No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
Der Stricker, an Austrian poet who is perhaps best known for his Pfaffe Amîs (ca. 1230), is the first (so far as we know) to tell the story of a wicked advocate (or judge) who was more unscrupulous in robbing his neighbors than the Devil himself. This tale, though perhaps a folk-tale originally, and even in its written versions never very far from the spirit of the folk, is interesting chiefly for its literary adaptations, notably Chaucer's Friar's Tale. Its principal forms, which are maintained with remarkable consistency, no doubt because its propagation was rather through books than through oral tradition, seem to have been determined by its use as exemplum, jest, or simple story. The oldest form, as it occurs in the narratives of der Stricker and Caesarius of Heisterbach, is also the most frequent and important. A rather unhappy rearrangement of the same incidents, which have to do with the leveling of a curse at a man or beast, characterizes a second form, of which the earliest example is found in Johannes Pauli's Schimpf und Ernst (1522). A little later (1537) Hans Sachs altered the story by omitting one episode regularly found in the other two types. Into one of these three closely related groups, represented by der Stricker and Caesarius, Pauli, and Hans Sachs respectively, the great majority of the thirty known versions fall. The variations are comparatively insignificant, and the analogous tales which do not follow one of these standard outlines are strikingly few.
1 In the studies dealing specifically with Chaucer, as cited in the bibliographies of Miss Hammond and Professor Wells, less than a dozen parallels to the Friar's Tale are to be found, about a score more are mentioned in this article.
2 The following examples I have not had access to: (1) in Momigno (see below, p. 41) ; (2) in Vademecum für lustige Leute, iii (1767), 60, No. 70, which was taken from Pauli (cf. Jess, Langbein und seine Verserzählungen, p. 43: on the Vademecum cf. Hayn u. Gotendorf, Bibl. German. Erotica & Curiosa, München, 1914, viii, 59, 60) ; (3) in Bauernfeld, Aus der Mappe der alten Fabulisten, 1879, p. 99, “Der Richter und der Teufel”; (4) Dach, Zeitvertreiber, 124 (cited by Oesterley, in Pauli, Schimpf und Ernst, p. 482, No. 81) ; (5) Pant. Candidus op. Schulze, 185 (cited by Oesterley, ibid.; cf. Stiefel, Herrigs Archiv cxxv [1910] 104); (6) Erasmus Melander, Iocoseria, Deutsche Ausgabe (Schimpf und Ernst), Lich, 1605, ii, 115, No. 102 (cited by Wesselski, Mönchslatein, Leipzig, 1909, p. 212, No. 36) ; (7) Dähnhardt, Schwänke aus aller Welt, No. 60 (cited by Andrae, Beiblatt zur Anglia xxvii [1916], p. 86. Andrae, ibid., cites Fliegende Blätter, 1875, “Wann es ernst ist,” but the reference is wrong. Nos. 4, 5, and 6 above appear to represent the jest-book tradition.
3 Von der Hagen, Gesammtabenteuer, Stuttgart, 1850, iii, 387-393, No. lxix, “Der Richter und der Teufel.”
4 A. Meister, “Die Fragmente der Libri viii Miraculorum des Caesarius von Heisterbach,” Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Alterthumskunde und für Kirchengeschichte, 13. Supplementheft, Rome, 1901, p. 90, Book ii, ch. 17, “De advocato, quem diabolus vivum rapuit, dum iret facere exactionem.” It is retold in German in the Beilage der Täglichen Rundschau, 22 Oct., 1912 (Andrae, Beiblatt zu Anglia, xxvii, 1916, 86). Max Foerster (Herrig's Archiv, cx [1903], 427) remarked on the similarity to Chaucer's tale, but did not observe that the story was identical with an analogue which had already been published.
5 Herolt's version is easily accessible; see Wright, A Selection of Latin Stories (Percy Society, viii), p. 70, No. lxxvii (reprinted in Clouston, Originals and Analogues of Some of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, I [London, 1872], 106). It is translated in Wesselski, Mönchslatein, Leipzig, 1909, pp. 43-44, No. 36.
6 First published from Cotton MS. Cleopatra dviii, fol. 110 by Wright (Archæologia, xxxii [1847], 365) ; recollated by Miss L. T. Smith and published in Clouston, Originals and Analogues, I, 105 and in Skeat, Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, iii (Oxford, 1900), 450-451; cf. Herbert, Catalogue of Romances in the British Museum, London, 1910, iii, 639, No. 5.
7 The reading in the copy before me is uncertain.
8 Add. MS. 15833, fol. 156b, cf. Herbert iii, 592, No. 108. For this copy I am indebted to Dr. Willard Farnham.
9 Fol. 362b-363a (Leipzig, 1580). Oesterley's reference (notes to Pauli's Schimpf und Ernst, No. 81) is to the edition of 1572. On Hondorf see T. F. Crane, Exempla of Jacques de Vitry, p. lxxvii. For a copy of Hondorf's version I am indebted to the courtesy of Professor Crane.
10 This phrase gives Hondorff's source, i. e., Herolt, who regularly refers to himself as Discipulus.
11 There are many editions of Judas, der Ertzschelm, cf. the Auswahl edited by Bobertag in Kürschner's Deutsche National-Litteratur, p. iv. I have seen the edition printed at Zug, 1687, in which the story occurs in vol. I, p. 195; Oesterley cites Werke, Passau, 1835, i, 425; and Andrae (Beiblatt, xxvii [1916], 86) reprints the text of the edition at Bonn, 1687, I, 184. Abraham says he takes the story from Momigno, which Professor Crane suggests may be Evangelista de Momigno, Directorium superiorum regularium et ecclesiasticorum, continens centem et septem sermones . . . Cum indicibus necessariis ac tabula sermonum. Editio secunda ... 2 pts. Coloniae Agrippinae, 1665. Dr. Farnham, who has seen this book in the British Museum, did not find the story mentioned in the indices; and it may be remarked that Abraham is notoriously careless in giving his ***sources. Andrae notes that Weber has copied the story in Demokrit, x (1839), 178.
12 “Doktor Vulpio,” Alte Schwank und Märlein, Heilbronn, 1877, pp. 184-193.
13 Hessische Sagen, Göttingen and Leipzig, 1853, pp. 158-160, No. 256 (reprinted in Merkens, Was sich das Volk erzählt, ii, 46-49, No. 59).
14 Danske Folkeœventyr, Anden Samling, Copenhagen, 1891, pp. 227-234, No. 24, “Fanden og Prokuratoren.” The tale, says Kamp (p. 244), “er fremkommet ved en Sammenstilling af 10-15 forskjellige Overleveringer.”
15 Vetter (Beiblatt zur Anglia, xiii [1902], 180-181) reprints the text, which is derived, he thinks, from Pauli's Schimpf und Ernst. This opinion can hardly be correct, for the jest-book has a different sequence of incidents.
16 It first appeared in the Morgenblatt, 1827, 465 and Der Sammler, 1827, 299, cf. Goedeke, Grundriss 2, ix, 284, No. 30. It is most easily accessible in M. Bern, Deklamatorium 2, pp. 565-567 (Reclam's Universalbibliothek, Nos. 2291-2295).
17 “Der Deifel und der Omtmonn,” Noch Feierohmds, i (1894), 93-97, which is conveniently reprinted in Dähnhardt, Heimatklänge aus deutschen Gauen, ii, Aus Rebenflur und Waldesgrund, Leipzig, 1902, pp. 93-96.
18 Ed. H. Oesterley, Stuttgart, 1866, p. 63, No. 81, cf. notes, p. 482, and in Bobertag, Vierhundert Schwänke des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts (Deutsche National-Litteratur, xxiv), p. 54.
19 J. M. Lappenburg, Dr. Thomas Murners Ulenspiegel, Leipzig, 1854, pp. 142-143, Historie xcvi.
20 Von der Hagen in his introductory remarks on the Stricker's tale cites a dialect text published by Schmeller (Die Mundarten Bayerns grammatisch dargestellt, Munich, 1821, p. 447) as proof that the story was still current among the folk. He did not observe that Schmeller's version is nothing more than a transliteration of Pauli into the vernacular of Aschffenburg. Consequently Schmeller's text is an unsatisfactory witness to the existence of the story in current tradition. Other descendants of Pauli's text which I have not seen are mentioned above (Note 1, Nos. 2 and 5) and I suspect that some of the other instances there given may be traced back to the jest-book.
21 “ Der Richter und der Teufel,” Jahn, Volkssagen aus Pommern, Stettin, 1886, pp. 318-320, No. 401.
22 Irländische Märchen, Zürich, 1886, p. 18, No. 11, “Der Teufel und der Steuerempfänger.”
23 Bondeson, Svenska folksagor, Stockholm, 1882, No. 58, pp. 204-205, “Länsmannen och gamle far.”
24 Goetze and Drescher, Sämliche Fabeln und Schwänke von Hans Sachs, iii (Halle, 1900), 179-180, No. 78 (Neudrucke, clxiv-clxxvi).
25 Kuhn, Sagen, Gebräuche und Märchen aus Westfalen, Leipzig, 1859, ii, 225-226, Anhang: Märchen, No. 6, “Der Teufel und der Executor.”
26 Danske Skjœmtesagn, Forste Samling, Aarhus, 1900, $sT 48, “Det mente de af,” pp. 103-104, $pR 148.
27 Ibid., p. 104, $sT49.
28 It has been suggested that this creature, perhaps most nearly equivalent to the English night-mare, can be connected with the Norse Valkyries (cf. Weinhold, Die deutschen Frauen, I, 43, and for a contrary opinion, Siebs, Zs. des Ver. für Volksk., iii [1893], 392).
29 L. Strackerjan, Aberglaube und Sagen aus dem Herzogtum Oldenburg, zweite erweiterte Ausgabe von Karl Willoh, i (Oldenburg, 1909), 479-480. This tale does not occur in the first edition. It is summarized by Andrae, Beiblatt zur Anglia, xxvii (1916), 86-87.
30 “Der Advokat und der Rothmantel,” Sämtliche Schriften, Stuttgart, 1835, ii, 208-225. It first appeared in his Feierabende (1794). H. Jess (Langbein und seine Verserzählungen, Berlin, 1902, pp. 42-43) thinks Langbein may have combined Abraham a Sancta Clara's story with Chaucer's Friar's Tale; but this conjecture is undemonstrable.
31 C. Roussey, Contes populaires recueillis à Bournois (Canton de l'Isle-sur-le-Doubs, arrondissement de Beaume-les-Dames), Paris, 1894, pp. 120-126, No. xiii, “Le Diable d'avec l'huissier.”
32 Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, iii (Oxford, 1900), 451. See a more detailed criticism in Root, The Poetry of Chaucer, pp. 244 ff. Modernisations of Chaucer's tale are cited by Lounsbury (Studies in Chaucer, iii, 190, 217, 223).
33 Joseph Jacobs, The Fables of Æsop, London, 1889, ii, 216, cf. notes, i, 258-259 (the references include parallels to the fable, the tale discussed in this article, one in the Disciplina Clericalis, and a fourth narrative [Pauli, No. 90]. See also B. Waldis, Esopus (ed. Tittmann, Leipzig, 1882, I, 127-128), Bk. I, c. 86. Compare another tale in Pauli, Schimpf und Ernst, p. 68, No. 90, and the valuable notes, p. 483 (with a similar confusion in the citations) ; cf. Lavenot, “Le Voleur et le Diable,” Revue des traditions populaires, viii (1893), 217. A tale in the Disciplina Clericalis, “De bobus lupo promissis a rustico vulpisque iudicio,” is sometimes cited as an analogue, but it is rather remote; on it see Jacobs, I, 266 (Fables of Alfonce, ix) ; Bolte's notes to “Die fabel von dem pawren, wolff vnd füechs,” Goetze, Sämtliche Fabeln und Schwänke von Hans Sachs, ii (Halle, 1894), 4-7, No. 202 (Neudrucke, cxix) ; and Chauvin, Bibliographie des ouvrages arabes, iii (1898), 78, No. 57, and ix (1905), 30-31, No. 21.
34 E. g., the fable of a division of crops wherein the fox cheats the wolf repeatedly is often told of a peasant and the devil. The story is briefly as follows: The fox and the wolf agree to share a crop which is to be planted. The fox plants grain and gives the wolf the lower half. The next year the wolf demands the upper half and the fox plants a vegetable. For references see Andrae, Romanische Forschungen, xvi (1904), 326; H. Parker, Village Folk-Tales of Ceylon, i, 322; Polivka, Archiv für slavische Philologie, xxi, 276, No. 73; ibid., xxii, 306, No. 206; Wünsche, Der Sagenkreis vom geprellten Teufel, p. 70, etc.