SOURCE: “Guillaume de Palerne: A Medieval ‘Best Seller’,” PMLA, Vol. 41, No. 4, December, 1926, pp. 785-809.

[In the following essay, McKeehan focuses on the plot of Guillaume de Palerne. McKeehan discusses the numerous similarities between this story and several other tales, particularly Floriante et Florete, a French romance written circa 1300, Cormac Mac Art, an Irish tale about a prince raised by a wolf, and the Lai de Melion, a “Celtic Werwolf Tale.” McKeehan also investigates the elements of the story that were likely to have increased its popularity among contemporary audiences.]

So many things about the Middle Ages seem strange to the modern reader that it is easy to over-emphasize the differences between the points of view and the methods of medieval and of modern writers. Especially is this true of the writers of fiction. We seldom get more than a brief glimpse of the medieval fiction-writer, specifically the author of medieval romances, actually at work; for example, when we find Chrétien de Troyes using the old book from the cathedral library at Beauvais in the composition of Cligès. Generally we have only the finished product on the one hand, and on the other hand, “sources” of various kinds, folk-tale or saga or classical story. Where the relation between the finished product and the source is close and obvious, as in such romances as Sir. Amadas and Sir Isumbras, the mere identification of the source reveals the method of the writer: he found an attractive old story and retold it, adding such embellishments as his audience would probably like. Nothing could be simpler. But the writers of the more courtly and sophisticated romances were not mere redactors; they were authors, in very much the same sense as the modern novelist is an author. And like most modern novelists, they showed their inventive powers, not often in finding new material, but usually in making recombinations of old material. They sometimes had the advantage over the present would-be producer of “best sellers” in writing for specific courtly groups presided over by single leaders of taste. It was therefore relatively easy to discover what their public wanted. Thus Chrétien wrote his Chevalier de la Charrette to satisfy Marie de Champagne, though it seems not to have been exactly in accordance with his own ethical standards.

What differentiated the medieval fiction-writer most sharply, however, from his modern successor was the fact that in such a case as that just mentioned, which may be regarded as typical, the reaction of his public was immediate and apparent to himself, probably even while his work was in process of composition; for it is surely reasonable to suppose that the long, rambling romances of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries were composed piecemeal as well as read in sections to their courtly audiences. The writer could test the predilections of his readers—or hearers—by a particular type of incident or method of treatment in the first part of his story and repeat or avoid it in the latter part according as it succeeded, or failed to please them. Above all, from what we know of those medieval groups of high-born ladies and their attendant courtiers, their interest in courtly love, in problems of conduct, in the glorification of heroic prowess, in parallels and comparisons and debats, it must be evident that one of the criteria by which the success of a romance could be measured was the amount of interesting conversation aroused by it. The writer of a medieval “best seller”—that is, of a piece of fiction definitely designed to provide what the reading public of those days wanted—would be inclined to produce something that would provoke discussion.

In a recent attempt to analyze the romance of Guillaume de Palerne, my own conception of the methods and motives of such medieval writers became much clearer, and the conclusions derived from this analysis may perhaps be of wider application than appears at first sight.

THE EXTANT VERSIONS AND THE ORIGINAL FORM

The romance of Guillaume de Palerne is extant in three versions:

(1) A French poem in octosyllabic couplets, which is generally regarded as the original form of the romance, though some doubt has been expressed on this point. At any rate, it dates from near the time of probable composition—the concluding years of the twelfth century.¹

(2) An English alliterative poem, which can be dated pretty definitely as “1350, or soon after” by its references to Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford.²

(3) A French prose romance extant in several editions of the sixteenth century. So far as I know, this version has not been reprinted and is not available in this country. Sir Frederick Madden, who evidently examined it, says that the English text is closer to the French prose than to the metrical version. Later writers have apparently accepted this statement without attempting to verify it or to discover the details in which the two French forms differ. M. Michelant, the editor of the French verse romance, discusses the language and format of the various prose editions with no reference to their content.³ Professor Max Kaluza has made a detailed analysis of the relations of the English and the French texts, Englische Studien, IV, 197-274; most of the differences may be accounted for by the exigencies of translation, the change in metrical form, adaptation to a middle-class audience, and the English author's greater power of visualization.⁴

There has been considerable difference of opinion as to the genesis of this romance, the merit of which is rather greater than has been generally recognized. Professor Wells writes:

Just what is the ultimate source of the story, is uncertain. The werwolf motive was known among Romans, Scandinavians, and Celts. The title of the romance and the names of the cities referred to, seem to point to Italy and to support the ascription of the French poem to a Latin source, composed perhaps in Italy or in Sicily. The love-matter between the hero and the heroine is derived from later Greek romance …, and its treatment gives to the story much of the atmosphere of the Greek tales.

Gaston Paris classifies the story as an old Celtic conte, carried into Sicily by the Normans and localized there. He comments on the fact that some details in the Norman chronicles of Sicily seem to have a Scandinavian origin and to go back to the time before the Normans came into southern Europe; the disguise of William and Melior as white bears and perhaps some other matters might be thus accounted for.⁵ Ten Brink is in substantial accord with this view.⁶ Körting regards the story as of Germanic origin on account particularly of the werwolf motive, but believes that before it came into the hands of the French poet it had received a Byzantine working-over. Probably, he says, the tale was brought by the Normans into Italy, and there received the southern romantic decoration.⁷ These general remarks constitute about the sum total hitherto of scholarly attention to the sources of Guillaume de Palerne, with the exception of some discussion as to its possible relation to the Celtic Werwolf Tale, which will be noted later.

Such hypotheses seem to imply that the romance has a single source and that the writer is, in a way, a mere redactor. My own hypothesis is that the romance is a composite, put together by the author of the original French poem from several different sources and treated in such a way as to appeal directly to the immediate interests of the Countess Yolande, for whom it was written, and her court circle.⁸

The plot of the romance according to the English version will serve for the French as well. Moreover, the running marginal outline in the E.E.T.S. edition greatly facilitates the identification of subject-matter. There are two or three fairly noticeable differences in the plots, one of which will be commented on later. The following is the summary of the story, as given by Wells (op. cit., pp. 19, 20):

The English MS. is defective at the beginning. From the French one learns that William is son of a King of Apulia, Sicily, Palermo, and other lands. His uncle plots to poison the child. A werwolf, who in his childhood has been enchanted by his stepmother, the Queen of Spain, saves the boy by carrying him off and fostering him. One day (and here the English begins), William is found and carried home by a cowherd. Childless, the peasant and his wife adopt the boy, whom they come to love dearly. Attracted by his appearance, the Emperor of Rome takes the youth under his patronage. His daughter, Melior, and the boy fall in love. Through Alesaundrine, the girl companion of Melior, who acts as go-between, the lovers are brought together and long enjoy each other in secret. William exhibits great prowess in battle in Saxony and in Lombardy. Marriage is arranged between Melior and the Emperor of Greece. The lovers flee, sewed in bearskins. In the forest, the werwolf supplies them with food, and misleads their pursuers; finally, he guides them into Sicily, clothed as hart and hind. There they find [Alphonse, the werwolf's]⁹ half-brother and his father, the King of Spain, [waging war upon the widowed Queen, William's mother, and her daughter]. William overcomes the Spaniards, and acts for the Queen in the stead of her lost son. Ultimately, he captures the King of Spain and his son. Learning from the King of the enchantment of the werwolf, William compels the Queen to undo her magic. The restored Alphonse reveals the identity and the past history of William. William and Melior are wedded. Alphonse marries William's sister. Alesaundrine is advantageously matched. William becomes Emperor of Rome, and rewards his foster-parents.

A careful analysis shows the romance to be composed of the following elements:

A. Nucleus: the story of a lost prince, who, as a “fair unknown,” falls in love with an emperor's daughter, rescues his mother from an enemy, and is eventually restored to his rights.

B. The old folk-tale of the wolf's fosterling, very widespread and in western Europe at least as old as the story of Romulus and Remus. (B may have been joined to A before the latter came into the hands of the author.)

C. The Celtic Werwolf Tale analyzed by Professor Kittredge,¹⁰ in a very much modified form, owing to the influence of B and D, but showing striking resemblances in detail to the version in the Lai de Melion.¹¹

D. A selection and a treatment of names, localities, and incidents such as to suggest persons and events of considerable contemporary importance and of special interest to the author's immediate audience.

A. THE NUCLEUS OF THE STORY

In the French romance we find the following statements: (vv. 18-22) ‘It pleased me to tell, according to my understanding and memory, the facts of an ancient story (estoire) which happened in Apulia to a king who held the land.’ (vv. 9649-52) ‘Of King William and of his mother, of his children and of his race, of his empire and of his reign treats the estoire here at the end.’ (vv. 9658-60) ‘This book he caused to write and make and turn from Latin into roumans, praying God for the good lady,’ etc. Though the claim of a Latin original is so common in the earlier romances as to seem almost like a convention, it is known in a number of specific cases that the claim is well-founded, and there is no good reason for doubting the truth of it here. A Latin estoire emanating from Sicily or southern Italy would naturally exhibit those Byzantine, “Late Greek,” or oriental qualities that various scholars have discovered in Guillaume de Palerne.¹² Also, if it were produced by or for the Norman ruling class, the emphasis on fighting and the war-like character of the hero, which differentiate it sharply from such typical Byzantine or oriental romances as Floris and Blauncheflur, would be accounted for.¹³

I shall give evidence later to show that the purpose of the author obliged him either to find and use a Sicilian story or to locate in Sicily a story having some other origin. In this case I believe that he found the story already placed in the proper environment, for the only other well-known romance with a definitely Sicilian setting has a plot showing marked similarities to that of Guillaume de Palerne.¹⁴

Floriant et Florete is extant in a unique MS. of the 14th century at Newbattle Abbey and was edited by Francisque Michel for the Roxburghe Club in 1870. So far as I have been able to discover, its resemblances to Guillaume de Palerne have never been noted, though Gaston Paris classes them together as old Celtic contes carried into Sicily by the Normans and localized there.¹⁵ The failure to observe the likeness in the main plots of the two stories is probably due to the unlikeness in their fairy-tale embellishments, which to the modern reader are much the most interesting elements in these romances. Floriant et Florete (F) in its present form and perhaps in its general character is later than Guillaume (G), but there has probably been no borrowing on either side. If my hypothesis is correct, both represent literary composites built up around a nucleus, a fairly simple story of courtly love and war, originally attached to a legendary Sicilian prince.

The resemblances follow:

(1) Floriant and William are both sons of a King of Apulia or Sicily. (2) A wicked steward forms a conspiracy against Floriant's father, kills him, and usurps his throne. In G. the conspiracy is directed against William himself by a wicked uncle, who immediately disappears from the story. (3) Floriant is a posthumous child, born in a forest while his mother is fleeing from the usurper; he is carried off by the fairy Morgain to save him from his enemies, is brought up in ignorance of his birth, but trained in arms and courtesy. William, at the age of four, is carried off by a friendly werwolf to save him from his enemies, is nurtured in a forest, brought up in ignorance of his birth, but trained in arms and courtesy. (4) In both stories, the mother, who survives, believes her son to be dead. In F. the steward-usurper seeks to marry her, and besieges her in Monreale. In G. the queen has a daughter. The King of Spain seeks the daughter as a wife for his son and, being refused, besieges the queen and the princess in Palermo. Here the fact that no reason is given why the Spanish prince is an undesirable suitor spoils the motivation in G. (5) In both stories, the son comes to the rescue of his mother. In G. he is brought by the werwolf; in F. he is sent by the fairy, Morgain. (6) In F. the hero fights a single combat with the steward and defeats and slays him. In G. the hero fights with and kills the steward of the King of Spain for no particular reason except the chance of battle. (7) In F. the fairy reveals the son's origin; in G. the werwolf does so. (8) In F. the hero falls in love with the daughter of the Greek emperor, who is aiding the steward against the queen. In G. the hero falls in love with the daughter of the Roman emperor, who has befriended him, and the Greek emperor is represented as his rival. (9) In both romances, the lovers are brought together in a garden by the confidante and companion of the princess. (10) In both, the father of the princess becomes reconciled and accepts the hero as his heir; the hero becomes emperor. (11) In F. the hero and heroine after marriage wander in disguise in search of adventures. In G. the disguise and the wanderings occur before marriage.

It will be seen from the preceding analysis that the main stories of the two romances, in spite of their substantial resemblance, contain several minor differences, these differences tending to produce better coherence and motivation in F. than in G. I shall endeavor to show later—in section D—that the author of G. probably changed the incidents in his source in order to suggest contemporary events and persons.

This nucleus constitutes a kind of common-stock romance of courtly love and war. Resemblances in it to Tristan have already been noted by Professors Brandl and Gröber.¹⁶ In the Histoire littéraire de la France, the romance of Floriant et Florete is analyzed in detail to show its borrowings from other romances, though no mention is made of any likeness to Guillaume de Palerne.¹⁷ Further comparisons might be made with Percival, with Cligés,¹⁸ with Le Bel Inconnu, and with other romances, but it is hardly necessary to prove that the material in the central plot, which I have called the “nucleus,” is composed of the sort of story-stuff that medieval readers of romance wanted. There is just one question here: If, as Professor Schofield says, the chief hero of Guillaume de Palerne is the werwolf,¹⁹ it is scarcely conceivable that there should have been no werwolf in the original nucleus. But is the werwolf the hero? Out of 5540 lines extant in the English version, only 1913 are connected in any way with the story of Alphons. Even the addition of the missing introduction, which in the French version contains some account of Alphons, would not materially alter the proportions. The werwolf disappears completely while William is with the cowherd (vv. 160-211); while he is at the Emperor's court (vv. 224-1836); while the lovers are being introduced into the castle at Palermo (vv. 2856-3480); while the fighting is taking place at Palermo (vv. 3513-4009). Between lines 4767 and 5174, Alphons gets two lines about his marriage to William's sister. The last 100 lines and the first 85 of the French poem are devoted entirely to William. Only 52 lines in the English romance are occupied with the independent adventures of the werwolf. A hero is not thus subordinated to another and so often and completely lost sight of in medieval romance.

B. THE WOLF'S FOSTERLING

Though I am convinced that the werwolf story was not a part of the nucleus of Guillaume de Palerne, the striking resemblance between the first part of Floriant et Florete and the old Irish tale of the birth of Cormac Mac Art²⁰ suggests that the story of the wolf's fosterling may have been in the original source and may have put into the author's head the happy notion of combining it with the Celtic Werwolf Tale—his final version, as will be indicated, retaining several of the features of the wolf's fosterling motive. An analysis of the introductory portions of Cormàc Mac Art (C) and of Floriant et Florete (F) follows:

(1) In both C. and F. the father has been killed, and the mother is on her way to seek refuge at the house of a loyal friend of her husband. (2) The queen is seized with the pains of childbirth on her journey; in F, in a forest, in C. in an undescribed locality, but obviously of a similar kind. (3) In C. she is accompanied by one servant, in F. by four. (4) In C. the mother goes to sleep, leaving the child in the keeping of the maid, who also falls asleep. Similar incidents in F. are less probable, because the negligence of four servants at once seems extraordinary. (5) In C. the child is carried off by a she-wolf; in F. by Morgain la Fay.

It seems unreasonable to account for these detailed resemblances as merely accidental. Yet one can hardly say that they prove the presence of the wolf motive in the nucleus out of which both Floriant et Florete and Guillaume de Palerne were composed. The marked likenesses, however, in the latter to typical instances of the wolf's fosterling tale can be shown by a comparison between Guillaume de Palerne, Cormac Mac Art, Herodotus's account of the birth of Cyrus, the well-known legend of Romulus and Remus, the stories of Amargenus and Albeus from old Irish saints' legends, and the Middle High German romance of Wolfdieterich.²¹

(1) Of the seven boys, Cyrus and William alone are of legitimate birth. (2) Cyrus, Romulus, Amargenus, and Albeus are delivered over by a king to a servant in order to be killed; they are exposed instead. Wolfdieterich is placed in a hedge by his mother's direction in order to conceal his birth from his grandfather until an opportunity can be found to send him to his father. William and Cormac are not exposed, but are simply left unguarded, one in a garden, the other in a forest; both have powerful enemies. (3) Romulus, Amargenus, Albeus, and Cormac are each found by a she-wolf and suckled and cared for in her den. A bitch is substituted as the foster-mother of Cyrus. A male wolf finds Wolfdieterich and takes him to the den where its mate and cubs are; nothing is said about the child's nourishment. William, who is not a new-born infant, but a child of four years, is kidnapped for benevolent purposes by a male werwolf, who keeps the boy in a forest den, cherishes him tenderly, and provides him with food. (4) Romulus is found in one version by a cowherd, in another by a swineherd, Cyrus by a cowherd, William by a cowherd, Amargenus by swineherds, Albeus and Cormac by men whose status and occupations are not specified, Wolfdieterich by his own grandfather and a hunting party. The stories of William and of the Irish Albeus here resemble each other closely. In each a man finds the child in the wolf's den while the wolf is out searching for food. The wolf, returning and being greatly distressed over the loss of its charge, follows the man. Albeus's foster-mother catches up with him, and he sends her home in grief. William's guardian, being a “witty werwolf,” when he sees the child in the arms of the cowherd's wife, comprehends at a glance that she can give his charge better care than he can, and departs, reasonably satisfied. (5) Romulus, Cyrus, and William are reared by the herds who find them. Amargenus remains with the wolf, and is not found until grown. The man who takes Albeus, true to the Celtic institution of fosterage, entrusts the boy to the care of “certain Britons” to be nurtured. Cormac and Wolfdieterich are almost immediately identified and returned to their mothers. All except Albeus are said to have been unusually beautiful. (6) All these heroes except the saint, Albeus, are of royal descent, and all except the saint's ancestor, Amargenus, come into their kingdoms and attain great power and glory.

(7) Only in three of the tales, the Celtic stories of Cormac and of Albeus and that of William, is there any future association of the wolf and the hero. When Cormac goes to the court of the High King at Tara, he is accompanied by the wolf-cubs that were brought up with him, and, we are told, “The reason for that great esteem which Cormac bore to wolves was that wolves had fostered him.” After Albeus has attained maturity and sainthood, there is organized in that territory a great hunting party against the wolves. One female wolf runs to the place where Albeus is and, when the horsemen pursue her, puts her head into the folds of the saint's robe. He saves her life and that of her whelps. William likewise saves from would-be slayers the life of his “witty werwolf,” who, like Cormac's wolf-cubs, aids the hero in his undertakings. The scene in the legend of Albeus in which the she-wolf seeks and finds safety at the hands of the saint bears a general resemblance, not only to the incident in Guillaume de Palerne, but also to the somewhat similar incident in the romantic versions of the Celtic Werwolf Tale, the Lai de Melion, Marie de France's Bisclavret, and the Latin romance of Arthur and Gorlagon.²²

From this analysis it seems evident that the author of Guillaume de Palerne either found the wolf's fosterling story already connected with his original source or inserted the parts of it that he wished to use. The differences between the version in the romance and the normal folk-tale version are fundamentally due to the fact that the child William is four years old instead of a new-born babe; that, therefore, he does not need to be suckled; that the author is thus permitted to change the wolf-mother into a male werwolf and to introduce the fascinating ingredients of the Celtic Werwolf Tale. Personally I feel that this latter possibility would not have occurred to him, had there been no wolf in the original nucleus. A reason for changing the infant into a four-year-old boy will appear in D.

C. THE CELTIC WERWOLF TALE

The fact that the author of Guillaume de Palerne did use the Celtic Werwolf Tale and that he used it in the form in which it is found in the Lai de Melion will now be established; the evidence is, I think, conclusive. Professor Kittredge, in the article already referred to, appends the following note:

In Guillaume de Palerne the guardian and constant helper of the hero and heroine is a Spanish prince, who has been changed into a wolf by the magic power of his stepmother. The enchanted prince's interview with his father (vv. 7207ff. …) reminds one of that between the Werewolf and his father-in-law in our tale, and there are other resemblances (see vv. 7629ff., 7731ff., 7759ff.). There may or may not be some connection between Guillaume de Palerne and The Werewolf's Tale. Paris (Litt. franc. au Moyen Age, §67) inclines to the affirmative; Ahlström (Studier i den fornfranska Lais-Litteraturen, p. 81) and Warnke (Lais, 2nd ed., p. civ) oppose.²³

The passages cited by Professor Kittredge deal with the werwolf's attack on his stepmother, with her use of the ring in restoring him to human form, and with his nakedness and provision with clothing. It will be shown that the resemblances are closer and more numerous than have hitherto been noted.

The various versions of the Celtic Werwolf Tale which Professor Kittredge analyzes are four in number: (1) Marie de France's Bisclavret, referred to in the following analysis as B; (2) the Latin romance of Arthur and Gorlagon, referred to as A; (3) an Irish folk-tale retold by Professor Kittredge, referred to as I; (4) the Lai de Melion, extant in the Picard dialect and by an unknown author, referred to as M. Guillaume de Palerne will be designated as G.²⁴

The comparison which follows shows the resemblance between the last-named romance and the four stories analyzed by Professor Kittredge, particularly between Guillaume de Palerne and Melion:

(1) In A, B, I, and M the woman responsible for the transformation of the hero into a werwolf is his wife; in G she is his stepmother. This is the greatest difference between our romance and the other versions, and is probably due to the fact that, as will be shown later, the author desired to marry Alphons to William's sister. In A, B, and I the woman has no supernatural power; in M she retains a kind of fairy nature, in G she is a magician. The methods of transformation and restoration are unlike in the four tales; but in M the hero is both transformed and restored with the aid of a ring having two jewels, while in G the restoration alone is made by means of a ring with a stone of “stif vertu” in it (v. 4424).

(2) In A, I, M, and G the hero after transformation leaves his own country and goes to another. In I no motive is given for his departure; in A and G he goes to escape pursuit and death; in M he follows his wife to secure redress. In M and A the journey is traced; in G it is not traced, though M. Michelant's statement (op. cit., p. viii) that the werwolf immediately after his transformation takes his course across Europe to Sicily in order to watch over the life of the young prince whom he saves from peril is not accurate. The French text (vv. 326-40) says that he arrived in Apulia after many travails and pains, and remained there two years before he heard of the conspiracy against William.

(3) In A, I, M, and G the werwolf at one time makes a voyage in a ship.

(4) There is a stag hunt in A, M, and G. In A the werwolf pursues and brings down a stag at the command of the king who has saved his life. In M the hero shows his wife how to transform him into a wolf in order to hunt and kill a stag for her. In G the werwolf pursues a stag in order to entice the emperor to find William; later he pursues and kills a hart and a hind to obtain their skins for William and Melior. (Note the doubling up of the incident in G; it is typical of the author and helps to confirm the imitative nature of his work. Miss Hibbard comments on this characteristic, op. cit., p. 221.)

(5) In all versions the werwolf seeks favor and release from a king. In A the king is his brother; in B and M his liege lord; in G his father. In I there is no special connection between the hero and the king. In A, B, and I the wolf seeks the protection of the king while he is being hunted by the king's men; in M and G the wolf goes to the hall where the king is sitting, as a guest in M, as a prisoner in G, of the ruler of the country. In A, M, and G the wolf kisses the king's feet. In M immediately afterwards the werwolf sees the squire who had helped his wife and rushes upon him. The men in the hall interfere and would have slain the beast if Arthur had not prevented them by saying that it was his wolf and he would protect it. In G the men in the hall start to attack the wolf without any reason except that according to the English writer they are “savage” men (v. 4022). William interferes and declares that he will kill any man who harms “that beast” (v. 4033).

(6) In A, I, and M the wolf commits depredations; in A and M he kills men. In B there is no mention of depredations. In G except for hunting wild animals in the forest to provide clothing and food for the lovers, he shows no wolfishness of nature. He frightens men to get bread and wine from them, but does no harm.

(7) In B, M, and G the werwolf attacks and tries to kill a person or persons responsible for his transformation: in B his wife and her lover at separate times; in M the squire who helped his wife; in G the stepmother who transformed him. In G the attack occurs twice, once just after the transformation, once just before the restoration, which is the place of the occurrence in M and of the attack on the wife in B. (Note again in G the doubling up of an effective incident.)

(8) In A, B, I, and M the king takes the wolf home and treats him as a pet. William's treatment of Alphons is slightly parallel. In B and M the wolf never leaves the king and sleeps in his bedchamber. In G just before the restoration, though nothing has been said of this before, we are told that the werwolf was in William's chamber and had been there in bliss by night and day since the messengers had gone after the queen (vv. 4328-4331).

(9) In A the king says that the wolf has human intelligence, “illum humanum sensum habere” (Arthur and Gorlagon, p. 159); in B the king says that the wolf has the sense of a man, “Ele a sen d’ume” (v. 154), “Ceste beste a entente e sen” (v. 158); in the English version of G, William says of the werwolf to the King of Spain, “He has man's mind more than we both” (v. 4123), in the French version (vv. 7345, 7346),

Autant a il sens et memore,
Com j’ai on plus, et plus encore;

in M the same phrase is used (vv. 219, 220):

Mais ne porquant se leus estoit,
Sens et memore d’ome avoit.

(10) In B the clothes which are to restore the werwolf to his own form are placed before him, but he does not touch them. An old man suggests that he is ashamed to remove his beast's hide in their presence and advises privacy. The wolf and the clothes are therefore taken to a private chamber, where the wolf transforms himself. In M Arthur, by Gawain's advice, takes the wolf into a private chamber and restores him to his human form. In G the queen, without advice or discussion, takes the werwolf into a private chamber and restores him; he is naked and ashamed. The queen sends him to bathe, and William gives him clothes (vv. 4421-4478).

So much for the comparison between Guillaume de Palerne and the four versions of the Celtic Werwolf Tale; but between Guillaume and Melion there are further resemblances.

(1) What is perhaps the most conclusive parallel has not been noted, because no one has thought—apparently—of comparing M with the English William of Palerne. In M (vv. 221-250) the werwolf, seeking to reach Ireland, hides on board a ship and is carried across the sea. When the ship reaches port, he jumps ashore, is struck at and hit by one of the crew, but escapes. In the English romance, when the wolf, the hart, and the hind seek to cross the straits from Italy to Sicily, the three disguised animals hide themselves among the casks of wine on a ship about to sail. When it reaches the opposite shore, the werwolf jumps out, is struck at by one of the crew, is hit, but escapes. All the men except one ship-boy pursue the wolf. When the hart and the hind appear in their turn and jump overboard, the boy strikes at the hind and knocks her, down, but she escapes by the help of the hart without any injury. (vv. 2729-84) Now there is evident borrowing here, and that the writer of William borrowed from Melion rather than vice versa is indicated by the obvious repetition of the incident in William—the third instance already noted of the double use of an effective bit of business by our author. In the French poetic version the narrative of the crossing (vv. 4561 ff) is much briefer than in the English, and the characteristic duplication does not occur.²⁵ It is, of course, open to the critic to say that the English translator added the story, but he did not add anything else of that kind; and it seems more probable that the original writer borrowed that particular incident along with other material from the lai of Melion than that the Englishman a century and a half later should have chanced to hit upon the same source for further embellishment. What is needed, of course, is an examination of the French prose text to discover whether this is one of the particulars in which it more closely resembles the English than the French poem.

(2) A minor resemblance occurs between the transformation scene in M (vv. 543-70), where Arthur weeps for pity, and the transformation scene in G, where everybody—apparently—weeps for “love, tenderness, and pity.” (vv. 7716, 7717.) The tendency of the author of G to “improve” on his source is again displayed.

(3) A further parallel between G, vv. 3886 ff., and M, vv. 283 ff., is especially interesting because in G it is of no great use to the plot and may be regarded as a mere embellishment. Melion, the werwolf, has gathered about him a band of ten other wolves, with which he has ravaged the countryside. Being worn out in the morning, they seek rest and seclusion in a wood on a little hill near Dublin; the surrounding country is all open and level. A peasant sees them there asleep and takes the tidings to the king, who organizes a hunt in order to exterminate the wolves. His daughter, Melion's wife, accompanies him to see the sport. Eventually the other wolves are killed, but Melion escapes. In Guillaume, William and Melior, disguised as white bears, are being conducted through Italy to Sicily by the werwolf. They have been traveling by night through the woods and sleeping by day. At dawn in the neighborhood of Beneventum they arrive, worn out by their night's journey, at a place where the land is a great treeless plain except for one little hill. They take refuge in a quarry on this hill and fall asleep. Workmen, who find them there, report the fact to the governor of Beneventum, who organizes a hunt and takes with him his son, a child, to see the bears. At the critical moment the werwolf snatches up the child and runs off with him, thus leading the entire company in pursuit and giving the lovers a chance to escape. When he thinks that they are safe, he drops the boy unhurt and, making a wide circuit, rejoins them. It is evident that the presence of the king's daughter at the hunt in Melion is a vital part of the story, while the presence of the governor's son at the hunt in Guillaume is unessential, though it gives the author another opportunity to repeat an effective incident—in this case, the abduction of a child by a friendly wolf in full view of a large group of people. The narratives of the two hunts are not only parallel in subject-matter, but present some noteworthy verbal resemblances, as will be seen from the following quotations:

(Melion, vv. 283ff.)
     Une nuit orent mont erré,
     Traveillié furent et pené,
     En un bois joste Duveline
     Sor un tertre les la marine.
     Li bois estoit les une plaigne,
     Tot environ ot grant campaigne.
(Guillaume, vv. 3886-87)
     Mais les forest lor sont faillies,
     N’i voient se champaigne non.
     Regardé ont lés un grant tertre. (3896)
     Et il estoient as plains chans.(3902)
     Traveillié furent et lassé, (3921-2)
     Car cele nuit ont plus erré.

This phraseology, added to the other parallels already noted, suggests that the author of Guillaume de Palerne was writing with a copy of the Lai de Melion or of the original of the Lai before him. Certainly there can be no room for doubt that he wove into his romance large parts of a version of the Celtic Werwolf Tale closely resembling that which appears in the Lai.

D. CONTEMPORARY ALLUSIONS

As has already been noted,²⁶Guillaume de Palerne is addressed to a Countess Yolande, whom Sir Frederick Madden identified as the daughter of Baldwin IV, Count of Hainault, the wife of the Comte de St. Pol. This identification becomes almost certain when one discovers how close is the connection between the “local color” of the romance and the contemporary adventures of Yolande's husband.

In the Itinerarium Regis Ricardi are several references to the Count of St. Paul.²⁷ On the Octave of Easter, 1191, he arrived in Palestine in the train of Philip Augustus. He did not, however, return to France with Philip. It seems evident that he was one of the French knights who, attracted by the superior prowess and financial resources of the English king, transferred their services from Philip to Richard.²⁸ At any rate, he is mentioned several times as fighting under the immediate command of Richard, in close association with the Earl of Leicester. His valor and success are commented on by the English chronicler at a point where, besides the count, Richard alone is praised.

Since he arrived in Palestine with Philip, he must have left Sicily with Philip; in other words, he was in Sicily during the autumn and winter of 1190-91, along with the rest of the French and English crusaders. This fact alone is sufficient to account for the romancer's use of Sicily as a setting for his story.

But what was going on in Sicily during those months? A brief summary will indicate the resemblance between the actual historical events of which the Comte de St. Pol was a spectator and the fictitious events recounted for his wife's entertainment by the author of Guillaume de Palerne.²⁹

William the Good, King of Sicily, or, as he is called by the chronicler, of Apulia—the same title given to William of Palerne's father—had died in November, 1189. His widow, Joanna, was Richard's sister. Upon the death of her husband without issue, Tancred, an illegitimate son of Roger I and cousin of William, took possession of the throne and also of the person and property of his predecessor's widow, whom he kept in custody at Palermo. When Richard and Philip landed in Sicily almost a year later, the former sent envoys to Tancred to demand his sister and her dowry. Finding Tancred willing to restore Joanna, but reluctant about the dowry, Richard attacked and took by assault the city of Messina.³⁰ This was an unanswerable argument, and Tancred yielded completely. He not only accepted Richard's terms, but negotiated a marriage between his own daughter and Arthur of Brittany. Soon after this friendly compact had been arranged, Eleanor, Richard's mother, accompanied by his betrothed, Berengaria of Navarre, arrived at Reggio. Richard met them there, and took them across the straits to Messina. Eleanor soon returned to Normandy. Berengaria and Joanna accompanied the crusaders to Palestine, Richard and Berengaria being married on the way at Cyprus. There was a good deal of friction between Philip and Richard over the marriage, as Philip alleged a previous contract with his sister.

In Guillaume de Palerne, a prince, called ‘the kuddest knight known in this world,’ is found in Sicily, accompanied by his betrothed; he comes to the rescue of his mother and sister, who are besieged in Palermo by an unfriendly, but not particularly obnoxious king; he fights with distinguished success; the fighting ends with a friendly compact and a group of advantageous marriages. At or near the time of the romance, the husband of the lady for whom it was intended was serving in Palestine under ‘the kuddest knight known in this world,’ Richard Coeur-de-Lion. The year before both king and count had been in Sicily; Richard had met there his betrothed and his mother, his devotion to whom was well known; he had rescued his sister, held in custody at Palermo; he had fought successfully against the unfriendly king who had control of her; the fighting had been terminated by a friendly compact and an advantageous marriage contract; the hero himself had been married shortly afterwards.

The resemblances between contemporary history and the romance are obvious. That there are noticeable differences is of no importance, for I have no intention of arguing that the author of Guillaume de Palerne was retelling that history. He simply chose and retold an old story which would serve to suggest the situation and events uppermost in the minds of his auditors. Apparently, however, he made some alterations in his source in order to increase its likeness to the historical facts. It will be remembered that in Floriant et Florete, the mother of the hero is wooed and besieged by the usurper and rescued by her son; the introduction into Guillaume de Palerne of the unnecessary and almost invisible sister, which rather spoils the motivation of the story, may be accounted for by the relations between Richard and Joanna.

The names chosen by the romance-writer for his principal characters are such as would attract interested attention. Guillaume de Palerne, the title, would call to mind instantly the recently dead and much lamented William the Good, King of Sicily and Apulia, one of the noblest of medieval sovereigns, whom Dante more than a century later placed in the eye of the eagle in Paradise along with David, Trajan, Hezekiah, Constantine, and Rhipeus the Trojan.³¹

The name of the werwolf, Alphons, is naturally appropriate for the son of a King of Spain. It is curious that the author should have used that title, for there was not then, nor had there been for some centuries, any such political entity as Spain. He may have deliberately created an ambiguity of suggestion as between the two living princes, Alfonso II of Aragon and Alfonso VIII of Castile. Both were closely associated with Richard.³² The former was a great king, just, firm, religious, surnamed the Chaste. He spent much of his time in southern France, where he had great possessions contiguous to those which Richard governed before his accession to the English throne; he was in alliance with Richard in several local wars. Like Richard, he was a patron of literature, and is said to have introduced the “gaie science” south of the Pyrenees. He married the sister of Alfonso of Castile, towards whom, though his natural rival, he behaved with great magnanimity. Both had been boy-kings, the Aragonese seven years older than the Castilian. Their mutual helpfulness, their connection as brothers-in-law, and their relative ages suggest the relations between Alphons and William in the romance.

Alfonso VIII of Castile married Richard's sister, even as the Alphons of the story marries the sister of William. He also was an intelligent and successful ruler, one of the best of Castilian kings. But the interesting thing about him is an event of his early life, so astonishingly like the opening incident in Guillaume de Palerne that the resemblance can scarcely be accidental. Sancho of Castile died in 1159, leaving as his heir his four-year-old son, Alfonso VIII. Sancho's brother, Ferdinand of Leon, seized several of the Castilian cities and demanded that Alfonso's guardian, Manrique de Lara, should bring the child to an appointed place to do homage to himself as king. When the little prince was brought by Manrique into the assembly, he began to cry. Being taken outside to be pacified, he was snatched up by an adherent of the Laras, who carried him off on a swift horse to a place of safety and concealment. Search was made for him in vain. Manrique managed to escape the wrath of Ferdinand, and in the war which followed succeeded in enthroning the rightful heir. One of the principal events in this war was the successful resistance of Alfonso's capital, Toledo, against the besieging forces of Ferdinand. All this happened thirty years before the probable date of Guillaume de Palerne, but such a dramatic story is not likely to be soon forgotten, especially while its central personage is still alive and of great prominence. The author's desire to remind his readers of this picturesque incident would easily account for the otherwise unaccountable changes that he introduced into the normal wolf's fosterling story: the use of the wicked uncle, from whose plots the boy is rescued and who immediately disappears from the tale; the substitution of a child of four—Alfonso's exact age—for the new-born infant; the employment of a male werwolf as the agent of the abduction and his benevolent motive; the seizure of the child in broad daylight in the presence of the court instead of in the usual concealed fashion.

CONCLUSION

In addition to the narrative elements dealt with in the preceding paragraphs, the French romance is, as Miss Hibbard remarks, “impregnated with the doctrines of l’amour courtois … constantly analyzes the emotions and emphasizes the agonies of love-sickness and the joys of lovers in one another's company.” It is “full of formal speeches … and marked by occasional allegorical tendencies, especially in the consideration of love.”³³ The natural tendency of such material to stimulate conversation in the Countess Yolande's courtly circle is too obvious to need further comment.

But would not the other parts of the curious conglomerate revealed by our analysis have the same effect? The present tendency among scholars to pull to pieces medieval romances in order to find sources and analogues and historical or other raisons d’être is of comparatively recent date. Nevertheless, if we put ourselves in the places of the original audience of such a courtly composite as Guillaume de Palerne, I think we shall discover that their natural psychological reaction would bear a strange resemblance to that of the modern scholar, though their methods of approach would, of course, be quite different.

Leaving out of consideration their perennial interest in the problems of courtly love, they would find abundance of opportunity for discussion along the following lines:

(1) The comparison of the new romance with other romances. The medieval reader—and in this respect he resembled the modern reader more than is usually supposed—had no great desire for novelty of plot. He enjoyed the same situations indefinitely repeated, but, if he were at all sophisticated, he must have noted with delight ingenious variations in the treatment of stock motives. The resemblances and differences between Guillaume de Palerne and the romances with which it has been compared in modern times were surely far more interesting to the Countess Yolande and her ladies than they can be to us.

(2) The discovery and identification of familiar folk-lore embedded in the narrative. The abundant use of folk-tales by the writers of romances proves not only their own knowledge of them, but also the knowledge and interest of their audiences. It is absurd to assume that the medieval author could not have invented or found in real life new, or at any rate fresh, incidents and situations. As a matter of fact, some invention of that sort does occur in medieval literature. But the readers of the time obviously liked to recognize the story-stuff of the folk dressed up in courtly fashion. And the recognition must have given greater delight when it was not too easy. Folk-tales frequently appear in romances in rather bewildering contaminations and combinations. Must we suppose that they came into the writer's hands thus corrupted? Or may he not have deliberately altered them and put them together for the greater enjoyment of his more ingenious readers? It is surely no illegitimate exercise of the historical imagination to picture the Countess Yolande's circle delightedly discovering in Guillaume de Palerne both the Celtic Werwolf Tale and the story of the wolf's fosterling, by whatever names they may have known them.

(3) The recognition of contemporary or pseudo-contemporary allusions. I should like to emphasize particularly the second of the two adjectives, pseudo-contemporary. The analysis of the historical references in Guillaume de Palerne given in section D of this paper may have impressed the reader as too confused to be convincing; suggestions pointing to William of Sicily, to Richard and his mother and his sister and his betrothed, to Tancred, and to the two Alfonsos criss-cross one another in every direction. But—to run the risk of being as paradoxical as Bishop Warburton—it is the confusion that proves my point. Granted that the author aimed to stimulate conversation, what could more obviously accomplish his purpose than to suggest several possible identifications, each one of them a little dubious? Resemblances and differences, not identities, lead to discussion.

At the beginning of this analysis of Guillaume de Palerne I remarked that conclusions drawn from it might be of fairly wide application. I should like to make just one such application myself—a small contribution to the much-agitated question, “What is the Parlement of Foules?” It has been suggested and re-suggested that the poem was intended to celebrate a possible betrothal or a wedding, Richard's or John of Gaunt's daughter's, and various identifications have been proposed for the suitors and have been discredited, and great names have been involved in the controversy.³⁴ Now, if my theory is correct, one of the author's purposes when he produced the poem was to arouse just such a controversy, though he could hardly have expected it to be still alive five hundred years after his death. To provoke discussion it would be worth while to make several different explanations easily possible and no one of them really accurate.

At any rate, whether these side-remarks on The Parlement of Foules are appropriate or not, the main aim of the medieval as of the modern writer of “best sellers” was to interest his readers—in the case of the former, a very limited and special group—and the methods by which he sought to appeal to their temporary or permanent interests may be well seen by the study of such an obviously derivative and imitative composite as Guillaume de Palerne.

Notes

1. Ed. by H. Michelant, Soc. des anciens Textes français, 1876; MS. in the Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal. Cf. John Edwin Wells, Manual of the Writings in Middle English, 1916, p. 19; also Introd. by Sir Frederick Madden in work cited below; Laura A. Hibbard, Medieval Romance in England, 1924, p. 214.

2. Wells, op. cit., p. 19. The poem is in King's Coll. Camb. MS. 13. defective at the beginning, and has been edited by Sir Frederick Madden for the Roxburghe Club (1832) and by W. W. Skeat for the EETS (Ext. Ser., I, 1867). I have not seen the Roxburghe Club edition, but Professor Skeat reprints Sir Frederick Madden's valuable introduction. There is also extant a fragment of an English prose version, Herrig's Archiv, CXVII, 318 ff.

3. Michelant, op. cit., pp. xviii-xxi. Madden, unfortunately, did not have first-hand acquaintance with the French verse romance; cf. EETS, ed., p. xvii,

4. Professor Wells' remark that “the English romance shows in details extraordinary independence of the extant French poetical version,” though literally true—with the possible exception of the word “extraordinary”—might be misleading; for in all essential particulars, the stories are identical.

5. Gaston Paris, “La Sicile dans la litterature française du moyen age,” Romania, V, 109.

6. Bernhard Ten Brink, Geschichte der englischen Literatur, Strassburg, 1899, I, 389-91.

7. Gustav Körting, Grundriss der Geschichte der englischen Literatur, 1893, ¶91. See summary of discussion of origin by Miss Hibbard, op. cit., pp. 217 ff.

8. Sir Frederick Madden's identification of the Countess Yolande, mentioned in the French text, as the daughter of Baldwin IV, Count of Hainault, is generally accepted and in this paper is taken as proved.

9. Professor Wells prints “William's,” but this is an obvious error.

10. Arthur and Gorlagon, [Harvard] Stud. and Notes, VIII, 149-275.

11. Zsf. für Rom. Phil., VI (1882), 94 ff., ed. by W. Horak. Miss Hibbard, op. cit., p. 220, writes: “Although only the more obvious parallels of incident and character have been touched on here, it seems sufficiently clear that the author of Guillaume de Palerne was familiar with the particular story of which Bisclavret and Melion were independent derivations.” Evidence will be given later to show the probable dependence of Guillaume on Melion or on a version closely resembling the extant text of the latter.

12. Michelant, op. cit., p. xx; G. Paris, La Litterature française au moyen age, Paris, 1914, ¶¶ 51, 52; Wells, loc. cit.; Körting, op. cit., ¶91. This would also account for the accurate references in the romance to Sicilian localities, Hibbard, op. cit., p. 220, though the author's knowledge might have been derived directly or indirectly from the Countess Yolande's husband; cf. D infra.

13. In the English William of Palerne, which in this respect does not differ essentially from the French, one eighth of the entire poem is taken up with actual accounts of battles.

14. Hue de Rotelande's I pomedon is located principally in Apulia and Calabria. It is obviously a “courtly composite,” as Professor Wells calls it (p. 148). Curiously enough, it has one prominent incident in common with both Guillaume de Palerne and Floriant et Florete: the attempt to force a princess into marriage by besieging her in her castle and her rescue by a knight, who is a “fair unknown.” This is, however, a very frequently recurring incident.

15. Op. cit., Romania, V, 111.

16. Alois Brandl in Paul's Grundriss der germanischen Philologie, II, Pt. 1, 660-61; Gustav Gröber, Grundriss der romanischen Philologie, II, Pt. 1, 529-30. Brandl's statement that William and Melior are bound together by means of a “Zaubertrank” is inaccurate; Gröber's comparison of the part played by the wolf to the part played by the dog in Tristan is decidedly misleading.

17. XXVIII, 139-79.

18. M. Lot-Borodine, La femme et l’amour au XIIe siècle d’après les poèmes de Chrétien de Troyes, Paris, 1909, p. 247.

19. Schofield, English Literature from the Norman Conquest to Chaucer, London, 1914, p. 312. Miss Hibbard makes a similar statement, op. cit., p. 217.

20. Standish H. O’Grady, Sylva Gadelica, A Collection of Tales in Irish, 2 vols., London and Edin., 1892, II, 286 ff.

21. Herodotus, Book I, ¶'s 107 ff.; Plutarch's Lives, ed. by Bernadotte Perrin, Loeb Library, 1919-21, I, 97 ff.; Carolus Plummer, Vitae Sanctorum Hiberniae, 2 vols., Oxford, 1910, I, 65 ff., and I, 46 ff.; Der grosse Wolfdieterich, hrsg. von Adolf Holtzmann, Heidelberg, 1875. To avoid awkwardness, the story of Romulus and Remus is referred to as that of Romulus.

22. William of Palerne, ll. 4010 ff.; Melion, ll. 407 ff.; Die Lais der Marie de France, hrsg. von Karl Warnke, 2 vols., Halle, 1885, Bisclavret, pp. 75 ff., vv. 135 ff.; Arthur and Gorlagon, ed. by Kittredge, Harv. Studies and Notes, VIII, 149 ff., p. 159.

23. Arthur and Gorlagon, p. 184, note 2.

24. See notes 11 and 22 for citations of these works. Professor Kittredge discusses all of these except G and shows their common provenience. There are two extant MSS. of the Lai de Melion, both in the Picard dialect, one of the late 13th, the other of the late 14th, century. Concerning them Professor Kittredge writes (p. 198): “Neither presents a perfect text, and the Picard version may therefore be put back some time. Probably it is not much later than Marie herself. … Though Marie wrote her Lais about 1180, there is no MS. earlier than the second half of the 13th century.” I have assumed, on Mr. Kittredge's authority, as well as on other grounds, that Melion antedates Guillaume.

25. This duplication of incidents is so characteristic of the French author that it affords a real argument for the theory that the boat episode was in the original version. Another notable duplication—or “triplication”—is found in his use of animal disguises. Having discovered apparently that the transformation of a man into a wolf is intensely interesting, he proceeds to disguise his lovers, first as white bears, and later as a hart and a hind. There seems to be some uncertainty even in the author's mind as to whether William and Melior are temporarily changed into animals or merely put on the skins of animals. On the whole, their behavior seems to indicate that the transformation is complete. The change is entirely under their own control, and is accomplished merely by putting on the animal-skins; whereas Alphons is under enchantment, from which he is powerless to escape. Both conditions are abundantly paralleled in folk-lore from all parts of the world. Cf. Wilhelm Hertz, Die Werwolf, Stuttgart, 1862 (this is the most valuable book on the subject); also Caroline Taylor Stewart, “The Origin of the Werwolf Superstition,” Univ. of Missouri Studies, Soc. Science Series, II, no. 3, 1909; Kirby F. Smith, “An Historical Study of the Werwolf in Literature,” PMLA, IX (1894), 1-42 (largely indebted to Hertz), etc.; for a bibliography on the subject, see George F. Black, “A List of Books relating to Lycanthropy,” N. Y. Pub. Lib. Bulletin 23, 1919, pp. 811-15.

26. See above, note 8.

27. Chronicles and Memorials of the Reign of Richard I, 2 vols., ed. by Wm. Stubbs, Rolls Series, 1864, Vol. I, Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, auctore, ut videtur, Ricardo, Canonico Sanctae Trinitatis Londiniensis. Dated by the editor, p. lxx, as probably between 1200 and 1220. References to the Count of St. Paul are on pp. 213, 257, 258, 292, 293, 298.

28. Of course, he may have held lands from Richard; I have not been able to discover his feudal relations, but his original appearance with Philip implies that he was the vassal of the French, rather than of the English, king.

29. The account is drawn from the Itinerarium Ricardi, pp. 146 ff. and from the article on Richard I in the Dict. of Nat. Biog.

30. Accounts differ as to the details. The author of the Itinerarium states that the attack on Messina took place as a result of a quarrel between Richard and the citizens, and that the demand on Tancred was not made until the spoils of the city were in Richard's hands to offer in exchange for Joanna's dowry; cf. pp. 154 ff.

31. Paradiso, XX, 62.

32. Cf. article on Richard I in Dict. of Nat. Biog. by T. A. Archer. The detailed information about Alfonso II of Aragon is taken from Rousseau St. Hilaire, Histoire d’Espagne, Paris, 1844, Vol. IV, Book X, Chap. II; that about Alfonso VIII of Castile from the same work and volume, Book X, Chap. I.

33. Op. cit., p. 214.

34. Professor Manly and Professor Emerson especially. See Wells' Manual, pp. 871, 1028, 1143, for references to controversial articles on the interpretation of the poem. A remark made in class by Mr. Manly on the ease with which the suitors could be identified with different persons started me on this particular line of thought.