par lur travail ot eti; Mes malement lur a rendu : Qu' a g-rant hunte les demena. (vv. 4-9.) In this last example, M. Meyer concedes ^^ that the resemblance between Bozon and Marie in strong- enough to warrant 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, why cannot the same be said for those fables also whose resemblence to Marie is almost as striking- as that for the fable just noted ? If one will take into consideration the character as well as the aim of Bozon's fables, the freedom with which he treats his original material will be better understood. The fable to him was only a means to an end so he often abridged it. In many cases, also he may have relied on his memory, and in this way a con- fusion with a different version, or with a different fable, could arise ^^. 96. Cf. fable of Peacock and Juno, par. 18. 97. Cf. pagre49. 98. Cf. C. M. de Bozon, p. XIX. 99. Cf . fable of Sheep and Wolf before I^ion, p. 34. 68 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 no very incomplete manu- script. 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 as dependent on Marie ; they are i««: (1) London, British Museum, Harley 978. 4°, 162 Bl. (2) Oxford, Bodleian Library, Coll. Douce 132. (3) Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, 1593, 4°, 218 Bl. (4) Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, 2168, 4°, 241, Bl. (5) Paris, Bibliotheque Arsenal, 3142,Tol., 321, Bl. Since Bozon wrote his fables in England, it is not likely that he had access to those manuscripts now in Prance, for we have no record that the French manuscript were ever in England and, as a general rule, manuscripts remain in the country where they were written. The Harley and Oxford manuscripts, then, alone remain of the extant manuscripts of Marie de France from which Bozon could have drawn his fables. According to the scheme of the relations of the Marie manuscripts worked out by Warnke ^ ^ \ the manuscripts A D belong to Group a. Hence, Bozon must have been acquainted with one of the following manuscripts: a\ a^, A or D; at least, he must have known a manuscript closely related to these manuscripts. I trust I am not over-confident in holding that my investigation of this subject shows that Bozon is prob- ably indebted to Marie de France for fifteen of his fables. These constitute nearly two-fifths (38 per cent.) of the whole number of fables proper contained in the Contes. But if only those fables are taken into account which are most commonly found in the principal fable 100. Cf . Warnke, Die Fabeln der Marie de France, pp. Ill— XII. 101. Cf. ibid, p. XLIII. 69 collections ^^^, it is possible to reduce the number of fables proper in the Conies to thirty-two. According to this reckoning Bozon has drawn nearly one-half of his fables from Marie de France, or, at least, from a collection closely related to hers and which I have already referred to as the Ysopet d' Angleterre ^ ^ ^ . This differentiation of the regular ^Esopic fables in Bozon from those which belong to a more general category is just, and it leaves us at liberty to conclude that for the 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. 102. Such as the Rom. Vulgaris, Marie de France, Odo of Sherington, etc. 103, Cf . page 66, note 89. 70 CONCLUSION. The results that have been obtained by this study of the fables of Bozon are as follows : (1) Bozon probably had access to a manuscript containing- the fables of Marie de France, and it is from her work that he has drawn more fables than from any other single source ; (2) He did not know either the Rom. Nilantii, the the Rom. Treverensis or the Rom. Roberti, all of which collections are closely related to that of Marie ; (3) In his sermons Bozon made use of Odo of Shering-ton's fables, just as the majority of the preachers of his time drew on these sources ; (4) He seems to have been inspired, in part, thoug-h perhaps indirecty, for two fables from the Rom. Vulg-aris ^; (5) Oral tradition has frequently been drawn upon by Bozon, as it had been by Alfred of Bng-land and Odo of Sherington; (6) A group of fables that would seem to have had their origin in the cloisters, as well as certain fables written in imitation of the chief episodes in the Rom. de Renart^ must also have been familiar to our author ''^; (7) Broadly speaking Bozon has followed, in g"en- eral, the Anglo-Latin Romulus tradition, as distinct from the Romulus Vulg-aris tradition. His fables bear no resemblance to the Avianus type. (8) Bozon, it would seem, was acquainted with 1. Fables of Peacock and Destiny (par. 18) and Cock and Jewel (par. 26). 2. Note particularly fables in par. 46, 145. 71 such works as the Exempla of Jacques de Vitry the Vitae Patrum^ a work closely resembling- the De Pro- prietatibus Rerum of Bartholomew the Knglishman, or Glanville, and the Disciflina Clericalis. From the latter he has drawn, in part, one fable ^. It is not uncommon for a fabulist to draw his fables from different sources. Hervieux * in treating- the Rom. Bernensis^ Prhnus^ states that it is a Latin derivative, in prose, whose principal source is the Primative Rom- ulus, but at the same time it presents evident afi&nities with the Latin derivative of the Romulus of Marie (Rom. Treverensis), the fables of Odo of Sherington and the Rom. of Munich. According to Herlet ^, John of Sheppey was influenced by the Rom. Vulgaris^ the Rom. Treverensis^ Odo of Shering-ton and perhaps, also, by the Ro7n. Roherti. This dependence on different fable collections is not surprising with a writer such as Bozon, who would naturally have been eager to g-ather fables from whatever source for use in his sermons. If the agreement between Bozon and the fabulists whom he followed is often only partial and inaccurate, this fact should not lead one to deny altogether his indebtedness to these sources. It is a characteristic of Bozon, as it is with Odo, who he mostly resembles, that he does not follow directly and intentionally his written sources. We have seen ® that one of his chief char- acteristics as a writer of fables is his custom of chang- ing at will the actors in a g-iven fable. The fable to him was only a means to an end, therefore he often abridged it. Frequently, also, he either draws his material from oral tradition, or wrote it down from memory, whereby changes in the fable would likely occur, and also confu- sion in motifs would arise. The English verses attached to some of the fables of Bozon seem to prove that these particular fables go back to an English source, but we have not enough 3. Fable of Fox and Sheep, par. 128. 4. Cf. Hervieux, Vol. I (1st ed.), p. 694. 5. Cf. Herlet, op. cit., p. 82. 6. Cf . pag-e 34, note. 72 evidence from these examples to show that Bozon knew an English fable collection. We have here rather traces of the Eng-lish folk tradition. The French rimes that occur sporadically through- out the fables of Bozon do not force us to posit an inter- mediary French text between Bozon and Marie de France. They are probably original with our author. Although there are six fables '^ of Bozon whose source I have not been able to discover (nor do I know of any parallel versions of these fables), I hestitate to conclude that he is the author of any of them. Since several of his fables have their origin in oral tradition, it would seem better, for the time being, at least, to attribute these strange fables to oral tradition. Finally, we must consider Bozon as an honest preacher, who, for the moral instruction as well as for the amusement of his hearers, has collected a number of fables, drawn from various sources, for use in his sermons. It is by reason of the varied sources of his fables, as well as his individuality as a writer, that the fables of Bozon, as a whole, offer certain peculiar char- acteristics. The work of Bozon, though, properly speaking not a collection of sermons, had no doubt a certain vogue, as is attested by the Latin translation of the contes (in part). This work was used as a model by preachers of the order to which Bozon belonged ; there are no indications, however, that Bozon's fables have inspired any later writers of fables. 7. Fables in par. 10, 14, 53a, 56, 114 and 135. 73 BIBLIOGRAPHY. A. ORIGINAL TEXTS. 1. (ab. 425 B. C.) Vishnusarnian, Pantschatantra, Trans, by Benfey, Leipzig", 1859. 2. (ab. 25 A. D.) Phaedrus Aug-usti Liberatus, Fahiilae Aesofiae. a. Ed. by Hervieux, Paris, 1884, 1894. h. Ed. by Havet, Paris, 1895. 3. (ab. 100 A. D.) Valerius Babrius, Mythiamhoi Aisopeioi. Ed. by Crusius, Leipzig, 1897. 4. (ab. 380 A. D.) Flavius Avianus, Fahulae. Ed. by Hervieux, Paris, 1894. 5. (ab. 625 A. D.) Pseudo-Fredegarius, Chroniaim. Ed. by Duchesne, Liitetiae Parisioriim^ 1639. 6. (ab. 950 A. D.) Calila et Dhnna. Trans, by Keith-Falconer, Cambridge, 1888. 7. (ab. 950 A. D.) Romulus Vulgaris, Ed. by Hervieux, Paris, 1884, 1894. 8. (ab.950A. D.) Fromundus Tegernseensis, ^25/^r/« Fuiidationis Monasterii Tegernseensis. (V. Hervieux, Vol. HI, p. 507.) 9. (ab. 1000 A. D.) Aimoinus Floriacensis, Historia Francorum. Ed. by Duchesne, Lutetiae Parisioruni^ 1641. 10. (ab. 1050 A. D.) Romulus Nilantii. Ed. by Hervieux, Paris, 1884, 1894. 11. (ab. 1125 A. D.) Baldo, Alter Aesopus. Ed. by Du Meril, Paris, 1854. 12. (ab. 1148 A. D.) Nivardus Magister, Tsengrimus, Ed. by Voigt, Halle, 1884. 74 13. (ab. 1175 A. D.) Romulus Trevere^isis ^. Ed. by Hervieux, Paris, 1884, 1894. 14. (ab. 1175 A. D.) Marie de France, Esofe. a. Ed. by Roquefort, Paris, 1832. h. Ed. by Warnke, Halle, 1898. 15. (ab. 1190 A. D.) Petrus Alfonsus, Disciflina Clericalis. Ed. by Labouderie, Paris, 1824. 16. (ab. 1200 A. D.) Roman de Renart, Ed. by Martin, Strasbourg- et Paris, 1882, 1887. 17. (ab. 1200 A. D.) Alexander Nequam, De Naturis Rerum. Ed. by Wright, London, 1863. 18. (ab. 1215 A. D.) Alexander Nequam, iV<9Z/«5 Aesofus, a. Ed. by Du Meril, Paris, 1854. b. Ed. by Hervieux, Paris, 1884. 19. (ab. 1220 A. D.) Chastoiement (T un Pbre a son Fils. a. Ed. by Labouderie, Paris, 1824. h. Ed. by Meon, Paris, 1808. 20. (ab. 1225 A. D.) Remhart Fuchs. Ed. by Reissenberger, Halle, 1886. 21. (ab. 1250 A. D.) Vincentius Bellovacensis, Specu- limi Historiale, Ed. in part by Hervieux, Paris, 1884, 1894. 22. (ab. 1250 A. D.) Odo de Ceringtonia, Paraholae, Ed. by Hervieux, Paris, 1896. 23. (ab. 1250 A. D.) Odo de Cering-tonia, Fahulae, Ed. by Hervieux, Paris, 1884, 1896. 24. (ab. 1250 A. D.) Pseudo-St. Cyrillus, Speculum Safientiae. ^ Ed. by Grasse, Tubingen, 1880. 25. (ab. 1250 A. D.) Exempla Hamiltoniana, Ed. by Tobler, Halle, 1889. Also known as the ly. B. G. collection (so termed by Mall), and as the D^riv^ CompLet du Romulus Anglo-Latin (Hervieux). 75 26. (ab. 1250 A. D.) Vitae Patrum, Ed. by Rosweydus, Antwerp, 1628. 27. (ab. 1250 A. D.) Bartholomaeus Anglicus, Be Prof7'ietatibus Rerum, a, Ed., Strassburg", 1505 {no7i vidimus), h. Trans, by Batman, London, 1582. 28. (ab. 1250 A. D.) Pseudo-Gualterus Anglicus, Fahulae ^. Ed. by Hervieux, Paris, 1884, 1894. 29. (ab. 1250 A. D.) Fabliaux,. a. Ed. by Le Grand d' Aussy, Paris, 1779. h. Ed. by Montaiglon et Raynaud, Paris, 1872-1890. 30. (ab. 1260 A. D.) Vincentius Bellovacensis, ^^^c«- lum Doctrinale. Ed. by Koberger, Nurembergk, 1486. ^Non vidimus. ) 31. (ab. 1265 A. D.) Johannes de Capua, Directorium Vitae Humanae. Ed. by Hervieux, Paris, 1899. 32. (1270 A. D.) Gerhard von Minden, Aeso^us. Ed. by Leitzmann, Halle, 1898. 33. (ab. 1275 A. D.) Romulus Bernensis Primus *. Ed. by Hervieux, Paris, 1884, 1894. 34. (ab. 1300 A. D.) Pseudo-Odo de Ceringtonia, Fahulae *. Ed. by Hervieux, Paris, 1884, 1896. 35. (ab. 1320 A. D.) Nicole Bozon, Contes Moralises. Ed. by Smith et Meyer, Paris, 1889. 36. (ab. 1322 A. D.) Promi>tuarium Fxemplorum Parisiense. Ed. by Warnke, Halle, 1898. 37. (ab. 1325 A. D.) Romulus Roberti. a. Ed. by Robert, Paris, 1825. b. Ed. by Hervieux, Paris, 1884, 1894. 2. Also called the Appendix Altera Gualteri Anglici Fabul- aruni by Hervieux in his editions. 3. Also known as the Romulus Mixte de Bertie. 4. Also known as the Odonis de Ceritona Addita^ Collectio Prima. 76 38. (ab, 1325 A. D.) Tsopet I de Paris. Ed. by Robert, Paris, 1825. 39. (ab. 1325 A. D.) Geste des Chitrois. Ed. by Raynaud {^non vidimus), 40. (ab. 1350 A. D.) Johannes de Scheppeya, Fahulae, Ed. by Hervieux, Paris, 1884, 1896. 41. (ab. 1350 A. D.) Nicolaus Perg-amenus, Dyalogus Creatiirarum. Ed. by Grasse, Tubingen, 1880. 42. (ab. 1350 A. D.) Elinandus et Petrus Berchorius, Gesta JRomanorufn. Ed. by Oesterley, Berlin, 1872. 43. (ab. 1350 A. D.). Romulus Vratlaviensis ^. Cf. Herlet, Asopische Pabel im Mittelalter, p. 93, sq., Bamberg-, 1892. 44. (ab. 1350 A. D.) English Gesta Roinanorum, Ed. by Herrtage, London, 1879. 45. (ab. 1375 A. D.) Romulus Harleianus," Ed. by Smith et Meyer, Paris, 1889. 46. (ab. 1390 A. D.) Johannes Bromiardus, Summa Praedicantium . Ed. Antverpiae, 1614. ' 47. (ab. 1400 A. D.) Fahulae Aesopicae. Ed. by Halm, Leipzig-, 1881. 48. (ab. 1450 A. D.) Romulus Monacensis, Ed. by Hervieux, Paris, 1884, 1894. 49. (ab. 1450 A. D. ) Jean Mielot, Disciplina de Clergie, Ed, by Labouderie, Paris, 1824. 50. (1484 A. D.) William Caxton, Esope. Ed. by Jacobs, London, 1889. 51. (ab. 1625 A. D.) Hans Wilhelm Kirchhof, Wendunmuth. Ed. by Oesterley, Stuttgart, 1869. 5. The Breslau manuscript. 77 B. E^DITIONS AND STUDIES. 1. (1483) Vincentius Bellovacensis, Speculnm His- toriale^ Nuremberg-e, Antonius Koburg-er, 1483 (non vidimus). (Bib. Ars. 1480 bio. B. Vol. I, Liber IV, c. 2-8, on fos. 47 vo., col. 1 to 48 vo. col 1). 2. (1468) Vincentius Bellovacensis, Sfeculum Doc- trinale^ Nurembergk, Anthonius Kobergfer, 1486 (non vidimus). (Bib. Ars. 1480 bis. B. Vol. V, Liber IV, c. 114-123, on fos. 65 ro, col. 1 to 66 ro, col. 1). 3. (1505) Bartholomaeus de Glanvilla Z/3^r <^^ /V^- i)rietatihus Reriim^ etc. Argentine, 1505 {non vidimus). 4. (1582) Batman uffon Bartholomew his Booke de Profrietatibiis Reriim^ London, 1582. 5. (1586) Robert Holkot, Lihriim Sapientiae Regis Salo7noniSw Basel, 1586 {no7i vidimus). 6. (1599) Caesarius Heisterbacensis, Illustrium Mir- aculorum et Historiarum Memorabilium Lib. XII. Coloniae Agrippinae in OlB&cina Birck- mannica, sumptibus Arnoldi Mylij, Anno MDXCIX. 7. (1614) Joannes Bromiardus, Summa Praedicatium Omnibus Dominici Gregis Pastoribtis .... longd utilissima ac pernecessaria. Antverpia : ex oJB&cino Hieronymi Verdussi, 1614. 8. (1628) Vitae Patrum: De Vita et Verbis Seniorum sive Historiae Eremiticae Libri X; opera et studio Heriberti Ros-weydi. Antverpia. 9. (1808) Fabliaux et Contes des Poetes Frangais des XI, XII, XIII, XIV, et XV^ Siecles, Barbazan et Meon, Paris, 1808. 10. (1824) [J. Labouderie], Disciflina Clericalis, Auctore Petro Alphonsi: Discipline de Clergie, Traduction de V ouvrage de Pierre Alphonse : Le Chastoiement ^' U7i Pere a son Fils, Paris, 1824. 11. (1825) A. C. M. Robert, Fables Inedites des XII % XIII « et XIV « Siecles et Fables de La Fontaine. 2 vols. Paris, 1825. 12. (1832) B. de Roquefort, Poisies de Marie de France. 2 vols. Paris, 1832. [Title-page edition.] 13. (1841-1843) Thomas Wright and James Orchard Halliwell, Reliquiae Antiguae, 2 vols. Lon- don, 1841-1843. 14. (1842) Thomas Wright, A Selection of Latin Stories from Manuscripts of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, London, 1842. (Percy Society, Vol. VIII). 15. (1852) C. Hippeau, Le Bestiaire Divin de Guil- lamne^ Clerc de Normandie^ Caen, 1852. 16. (1854) Kdelstand Du Meril, Poesies Inedites du Moyen Ag-e^ precddees d'' une Histoire de la Fable Esopique. Paris, 1854. 17. (1863) Alexandri Neckam De Naturis Rerufu Lihri Duo^ edited by Thomas Wright. London, 1863. 18. (1869) Wendunmuth von Hans Wilhelm Kirchhof herausgegeben von Hermann Osterley. 5 vols. Tiibingen, 1869. {Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, XCV-IC). 19. (1872) Hermann Oesterley, Gesta Romanorum. Berlin, 1872. 20. (1872-1890) Anatole de Montaiglon, Recueil Ghi- iral et Comflet des Fabliaux des XIP et XIV^ Siecles hnfrimis ou InSdits. 6 vols. Paris, 1872-1890. 21. (1877) A. Lecoy de la Marche, Anecdotes His- toriques, L^gendes et Apologues tirds du Recueil Inidit d'' ^tienne de Bourbon, publics pour la Societe de 1' Histoire de France. Paris, 1877. 22. (1878) Kleinere Lateinische Denkmdler der Thier- sage aus dem Zwolften bis Vierzehnten fahr- hundert, herausgegeben von Enrst Voigt, Strassburg: Karl J. Triibner, 1878. 79 23. (1879) Sidney J. H. Herrtage, The Early English Versiofis of the Gesta Romanoruin. London, 1879. (Early English Text Society, Extra Series No. XXXIII. 24. (1880) Die Beiden Altesten Lateinischen Fahel- bilcher des Mittelalters : Des Bischofs Cyrillus Speculum SapienUae und des Nicolaus Perga- menus Dialogus Creaturarum^ herausgegeben von Dr. J. G. Th. Grasse, Tiibingen. {Biblio- thek des Litterarischen Vereifis in Stuttgart^ CXLVIII). 25. (1881) Fahulae Aesoficae Collectae^ recog-nitione Caroli Halmii. Lipsiae, 1881. 26. (1882) Le Roma7i de Renart^ public par Ernest Martin. 3 vols. Strasbourg-Paris, 1882-1887. 27. (1883) W. Gunion Rutherford, Babrius, edited with Introductory^ Dissertations^ Critical Notes^ Commentary^ and Lexicon, London, 1883. 28. (1884) Ysengriinus^ herausgegeben und erklart von Ernst Voigt. Halle, 1884. 29. (1884) Oeuvres de J, de la Fontaine^ R^gnier, Paris, 1884 (Les Grands Ecrivains de la Prance, La Fontaine, Vol. II). 30. (1884-1899) Leopold Hervieux, Les Fabulistes Latins defuis le sitcle d^ Auguste jusqu^ a la Fin du Moyen Age. 5 vols. Paris, 1893-1899. 31. (1887) Observations sur le Roman de Renart^ Martin. Strasbourg, 1887. 32. (1886) E. Mall, Zur Geschichte der Mittelalter- lichen Fabellitteratur und insbesondere des Esope der Marie de France. In Zeitschrift fiir Roman- ische Philogie^ herausgegeben von Dr. Gustav Grober. Halle, 1886. (See Vol. IX (1885), pp. 161-203. 33. (1885) I. G. N. Keith-Falconer, Kalilah and Difnnah or the Fables of Bidpai^ with an Eng- lish Translation of the Later Syriac Version of the Same^ and Notes. Cambridge, 1885. 80 34. (1886) Reinhart Fiichs, herausg-eg-eben von Karl Reissenberg-er. Halle, 1886. (^Altdeutsche Text- hihliothek^ herausg-eg-eben von H. Paul, No. 7). 35. (1889) A. Tobler, Lateinische Beisfielsammlung mil Bildern. In Zeitschrift fur Ro^nanische Philologie, herausg-eg-eben von Dr. Gustav Grober. Halle, 1889. See Vol. XII (1888), pp. 57-88. 36. (1889) 7'he Fables of ^soi> as first printed by William Caxton in 1484^ with those of Avian^ Alfonso and Poggio^ Joseph Jacobs. 2 vols. London, 1889. 37. (1890) Thomas Frederick Crane, The Exempla or Illustrative Stories from the Sermones Vulgares of facques de Vitry. London, 1890. {Publica- tions of the Folk-Lore Society^ XXVI. 38. (1892) Dr. Bruno Herlet, Beitrdge ztir Geschichte der dsoI>ischen Fabel im Mittelalter, Bamberg-, 1892. 39. (1892) Leopold Sudre, Les Sources du Roman de Renart. Paris, 1892. 40. (1893) Joseph Bedier, Les Fabliaux: Etudes de Litterature Pofulaire et ^' Histoire Liitirature du Moyen Age. Paris, 1893. 41. (1895) Zo^Q^^h Zdicoh^^ The Most Delectable History of Reynard the Fox. London and New York, 1895. 42. (1895) Phaedri Augusti Liberti Fabulae JEsofiae., Ludovicas Havet. Paris, 1895. 43. (1897) Babrii Fabulae ^sopeae, Otto Crusius. Lipsiae, 1897. {Bibliotheca Scriptorum Grae- corum et Romanorum Teubneriana) . 44. (1898) Die Fabeln der Marie de France^ heraus- g-egfeben von Karl Warnke. Halle, 1898. 45. (1898) Die Fabeln Gerhards von Minden im Mit- telniederdeutscher Sprache^ herausg-eg-eben von Albert Leitzmann. Halle, 1898. 81 46. (1900) Die Qiiellen des Esofe der Marie de France, von Karl Warnke in Coburg. See pp. 161-284 in Forschungen zur Romajiischen Philologie : Festgahe fur Hermann Suchier zuni 15 Mdrz, 1900, Halle, 1900. 47. (1902) Wouter Antonie Van der Vet, Het Bien- boec van Thomas van Cantimj>re en zij'n Ex- empelen. Gravenhage, 1902. C MANUSCRIPTS. 1. Cambridg-e, University Library, Gg. 6. 28. 2. Cheltenham, Phillipps Library, 8336. 3. Lambeth, Archiepiscopal Library, 522. 4. London, British Museum, Arundel 507. 5. London, British Museum, Cotton Domitianus A. XI. 6. London, British Museum, Cotton Julius A. V. 7. London, British Museum, Harley 209. 8. London, British Museum, Harley 957. 9. London, British Museum, Harley 1288. 10. London, British Museum, Harley 2253. 11. London, British Museum, Royal 8. K. XVII. 12. London, British Museum, Royal 20. B. XIV. 13. London, Gray's Inn Library, 12. 14. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 425. 15. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 761. 16. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce 210. 17. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson Poetry 241 (formerly Miscellanea 473). 18. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Selden su^pra 74. D. BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICES. 1. (1834) De la Rue, Essais Historiques sur les Bardes, les Jongleurs ei les Trouveres, Vol. II, pp. 297-300. 2. (1846) Thomas Wright, Biografhia Britanica Literaria, London, 1846, pp. 331-332. 82 3. (1884) Paul Meyer, in Romania.YohXlll (1884 j, pp. 497-541. 4. (1888) Paul Meyef, Rapport sur les Travaux de la SocUU des Anciens Textes Fran^ais pendant V Annee 1887, pp. 49-50. 5. (1889) Paul Meyer, in Contes Moralises de Nicole Bozon, pp. I-LXXIV. 6. (1890) Gaston Paris, La Littirature Fran false au Moyen Age, pp. 119 (§81), 223 (§152). 7. (1890) Thos. P. Crane, Exejupla of Jaqiies de Vitry, pp. CXI-CXIII. 8. (1890) Maurice Hewlett, A Mediaeval Popular Preacher. In The Nineteenth Centiwy : A Monthly Review, edited by James Knowles, London. See Vol. XXVIII (1890), pp. 470-477. 9. (1890) Paul Meyer, Rapport sur les Travaux de la Sociite des Anciens Textes Frangais pendant V Annie 1889, pp. 51-54. 10. (1891) William Wells Newell, in The Jotirnal of American Folk-Lore, Vol. IV (1891), p. 91. 11. (1896) Leopold Hervieux, Fahulistes Latins, Vol. IV, pp. 92-106. 12. (1900) Suchier und Birch-Hirschfeld, Geschichte der Franzosischen Litteratur, p. 171. 13. (1902) Gustav Grober, Franzosische Litteratur, pp. 856-857, 932, 933-934, 990-991. E. re; VIEWS. 1. (1890) B. Haureau, in thQ Jotirnal des Savants, Annie 1890, pp. 113-120. 2. (1890) Anonymous, in Athenaetmi, July-Decem- ber, 1890, p. 121, col. 2— p. 122, col. 2. 3. (1890) Anonymous, in Saturday Review, Vol. LXIX (1890), p. 167, col. 1— p. 168, col. 1. 4. (1890) J. S. Attwood, Nicholas Bozon, in the Athenaeum, July-December, 1890, p. 163, col. 3 — p. 164, col. 1. 83 5. (1890) Lucy Toulmin Smith, Nicholas Bozon, in the Athenaeum, July-December, 1890, p. 288, col. 3. 6. (1890) Joseph Jacobs in the Folk-Lore Journal, 1890, pp. 270-271. 7. (1890) M. W. in Le Moyen Age, Vol. Ill, pp. 156-159. 8. (1891) E. Sidney Hartland, Report on Folk-Tale Research, 1889-1890, in Folk-Lore, Vol. II (1891), pp. 99-119. See p. 112. 9. (1891) Kn. in Literaj-isches Centralhlatt filr Deutschland, 1891, pp. 114-115. 10. 1892-95) Ernest Lan^lois, in Kritischer Jahreshe- richt, etc., I, Jahrgangr (1890), p. 430. 11. (1892-95) Max Pr. Mann, Physiologus in Krit- ischer Jahreshericht, etc., I, Jahrg-ang- (1890), p. 433. 84 TABLE OF CONTENTS OF WHOLE DISSERTATION. Prefatory Note Part I. Introductory Sources of the Individual Fables a. Fables Derived from Marie de France, or a Com- mon Source . . . . , b. Fables Derived from Odo of Shering-ton . . . . c. Fable Derived from Miscellaneous Sources . . . d. Fables from Unknown Sources Part II. a. An English Fable Collection as a Source . . . b. The Animal Kpic as a Source c. A French Fable Collection as a Source . . . . d. The Treatment of the Moral of the Fables . . . Conclusion Bibliography 85 BIOGRAPHY. I, Philip Warner Harry, was born near Baltimore, August 9, 1877. In the year 1893 I entered the Prepar- atory Department of Georgetown College, Ky., and in the following year was admitted into Georgetown Col- lege, where I remained for two years. In October, 1895, I came to the Johns Hopkins University, from which institution I received the degree of Bachelor of Arts in June, 1898. The following year I pursued gradute work in the Universit}^ selecting French as m}^ princi- pal subject, Spanish and History as my first and second subordinate subjects respectively. These studies I pur- sued without interruption for two 3^ears, when I accepted the position of instructor in Modern Languages in the University of Maine. In the Autumn of 1902, I returned to Johns Hopkins University in order to com- plete my course. I have derived the greatest benefit from having heard the lectures of Dr. Armstrong on Old French Phonology and Morpholog3S of Prof. Warren of Yale on Old French literature ; of Dr. Ogden on Modern French literature, and of Prof. Marden on Spanish lit- erature. My especial thanks are due to Dr. Keidel who has greatl3^ aided me in m}^ work in Fable Literature ; to Prof. Elliott I am indebted for the inspiration, the encouragement and the helpful guidance that I have received in connection with my studies at the Johns Hopkins University. Bai^timore:, May 1, 1903. or r»i 14 DAY USE RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED This Dook is due on the last date stamped below, or on the date to which renewed. [ Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. LU 4IS/Z80 BEC^ 1 fc nrp e '*7/^ ■^ ■■■' viXf ^ '2 -2 p^^-f^ ] 1 T r> 01 .in^ '«Q General Library