_Extracts from a Dissertation on the Life and Writings of Marie, an
Anglo-Norman Poetess of the thirteenth century. By Monsieur La Rue.
Archaelogia, vol. 13._
Mary must be regarded as the Sappho of her age; she made so considerable
a figure amongst the Anglo Norman _Trouveurs_, that she may very fairly
lay claim to the minutest investigation of whatever concerns her memory.
She informs us that she was born in France, but has neither mentioned
the province that gave her birth, her family name, nor the reasons of
her going to England. As she appears, however, to have resided in that
country at the commencement of the 13th century, we may reasonably
conclude that she was a native of Normandy. Philip Augustus having made
himself master of that province in 1204, many Norman families, whether
from regard to affinity, from motive of adventure, or from attachment to
the English government, went over to Great Britain, and there
established themselves. If this opinion be not adopted, it will be
impossible to fix upon any other province of France under the dominion
of the English, as her birth-place, because her language is neither that
of Gascony, nor of Poitou, &c. She appears, however, to have been
acquainted with the _Bas-Breton_, or Armoric tongue; whence it may be
inferred that she was born in Bretayne. The Duke of that province was
then Earl of Richmond in England; many of his subjects were in
possession of knight's fees in that honour, and Mary might have belonged
to one of these families. She was, besides, extremely well versed in the
literature of this province; and we shall have occasion to remark, that
she frequently borrowed much from the works of its writers in the
composition of her own. If, however, a preference should be given to the
first opinion, we must suppose that Mary got her knowledge, both of the
Armoric and English languages, in Great Britain. She was, at the same
time, equally mistress of the Latin; and from her application to three
several languages, we must take it for granted that she possessed a
readiness, a capacity, and even a certain rank in life, that afforded
time and means to attain them. It should seem that she was solicitous to
be personally known only at the time she lived in. Hence we find in her
works those general denominations, those vague expressions, which
discourage the curious antiquary, or compel him to enter into dry and
laborious discussions, the result of which, often turns out to be little
more than conjecture. In short, the silence or the modesty of this
lady, has contributed, in a great degree, to conceal from us the names
of those illustrious persons whose patronage her talents obtained.
The first poems of Mary are a collection of Lays, in French verse;
forming various histories and gallant adventures of our valiant knights:
and, according to the usage of those times, they are generally
remarkable for some singular, and often marvellous catastrophe. These
Lays are in the British Museum, among the Harleian MSS. No. 978. They
constitute the largest, and, at the same time, most ancient specimen of
Anglo-Norman poetry, of this kind, that has been handed down to us. The
romances of chivalry, amongst the old Welsh and Armoric Britons, appear
to have furnished the subjects of these various Lays; not that the
manuscripts of those people were continually before her when she
composed them; but, as she herself has told us, depending upon an
excellent memory, she sometimes committed them to verse, after hearing
them recited only: and, at others, composed her poems from what she had
read in the Welsh and Armoric MSS.
Plusurs en ai oi conter,
Nes voil laisser ne oublies, &c.[4]
Plusurs le me ant conte et dit
Et jeo l'ai trove en escrit, &c[5]
She confined herself to these subjects, and the event justifies her
choice. To the singularity of such a measure was owing its celebrity. By
treating of love and chivalry, she was certain of attuning her lyre to
the feelings of the age; and consequently of ensuring success. Upon this
account her Lays were extremely well received by the people. Denis
Pyramus, an Anglo-Norman poet, and the contemporary of Mary, informs us
that they were heard with pleasure in all the castles of the English
barons, but that they were particularly relished by the women of her
time. He even praises them himself; and this from the mouth of a rival,
could not but have been sincere and well deserved, since our equals are
always the best judges of our merit.[6] Insomuch as Mary was a
foreigner, she expected to be criticised with severity, and therefore
applied herself with great care to the due polishing of her works.
Besides, she thought, as she says herself, that the chief reward of a
poet, consists in perceiving the superiority of his own performance, and
its claims to public esteem. Hence the repeated efforts to attain so
honourable a distinction, and the constant apprehensions of that chagrin
which results from disappointment, and which she has expressed with so
much natural simplicity.
Ki de bone mateire traite,
Mult li peise si bien n'est faite, &c.[7]
She has dedicated her lays to some king,[8] whom she thus addresses in
her Prologue:
En le honur de vos nobles reis,
Ki tant estes preux et curteis,
M'entremis de Lais assembler.
Par rime faire et reconter;
En mon quoer pensoe et diseie,
Sire, le vos presentereie.
Si vos les plaist a receveir.
Mult me ferez grant joie aveir,
A tuz juirs mais en serai lie, &c.[9]
But who is this monarch? 1. We may perceive in it her apprehension of
the envy which her success might excite in a strange country: for this
reason she could not have written in France. 2. When at a loss for some
single syllable, she sometimes intermixes in her verses words that are
pure English, when the French word would not have suited the
measure.--"Fire et chaundelez alumez." It should seem, therefore, that
she wrote for the English, since her lines contain words that
essentially belong to their language, and not at all to the _Romance_.
3. She dedicates her lays to a king who understood English, because she
takes care to translate into that tongue all the Welsh and Armoric
proper names that she was obliged to introduce. Thus in the Lay of
_Bisclaveret_, she says, the English translate this name by that of
_Garwaf_, (Were-wolf); in that of _Laustic_, that they call it
_Nihtgale_ (Nightingale); and in that of _Chevrefeuille, Gotelef_,
(Goatleaf) &c. It is certain, then, she composed for a king who
understood English. 4. She tells us that she had declined translating
Latin histories into _Romance_; because so many others having been thus
occupied, her name would have been confounded with the multitude, and
her labours unattended with honour. Now this circumstance perfectly
corresponds with the reign of Henry III. when such a number of Normans
and Anglo-Normans had, for more than half a century, translated from
the Latin so many romances of chivalry; and especially those of the
Round Table, which we owe to the Kings of England. 5. Fauchet and
Pasquier inform us, that Mary lived about the middle of the 13th
century, and this would exactly coincide with the reign of that
prince.[10] 6. Denis Pyramu[11], an Anglo-Norman poet, speaks of Mary as
an author, whose person was as much beloved as her writings, and who
therefore must have lived in his own time. Now it is known that this
poet wrote under Henry III. and this opinion could only be confuted by
maintaining that it was rather a King of France of whom she speaks,
which king must have been Louis VIII. or St. Louis his son. But this
alteration will not bear the slightest examination; for how could it be
necessary to explain Welsh and Armoric words to a French king in the
English language? How could the writer permit herself to make use of
English words, in many parts of her work, which would most probably be
unintelligible to that prince, and most certainly so to the greatest
part of his subjects? It is true that she sometimes explains them in
Romance, but not always; and when, upon the other hand, she makes a
constant practice of translating them into English, she proves to what
sort of readers she was principally addressing herself. The list of the
lays of Mary is omitted here, as a translation follows.
The smaller poems of Mary are, in general, of much importance, as to the
knowledge of ancient chivalry. Their author has described manners with a
pencil at once faithful and pleasing. She arrests the attention of her
readers by the subjects of her stories, by the interest which she
skilfully blends in them, and by the simple and natural language in
which she relates them. In spite of her rapid and flowing style, nothing
is forgotten in her details--nothing escapes her in her descriptions.
With what grace has she depicted the charming deliverer of the unhappy
Lanval! Her beauty is equally impressive, engaging, and seductive; an
immense crowd follows but to admire her; the while palfrey on which she
rides seems proud of his fair burden; the greyhound which follows her,
and the falcon which she carries, announce her nobility. How splendid
and commanding her appearance; and with what accuracy is the costume of
the age she lived in observed! But Mary did not only possess a most
refined taste, she had also to boast of a mind of sensibility. The
English muse seems to have inspired her; all her subjects are sad and
melancholy; she appears to have designed to melt the hearts of her
readers, either by the unfortunate situation of her hero, or by some
truly afflicting catastrophe. Thus she always speaks to the soul, calls
forth all its feelings, and very frequently throws it into the utmost
consternation.
Fauchet was unacquainted with the Lays of Mary, for he only mentions her
fables[12]. But, what is more astonishing, Monsieur le Grand, who
published many of her lays, has not ascribed them all to her. He had
probably never met with a complete collection like that in the British
Museum; but only some of those that had been separately transcribed;
and, in that case, he could not have seen the preface, in which Mary has
named herself.
The second work of our poetess consists of a collection of fables,
generally called Aesopian, which she translated into French verse. In
the prologue she informs her readers that she would not have engaged in
it, but for the solicitation of a man who was "_the flower of chivalry
and courtesy_," and whom, at the conclusion of her work, she styles
_Earl William_.
Por amor le counte Guillaume,
Le plus vaillant de cest royaume,
Mentremis de cest livre faire,
Et de l'Anglois en Romans traire, &c.[13]
M. le Grand, in his preface to some of Mary's fables, which he has
published in French prose, informs us that this person was _Earl William
de Dampierre_. But William, Lord of Dampierre, in Champagne, had in
himself no right whatever to the title of Earl. During the 13th century,
this dignity was by no means assumed indiscriminately, and at pleasure,
by French gentlemen; it was generally borne by whoever was the owner of
a province, and sometimes of a great city, constituting an earldom: such
were the earldoms of Flanders, of Artois, of Anjou, of Paris, &c. It was
then, that these great vassals of the crown had a claim to the title of
earl, and accordingly assumed it.[14] Now, the territory of Dampierre
was not in this predicament during the 13th century; it was only a
simple lordship belonging to the lords of that name.[15]
Convinced, as I am, that Mary did not compose her fables in France, but
in England, it is rather in England that the Earl William, alluded to by
Mary, is to be sought for; and luckily, the encomium she has left upon
him is of such a nature, as to excite an opinion that he was William
Longsword, natural son of Henry II. and created Earl of Salisbury and
Romare by Richard Coeur de Lion. She calls him "_the flower of chivalry,
the most valiant man in the kingdom_," etc.; and these features
perfectly characterize William Longsword, so renowned for his
prowess.[16] The praise she bestows on him expresses, with great
fidelity, the sentiments that were entertained by his contemporaries;
and which were become so general, that for the purpose of making his
epitaph, it should seem that the simple eulogy of Mary would have
sufficed.
Flos comitum, Wilhelmus obit, stirps regia, longus
Ensis vaginam capit habere brevem.[17]
This earl died in 1226;[18] so that Mary must have written her fables
before that time. The brilliant reputation she had acquired by her lays,
had no doubt determined William to solicit a similar translation of
_Aesopian Fables_, which then existed in the English language. She, who
in her lays had painted the manners of her age with so much nature and
fidelity, would find no difficulty in succeeding in this kind of
apologue. Both require that penetrating glance which can distinguish
the different passions of mankind; can seize upon the varied forms which
they assume; and marking the objects of their attention, discover, at
the same moment, the means they employ to attain them. For this reason,
her fables are written with all that acuteness of mind, that penetrates
into the very inmost recesses of the human heart; and, at the same time,
with that beautiful simplicity so peculiar to the ancient romance
language, and which causes me to doubt whether La Fontaine has not
rather imitated our author, than the fabulists either of Rome, or of
Athens. It most, at all events, be admitted that he could not find, in
the two latter, the advantages which the former offered him. Mary wrote
in French, and at a time when that language, yet in its infancy, could
boast of nothing but simple expressions, artless and agreeable turns,
and, on all occasions, a natural and unpremeditated phraseology.
On the contrary, Aesop and Phaedrus, writing in Latin, could not supply
the French fabulist with any thing more than subject matter and ideas;
whilst Mary, at the same time that she furnished him with both, might
besides have hinted expression, manner, and even rhyme. Let me add, that
through the works of La Fontaine will be found scattered an infinite
number of words in our ancient language, which are at this day
unintelligible without a commentary.
There are, in the British Museum, three MS. copies of Mary's fables.
The first is in the Cotton library, Vesp. b. xiv. the second in the
Harleian, No. 4333; and the third in the same collection, No. 978. In
the first, part of Mary's prologue is wanting, and the transcriber has
entirely suppressed the conclusion of her work. This MS. contains only
sixty-one fables. The second has all the prologue, and the conclusion.
It has 83 fables. The third is the completest of all, and contains 104
fables. M. le Grand says that he has seen four MSS. of these fables in
the libraries of Paris, but all different as to the number. He cites one
in the library of St. Germain des Prés, as containing 66 fables; and
another in the Royal Library, No. 7615, with 102.[19] As he has said
nothing about the other MSS. it is to be supposed that he has purposely
mentioned that which had the greatest number of fables, and that which
had the least. Under this idea, the Harleian MS. No. 978, is the
completest of all that have been yet cited.
In examining the manner in which she speaks of herself, we shall
perceive she does not call herself _Marie de France_, as he has stated,
but says _she is from France_.
Al finement de cest escrit,
Me nomerei par remembrance,
Marie ai non si suis de France, &c.[20]
If we consider well the latter verse, there will be no difficulty in
perceiving that Mary wrote in England. Indeed, it was formerly a very
common thing for authors to say that they were of such a city, and even
to assume the name of it. Or even, when writing in Latin, state
themselves either natives of England, or of France. But when an author
writes in France, and in the language of the country, he does not say
that _he is of France_. Now this precaution, on the part of Mary,
implies that she wrote in a foreign country, the greater part of whose
inhabitants spoke her native language; which was the case in England.
She stated herself to be a native of France, that her works might be
regarded as written in a purer and correcter style.
Monsieur le Grand does not believe that Mary really translated from a
collection that existed in her time in the English language, under the
title of the _Fables of Aesop_; but, if we examine the fables
themselves, we shall discover in them internal evidence of their being
translated from the English.
Mention is made of counties and their judges, of the great assemblies
held there for the administration of justice, the king's writs, &c. &c.
Now what other kingdom, besides England, was at that time divided into
counties? What other country possessed similar establishments? But Mary
has done more; in her French translation she has preserved many
expressions in the English original; such as _welke_, in the fable of
the Eagle, the Crow, and the Tortoise; _witecocs_, in that of the Three
Wishes; _grave_, in that of the Sick Lion; _werbes and wibets_, in that
of the Battle of the Flies with other Animals; _worsel_, in that of the
Mouse and the Frog, &c.
The completest MS. of Mary's translation, has but 104 fables; out of
which, 31 only are Aesop's. So the English version that she had before
her, was not a true and complete translation of that fabulist, but a
compilation from different authors, in which some of his fables had been
inserted. Nevertheless, Mary has intitled her work, "_Cy Commence li
Aesope_;" she repeats, also, that she had turned this fabulist into
romance language. Mary, therefore, imagined that she was really
translating Aesop; but her original had the same title; and I am the
more convinced of this, because, in the Royal MS. before cited, which
contains a collection of Aesopian fables, there are but 56. According to
the introduction, they had been already translated into Latin prose, and
then into English prose; and in this MS. as well as in Mary's, there are
many fables and fabliaux ascribed to Aesop, which never could have been
composed by him.
Again, if we compare the fables which generally pass for Aesop's, with
those written by Mary, we shall perceive that the translation of the
latter could never have been regarded as a literal version of the
former. She is a great deal more particular than Aesop; her
moralizations are not the same. In a word, I think she comes nearer to
Phaedrus than to the Greek writer.
It will, no doubt be answered, that the Works of Phaedrus have only been
known since the end of the 16th century. This I admit; but am not the
less persuaded that Mary was better acquainted with Phaedrus than with
Aesop. It will, moreover, be contended, that she has herself declared,
that the English version, which served her as a model, was a translation
from the Greek. To this I reply; first, that Phaedrus's fables may very
properly be stiled _Aesopian_, as he has himself called them:
Aesopus auctor quam materiam reperit,
Hanc ego polivi versibus senariis.[21]
And, secondly, that although Mary possessed the fire, the imagination,
and the genius of a poet, she nevertheless had not the criticism, or
erudition, of a man of letters. For example; she informs us, that before
her fables were translated into English, they had already been turned
from Greek into Latin by Aesop.[22] She then gives the fable of an ox
that assisted at mass, of a wolf that keeps Lent, of a monk disputing
with a peasant, &c.
Amongst these compilers of fables, we find the names of Romulus, Accius,
Bernardus, Talon, and many others anonymous. The first is the most
celebrated; he has addressed his fables to his son Tiberius; they are
written in Latin prose, sixty in number, and many of them are founded
upon those of Aesop and Phaedrus. Rimilius published them at the end of
the 15th century, and Frederic Nilant gave an edition in 1709, at
Leyden, with some curious and interesting notes. Fabricius, in his
Bibliotheca Latina, says, that these sixty fables are more than five
hundred years old.[23] I have already mentioned that there is a MS. of
them in the Royal Library in the British Museum, 15 A. VII., which was
written in the 13th century, and contains only fifty-six fables. They
are said, in the preface, to have been translated out of Greek into
Latin, by the Emperor Romulus. Mary likewise mentions this Romulus, and
gives him the same title. After having remarked with how much advantage
learned men might occupy themselves, in extracting from the works of the
ancient philosophers, proverbs, fables, and the morals they contained,
for the purpose of instructing men, and training them to virtuous
actions, she adds, that the emperor had very successfully pursued the
plan, in order to teach his son how to conduct himself with propriety
through life[24].
Vincent de Beauvois, a contemporary of Mary, speaks likewise of this
Romulus and his fables[25]; and lastly, Fabricius informs us that this
author has very much imitated Phaedrus, and often preserved even his
expressions.[26] But, after all, it is uncertain who is this Romulus,
thus invested with the title of emperor; whether the last Roman emperor
of that name, who is likewise called Augustulus or Romulus the
grammarian. I should rather attribute them to some monk of the 11th or
12th century. The rites of the Roman Catholic worship are several times
alluded to, and entire passages of the Vulgate very frequently inserted.
It is, however, enough to know that in the time of Mary, there did
actually exist a collection of fables called Aesopian, and published
under the name of Romulus; that this author, whether real or imaginary,
had very much imitated Phaedrus; that these Latin fables had been
translated into English; that, without doubt, those of some other
unknown writers were added to them; and, finally, that from this latter
version Mary made her translation into French verse.
In a MS. of the fables of Mary, it is said this English version was the
work of King Mires.[27] The Harleian MS. No. 978, makes the translation
to have been King _Alurez_. The MS. cited by Pasquier, calls him King
Auvert.[28] The MS. in the Royal Library, 15 A. VII. says the
translation was made by the order of King _Affrus_; and, lastly, the
Harleian MS. No. 4333, makes it the work of King _Henry_.
With respect to King _Alurez_ or _Auvert_, every one who has examined
our ancient writers of romance, during the 12th and 13th centuries, must
know that the name of Alfred was thus disfigured by them. Thus, two
kings of England, Alfred and Henry, have a claim to that honour. But
whence is it that the historian of Alfred, Asser, as well as William of
Malmesbury, have mentioned the different translations of this prince,
without having noticed that of Aesop?[29] Is it credible that an
Anglo-Saxon version of the ninth century would have been intelligible to
Mary, who had only learned the English of the thirteenth? Had not the
lapse of time, and the descents of the Danes and Normans in the eleventh
century, contributed, in the first place, to alter the Anglo-Saxon? and
afterwards, during the twelfth, the rest of the people from the northern
and western provinces of France, having become dependent upon England,
did not they, likewise, by their commerce, and residence in that
country, introduce a considerable change into its language? The names of
Seneschal, Justiciar, Viscount, Provost, Bailiff, Vassal, &c. which
occur in these fables, both in the Latin text and French translation by
Mary, ought naturally to have been found in the English version. Now
these several terms were all, according to Madox, introduced by the
Normans;[30] and the morals to these fables, which make frequent
allusion to the feudal system, prove more and more, that this English
translation must have been posterior to the time of Alfred.
In the last place, the Harleian MS. No. 4333, ascribes the translation
to King Henry. The Normans were acquainted with the fables of Aesop, or,
at least, those which were attributed to him during the middle ages. The
collateral heirs of Raoul de Vassy, who died in 1064, when, after the
death of William the Conqueror, they found means to establish their
claims against Robert Courthose; in asserting it, reproach his father
with having made the _lion's partition_ in seizing Upon their
inheritance.[31]
This proverbial expression very clearly shews that the writings of the
Greek fabulist, or at least of those who had followed him, were known to
the Normans from the eleventh century. It is possible, therefore, that
Henry I. might have studied and translated them into English. Again, all
historians agree in giving this prince the title of _Beauclerk_, though
no one has assigned any reason for a designation so honourable: and this
opinion would justify history, which has given to Henry a name with
which authors alone were dignified.
Whether Mary followed the English version literally cannot be
ascertained, as we do not even know whether it now exists; and are
therefore under the necessity of collating her fables with those of the
middle ages: and it appears, she translated from the English 104 fables
into French verse; and of this number there are 65, the subjects of
which had already been treated of by Aesop, Phaedrus, Romulus, and the
anonymous author of the _Fabulae Antiquae_, published by Niland.
The English translation was not only compiled from these different
authors, but from many other fabulists, whose names are unknown to us;
since, out of the 104 fables of Mary, there are 39 which are neither
found in the before mentioned authors, nor in any other known to us.
The English version contained a more ample assemblage of fables than
that of Mary, since out of the 56 in the Royal MS. 15 A. VII, which made
a part of the former, it appears that she made a selection of subjects
that were pleasing to her, and rejected others. It is very singular,
that England appears to have had fabulists during the ages of ignorance,
whilst Athens and Rome possessed theirs only amidst the most refined
periods of their literature.
Some may, perhaps, be disposed to conclude that the 39 additional fables
were actually composed by Mary; but I believe, upon reflection, this
opinion must be abandoned. She terms her work a translation, glories in
the enterprize; and, if it had been only in part the labours of her
genius, would scarcely have passed over that circumstance in silence.
Monsieur Le Grand has published 43 of Mary's fables in prose. His
translation, however, is not always literal; and seems, in many places,
to have departed from the original. He has likewise published many of
the _fabliaux_, or little stories, which he has unadvisedly attributed
to the transcribers of them, and which belong indisputably to her.
I have examined La Fontaine, to ascertain whether he were acquainted
with the fables of Mary, and had actually borrowed his subjects from the
39 fables which are wanting in all the writers of this kind with whom we
are at present acquainted; and have actually discovered, that he is
indebted to them for those of the Drowning Woman, the Fox and the Cat,
and the Fox and the Pigeon. From others he has only taken the subject,
but changed the actors; and, by retouching the whole in his peculiar
manner, has enriched them with a new turn, and given them an appearance
of originality.
The third work of Mary consists of a history, or rather a tale, in
French verse, of St. Patrick's Purgatory. This performance was
originally commenced in Latin, at the Abbey of Saltrey, and dedicated to
the abbot of that monastery, and is to be found in MS. in many public
libraries. There are two translations of it into French verse. The first
of these is in the Cotton Library, Domit. A. IV. and the second in the
Harleian, No. 273, but they are not from the same pen: the former
consists of near 1000 lines, and the latter of about 700. M. Le Grand
has given an analysis of one of these translations in his _fabliaux_,
vol. V.; and it is upon the authority of this writer that I have
ascribed it to Mary, as he maintains that she was the author of it, but
without adducing the necessary proofs for this assertion. The Cotton MS.
however, contains nothing that gives the least support to M. Le Grand's
opinion, or even screens it with probability. Neither is Mary's name
mentioned in the Harleian MS.; but as the translator, in his preface,
entitles the work "a lay," and professes he had rather engage in it than
_relate fables_, it may afford a conjecture that Mary has sufficiently
developed herself in speaking of her labours. This, however, is merely a
conjecture. It is not impossible that the MS. which M. Le Grand
consulted contained more particular details on this subject; but he is
certainly mistaken in one respect, and that is, in supposing Mary to
have been the original author of this piece, whilst all the MSS. that
exist attest that she could have been only the translator: and if the
translation in the Harleian MS. actually be her performance, she there
positively declares that she had been desired to translate the work from
Latin into Romance.
This poem was, at a very early period, translated into English verse. It
is to be found in the Cotton library, Calig. A. II. under the title of
_Owayne Miles_, on account, of Sir Owen being the hero of the piece, and
whose descent into St. Patrick's purgatory is related. Walter de Metz,
author of the poem entitled _Image du Monde_, mentions also the wonders
of St. Patrick's purgatory, the various adventures of those who
descended into it, and the condition of those who had the good fortune
to return from it; but I am uncertain whether he speaks from the
original Latin of the monk of Saltrey, or from Mary's French
translation. In the latter case it should appear that Mary finished her
translation before 1246, the year in which Walter says he composed his
work.[32]
Whether Mary was the author of any other pieces I have not been able to
ascertain: her taste, and the extreme facility with which she wrote
poetry of the lighter kind, induce a presumption that she was; but I
know of none that have come down to us.