[1] How strange is the terror of Natural Science, which seems to
possess, with a religious possession, so many good and pious people!
How rigidly do they bind themselves hand and foot with the mere letter
of the law, forgetting Him who came to teach us, that “the letter
killeth, but the Spirit giveth life!” What are we to say of those who,
when the old crust which clogs and hampers human knowledge is cracking
and breaking all around them, when the shell is too narrow an abode
for the life within it, which is preparing to cast it off, still cling
to the crust and shell, looking, like the disciples by the sepulchre,
at the linen clothes lying, and know not that He has risen in glory?
These are they who obstinately refuse to believe in the “Testimony of
the Rocks”, who deny Geology the thousands, nay millions, of years
which she requires to make her deposits in Nature’s great saving-bank.
These are they for whom the Nile, as he brings down year by year his
tribute to the sea from Central Africa, lays down in vain layer after
layer of alluvial deposit, which can be measured to an inch for tens
of thousands of years. These are they to whom the comparatively
younger growth of trees, the dragon tree of Orotava, and the cedars of
California, plead in vain when they show, year after year, ring on
ring of wood for thousands of years. “No; the world is only five or
six thousands of years old, or thereabouts. The Old Testament”—the
dates in which have been confessedly tampered with, and in some cases
forged and fabricated by Hebrew scribes—“says so. We believe in it—we
will believe in nothing else, not even in our senses. We will believe
literally in the first chapter of Genesis, in working days and nights
of twenty-four hours, even before the sun and moon were made, on the
fourth day, ‘to divide the day from the night’, and to be ‘for signs
and for seasons, and for days and years’. We will not hear of ages or
periods, but ‘days’, because the ‘letter’ says so”. This is what our
Western Brahmins say; but if they remembered that He who set sun and
moon also planted the eye and ear, that he gave sense, and speech, and
mind; if they considered that faith is a lively thing, elastic and
expansive; that it embraces a thousand or a million years as easily as
a moment of time; that bonds cannot fetter it, nor distance darken and
dismay it; that it is given to man to grow with his growth and
strengthen with his strength; that it rises at doubts and
difficulties, and surmounts them; they would cease to condemn all the
world to wear their own strait-waistcoat, cut and sewn by rabbis and
doctors some thousand years ago; a garment which the human intellect
has altogether outgrown, which it is ridiculous to wear, which
careless and impious men laugh at when it is seen in the streets; and
might begin to see that spirit is spirit, and flesh is flesh; that
while one lives for ever, the other is corruptible and passes away;
that there are developments in faith as in every thing else; that as
man’s intellect and human knowledge have grown and expanded, so his
faith must grow and expand too; that it really matters nothing at all,
as an act of faith, whether the world is six thousand or six million
years old; that it must have had a beginning; that there must be one
great first cause, God. Surely there is no better way to bring His
goodness into question, to throw doubt on His revelation, and to make
it the laughing stock of the irreligious, than thus to clip the wings
of faith, to throw her into a dungeon, to keep her from the light of
day, to make her read through. Hebrew spectacles, and to force her to
be a laggard and dullard, instead of a bright and volatile spirit,
forward and foremost in the race of life.
[2] But if the first heir of my invention prove deformed, I shall be
sorry it had so noble a godfather, and never after _ear_ so barren a
land, for fear it yield me still so bad a harvest”—SHAKESPEARE,
_Dedication to Venus and Adonis_.
[3] As a specimen of their thoughtful turn of mind, even in the
_Vedas_, at a time before the monstrous avatars of the Hindoo Pantheon
were imagined, and when their system of philosophy, properly so
called, had no existence, the following metrical translation of the
129th hymn of the 10th book of the _Rig-Veda_ may be quoted, which
Professor Müller assures us is of a very early date:
Nor aught nor naught existed; yon bright sky
Was not, nor Heaven’s broad woof outstretched above.
What covered all? what sheltered? what concealed?
Was it the water’s fathomless abyss?
There was not death—yet was there nought immortal.
There was no confine betwixt day and night;
The only One breathed breathless by itself,
Other than It there nothing since has been.
Darkness there was, and all at first was veiled
In gloom profound—an ocean without light—
The germ that still lay covered in the husk
Burst forth, one nature, from the fervent heat.
Then first came love upon it, the new spring
Of mind—yea, poets in their hearts discerned,
Pondering, this bond between created things
And uncreated. Comes this spark from earth,
Piercing and all pervading, or from Heaven?
Then seeds were sown, and mighty powers arose—
Nature below, and power and will above—
Who knows the secret? who proclaimed it here,
Whence, whence this manifold creation sprang?
The Gods themselves came later into being—
Who knows from whence this great creation sprang?
He from whom all this great creation came,
Whether His will created or was mute,
The Most High Seer that is in highest heaven,
He knows it—or perchance even he knows not.
If we reflect that this hymn was composed centuries before the time of
Hesiod, we shall be better able to appreciate the speculative character
of the Indian mind in its earliest stage.
[4] “A Brahmin, who had vowed a sacrifice, went to the market to buy a
goat. Three thieves saw him, and wanted to get hold of the goat. They
stationed themselves at intervals on the high road. When the Brahmin,
who carried the goat on his back, approached the first thief, the
thief said, ‘Brahmin, why do you carry a dog on your back?’ The
Brahmin replied: ‘It is not a dog, it is a goat.’ A little while
after, he was accosted by the second thief, who said, ‘Brahmin, why do
you carry a dog on your back?’ The Brahmin felt perplexed, put the
goat down, examined it, and walked on. Soon after he was stopped by
the third thief, who said, ‘Brahmin, why do you carry a dog on your
back?’ Then the Brahmin was frightened, threw down the goat, and
walked home to perform his ablutions for having touched an unclean
animal. The thieves took the goat and ate it.” See the notice of the
Norse Tales in _The Saturday Review_, January 15. In Max Müller’s
translation of the _Hitopadesa_, the story has a different ending. See
also _Le Piacevoli Notti_, di M. Giovan Francesco Straparola da
Caravaggio (Venice, 1567), Notte Prima, Favola III: “Pre Scarpacifico
da tre malandrini una sol volta gabbato, tre fiate gabba loro,
finalmente vittorioso con la sua Nina lietamente rimane”. In which
tale the beginning is a parallel to the first part of “The Master
Thief”, while the end answers exactly to the Norse tale added in this
edition, and called Big Peter and Little Peter.”
[5] Fornm. Sög., 2, 272.
[6] Müller’s Saga Bibl., 3, 359.
[7] See the ballad in Percy’s Reliques.
[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._