Part 39
Among the preachers who interspersed their sermons with narrations of various kinds, a Carthusian monk of the fifteenth century deserves particular mention. With as much quaintness as humility, he styles himself _Guillelmus Hilacensis quondam simplex cordatus pauperculus discalciatus ac contemptibilis denudatus, sapientissimorum rudissimus, electorum infimus, et minorum minimus_. He has left a volume of sermons on the Lord's prayer, with stories in every page.[99] In the British Museum there is a very curious collection of Latin sermons, compiled about the reign of Henry the Sixth, by a person who calls himself a vicar of Magdalen college, Oxford. They abound with stories from Æsop, Cicero, Seneca, Valerius Maximus, Saint Austin, venerable Bede, &c.[100] Stephen Baron, an English Minorite in the reign of Henry the Eighth, has left a similar volume of sermons preached before the university of Cambridge.[101]
Among the most remarkable persons of this description who soon followed, were fathers Menot, Maillard, Barelete, Raulin, Vincent Ferrier, Pierre de Boves, &c., whose discourses are filled with quotations from Virgil, Valerius Maximus, Apuleius, Dante, Petrarch, and the _Gesta Romanorum_. Erasmus, ridiculing the absurdities of some of the theologians, mentions their practice of quoting the _Speculum historiale_ and _Gesta Romanorum_.[102] Schelhorn speaks of a copy of the latter in his possession, dated 1499, in which some former possessor had marked against many of the stories the year in which he had used them in his sermons.[103] Even in the eighteenth century the Italians had not left off this custom. Grosley states, that he heard a buffoon preacher at Rome, who stuffed his discourse with a thousand tales, among which was that of father Philip's geese, from Boccaccio.[104]
There is a remarkable work to which the preachers of the middle ages appear to have been indebted, and which deserves mention here not only on that account, but also from its having hitherto remained in unmerited obscurity. This may be partly owing to its having never been printed. It is a collection of tales and fables that has been ascribed to Odo de Ceriton, Shirton, or Cirington, for all these names are mentioned, a Cistercian monk of the twelfth century. In one manuscript they are called _proverbs_, and given to Hugo de Sancto Victore, of the monastery of Saint Victoire at Paris, and who lived much about the last-named period.[105] There is perhaps no task more difficult than that of ascertaining the real authors of many works of the middle ages, especially where, as in the present instance, there occurs any thing satirical against religious abuses. The evidence with respect to authorship is in favour of the Englishman, because in some of the stories English sentences are found. Nor do the sarcasms against the clergy militate in the least against ecclesiastical manufacture. Numerous instances could be brought to show the satirical spirit of the clergy, frequently towards each other, and generally against the church of Rome.
The work in question is an extraordinary mixture of Æsopian fables with pious and profane histories in great variety. One or two specimens have been already given,[106] but the reader may not regret the trouble of perusing the following in addition. "There is a kind of wren, named after Saint Martin, with very long and slender legs. This bird sitting one day in a tree, in the fullness of his pride suddenly exclaimed; 'It matters not to me though the heavens fall; for with the aid of my strong legs I shall be able to support them.' Presently a leaf fell upon the foolish boaster, who immediately flew away in great terror, exclaiming, 'O Saint Martin, Saint Martin, help your poor bird!'" The moral compares Saint Peter denying Christ to this wren, which it also assimilates to certain pot-valiant soldiers, who boast, in their cups, that each of them can beat three of the stoutest Frenchmen. Again: "Isengrin the wolf, to expiate his sins, became a monk. His brethren endeavoured to teach him his letters, that he might say _Pater noster_; but all that they were able to get from him was, 'lamb, lamb.' They told him to look up to the cross, but could never make him turn his eyes from the sheep. In like manner do the monks cry out for good wine, and fix their eyes on dainty viands and full trenchers; whence the English proverb, _Yf alle that the wolf unto the prest worthe and be sette on to boke salmes to ler, ȝit is ever hys onne eye to the wodeward_."[107] To conclude with one more, "The wolf being dead, the lion assembled the rest of the beasts to celebrate his obsequies. The hare carried the holy water, and the hedge-hogs the wax tapers. The goats tolled the bells; the badger dug the grave; the fox carried the coffin; Berengarius the bear celebrated mass; the ox read the gospels, and the ass the epistles. Mass being finished, and Isengrin duly buried, the beasts partook of a splendid feast, the expense of which was defrayed out of the deceased's property. The parties wished for nothing better than a similar ceremony. So, says the moral, on the death of any rich usurer, the abbots assemble all the _beasts_ of the monastery; for in general, the black and white monks are really brutes, that is, lions in pride; foxes in cunning; hogs in gluttony; goats in luxury; asses in sloth; and hares in cowardice."
Besides the storehouses of this sort of knowledge that have been already described, there were doubtless many others that are now lost; but there is one that ought not to be passed over without some notice. It is the _Summa prædicantium_ of John Bromyard, an English preacher, and a violent opponent of Wicliffe. It is an immense repertory of matter for the use of the clergy, every page containing stories and examples in all possible variety.[108] It is divided into classes of such subjects as were adapted to the pulpit, and must have been a work of immense labour, and the result of much reading. In the article _rapina_ he has a story resembling chap. viii. of the _Gesta Romanorum_, which he probably cites under the title of _Antiqua gesta_.
Although most of these works were undoubtedly composed for the immediate purpose of assisting the preachers, it by no means follows that they were exclusively so, or that other uses might not be made of some of them. Not that they could be accessible to the laity in any great degree, inasmuch as they were wrapped up in a learned language. But the private readings of the monks would not be always of a serious and ascetic nature. They might be disposed occasionally to recreate their minds with subjects of a lighter and more amusing nature; and what could be more innocent or delightful than the stories of the _Gesta Romanorum_? They might even have indulged in this kind of recreation during their continuance in the refectory after meals. For this purpose one of the fraternity, more eminently qualified than the rest, might entertain them with the recital of matters that would admit of some moral application to be made by the reader, or which was already attached to the subject. The word _carissimi_, so frequently to be found in the moralizations, seems as much adapted to this purpose, as to the addressing of an auditory from the pulpit. Perhaps the same idea had occurred to him who chose to apply the term _liber monasticus_ to the _Gesta Romanorum_.[109]
The excellent analytical account that has been given of this work would admit of no other improvement than some augmentation of the sources of the stories, and of their several imitations; but with respect to the author of it, some further inquiry may be necessary. Mr. Warton has attempted to show, with considerable ingenuity as well as plausibility, that the _Gesta Romanorum_ was composed by Peter Bercheur, a native of Poitou, and prior of the convent of Saint Eloy at Paris, where he died in 1362.[110] He has founded this opinion on a passage in the _Philologia sacra_ of Salomon Glassius, who, in his chapter _de allegoriis fabularum_, after censuring those writers who not only employed themselves in allegorizing the scriptures, but affected to discover in profane stories and poetical fictions certain matters that seemed to illustrate the mysteries of the Christian faith, makes the following observation: "Hoc in studio excelluit quidam _Petrus Berchorius_ Pictaviensis, ordinis Divi Benedicti: qui _peculiari_ libro, _Gesta Romanorum_, necnon legendas patrum, aliasque aniles fabulas, allegoricè ac mysticè exposuit." On this single testimony, or rather assertion, which is unaccompanied by any proof or reference to authority, Mr. Warton proceeds to assign _his_ reasons for concluding that Bercheur was the author of the _Gesta_, and they are principally these: 1. A general coincidence between the manner and execution of the works of Bercheur and the _Gesta_. 2. A resemblance in their titles. 3. The introduction of some of the stories of the Gesta into the _Repertorium morale_ of Bercheur.[111] 4. His having allegorized the Metamorphoses of Ovid. And 5. His writings being full of allusions to the Roman history. To these might have been added the quotations common to both the _Gesta_ and the _Repertorium_ from Pliny, Seneca, Solinus, and Gervase of Tilbury, and the time in which Berchorius lived, which certainly corresponds with that of the composition of the _Gesta Romanorum_, as far as can be collected from internal evidence. It may be remarked in this place, that Mr. Tyrwhitt, in supposing it to have been written at the end of the 12th or the beginning of the 13th century, has fixed on too early a date.[112] It could not have been written before 1256, because the chronicle of Albertus, which is cited in one of the chapters, terminates with that year.
It might be supposed that very little could be urged in opposition to the foregoing reasons, nor is it here intended to deny absolutely that Bercheur was the author of the _Gesta_: but certain doubts having arisen on the subject, they shall be submitted to the reader, that he may then be enabled to use his own judgment and discretion in deciding the question. With respect to the similitude between the works of Berchorius and the _Gesta Romanorum_, no one would think of maintaining, on this ground alone, that any two compositions, the one anonymous, were written by the same author. It shows, generally speaking, nothing more than coincidence, or, what is more likely, simple imitation; and it is as probable that the author of one of the works should have imitated the other, as that one person should have written both. Perhaps the other reasons might be disposed of in the same way, but it will be better to state specific objections to them; and here Mr. Warton's own evidence might be turned against himself. He had stated on a former occasion,[113] his having seen a manuscript of the _Gesta in almost Saxon characters_; but it is certain that this manuscript had doubly deceived him, and that his eye had caught one or two of the Saxon letters which continued to be used in writing long after Saxon times.
In the preface to the _Repertorium morale_ Bercheur tells us that he was by birth a Frenchman, a Benedictine monk, and the familiar servant of Cardinal de Pratis, or Des Prez, to whom he was indebted for books and other necessaries towards the completion of his works. Now throughout the ponderous tomes that have been consulted for this purpose, there are no Gallicisms to be traced, nor any other symptom of French authorship. On the other hand, there are strong marks that the _Gesta Romanorum_ was composed by a German. In the moralization to chapter 144, there is, in most of the early editions, a German proverb; and, in chapter 142, several German names of Dogs. Many of the stories are extracted from German authors, as Cesarius, Albert of Stade, and Gervase of Tilbury, who wrote his book _De otiis imperialibus_, in Germany. In this country likewise the earliest editions of the _Gesta_ were printed.
Mr. Warton, anticipating an objection that might be taken from the omission of any mention of the _Gesta_ by the biographers of Bercheur, has remarked, that it might have been among his smaller pieces, or proscribed by graver writers, or even discarded by its author as a juvenile performance, unsuitable to his character and abounding in fantastic and unedifying narration. But this description does not accord with the _general_ use that we know to have been made of it in the pulpit; nor can it come under the denomination of a work that is not altogether grave, serious, and moral, nor likely to have been the effusion of a glowing or youthful mind. Besides, the biographers of Bercheur are not alone silent as to the _Gesta_; the editors of his printed works were entirely unacquainted with it as his composition, and they were more likely to have been better informed on the subject than Glassius, whose opinion, like Mr. Warton's, seems to have been mere inference, and unsupported by any evidence. But what is more to the point, Bercheur has himself, in the prologue to his _Repertorium_, and in the preface to a French translation of Livy, given a very particular account of his works, among which his moralizations of the _Fabulæ poetarum_, never printed, are mentioned; yet this is certainly not the _Gesta Romanorum_, any more than the _Chronicon_ mentioned by Mr. Warton.[114] Again; most of the known works of Bercheur are still existing in manuscript, but not a single manuscript that can be pronounced to be the _Gesta Romanorum in question_ has occurred after the most diligent research. Such indeed might be supplied from the libraries in Germany, and possibly throw new light on this difficult and mysterious inquiry. Some stress has been laid on the circumstance of four of the stories in the _Gesta_ being related in the _Repertorium morale_,[115] but they are not told in the same words, and the moralizations are entirely different. This has very much the appearance of different authorship. The title of _Reductorium_ to some of the editions of the _Gesta_, together with many other matters, might have been borrowed from the writings of Bercheur by some German Monk, whose name has been irretrievably consigned to oblivion. It is scarcely worth while to mention the blunder that Foppens has committed in ascribing the composition instead of the printing of the _Gesta_, to Gerard De Leeu, of Gouda in Holland.[116]
It remains to offer some account of the various forms in which this once popular and celebrated work has appeared; and the rather, because what has been said on this subject is widely scattered, unconnected, and frequently erroneous.
MANUSCRIPTS.--It is a fact as remarkable as the obscurity which exists concerning the author of the _Gesta_, that no manuscript of this work, that can with certainty be pronounced as such, has been hitherto described. If the vast stores of manuscripts that are contained in the monastic and other libraries of Germany, Switzerland, Italy, and Spain, were examined, there is scarcely a doubt that some original of a work so often printed would be discovered. Father Montfaucon has indeed mentioned a manuscript _Gesta Romanorum_ in the Vatican;[117] but it may be either a transcript from the printed copy, or a different work under the same title, that will presently be noticed.
PRINTED EDITIONS.--The titles of these are different, and are as follows:
No. 1. "Incipiunt hystorie collecte ex gestis romanorum et quibusdam aliis libris cum applicationibus eorundem."
The colophon. "Et sic est finis."
No. 2. "Incipiunt historie notabiles atque magis principales collecte ex gestis romanorum et quibusdam aliis notabilibus gestis cum moralizationibus eorundem."
The colophon. "Et sic est finis."
No. 3. "Ex gestis romanorum hystorie notabiles de viciis virtutibusque tractantes cum applicacionibus moralisatis et misticis incipiunt feliciter."
The colophon. "Gesta romanorum cum quibus aliis historiis eisdem annexis ad moralitates dilucide reducta hic finem habent. Que diligenter correctis aliorum viciis impressit Johannes de Westphalia &c."
No. 4. "Recollectorium ex gestis romanorum cum pluribus applicatis historiis."
No. 5. "Ex gestis romanorum hystorie notabiles collecte de viciis virtutibusque tractantes cum applicacionibus moralisatis et mysticis incipiunt _fideliter_." (sometimes _feliciter_.)
The colophon. "Ex gestis Romanorum cum pluribus applicatis hystoriis de virtutibus et viciis mystice ad intellectum transumptis recollectorii finis."
It is impossible to speak with certainty as to the _first edition_, on account of the omission of dates, places, and printers' names in some of the early copies. There are two editions so circumstanced, with the titles No. 1 and 2, in folio, and containing 152 chapters only. There is a third printed without date by Nicolas Ketelaer and Gerard de Leempt at Utrecht, in folio, with 152 chapters, to which Lambinet has inaccurately assigned the date of 1473.[118] One of these three is probably the first edition. They are all excessively rare, and a copy containing 152 chapters only would not easily be found in this country.
Of the editions without date, place, or printer, that contain 181 chapters, there are three, and perhaps more. One of these, in folio, is in the British Museum, but imperfect. It was certainly printed with the types used by Ulric Zell, about 1475. Two others, the one in folio, the other in quarto, were printed without date at Louvain, by John of Westphalia. He is said to have printed one edition with the date 1473; but this is probably a mistake copied from one book into another, as Lambinet assures us that the copy in the royal library at Paris has the above date, but in _manuscript only_.[119] The following editions with dates can be spoken of with more confidence.
1. 1480, no place, nor printer. In folio. 2. 1480, at Gouda, by Gerard Leeu. In folio. 3. 1481, at Hasselt, no printer. In folio. 4. 1482, no place, nor printer. In quarto. This is doubtful, being taken from a bookseller's catalogue. 5. 1488, no place, nor printer. In folio. 6. 1489, no place, nor printer. In folio. 7. 1489, at Strasburg, no printer. In folio. 8. 1490, at Gouda, by Gerard Leeu. In folio. 9. 1493, no place, nor printer. In folio. 10. 1494, no place, nor printer. In quarto. 11. 1494, at Louvain, no printer.... 12. 1497, no place, nor printer. In quarto. 13. 1497, at Strasburg, by John Knoblouch. In quarto. 14. 1498, no place, nor printer. In folio. 15. 1499, no place, nor printer. In folio. 16. 1499, at Paris, no printer. In quarto. 17. 1506, at Paris, by Jean Petit. In 12mo. 18. 1508, at Hagenau, by Henry Gran. In folio. 19. 1509, at Paris, by Francois Regnault. In 12mo. 20. 1512, at Venice, no printer. In 12mo. 21. 1515, at Paris, by Jean Petit. In 12mo. 22. 1516, at Venice, by George de Rusconibus. In 8vo. 23. 1517, at Paris, no printer. In 12mo. 24. 1517, at Hagenau, by Henry Gran. In folio. 25. 1520, at Venice, by A. de Bindonis. In 8vo. 26. 1521, at Paris, by Jean Petit. In 12mo. 27. 1521, at Rouen.... 28. 1555, at Lyons, no printer. In 12mo.
GERMAN TRANSLATION.--Of this only one edition has occurred, printed at Augsburg, by John Schopser, 1489, in folio.
DUTCH TRANSLATION.--Two editions are mentioned, the one printed at Gouda, by Gerard Leeu, 1481, and the other at Zwollis, by Peter Van Os, 1484; both in folio.
FRENCH TRANSLATION.--It does not appear who was the author of the translation into this language, which is entitled _Le violier[120] des hystoires Rommaines: moralisez sur les nobles gestes faitz vertueulx et anciennes chroniques de toutes nations de gens, fort recreatif et moral_. It contains only one hundred and forty-nine stories. About the year 1516, Pierre Gringore, herald to the duke of Lorraine, and the author of several moralities and other works, published a book called _Les fantasies de mere sote_, which is only a translation in prose, intermixed with verse, of some twenty or thirty stories in the _Gesta Romanorum_, with their moralizations. He has suppressed all mention of his original, and insinuated in the privilege that he was himself the inventor. This work seems to have preceded the anonymous translation above mentioned, of which it is possible that Gringore might have likewise been the author. There is another French _Gestes Romaines_ by Gaguin the historian, which has been mistaken for a translation of the _Gesta_; but it is nothing more than an extract from the history of the Roman republic. The editions of the _Violier_ are, 1. without date, printed at Paris, by Philip Le Noir, in quarto; 2. 1521, printed at Paris, by Jean de la Garde, in folio; and 3. 1529, printed also at Paris, for Denis Janot, in quarto.
ENGLISH TRANSLATION.--In 1703 was published a little volume entitled _Gesta Romanorum_: or _Forty-five histories originally (as 't is said) collected from the Roman records, with applications or morals for the suppressing vice, and encouraging virtue and the love of God. Vol. I. newly and with care translated from the Latin edition, printed, A.D. M.D.XIV._ This seems to be the first English translation, and the translator B. P. has remarked in his preface that most of the matters contained in his book had, as he understood, appeared already in the English tongue; and therefore he desires the reader, if he should discover a great difference in names, sense, and expression, to compare each work with the Latin copy, by which comparison he conceives it will be found that _his_ translation is faithful. He was not aware that the preceding translation to which he alludes had been made from a different work. The stories are here extracted without attention to the original arrangement, but with a reference in each to the Latin copy. The editor, whoever he was, designed an extension of his labours to other volumes. Next followed an edition of the same work, without date, 18mo, but printed about 1720. It wants the references to the Latin copy, and the former preface is abridged. It contains fourteen additional stories that do not belong to the _original Gesta_. Of this another edition, with the language much altered, was printed in 1722, 18mo, with the same number of stories. The editor signs himself A. B., perhaps Bettesworth the printer.
It is now time to proceed to the description of _another Gesta Romanorum_, and which has indeed been the principal cause of the present dissertation. This work was undoubtedly composed in England in imitation of the other; and therefore it will be necessary for the future to distinguish the two works by the respective appellations of the _original_ and the _English Gesta_.
It is remarkable that neither Mr. Tyrwhitt nor Mr. Warton, both of whom had frequent occasion to inspect the work in question, and to notice certain variations between what they have too loosely termed the _printed copies_ and the _manuscripts_, should not have perceived that the latter were in reality a different performance. Mr. Tyrwhitt indeed, for want of this perception, has made use of certain English features in the manuscripts as an argument to prove that the _original Gesta_ was composed in England.[121]