Download Cock and Fox and more Study notes Voice in PDF only on Docsity!
COCK AND FOX
A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE HISTORY AND SOURCES
OF THE MEDIEVAL FABLE
The story
of the Cock and the Fox has long
had a wide range
and popularity. It is known,in one formor another,as extend-
ing
fromoriental antiquity
down to our own days.
It is known
in the different genres
of animal epic, clerklyfable,^
and folklore
tale. It is known and celebrated in the varying
versions of
Chaucer, the Roman de Renart, Marie de France-and
Uncle
Remus.
The fable proper
seems in its entirety
a special medieval
growth.
Its oriental' formsare too remotefor purposes
of deriva-
tion or of discussion. It has not been discovered in Greek
antiquity
or in classical Latinity.
A kindred form,however,is
found in Apuleius,
and there seems, as will be noted,
even some
reason to suppose
that it may
have constituted part
of the original
Phaedrus
collection which has not come down to us.
The known and accessible medieval versions, (^) strictly
of this
fable, are about fifteenin number, and they
extend apparently
from the Rheims MS of the Appendix
to Phaodrus (ca. 750)
down to the publication
of Caxton in 1484. In the following
list these orthodoxversions alone are enumerated. There are in
addition some twelve allied stories and fables which will be
reservedfor later treatment.
I See Benfey,Pantschatantra, I, 610; Vartan, 12,13; Jacobs is mistaken in his reference
to the Katha-Sarit-Sagara:
but see especially Benfey,I, 310,with which cf. Miss Petersen,
Sources of the Nonne Prestes Tale (Boston, 1898,pp. 40-42). This is the storyof the "kiss "
theme, which is closely related to the "decree" theme of the Fox and Dove (^) (Warnke's
Marie, LXI). There are also the jackal story and the sparrow story (references in Miss
Petersen, pp. 16,27,37). These may possibly be allowed an influence of the oral tradition
sort. But until the Fox and Cock fable is found entire in some collection -oriental, classi-
cal, or pre-mediaeval-the a^ priori hypothesis later^ advocated^ may be considered as
tenable.
21 am indebted to Dr. A. Marshall Elliott, head of the Romance seminary of Johns
Hopkins University; to Dr. George C. Keidel, associate in the department,for much assist-
ance in arranging the material; and to various members of the seminary--especially
to
Mr. D. B. Easter--for help^
in collecting versions. The paper, in so far as concerns the
main method of motifs,proceeds along the regular lines followed in this seminary. It may
39] 1 LMODERNPHILOLOGY,July,^1906
GENEALOGY OF THE FABLE
Cheesestory
PhB (ca. 7507) > Ad (1029)
E > [ Ba (^) (XIIc 7)
Wolf stories
GS(XIc)
Wolf stories/
X >
GS
~Br
(ca. 1390) X >
BR (ca
S(A-L. Rom. ca. 1100)>^ (Alfred) 1150)>^
(x)>
R
RTr (1175)>
i Re
M (1175)
(x
COCK AND Fox 3
- The Poems and Fables of Robert Henryson (D. Laing, Edin-
burgh, 1865), "Tail
of Schir Chantecleir and the Foxe," pp. 118-26.
Date 1476.
- The Fables of _Asop as
First Printed by William
(^) Caxton
(Jacobs, London, 1889),Vol. II, Book V, Fab. III, p. 132. Date 1484. = C.
II. PLOT OF THE FABLE
I will give
the oldest and one of the baldest (^) versions, which
is that of the Appendix
to Pheedrus; then one of the latest and
best, which is that of Marie.^ Attention is called^ to the principal
divergences:
PHB-Perdix et Vulpis
A partridgeonce sat in a high tree. A fox came up. Then he began
to talk thus: (^) "Oh, how great is the beauty of your face, partridge!
Your beak surpasses coral, your legs the splendor
of purple. But if you
would sleep, how much prettier you would be!"
So the foolish thing
shut her eyes; the fox immediatelycarried off the credulous creature.
She utteredsupplicatingly these words mingled with grievous weeping:
"By the dignity (^) [decus] of your arts, fox,
I beg you to speak my name
first,[and] then you will eat."
(^) When the fox wanted to talk, he opened
his mouth; but the partridgeslipped away fromthe fool. The deluded
fox [says]: "What use [was there] in my talking?" (^) Replies the par-
tridge:
"And what use in my sleeping? Was^
it necessary
for one to
whom sleep came not?" This is forthose people who talk when thereis
no need, and who sleep when they ought to watch.
MARIE, De^ Vulpe
et Gallo
I tell of a cock who stood on a dung-hill and sang. Near him came
a fox and addressed him in veryfine words. "Sir," he says, "I^ see you
are verybeautiful; I never saw such a nice bird. Your voice is clear
beyond everything:except your father, whom I saw,1never did a bird
sing better; but he did better,because he shut his eyes." "So^ can I,"
said the cock. He flapped his wings, he shut his eyes; he thought he
would sing more clearly. The fox jumps forwardand takes him; and
withal away he goes toward the forest. All the shepherds ran after,
througha field
where he passed; the dogs bark at him all around. "See
the fox who holds the cock. In an evil hour he deceived him,if he comes
this way!" "Come," says the cock, "cry to them that I am yours and
do not let me go!" The fox wants to talk aloud, and the cock leaps out
of his mouth; he mounted on a high tree. When the fox came to his
senses, he considered himself very much fooled,since the cock tricked
him so. With indignation and with full anger he commences to curse
I (^) Conui (Roquefort).
4 E. P. DARGAN
his mouth,
whichtalks whenit ought to keep quiet. The cockreplies:
" So oughtI to do: [I ought]to cursemyeyewhichwantsto close,when
it oughtto watchand wardlestevilcometo its master."
Fools do this: a great manypeople talk whentheyought
to stop,
and keepquietwhentheyoughtto talk.
The additions and improvements
are readily
seen. In Marie,
the cock is singing;
the fox flattershis voice and stimulateshim
to surpass
his father; there is a pursuit
of shepherds
and dogs;
the cock escapes by telling
the fox to cry,
"I am yours;"
and the
fox abuses his mouth.
III. METHOD OF PROCEDURE
Such is the story.
It is now our task to trace this story
from
its earliest to its latest appearance
in medieval fable literature,
and to discover what are the relations of the versions among
themselves.
In order to do this, we must have resortto one or more of the
three methods usually
allowed for determining
such data: i. e.,
(1) by
external evidence; (^) (2) by external-internalevidence;
(3) by
internal evidence. Of these three,the firstwill concern
us only
for verificationor refutation;' the second will be of but
slight service; while the third is the standard adopted
in this
paper,
because of its far-reachingapplications,
as well as of the
accurate and unimpeachable
character of its inferenceswhen de-
duced with care. The procedure
within this class is usually
that
of the tabulation of motifs; and an exhaustive list of the words
and ideas in each fable, with their repetitions,imitations,paral-
lels, or substitutionsin otherfables,is held to furnisha sufficiently
plausible
basis for the erectionof a genealogical
tree.
The justness
of the methodneeds in general
no defense. But
in practical application,
when one has a hundred or more motifs
to consider, when each motif
has a given number,and each is
numericallyequal
to any other,the bewildering
cloud of details
tends to obscure the main facts and figures
in the story,
and we
findit difficultto see the wood forthe trees-or the underbrush.
It has occurred to me, therefore,that it might
be well to distin-
IThere is little enough in this class (^) concentrating on the individual fable--though
data for whole collections are more abundant. We will include here general opinions of
authorities (see Division VIII).
6 E. P. DARGAN
ANALYTICALTABLE I
(Leitmotiven Marked with Greek
Letters)
P-
7Ca.Ca. Ca.
Ca. .Ca. 1270 Ca.Ca.Ca.
(Century)......... ................^ XI^
C 14751484 1270 1476 II 1325
S
1029 1390 XII1275 147- 1175 140011751380
I. INTRODUCTION.......................
a. Title ...................
a (^) Partridge and Fox ...... .. .. (^) PhB Ad
S (^) Crow and FCheese ApBo C a Fox............. ....
................ApBo
y b. Moral ...^ .(Br)
.. .. (^) RM S (^) C ...
.. .. .. .. .. (^) Ap
c. Description of Beast ......... .. ........
d. Description of Bird...
e. Proverb.................. ..... .. ...............................
f. Circumstances ........... .... ....................... I i g. Concours...............^ ..^ ..^ ..^.. ..^ ..^ ..^ ..^.^.^ ..^ ..^ ..^ ...^ ..^ ..^ ..^ Ap
II. RUSE OF BEAST.......... S PhB Ad Br Ba BR RM S C RTr GM ME M Ch H Ap Bo
5 Wolf ........................
Al
a. (^) Approach..............
S b. Appeal to vanity ......G ?S. PhB (^) Aid Br Ba
BRIRM
S C (^) RTr GM ME M Ch H Ap Bo (^9) 1. Of Person...........
..
. PhB Ad RTr
GMIME
M Ch H^ Ap Bo
- Of Voice............ GS ......Br Ba BRRM S C RTrGMME M Ch H (^) Ap Bo
- Of Race............ ... ... (^) ... ... (^) Ap
A c. Father
.................
GS B.. .. ..
"Ba
BRRM S C RTr GMiME M Ch H ..^ Bo , (^) d. "Sing"................... ..^ ...^. Ba BRRM S^ C RTr^.^.^ ...^ .. H^ Ap Bo e. (^) "Sleep ................ PhB Ad
.
f. "Close^ eyes". .........^ GS^ ..^ ..^ ..^ Br ..^ .. ..^ ..^ ..^ RTr^ GM ME^ M^ Ch...^
..
o. (^) "Open mouth". p.........i Bo
wr h.
Bird leaps
.............
GS
p i. Titbit .... (^) ............... ApBo
III. BIRD RICKED...........
a. Motives .................. ..^ .. b. Actions ................
a c.^ Istaken..............^ GS Ai^ PhB^ Ad Br^ Ba BR RM S C RTr^ GMME M Ch H d. Regrets ................
e. Attendant circum-
stance................
7 IV. PURSUI...............(GS)...... ..Ba^ BRRM^ S^ C^ RTr^ GM ME^ M^ Ch^ H a. (^) Personages .............. .. .. .. .. ................
v 1. Shepards and dogs....^ ..^
.. (^) .. ... ... .. .. (^) RTr GM ME ME
Town-people
............
.. .. ... .. .. RM (^) S C
b. M anner ................
S c.
Speech................
GS .. ... ... 1..Ba BR RM^
S (^) C.... .... .M d. Circumstances.........
V. RUSE OF BIRD............
GS Al PhB Ad ..
Ba (^) BRURM S (^) C RTr GM ME M (^) Ch H
o a. (^) "they say"............... GS Ba BHRRM S C
a b. "tell them"............ GS Ba BR .. S C RTr GM ME M Ch ......
'
c. (^) "my name".............. .. (^) PhB Ad
v d. "your voice" .......... .. (^) Al
VI. ESCAPE OF BIRD .........
"
a. (^) Beast opens mouth.... GS Ai^ PhB^ Ad^ Ba^ BRIRM S^ C RTr GM6ME^ M Ch H
e'
b. Bird flies away
.....
GS Al PhB (^) Ad .. (^) Ba BRIRM S^ C^ RTr^ GM ME^ M^ Ch^
H (^) Ap
c. Bird's speech
"
"thou liest"......... ............BRRM
S (^) C
d. Beast's (^) disgust
r'
beats himself........ .. (^) .. .. .. BR RM S C .. ... ..
..
VII. MORAL
....
..... .... .. .....
O'
a. From beast ............ GS .. (^) PhB Ad BRM S^ C RTr GMME^ M^ Ch........ b. From bird
.............
GS (^) Al PhB Ad (^) RTr GMIME
M Ch. o (^) c. Reciprocal......... GS^ ..^ PhB Ad .......... (C)^
RTr GM ME M Ch " Ap d. From author
A' Church influence .... GS Al .. ...^. I Ch
35 18 8 13 13 6 13 16 1718 19 17 16 16 17 16 11 13 9
COCK AND FOX 7
but they
are the principal points
of departure,and every version
is incomplete
withoutthem. The themes are:
- The RUSE OF THE BEAST,with^ its accomplishment.
- The PURSUIT.
- The RUSE OF THE BIRD-its escape.
(With
the RECIPROCALMORALas a doubtful fourth.)
IV. ESTABLISHMENT OF A TREE^ BY^ LEITMOTIVEN
The Marie version has been given
as representingveryclosely
the orthodoxor complete
formof the fable. Let us then examine
the other (^) versions,having this standard^ in mind.
The earliest is^ that of the Burmanus Phaedrus Appendix
(PhB),
which I take in this instance to derive fromthe Rheims
MS,' and which
is distinguished
in the followingparticulars:
The
bird is a partridge;
there is no appeal
to the vanity
of voice, nor
mention of a father,nor request
to sing;
the bird is asked to
sleep;
there is no pursuit;
the fox, (^) foolishlyenough,
is beguiled
into pronouncing
the bird's name. There are threeof these Leit-
motivenwhich are found only
in PhB and Ademar (Ad).
PhB
and Ad have each 13 motifs,2and they
are identical. Therefore
PhB > Ad3 probably as a direct source.
Let us turn to the other two early versions, Grimm and
Schmeller (GS)
and Alcuin (Al).
It had as well be stated here that this fable, since it is not
foundin our text of PhEdrus, nor in the principal
Romulus ver-
sions, since it is one of the Fabulae^ Extravagantes, must have
had, as to its main outlines,and some time before the tenth or
eleventh century,
a source unconnectedwith the central streams
of fable literature. Where is this source to be found? Very
likely
in ecclesiastical circles; for the church influenceis strong
both in GS and in Al.
To consider Al first,this version is extremely
remotefromour
standard. We have only
one theme-the Ruse and Escape
of
bird-no pursuit,
and no ruse of beast, who is here a wolf. Al
1Since it gives Ad. See Hervieux, Vol. I, pp. 68,80,for a discussion of this lost MS.
2 Throughout this firstpart motif
= Leitmotif.
3See G. Paris, review of Hervieux in Journal des Savants, 1884,pp. 684,685.
COCK AND FOX 9
The Baldo I must leave for later discussion. (^) It has not a
single
distinctive Leitmotif.
The next in order is the Marie branch. It has been seen that
M
agrees
with GS in 14 motifs. The differencesare in the flat-
tery
of person (0) and the developed formof the pursuit,which
indicates several intervening
versions. M further agrees with
RTr, GM, ME, in 15 motifs,3 of them distinctive--note espe-
cially
the important(v) motifof the shepherds
and dogs.
These
also share with (^) GS and Br the (0) motif"close eyes."
Therefore
there is no doubt of the intimaterelationof these firstfour. RTr
is distinguished
fromthe other three in that it contains the sug-
gestion
to "sing" (^) (p).
Its date also makes it contemporary
with
M. The descent of the other three would then seem direct:
M > GM > ME
Their differentiationsare too slight at
present
for such inference. But the relationship
to the main
stem is clearly
X
(Anglo-LatinRomulus)(ca. 1100)
GS (XIc)
(Alfred)(ca. 1150)
M (ca. 1175) R. Tr. (ca. 1175)
GM (1270)
ME (ca. 1400)
As to Br and BR the question
is more complicated.
The
Berne Romulus offers particular difficulties. There are two col-
lections of this name, the one deriving
fromthe Romulus Vulgaris
in two parts,
while the other is more directly
out of Romulus
Primitivus. Our fable is in that part
of the firstcollectionwhich
is supposed to come out of the Romulus Vulgaris directly. But
our fable is not in the Romulus Vulgaris,
and thereforecannot
be in its true descendants. The same holds good
for Br, S, H,
all of which usually
derive from the Romulus Vulgaris.
Hence
these versions,BR, Br, S, H, are from a branch independent
of
Romulus Vulgaris and even of Romulus Primitivus.^ This^ is
10 E. P. DARGAN
natural enough
when we rememberthat the fable is one of the
Extravagantes. They
are all near enough
our X to derive there-
from. That is to say they
have the same general relationshipto
GS which we have found^ in the others.
BR and GS have 12 motifs
in common, though
none (^) distinctive
to the two. BR shares fourdistinctive motifs
with the S group,
and none with the M group.
It may
thereforebe considered as
out of a common source with the S group,
more remotely
with
the M group,
since they agree
in ten general motifs; also the
"speech" motif (X),
which is already in GS, forms a further
point
of agreement
between M alone, BR, and the S group, indi-
cating
that all three are fairly
near the source.
The formof Br is so truncated that any
inferencesare likely
to be unwarranted. It develops only
one theme-the Ruse of
the Beast-and has but 6 motifs.
Yet of these 6, 7 (^) (doubtful)
is shared distinctively
with the S group,
and? with GS and the
M
group.
Otherwisehe followsGS. He might accordingly
be
assigned
to the commonsource,one or two removesoff. It should
likewise be rememberedthat Bromiardus was a churchman. The
table will now stand:
X
(A-L. Romulus) x?^ GS
(Alfred) x
S
I
7 Br (ca. 1390)
M R. Tr x
GM
I BR (ca. 1275)
ME
There remains the S division. S,' which corresponds
with
Fab. Ext., III, is practically
identical withthe RM (which
Jacobs
and Hervieux label Fab. Ext., XXVIII). This identity
holds
good
for all but a few words and one sentence (a').
Therefore
RM
(= FE)
will forma connecting
link betweenS and its source.
This source can hardly
be fartherback than Alfred,since S agrees
1
Latin translation. The others offerno variants worthyof notice.
12 E. P. DARGAN
and H is (^) marked; while the agreement
for the "Chanticleer
episode" may
be sustained for all three.
ThereforeM > Ch > H.
The table, complete but for^ Baldo, will be:
(Ph)
x (^) (Lost MS)
x (^) (Lost MS) PhB
I I I
Al X Ad
(A-L. Romulus) x^ GS
(Alfred) x
F I I 7 Br
F
M RTr ?RM x
I I I
7 S BR?
GM (^) Ch?
I I C
ME
H
V. TREE TESTED BY COMPLETE (^) TABLE OF MOTIFS. CORRECTIONS.
Having
advanced in the first part several unproventheories,it
now remains to consider these in the light
of an exhaustivetabu-
lation of all motifs; and to discuss what views have been advo-
cated by
others concerning
the history
of the fable.
The doubtful points may
be thus summarized: The source is
not definitelyplaced; the exact provenance of Br, BR, and Ch is
still to be determined; the claim of Alcuin's fable to enter here
must be questioned; the exact relationship
of M to GM and ME
must be established; the immediate source of RM determined;
and Ba is still untouched.
In this Table II the aim has been to give place
to every
idea
and almost to every
word (^) which has had a share in the develop-
ment of the fable proper;
also to record such distinctive indi-
vidual variationsas may
not be fairlyconsidered extraneous.
It
has been necessary
to draw the line somewhere,and I (^) have
accordingly
excluded (1)
verbal modificationswhich are without
COCK AND Fox 13
significance--as
"said" for "told," "desiring" for "wishing,"
etc.; (^) (2) voluminousamplifications
and interpolations,which,as
a rule, need only
to be indicated in brief,and which, if inserted,
would serve but to swell the list of motifsdistinctiveto each fable
-as in the cases of Al and GS; (^) (3) epic
material as found in
Ch and H.
But I have tried to list every motif occurring in
morethan one version; to include every
word of the more regular
collections; and to assign
to individual variations an amount of
space proportionate
to their importance.
As the sum-total (^) of
motifsamountsto 361, I^
thinkthe tabulation may
be held fairly
complete.
As a rule it takes between 50 and 150 words-i. e., between
40 and 70 motifs-to tell this story.
We may accordinglyexpect
that the versions below 40 will be truncated in importantpar-
ticulars,and that those above 70 will be unnecessarilyamplified.
GS, with its 112, would seem the longest of all; but if all of the
Nonne Prestes Tale or even all of Henryson
were included,
either would much exceed this. (^) On the other hand, we found
that Bromiardus had but one theme and 6 Leitmotiven; and he
had only
23 motifs.
Let us examine this new evidence. Our fourearliest versions,
Al, GS, PhB, Ad.^ First as to Alcuin.^ Has Al, afterall, a right
to be considered a regular member
of this family
? I doubt it.
For he contains, it will be recalled, only one theme, and but 4
other (^) Leitmotivenwhich are found later. In the new table he is
credited altogether
with only 37 motifs,
of which about 20 (twice
this number,if all were listed)
are distinctive,peculiar to him-
self. Seventeen is not a large number of
common motifs,
Furthermore,
Al agrees
with GS in only 9;^
with PhB and Ad
minus GS in none; with all three in 6. ThereforeAl is either
to be thrownstill furtheroff; or he is to be thrownout; or his
connection with the Cock and Fox is to be sought through
the
intermediary
of some other (^) fable.
The intimate connection of PhB and Ad is still further
evidenced. They have 49 and 48 motifsrespectively; they have
6 and 3 distinctiveto each respectively. But they
have 43 out
of the 49 in common,and 16 of these are peculiar
to the two. It
COCK AND Fox 15
In the S group we have nothing
like this; the moral comes only
from the side of the beast. Another interesting
resemblance is
that only in GS and M does the bird when told what his father
did call out, "so can I." This leaves us with the M group
closer
GS and the source than the S group; which seems to require
an
intermediary
x between the S group
and Alfred.
Br has only
23 motifs,9 distinctive. Of the remaining 14, 9
are in GS, 1 in the S and M^ groups,
1 in the M group plus GS.
Four of the distinctiveforma moral which serves as introduction.
Two more finish off the moral with a (^) "haec fabula docet,"
agreeing
here with the S group.
But this phrase
is too much of
a commonplace
to furnish good grounds
for inference. More
significant
is the accord with the M group.
Since Br is a church-
man, it seems reasonable to seperate
him fromthe later versions,
where he has but one or two resemblances for each case, and to
bring
him nearerto GS and the supposedly
clerical source. Yet,
unless he derive directlytherefrom,
this analogy fails,^
and since
in point
of time (ca. 1390)
he is far afterX, it may
be betterto
connect him with the Anglo-Latin Romulus, a regular collection,
and as such a likely place
for a preacher
to find his exempla.
This seems to satisfy
the requirements
of comparativeproximity
both to GS and to M; while with referenceto date it is at any
rate more plausible
than a provenance fromX. There is really
too little of Br to go
on. The striking
featureabout him is that
he has the "close eyes" Leitmotifwhich
is found in GS and the
M
group,
but not in the S group.
We can suppose
that this
motif was still in Alfred and
was lost only
in the x version
between him and the S group.
Hence another reason for
assuming
this intermediary
x.
Turning to Ba
which so far has been left untouched,we see
that he represents
a fairly
full form of the fable. He has 63
motifs,
22 of them distinctive. Several of the latter may
be
owing
to the exigencies
of the verse. As to Leitmotivenfirst,he
follows GS, with four exceptions:
he has the developed form
of
the pursuit (T),
the suggestion
to "sing" (p),
is without the
"close eyes" ($), and the reciprocal moral (K').
Now, all three
points
are characteristicof the S group.
Do we findfurther help
16 E. P. DARGAN
in the ordinarymotifs
Of his 41 common motifs,he has 26
with GS, 4 distinctive.
The value of these 4 must be examined.
They
consist in the statementsthat the bird and the beast each
seeks a trickor arts; that the pursuit
is swift; and that the beast
is called a ravisher. But on close inspection
none of these is
found to be identical.^ The resemblance with GS is therefore
not marked. Ba's kinship
to the S group
is much closer. They
share 4 distinctivemotifs,3 of which are significant. With the
M
group
it agrees
in 3 peculiarities,
rather unimportant.
But
what we especially
note is that Ba furtherremoved fromGS by
the introductionof new material found either in the M group,
the S group, or both. Such are the fact that the cock is already
singing;
the fox is told to hear; the fox runs to a grove;
also 7
others,making
motifs
in all which are not in GS. Therefore
Ba is nearer Alfred than GS; and since he bears the specific
marksof the S group,
we are tempted
to conclude him out of the
common source with RM, which has been called x. But here
external considerations must give
us pause.
The differencein
date between Ba and S is over three hundred years.
A common
source for them, without intermediaries, seems improbable.
Accordingly,
since some distinctiveresemblancewith M has been
remarked,we may assign
him hesitatingly
to Al.'
For BR (^) the same internal arguments
hold with even greater
force, and the claims of date are less imperious. He^ has 44
motifs,only
4 distinctive. Of the 40, only 22 derive fromGS,
and BR would thereforeseem even more remote from (^) X than
either Ba or the M group.
One distinctivemotifwith (^) GS counts
for but little. With the M group
he has also one distinctive.
But with the S group
he has more than Ba-no less than 12 in
all distinctive. When we consider that among
these are num-
bered the cock's words, "thou liest, I am not thine, but theirs
(or mine),"
and the circumstanceof the fox beating
his mouth,I
think it is clear enough,
since neitherof these peculiarities pro-
ceeds from (^) GS and neither is found in the M group, that the
association of BR with the S group
is of the closest. The x
1
Baldo has always been a puzzle. He generally derives from Kalilah (^) and Dirnah,
which, however, has not this fable.
18 E. P. DARGAN
It is now necessary
to consider the Chaucer question,
with his
relation to Henryson
and Marie. As the firsttwo are epic
ver-
sions, only
that portion
of their stories has been entered in the
table which corresponds
to the story
of the fable proper. Henry-
son undoubtedly
derives from Chaucer, as he follows him in 42
motifs,15 distinctive,1 more
distinctiveto the two plus
M. (^) Ch
and H also agree
in several epic details omitted from the table.
It is known that Henryson
imitated Chaucer in another poem.
ThereforeCh > H, almost certainly,
as a direct source.
But what is their relation to Marie? She has nothing
dis-
tinctivewith H. With Ch she has 36 in common, peculiar
to
the two. On general principles
it is highlyprobable
that Chaucer
was indebted here to some French source, as he oftenwas. The
French formof the words,the proper names, the mannerof tell-
ing,
all point
to the same conclusion. Is this source Marie or
another? Is it the Roman de Renart, and if so, what is Marie's
connectionwith the Renart?
It is impossible here to go thoroughly
into this matter,which
would involve us with the whole epic cycle
of the fox,including
the Renart, Reineke Fuchs, Ysengrimus, etc.^ Grimm,Warnke,
Voretsch, Miss
(^) Petersen, et al., have handled the subject
ex-
haustively,and some of their conclusions will be reserved for
later comment. Sufficeit now to say that,judging
frommotifs
as we are doing, the Renart is much nearer Chaucer than is any
other version. Here is the Renart storyin brief:'
ConstantDesnoeshas an excellentgarden,orchard,and poultry-yard.
Reynard
entersthis last to see whathe can get. The cock,Chanticler,
has had a dreamwhichhe recountsto Pintainhis (^) wife;who interprets
it
as foretellinghis^ deathat the hands--or
teeth-of Reynard.Chanticler
scoffsat thisidea,and goes
to sun himselfin the dust-heap,stretching
himselfout and closinghis eyes. Up rushes^ Reynard;but the cock
escapes him
to take refugeon a dung-heap. Reynardflattershim in
regardto his voice,and says that
(^) Chanticlin,the fatherof Chanticler,
used to sing gloriouslywithhis eyes closed. In emulation,Chanticler
does thesamething,and is at once seized by Reynard,who rushesoff
withthe cock in his mouth,pursuedby Constantand his farm-hands.
ChanticlertellsReynardtocryout^ to thepursuersthat,in spiteof^ them,
he is takingoffthecock. The idea^ ticklesReynard'sfancy,and he^ opens
1Abstract by Mr. Easter.^ Roman de Renart, ed. Martin, Branch II, 11.25-468.
COCK AND Fox 19
his mouthso to^ do, whenforthleaps thecockand speedilyseeksa place
of safety;whencehe preachesa sermonto^ Reynardfromthe^ textthat
he does (^) wrongwho sleepswhenhe should^ watch. Reynardgoes away
hungryand sad, leavingthecockrejoicing
at his unexpectedescape.
The points
where this agrees distinctively
with Chaucer are
the poultry-yard,(2) Chanticler, (3)
the dream, (4) the
cock's wife, (5)
the fox is incited to cry
that he will carry
offhis
prey anyhow.
Marie has this last in a modifiedform,and she
has also among others,the two distinctive motifs^
of the dung-
heap
and the word "watch" in the moral. It would seem, then,
that Marie is the connecting-link
betweenthe epic
and the fabular
versions (which
is at any
rate an importantpoint gained);
and
that Renart-or his supposititious putative
brother-is the con-
necting
link betweenMarie and Chaucer. Thereforewe may sup-
pose
either (1)
that Renart as to this episode
is an amplification
of Marie; hence
M > Renart> Chaucer> H
Or else (2)
SRenart
x > Ch > H
The latter is perhaps
the safer hypothesis.
An intermediary
version or two between^ Marie and the Renart may
be allowed.
The circle of the versions has again
been completed.
All the
results deducible from the internal evidence in the formsof the
regular
fable have been obtained. Their examination has led to
the inferencessummed up
in the tree appearing
at the top
of the
next page--which
is not yet
definitive.
VI. RELATED FABLES
But this is not all. There are, besides the regular versions,
several stories more or less like the Cock and Fox, some of
which may very
well have had influence upon
our fable. Among
these are:
- Juan Manuel,Conde Lucanor,ed. Kunst and Birsch-Hirschfeld
(Leipzig,1900),p. 53.^
The onlyvisibleconnectionwithourstoryis that
thefoxtriestoget thecockout of a tree. He finallyscaresthebirdout
by gnawingthe bark,and thus,makinghim fly
fromtreeto tree,tires
himout in theend.
