Chapter XX: Part 20

[8] The following are translations from Saxo, the _Wilkina Saga_, and
the _Malleus Maleficarum_. The question is completely set at rest by
Grimm, _D. M._ p. 353 fol. and p. 1214.
“Nor is the following story to be wrapped in silence. A certain
Palnatoki, for some time among King Harold’s bodyguard, had made
his bravery odious to very many of his fellow-soldiers by the zeal
with which he surpassed them in the discharge of his duty. This man
once, when talking tipsily over his cups, had boasted that he was
so skilled an archer, that he could hit the smallest apple placed a
long way off on a wand at the first shot; which talk, caught up at
first by the ears of backbiters, soon came to the hearing of the
king. Now, mark how the wickedness of the king turned the
confidence of the sire to the peril of the son, by commanding that
this dearest pledge of his life should be placed instead of the
wand, with a threat that, unless the author of this promise could
strike off the apple at the first flight of the arrow, he should
pay the penalty of his empty boasting by the loss of his head. The
king’s command forced the soldier to perform more than he had
promised, and what he _had_ said, reported by the tongues of
slanderers, bound him to accomplish what he had _not_ said”…“Nor
did his sterling courage, though caught in the snare of slander,
suffer him to lay aside his firmness of heart; nay, he accepted the
trial the more readily because it was hard. So Palnatoki warned the
boy urgently when he took his stand to await the coming of the
hurtling arrow with calm ears and unbent head, lest by a slight
turn of his body he should defeat the practised skill of the
bowman; and, taking further counsel to prevent his fear, he turned
away his face lest he should be scared at the sight of the weapon.
Then taking three arrows from the quiver, he struck the mark given
him with the first he fitted to the string. But, if chance had
brought the head of the boy before the shaft, no doubt the penalty
of the son would have recoiled to the peril of the father, and the
swerving of the shaft that struck the boy would have linked them
both in common ruin. I am in doubt, then, whether to admire most
the courage of the father or the temper of the son, of whom the one
by skill in his art avoided being the slayer of his child, while
the other by patience of mind and quietness of body saved himself
alive, and spared the natural affection of his father. Nay, the
youthful frame strengthened the aged heart, and showed as much
courage in awaiting the arrow as the father, skill in launching it.
But Palnatoki, when asked by the king why he had taken more arrows
from the quiver, when it had been settled that he should only try
the fortune of the bow _once_, made answer ‘That I might avenge on
thee the swerving of the first by the points of the rest, lest
perchance my innocence might have been punished, while your
violence escaped scot-free’”.— _Saxo Gram._, Book X, (p. 166, ed.
Frankf.)
“About that time the young Egill, Wayland’s brother, came to the
court of King Nidung, because Wayland (Smith) had sent him word.
Egill was the fairest of men and one thing he had before all other
men—he shot better with the bow than any other man. The king took
to him well, and Egill was there a long time. Now, the king wished
to try whether Egill shot so well as was said or not, so he let
Egill’s son, a boy of three years old, be taken, and made them put
an apple on his head, and bade Egill shoot so that the shaft struck
neither above the head nor to the left nor to the right; the apple
only was he to split. But it was not forbidden him to shoot the
boy, for the king thought it certain that he would do that on no
account if he could at all help it. And he was to shoot one arrow
only, no more. So Egill takes three, and strokes their feathers
smooth, and fits one to his string, and shoots and hits the apple
in the middle, so that the arrow took along with it half the apple,
and then fell to the ground. This master-shot has long been talked
about, and the king made much of him, and he was the most famous of
men. Now, King Nidung asked Egill why he took out _three_ arrows,
when it was settled that one only was to be shot with. Then Egill
answered ‘Lord’, said he, ‘I will not lie to you; had I stricken
the lad with that one arrow, then I had meant these two for you.’
But the king took that well from him, and all thought it was boldly
spoken”.—_Wilkina Saga_, ch. 27 (ed. Pering).
“It is related of him (Puncher) that a certain lord, who wished to
obtain a sure trial of his skill, set up his little son as a butt,
and for a mark a shilling on the boy’s cap, commanding him to carry
off the shilling without the cap with his arrow. But when the
wizard said he could do it, though he would rather abstain, lest
the Devil should decoy him to destruction; still, being led on by
the words of the chief, he thrust one arrow through his collar,
and, fitting the other to his crossbow, struck off the coin from
the boy’s cap without doing him any harm; seeing which, when the
lord asked the wizard why he had placed the arrow in his collar? he
answered ‘If by the Devil’s deceit I had slain the boy, when I
needs must die, I would have transfixed you suddenly with the other
arrow, that even so I might have avenged my death.’”—_Malleus
Malef._, p. ii, ch. 16.

[9] See _Pantcha-Tantra_, v. ii of Wilson’s _Analysis_, quoted by Loiseleur Deslongchamps, _Essai sur les Fables Indiennes_ (Paris, Techener, 1838, p. 54), where the animal that protects the child is a mangouste (Viverra Mungo). See also _Hitopadesa_, (Max Müller’s Translation, Leipzig, Brockhaus, p. 178) where the guardian is an otter. In both the foe is a snake.

[10] Moe Introd. xxxii.-iii

[11] The account in the _Nibelungen_ respecting the _Tarnhut_ is confused, and the text probably corrupt; but so much is plain, that Siegfried got it from Elberich in the struggle which ensued with Schilbung and Niblung, after he had shared the Hoard.

[12] Thus we find it in the originals or the parallels of Grendel in _Beowulf_, of Rumpelstiltskin, of the recovery of the Bride by the ring dropped into the cup, as related in “Soria Moria Castle,” and other tales; of the “wishing ram”, which in the Indian story becomes a “wishing cow”, and thus reminds us of the bull in one of these Norse Tales, out of whose ear came a “wishing cloth”; of the lucky child, who finds a purse of gold under his pillow every morning; and of the red lappet sown on the sleeping lover, as on Siegfried in the _Nibelungen_. The devices of Upakosa, the faithful wife, remind us at once of “the Master-maid”, and the whole of the stories of Saktideva and the Golden City, and of Viduschaka, King Adityasena’s daughter, are the same in groundwork and in many of their incidents as “East o’ the Sun, and West o’ the Moon”, “the Three Princesses of Whiteland”, and “Soria Moria Castle”.

[13] J. Grimm, _Reinhart Fuchs_, cclxiii, Intr.

[14] _Kinder and Hausmärchen_, vol. 3, _3d_ edition (Göttingen, 1856) a volume worthy of the utmost attention.

[15] note Kölle, _Kanuri Proverbs and Fables_ (London Church Missionary House, 1854), a book of great philological interest, and one which reflects great credit on the religious society by which it was published.

[16] _Kanuri Proverbs_, p. 167.

[17] Notte Duodecima. Favola terza. “Pederigo da Pozzuolo che intendeva il linguaggio de gli animali, astretto dalla moglie dirle un segreto, quella stranamente battè.”

[18] The story of the Two Brothers Anesou and Satou, from the _D’Orbiney Papyrus_, by De Ronge, Paris, 1852.

[19] See the Ananzi Stories in the Appendix, which have been taken down from the mouth of a West Indian nurse.

[20] _The Deeds of Bogda Gesser Chan_, by I. J. Schmidt (Petersburg and Leipzig, 1839).

[21] _Oxford Essays for_ 1858: “The Norsemen in Iceland”.

[22] See _Anecd. and Trad._, Camd. Soc. 1839, pp. 92 fol. See also the passages from Anglo-Saxon laws against “well-waking”, which Grimm has collected: _D. M._, p. 550.

[23] D. M., p. 900: _Wütendes Heer_

[24] Heb., xiii, 1: “Let brotherly love continue. Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”

[25] One of Odin’s names, when on these adventures, was Gangradr, or Gangleri. Both mean “the _Ganger_, or way-farer”. We have the latter epithet in the “_Gangrel_ carle”, and “_Gangrel loon_”, of the early Scotch ballads.

[26] So also Orion’s Belt was called by the Norsemen, Frigga’s spindle or _rock, Friggjar rock_. In modern Swedish, _Friggerock_, where the old goddess holds her own; but in Danish, _Mariaerock_, Our Lady’s rock or spindle. Thus, too, _Karlavagn_, the “car of men”, or heroes, who rode with Odin, which we call “Charles’ Wain”, thus keeping something, at least, of the old name, though none of its meaning, became in Scotland “Peter’s-pleugh”, from the Christian saint, just as Orion’s sword became “Peter’s-staff”. But what do “Lady Landers” and “Lady Ellison” mean, as applied to the “Lady-Bird” in Scotland?

[27] D. M., p. 126 fol., where they are cited at length.

[28] Snorro’s _Edda_, Stockholm, 1842, translated by the writer.

[29] See the well-known story of “The Luck of Eden Hall”.

[30] Hist., ii, 16.

[31] Snor. _Ed. Skaldsk._, ch. 43.

[32] St Luke, x, 18.

[33] Snor. _Edda,_ ch. 34, Engl. Transl.

[34] Here are a few of these passages which might be much extended:
Burchard of Worms, p. 194, a. “credidisti ut aliqua femina sit quae
hoc facere possit quod quaedam a diabolo deceptae se affirmant
necessario et ex praecepto facere debere; id est cum daemonum turba in
similitudinem mulierum transformata, quam vulgaris stultitia _Holdam_
vocat, certis noctibus equitare debere super quasdam bestias, et in
eorum se consortio annumeratam esse.”
“Illud etiam non omittendum, quod quasdam sceleratae mulieres retro
post Sathanam conversae, daemonum illusionibus et phantasmatibus
seductae credunt se et profitentur nocturnis horis cum _Diana_
paganorum dea, vel cum _Herodiade_ et innumera multitudine mulierum
equitare super quasdam bestias, et multa terrarum spatia
intempestae noctis silentio pertransire, ejusque jussionibus velut
_Dominae_ obedire et certis noctibus ad ejus servitium evocari.”
—Burchard of Worms, 10, I.
“Quale est, quod noctilucam quandam, vel _Herodiadem_, vel
praesidem noctis Dominam concilia et conventus de nocte asserunt
convocare, varia celebrari convivia, etc.”—Joh. Sarisberiensis
Polycrat. 2, 17 (died 1182).
“_Herodiam_ illam baptistae Christi interfectricem, quasi reginam,
immo deam proponant, asserentes tertiam totius mundi partem illi
traditam.”—Rather. Cambrens. (died 974).
“Sic et daemon qui praetextu mulieris cum aliis de nocte, domos et
cellaria dicitur frequentare, et vocant eam _Satiam_ a satietate,
et _Dominam Abundiam_ pro abundantia, quam eam praestare dicunt
domibus quas frequentaverit; hujusmodi etiam daemones quas _dominas
vocant_, vetulae penes quas error iste remansit et a quibus solis
creditur et somniatur.”—Guilielmus Alvernus, 1, 1036 (died 1248).
So also the Roman de la Rose (Meon line 18, 622.)

Qui les cinc sens ainsinc deçoit Par les fantosmes, qu’il reçoit, Don maintes gens par lor folie Cuident estre par nuit estries, _Errans_ aveques _Dame Habonde;_ Et dient, que par tout le monde _Li tiers enfant_ de nacion _Sunt de ceste condicion._

And again, line 18,686:

Dautre part, _que li tiers du monde_ _Aille_ ainsinc _eavec Dame Habonde_.

[35] See the derivation of _pagan_ from paganus, one who lived in the country, as opposed to urbanus, a townsman.

[36] Snorro’s _Edda_, Dasent’s Translation, pp. 29 (Stockholm 1842).

[37] Keisersberg Omeiss, 46 b., quoted by Grimm, _D.M._ pp. 991, says:
“Wen man ein man verbrent, so brent man wol zehen frauen.”

[38] See the passage from Vincent, _Bellov. Spec. Mor._, iii, 2, 27, quoted in Grimm, _D. M._ pp. 1,012-3.

[39] The following passage from _The Fortalice of Faith_ of Alphonso
Spina, written about the year 1458, will suffice to show how
disgustingly the Devil, in the form of a goat, had supplanted the
“Good Lady”: Quia nimium abundant tales perversae mulieres ine
Delphinatu et Guasconia, ubi se asserunt concurrere de nocte in quâdam
planitie deserta ubi est _caper quidam in rupe_, qui vulgariter
dicitur _el boch de Biterne_ et clued ibi _conveniunt cum candelis
accensis et adorant illum caprum osculpntes eum in ano suo_. Ideo
captae plures earum, ab inquisitoribus fidei et convictae
comburuntur.”
About the same time, too, began to spread the notion of formal
written agreements between the Fiend and men who were to be his
after a certain time, during which he was to help them to all
earthly goods. This, too, came with Christianity from the East. The
first instance was Theophilus, vicedominus of the Bishop of Adana,
whose fall and conversion form the original of all the Faust
Legends. See Grimm, D. M. 969, and “Theophilus in Icelandic, Low
German, and other tongues, by G. W. Dasent, Stockholm, 1845.” There
a complete account of the literature of the legend may be found. In
almost all these early cases the Fiend is outwitted by the help of
the Virgin or some other saint, and in this way the reader is
reminded of the Norse Devil, the successor of the Giants, who
always makes bad bargains. When the story was applied to Faust in
the sixteenth century, the terrible Middle Age Devil was paramount,
and knew how to exact his due.

[40] How strangely full of common sense sounds the following article
from the Capitularies of Charlemagne, _De part. Sax._, 5:
“Si quis a diabolo deceptus crediderit secundum morem. Paganorum,
virum aliquem aut faeminam strigam esse et homines comedere, et
propter hoc ipsum incenderit, vel carnem eius ad comedendum
dederit, capitis sententia punietur.” And this of Rotharius, Lex.
Roth., 379: “Nullus praesumat aldiam alienam aut ancillam quasi
strigam occidere, quod Christianis mentibus nullatenus est
credendum nec possible est, ut hominem mulier vivum intrinsecus
possit comedere.”
Here the law warns the common people from believing in witches, and
from taking its functions into their own hands, and reasons with
them against the absurdity of such delusions. So, too, that
reasonable parish priest who thrashed the witch, though earlier in
time, was far in advance of Gregory and his inquisitors, and even
of our wise King James.

[41] The following is the title of this strange tract, _Newes from Scotland, declaring the damnable life of Doctor Fian, a notable Sorcerer, who was burned at Edenbrough, in Januarie last 1591, which Doctor was register to the devil, that sundrie times preached at North Baricke Kirke to a number of notorious Witches. With the true examinations of the said Doctor and witches, as they uttered them in the presence of the Scottish king. Discovering how they pretended to bewitch and drowne his Majestic in the sea, comming from Denmarke, with such other wonderfull matters as the like, hath not bin heard at anie time_. Published according to the Scottish copie. Printed for William Wright. It was reprinted in 1816 for the Roxburghe Club by Mr H. Freeling, and is very scarce even in the reprint, which, all things considered, is perhaps just as well.

[42] The following specimens of the tortures and confessions may suffice; but most of the crimes and confessions are unutterable. One Geillis Duncane was tortured by her master, David Seaton, dwelling within the town of Tranent, who, “with the help of others, did torment her with the torture of the Pilliwinkes (thumbscrews), upon her fingers, and binding and wrinching her head with a cord or roape, which is a most cruel torment also.” So also Agnes Sampson, “the eldest witch of them all, dwelling in Haddington, being brought to Haleriud House before the kinge’s majestie and sundry other of the nobilitie of Scotland, had her head thrawne with a rope according to the custom of that countrie, beeing a payne most greevous.” After the Devil’s mark is found on her she confesses that she went to sea with two hundred others in sieves to the kirk of North Berwick in East Lothian, and after they had landed they “took handes on the lande and daunted, this reill or short daunce, saying all with one voice:

Commer goe ye before, Commer goe ye, Gif ye will not goe before, Commer let me.

“At which time she confessed that this Geillis Duncane did goe before them playing this reill or daunce upon a small trumpe called a Jew’s trump, until they entered into the kirk of North Barrick.” “As touching the aforesaid Doctor Fian”, he “was taken and imprisoned, and used with the accustomed paine provided for these offences, inflicted upon the rest, as is aforesaid. First by thrawing of his head with a rope, whereat he would confesse nothing! Secondly, he was persuaded by faire means to confesse his follies, but that would prevaile as little. Lastly, he was put to the most severe and cruell paine in the world, called the Bootes, who, after he had received three strokes, being inquired if he would confesse his damnable actes and wicked life, his toong would not serve him to spaake.” This inability, produced no doubt by pain, the other witches explain by saying that the Devil’s mark had not been found, which, being found, “the charm” was “stinted”, and the Doctor, in dread probably of a fourth stroke, confessed unutterably shameful things. Having escaped from prison, of course by the aid of the Devil, he was pursued, and brought back and re-examined before the king. “But this Doctor, notwithstanding that his own confession appeareth remaining in recorde, under his owne handewriting, and the same thereunto fixed in the presence of the King’s majestie and sundrie of his councell, yet did he utterly deny the same, whereupon the King’s majestie, perceiving his stubborne wilfulness…he was commanded to have a most strange torment, which was done in this manner following: His nailes upon all his fingers were riven and pulled off with an instrument called in Scottish a Turkas, which in England wee call a payre of pincars, and under everie nayle there was thrust in two needels over even up to the heads. At all which torments, notwithstanding the Doctor never shronke anie whit; neither would he then confesse it the sooner for all the tortures inflicted upon him. “Then was he with all convenient speed, by commandement convaied againe to the torment of the Bootes, wherein hee continued a long time, and did abide so many blowes in them, that his legges were crusht and beaten together as small as might bee, and the bones and flesh so brused that the blond and marrow spouted forth in great abundance, wherby they were made unserviceable for ever. And notwithstanding all these grievous panes and cruel torments, he would not confesse aniething, so deepely had the Devil entered into his heart, that hee utterly denied all that which he had before avouched, and would saie nothing thereunto but this, that what he had done and sayde before, was onely done and saide for fear of paynes which he had endured.” Thereupon as “a due execution of justice” “and “for example sake”, he was tried, sentenced, put into a cart, strangled and immediately put into a great fire, being readie provided for that purpose, and there burned in the Castle Hill of Edenbrough on a saterdaie, in the ende of Januaire last past, 1591.” The tract ends significantly: “The rest of the witches which are not yet executed remayne in prison till further triall and knowledge of his majestie’s pleasure.”

[43] Od., iii, 372; and xxii, 239

[44] _Ecl._, viii, 97:
His ego sæpe lupum fieri et se condere silvis
Mærin—vidi.

[45] See Grimm’s _D.M._, 1,047 fol.; and for this translation from Petronius, a very interesting letter prefixed to Madden’s Ed. of the old English Romance of _William and the Werewolf_, 1832, one of the Roxburghe Club Publications. This letter, which was by the hand of Mr Herbert of Petworth, contains all that was known on this subject before Grimm; but when Grimm came he was, compared with all who had treated the subject, as a sober man amongst drunkards.

[46] _Bisclavaret_ in the _Lais_ of Marie de France, 1, 178 seems to be a corruption of Bleizgarou, as the Norman _garwal_ is of _garwolf_. See also Jamieson Dict., under _warwolf_.

[47] _Fornald Sög_, i, 130, 131.

[48] See Landnama in many places. _Egil’s Sag., Hrolf Krak. Sag._

[49] _Troldham, at kaste ham paa._ Comp. the old Norse _hamr, hamför, hammadr, hamrammr_, which occur repeatedly in the same sense.

[50] Reinhart Fuchs, Introduction

[51] Grimm, _Irisch. Elfenm._, 114-9, and _D. M._, 447.

[52] Comp. Vict. Hugo, _Nôtre-Dame de Paris_, where he tells us that the gipsies called the wolf _piedgris_. See also Grimm, _D. M._, 633 and _Reinhart_, lv, ccvii, and 446.

[53] Douce, _Illust. to Shakspeare_, ii, 33, 344, quoted in _Reinhart Fuchs_, ccxxi.

[54] _Germania_, 9, 10.

[55] Snorro’s _Edda_, ch. vi, English translation.

[56] Thus from the earliest times “dog”, “hound”, has been a term of reproach. Great instances of fidelity, such as “Gellert” or the “Dog of Montargis”, both of which are Eastern and primeval, have scarcely redeemed the cringing currish nature of the race in general from disgrace. M. Francisque Michel, in his _Histoire des Races Maudites de da France et de l’Espagne_, thinks it probable that _Cagot_, the nickname by which the heretical Goths who fled into Aquitaine in the time of Charles Martel, and received protection from that king and his successors, were called by the Franks, was derived from the term _Canis Gothicus_ or _Canes Gothi_. In modern French the word means hypocrite, and this would come from the notion of the outward conformity to the Catholic formularies imposed on the Arian Goths by their orthodox protectors. Etymologically, the derivation is good enough, according to Diez, _Romanisches Wörterbuch_ ; Provençal _ca_, dog; _Get_, Gothic. Before quitting _Cagot_, we may observe that the derivation of _bigot_, our bigot, another word of the same kind, is not so clear. Michel says it comes from _Vizigothus, Bizigothus_. Diez says this is too far-fetched, especially as “Bigot”, “Bigod”, was a term applied to the Normans, and not to the population of the South of France. There is, besides another derivation given by Ducange from a Latin chronicle of the twelfth century. In speaking of the homage done by Rollo, the first Duke of Normandy, to the King of France, he says: Hic non dignatus pedem Caroli osculari nisi ad os suum levaret, cumque sui comites illum admonerent ut pedem Regis in acceptione tanti muneris, Neustriae provinciae, oscularetur, Anglica lingua respondit “_ne se bi got_”, quod interpretatur “ne per deum”. Rex vero et sui illum deridentes, et sermonem ejus corrupte referentes, illum vocaverunt Bigottum; unde Normanni adhuc Bigothi vocantur. Wace, too, says, in the _Roman de Rou_, that the French had abused the Normans in many ways, calling them Bigos. It is also termed, in a French record of the year 1429, “_un mot très injurieux_”. Diez says it was not used in its present sense before the sixteenth century.

[57] The most common word for a giant in the Eddas was Jötunn (A. S. _coten_ ), which, strange to say, survives in the Scotch Etin. In one or two places the word _ogre_ has been used, which is properly a Romance word, and comes from the French _ogre_, Ital. _orco_, Lat. _orcus_. Here, too, we have an old Roman god of the nether world degraded.

[58] These paroxysms were called in Old Norse _Jötunmodr_, the _Etin mood_, as opposed to _Asmodr, the mood of the Aesir_, that diviner wrath which, though burning hot, was still under the control of reason.

[59] It may be worth while here to shew how old and widespread this custom or notion of the “naked sword” was. In the North, besides being told of Sigurd and Brynhildr, we hear it of Hrólf and Ingigerd, who took rest at night in a hut of leaves in the wood, and lay together, “but laid a naked sword between them”. So also Saxo Grammaticus says of King Gorm, “Caeterum ne inconcessum virginis amorem libidinoso complexu praeripere videretur, vicina latera non solum alterius complexibus exult, sed etiam _districto mucrone_ secrevit. Lib. 9, p.179. So also Tristan and Isolt in Gottfried of Strasburg’s poem, line 17,407-17.

Hierüber vant Tristan einen sin, Si giengen an ir bette wider, Und leiten sich dâ wider nider, Von einander wol pin dan, Reht als man and man, Niht als man and wîp; Dâ lac lîp and lîp, In fremder gelegenheit, Ouch hât Tristan geleit Sîn _swert bar_ enzwischen si.

And the old French Tristan in the same way:

Et qant il vit la nue _espee_ Qui entre eus deus les deseurout.

So the old English Tristrem, line 2,002-3:

His sword he drough titly And laid it _hem bitvene_.

And the old German ballad in _Des Knaben Wunderhorn_, 2, 276:

Der Herzog zog aus sein goldiges schwert, Er leit es zwischen beide hert Das schwert soll weder hauen noch schneiden, Das Annelein soll ein megedli bleiben.

So Fonzo and Fenizia in the _Pentamerone_, I, 9:
Ma segnenno havere fatto vuto a Diana, de non toccare la mogliere
la notte, mese la spata arranata comme staccione “miezo ad isso ed
a Fenizia.
And in Grimm’s story of “The Two Brothers” where the second brother
lays “a double-edged sword” at night between himself and his
brother’s wife, who has mistaken him for his twin brother. In fact
the custom as William Wackernagel has shewn in _Haupt’s Zeitschrift
für Deutsches Alterthum_ was one recognized by the law; and so late
as 1477, when Lewis, County Palatine of Veldenz represented
Maximilian of Austria as his proxy at the betrothal of Mary of
Burgundy, he got into the bed of state, booted and spurred, and
laid a naked sword between him and the bride. Comp. Birkens
Ehrenspiegel, p. 885. See also as a proof that the custom was known
in England as late as the seventeenth century, _The Jovial Crew_, a
comedy first acted in 1641, and quoted by Sir W. Scott in his
_Tristrem_, p. 345, where it is said (Act V, sc. 2): “He told him
that he would be his proxy, and marry her for him, and lie with her
the first night with a naked cudgel betwixt them.” And see for the
whole subject, J. Grimm’s _Deutsche Rechts-Alterthümer_, Göttingen,
1828, p. 168-70.

[60] M. Moe, _Introd. Norsk. Event_ (Christiania, 1851, 2d Ed.), to which the writer is largely indebted.

[61] _Popular Rhymes of Scotland_ (Ed. 1847).

[62] The following list, which only selects the more prominent collections, will suffice to show that Popular Tales have a literature of their own:—Sanscrit. The _Pantcha Tantra_, “The Five Books”, a collection of fables of which only extracts have as yet been published, but of which Professor Wilson has given an analysis in the Transactions of the Asiatic Society, vol. I, sect. 2. The _Hitopadesa_, or “Wholesome Instruction”, a selection of tales and fables from the Pantcha Tantra, first edited by Carey at Serampore in 1804; again by Hamilton in London in 1810; again in Germany by A. W. von Schlegel in 1829, an edition which was followed in 1831 by a critical commentary by Lassen; and again in 1830 at Calcutta with a Bengali and English translation. The work had been translated into English by Wilkins so early as 1787, when it was published in London, and again by Sir William Jones, whose rendering, which is not so good as that by Wilkins, appeared after his death in the collected edition of his works. Into German it has been translated in a masterly way by Max Müller, Leipzig, Brockhaus, 1844. Versions of these Sanscrit collections, the date of the latter of which is ascribed to the end of the second century of the Christian era, varying in many respects, but all possessing sufficient resemblance to identify them with their Sanscrit originals, are found in almost every Indian dialect, and in Zend, Arabic, Persian, Hebrew, Greek and Turkish. We are happy to be able to state here that the eminent Sanscrit scholar, Professor Benfey of Göttingen, is now publishing a German translation of the _Pantcha Tantra_, which will be accompanied by translations of numerous compositions of the same kind, drawn from unpublished Sanscrit works, and from the legends current amongst the Mongolian tribes. The work will be preceded by an introduction embracing the whole question of the origin and diffusion of fables and popular tales. The following will be the title of Prof. Benfey’s work: “_Pantcha Tantra. Erster Theil, Fünf Bücher Indischer Fabeln, Märchen, and Erzählungen_. Aus dem Sanskrit übersetzt, mit Anmerkungen and Einleitung über das Indische Grundwerk und dessen Ausflüsse, so wie über die Quellen und Verbreitung des Inhalts derselben. Zweiter Theil, Übersetzungen und Anmerkungen.” Most interesting of all for our purpose is the collection of Sanscrit Tales, collected in the twelfth century of our era, by Somadeva Bhatta of Cashmere. This has been published in Sanscrit, and translated into German by Hermann Brockhaus, and the nature of its contents has already been sufficiently indicated. We may add, however, that Somadeva’s collection exhibits the Hindoo mind in the twelfth century in a condition, as regards popular tales, which the mind of Europe has not yet reached. How old these stories and fables must have been in the East, we see both from the _Pantcha Tantra_ and the _Hitopadesa_, which are strictly didactic works, and only employ tales and fables to illustrate and inculcate a moral lesson. We in the West have got beyond fables and apologues, but we are only now collecting our popular tales. In Somadeva’s time the simple tale no longer sufficed; it had to be fitted into and arranged with others, with an art and dexterity which is really marvellous; and so cleverly is this done, that it requires a mind of no little cultivation, and a head of more than ordinary clearness, to carry without confusion all the wheels within wheels, and fables within fables, which spring out of the original story as it proceeds. In other respects the popular tale loses in simplicity what it gains in intricacy by this artificial arrangement; and it is evident that in the twelfth century the Hindoo tales had been long since collected out of the mouths of the people, and reduced to writing; in a word, that the popular element had disappeared, and that they had passed into the written literature of the race. We may take this opportunity, too, to mention that a most curious collection of tales and fables, translated from Sanscrit, has recently been discovered in Chinese. They are on the eve of publication by M. Stanislas Julien, the first of Chinese scholars; and from the information on the matter which Professor Max Müller has kindly furnished to the translator, it appears that they passed with Buddhism from India into China. The work from which M. Julien has taken these fables, which are all the more precious because the Sanscrit originals have in all probability perished,—is called _Yu-lin_, or “The Forest of Comparisons”. It was the work of Youen-thai, a great Chinese scholar, who was President of the Ministry of justice at Pekin in the year 1565 of our era. He collected in twenty-four volumes, after the labour of twenty years, during which he read upwards of four hundred works, all the fables and comparisons he could find in ancient books. Of those works, two hundred were translations from the Sanscrit made by Buddhist monks, and it is from eleven of these that M. Julien has translated his Chinese Fables. We need hardly say that this work is most anxiously expected by all who take an interest in such matters. Let it be allowed to add here, that it was through no want of respect towards the memory of M. de Sacy that the translator has given so much prominence to the views and labours of the Brothers Grimm in this Introduction. To M. de Sacy belongs all the merit of exploring what may be called the old written world of fable. He, and Warton, and Dunlop, and Price, too, did the day’s work of Giants, in tracing out and classifying those tales and fables which had passed into the literature of the Aryan race. But, besides this old region, there is another new hemisphere of fiction which lies in the mouths and in the minds of the people. This new world of fable the Grimms discovered, and to them belongs the glory of having brought all its fruits and flowers to the light of day. This is why their names must ever be foremost in a work on Popular Tales, shining, as their names must ever shine, a bright double star in that new hemisphere. In more modern times, the earliest collection of popular tales is to be found in the _Piacevoli Notte_ of John Francis Straparola of Caravaggio, near Milan, the first edition of which appeared at Venice in 1550. The book, which is shamefully indecent, even for that age, and which at last, in 1606, was placed in the _Index Expurgatorius_, contains stories from all sources, and amongst them nineteen genuine popular tales, which are not disfigured by the filth with which the rest of the volume is full. Straparola’s work has been twice translated into German, once at Vienna, 1791, and again by Schmidt in a more complete form, _Märchen-Saal_, Berlin, 1817. But a much more interesting Italian collection appeared at Naples in the next century. This was the _Pentamerone_ of Giambattista Basile, who wrote in the Neapolitan dialect, and whose book appeared in 1637. This collection contains forty-eight tales, and is in tone, and keeping, and diction, one of the best that has ever appeared in any language. It has been repeatedly reprinted at Naples. It has been translated into German, and a portion of it, a year or two back, by Mr. Taylor, into English. In France the first collection of this kind was made by Charles Perrault, who, in 1697, published eight tales, under a title taken from an old _Fabliau_, _Contes de ma mère L’Oye_, whence comes our “Mother Goose”. To these eight, three more tales were added in later editions. Perrault was shortly followed by Madame D’Aulnoy (born in 1650, died 1705), whose manner of treating her tales is far less true to nature than Perrault’s, and who inserts at will, verses, alterations, additions, and moral reflections. Her style is sentimental and over-refined; the courtly airs of the age of Louis XIV predominate, and nature suffers by the change from the cottage to the palace. Madame d’Aulnoy was followed by a host of imitators; the Countess Mürat, who died in 1710; Countess d’Auneuil, who died in 1700; M. de Preschac, born 1676, who composed tales of utter worthlessness, which may be read as examples of what popular tales are not, in the collection called _Le Cabinet des Fées_, which was published in Paris in 1785. Not much better are the attempts of Count Hamilton, who died in 1720; of M. de Moncrif, who died in 1770; of Mademoiselle de la Force, died 1724; of Mademoiselle l’Heritier died 1737; of Count Caylus, who wrote his _Féeries Nouvelles_ in the first half of the 18th century, for the popular element fails almost entirely in their works. Such as they are, they may also be read in the _Cabinet des Fées_, a collection which ran to no fewer than forty-one volumes, and with which no lover of popular tradition need trouble himself much. To the playwright and the story-teller it has been a great repository, which has supplied the lack of original invention. In Germany we need trouble ourselves with none of the collections before the time of the Grimms, except to say that they are nearly worthless. In 1812-14 the two brothers, Jacob and William, brought out the first edition of their _Kinder-und Haus-Märchen_, which was followed by a second and more complete one in 1822: 3 vols., Berlin, Reimer. The two first volumes have been repeatedly republished, but few readers in England are aware of the existence of the third, a third edition of which appeared in 1856 at Göttingen, which contains the literature of these traditions, and is a monument of the care and pains with which the brothers, or rather William, for it is his work, even so far back as 1820, had traced out parallel traditions in other tribes and lands. This work formed an era in popular literature, and has been adopted as a model by all true collectors ever since. It proceeded on the principle of faithfully collecting these traditions from the mouths of the people, without adding one jot or tittle, or in any way interfering with them, except to select this or that variation as most apt or beautiful. To the adoption of this principle we owe the excellent Swedish collection of George Stephens and Hylten Cavallius, _Svenska Folk-Sagor og Aefventyr_, 2 vols. Stockholm 1844, and following years; and also this beautiful Norse one, to which Jacob Grimm awards the palm over all collections, except perhaps the Scottish, of MM. Asbjörnsen and Moe. To it also we owe many most excellent collections in Germany, over nearly the whole of which an active band of the Grimm’s pupils have gone gathering up as gleaners the ears which their great masters had let fall or let lie. In Denmark the collection of M. Winther, _Danske Folkeeventyr_, Copenhagen, 1823, is a praiseworthy attempt in the same direction; nor does it at all detract from the merit of H. C. Andersen as an original writer, to observe how often his creative mind has fastened on one of these national stories, and worked out of that piece of native rock a finished work of art. Though last not least, are to be reckoned the Scottish stories collected by Mr. Robert Chambers, of the merit of which we have already expressed our opinion in the text.

[63] After all, there is, it seems, a Scottish word which answers to _Askepot_ to a hair. See Jamieson’s _Dictionary_, where the reader will find _Ashiepattle_ as used in Shetland for a “neglected child”; and not in Shetland alone, but in Ayrshire, _Ashypet_, an adjective, or rather a substantive degraded to do the dirty work of an adjective, “one employed in the lowest kitchen work”. See too the quotation, “when I reached Mrs. Damask’s house she was gone to bed, and nobody to let me in, dripping wet as I was, but an _ashypet_ lassy, that helps her for a servant.”—_Steamboat_, p. 259. So again _Assiepet_, substantive “a dirty little creature, one that is constantly soiled with _ass_ or ashes”.

[64] The Sagas contain many instances of Norsemen who sat thus idly over the fire, and were thence called _Kolbitr_, _coalbiters_, but who afterwards became mighty men.

[65] Moe, _Introd. Norsk. Event._