The Tale of Renard and Chantecler in French and English medieval literature From Anti-Hero to Anti-Fable

The Tale of Renard and Chantecler in French and English medieval literature

From Anti-Hero to Anti-Fable

Paul Boucher

Professeur honoraire de l’Université d’Angers

 

1. Introduction

 The “Cock and Fox” tale, as E.P.Dargan termed it in 1907[1], is very ancient, going back more than two thousand years in time. It first appeared in its “modern” form in Aesop’s Fabularum and reappears regularly throughout medieval European literature. In the present paper I will concentrate on two of its more important European avatars: Renart et Chantecler le Coq in Branch II of the Roman de Renart and the Nonnes Prestes Tale from Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales.

In the first section, I will say a word or two about the origin and development of the cock and fox fable in medieval Europe.  While it is difficult to trace with certainty the exact source of each version, it is generally admitted[2] that the main source of Chaucer’s tale was probably the Roman de Renart, which in turn owes its origins to Marie de France’s Ysopet, the latter most probably a rewritten version in roman of an English translation of Aesop’s “Perdix et Vulpis”.

In the second section, I will look at Renart et Chantecler le Coq in the Roman de Renart as an example of the anti-courtly literature of the period.  The theme of this section will be “Renart as Anti-hero”.

Finally, I will turn to Chaucer’s Nonnes Prestes Tale (NPT) and discuss the manner in which he uses the familiar animal fable to poke fun at the three estates, clergy, nobility and commoners, but also his innovative narrative technique and the way he turns the tale on its head to mock the overuse of animal fables by contemporary authors to moralize and philosophize.  This section will be entitled “The Nonnes Prestes Tale as Anti-fable”.

1. Origin and development of the “cock and fox” tale in Medieval Europe

 The origin of European folktales portraying a fox and some other animal (a bear, a wolf, a crow, etc.) is very ancient.  Raymond Sudre[3] traces such tales back to two converging sources, a northern European tradition centered on the bear, and an Asian tradition, which may or may not go back to India, in which the lion, king of the animals, has two quarrelling servants, a hyena and a jackal or a fox.  In both cases, the fox is the foil to the dominant bear or lion, and is characterized by his cunning tricks.

The tradition of making collections of animal tales predates Æsop’s Fabularum (ca.750 AD), the most famous of such collections. Apparently similar fables, such as “The Fox and the Dove” or “The Jackal and the Sparrow”, existed in ancient Oriental literature and may have influenced the oral tradition in Europe. These were often used as the basis for lessons in rhetoric and/or morality.  According to Dargan, however, the cock and fox tale per se is not found before Æsop.

In any case and for the purposes of this study, we will consider Aesop’s version as the archetype for the other versions discussed, to use a term coined by folklore specialists to designate the “original” version of a folktale which reappears at different times in different places.[4]  Aesop’s tale, reproduced and translated below, contains five motifs, to use V. J. Propp’s[5] term for textual segments combining certain recurring variables and constants. By the former term, Propp means the names and attributes of the characters and by the latter, the actions they carry out.  For instance, in a given folk tale, a particular action – save the princess, kill the dragon, etc. – may be performed by different characters – the young prince, a beggar, etc. – using different magical or non-magical attributes – a cloak of invisibility, a sword that never rusts, etc., – yet remain constant throughout the various avatars of the tale.

 Aesop’s Fabularum

 AFA-Fab. XIII « Perdix et Vulpis »

Resedit alta quondam perdix arbore Aduenit vulpis. Deinde sic coepit loqui, O quanta vultus species est, perdix, tui ! Corala rustrum, crura vincut purpurae Fulgorem. At si dormires, quanto pulcrior Esses. Ut stulta clausit occulos, illico, Rapit credentem vulpis. Illa fletibus Haet mixta gravibus verba supplex edidit. Per o tuarum, vulpus, artium decus, Ut ante, queso, nomen proferas meum Sic devorabis. Vulpis, ubi voluit loqui Aperuit os : at perdix evasit necem, Decepta vulpis, quid opus erat loqui mihi Erat necesse, somnus qui non venerat ? Haec illis, qui locuuntur, ubi nil est opus, Et qui vigilare cum necesse, dormiunt.

“The Partridge and the Fox”   [A partridge once sat in a high tree.]1 [A fox came up. Then he began to talk thus: « Oh, how great is the beauty of your face, partridge! Your beak surpasses coral, your legs the splendor of purple.]2 [But if you would sleep, how much prettier you would be! » So the foolish thing shut her eyes; the fox immediately carried off the credulous creature.]3 [She uttered supplicatingly these words mingled with grievous weeping: « By the dignity [decus] of your arts, fox, I beg you to speak my name first, [and] then you will eat. » When the fox wanted to talk, he opened his mouth; but the partridge slipped away from the fool.]4 [The deluded fox [says]: « What use [was there] in my talking? » Replies the partridge: « And what use in my sleeping? Was it necessary for one to whom sleep came not? » This is for those people who talk when there is no need, and who sleep when they ought to watch.]5

 

• Motif 1 introduces two variables: a partridge and a tree, and one constant: sitting high off the ground.
• Motif 2 introduces a new variable, the fox, and two constants: “came up” and “flattered”.
• In motif 3 the same characters are involved in three actions: fox persuades partridge, partridge shuts her eyes, fox captures partridge.
• Then in motif 4 the same characters accomplish three actions: the bird begs the fox to speak its name; the fox opens its mouth; the bird escapes.
• Finally, in motif 5 each animal draws a moral conclusion.

With few changes, we find these same motifs in all three of the later versions to be discussed here: Marie de France’s “Del corp e del gupil” (ca.1175), Branch II of the Roman de Renart (ca.1177) and The NPT in The Canterbury Tales (ca. 1386).

 Marie de France’s Ysopet

Alongside the well-known Lais, based on oral Breton tales, and the Espurgatoire saint Patrice, a translation into roman of the Tractatus de Purgatorio sancti Patricii of Henri de Saltrey, an English Cistercian monk, a person calling herself Marie is the author of Ysopet, a collection of Aesopian fables adapted from an earlier version in English.

Al finement de cest escrit,                     At the end of this text,

Qu’en romanz ai treité et dit,                which I wrote in roman,

Me numerai pur remembrance:             I’ll tell you my name, so as not to be forgotten:

Marie ai nun, si sui de France.             My name is Marie, I come from France

All three are thus translations: from Breton for the Lais, from Latin for the Espurgatoire and from English for the Ysopet.  Del corp e del gupil is 38 lines long and has the same motifs as Aesop’s version. However, a number of important additions can be identified[6]:

• A cock not a partridge is on a dung heap rather than in a high tree.
• The fox pretends to admire its voice rather than the beauty of its beak and legs, though it does refer briefly to its fine appearance.
• Instead of inviting it to sleep, the fox compares its singing to that of its father, who always sang with his eyes closed.
• In Aesop’s tale, the partridge begs the fox to speak its name; in Marie’s, the cock dares the fox to cry out defiantly to the shepherds.
• There are no shepherds or dogs in Aesop’s version.
• The fox curses his bold mouth in Marie’s version.

Del corp e del gupil   D’un coc recunte ki estot Sur un femier e si chantot. Par de lez lui vint uns gupiz, Si l’apela par mult beals diz. ‘Sire », fet il, ‘mult te vei beil, Unkes ne vi si gent oisel. Clere voiz as sur tute rien : Fors tun père, que jeo vi bien, Unkes oisels mielz ne chanta ; Mes il fist mielz, kar il cluigna.’ ‘Si puis jeo faire’, dist li cos. Les eles bat, les uiz a clos ; chanter quida plus clerement. Li gupiz salt avant, sil prent ; vers la forest od tut s’en va. Par mi un champ, u il passa, current aprds tuit li pastur ; li ehien li huent tut en tur. ’Veiz le gupil, ki le coc tient ! Mar l’engana, se par ci vient’/ ’Va’, fet li cos, ’si lur eserie que jeo sui tuens, ne m’i lai mie !’ Li gupiz volt parier en halt, e li cos de sa buche salt ; sur un halt fust s’en est muntez. Quant li gupiz s’est reguardez, mult par se tint a farcilli, que li cos l’a si engignid. De maltalent e de dreite ire la buche curaence a maldire, ki parole quant devreit taire. Li cos respunt : ’Si dei jeo faire : maldire l’ueil, ki vuelt cluignier, quant il deit g’uarder e guaitier, que mals ne vienge a sun seignur/ Ceo funt li fol : tuit li plusur parolent quant deivent cesser, taisent, quant devreient parier.

The Cock and the Fox   [A Cock our story tells of, who High on a dunghill stood and crew.]1 [A Fox, attracted, straight drew nigh, And spake soft words of flattery. ‘Dear Sir!’ said he, ‘Your look’s divine; I never saw a bird so fine!]2 I never heard a voice so clear Except your father’s — ah! poor dear! His voice rang clearly, loudly — but Most clearly, when his eyes were shut!’ ‘The same with me!’ the Cock replies, And flaps his wings, and shuts his eyes. Each note rings clearer than the last [The Fox starts up, and holds him fast;]3   Towards the wood he hies apace. But as he crossed an open space, The shepherds spy him; off they fly; The dogs give chase with hue and cry. The Fox still holds the Cock, though fear Suggests his case is growing queer. — [‘Tush!’ cries the Cock, ‘cry out, to grieve ’em, « The cock is mine! I’ll never leave him! »‘ The Fox attempts, in scorn, to shout, And opens his mouth; the Cock slips out,]4 And, in a trice, has gained a tree.   Too late the Fox begins to see How well the Cock his game has play’d; For once his tricks have been repaid. In angry language, uncontrolled, He ‘gins to curse the mouth that’s bold To speak, when it should silent be.       ‘Well,’ says the Cock, ‘the same with me; [I curse the eyes that go to sleep Just when they ought sharp watch to keep Lest evil to their lord befall.’ Thus fools contrariously do all: They chatter when they should be dumb, And when they ought to speak are mum.]5

So we see that Marie de France has not simply translated the tale, but has embellished the text and modified some of the variables – the dung heap, the shepherds and dogs, the forest and fields – in order to make the story more easily recognizable to her 12^th century French (and English) readership.

This tendency is pursued in the Roman de Renart, which follows the general pattern of Marie’s tale, but is much longer (293 lines) and makes a number of important additions, notably a dream sequence.  It also gives the farmer a name, Constans Desnois, describes the farm and the surrounding countryside in some detail and introduces the character of the peasant’s wife.  A psychological dimension appears as well: the fox observes the barnyard and calculates the best way to capture the cock, Chantecleer discusses the importance of his dream with his wife, Pinte, and poo-poos her arguments. Finally, the fox uses an imaginary family relationship with the cock to trick it into a false sense of complacency.  We will discuss this in more detail in the next section.

Finally, we have Chaucer’s NPT, 626 lines long, written in Middle English, most probably adapted from the Roman de Renart with a number of important changes, as we will see in the final section.

• Le Roman de Renart, “Renart et Chantecler le Coq”: Renard as anti-hero

Branche II, the oldest of the “branches” as they are called, was composed around 1175 by Pierre de Saint Cloud, a French cleric.  It is made up of five tales: Renart and Chantecler, Renart and the Titmouse, Renart and Tibert the Cat, Renart and Tiécelin the Crow, and Renart and the She-Wolf.  As mentioned in the previous section, it is difficult if not impossible to pinpoint the precise sources for the Roman de Renart version of the story, but these surely included oral folk tales as well as Latin collections such as Aesop and contemporary versions such as the Ysopet of Marie de France.

Branch II forms a minor cycle within the Roman, in which Renart encounters and is tricked by a series of birds: the cock, but also a crow and a titmouse.  In each case, the bird turns the fox’s tricks against him and humiliates him.  This seems to be a general tendency in the Roman de Renart: the fox triumphs over the powerful and the strong but is in turn conquered by the small and the weak.

Parodies and caricatures of nobles, villains and clerics portrayed as animals are the general rule throughout the Roman de Renart[7], which is a brilliant example of a medieval tradition which can be termed “anti-courtly literature”, that is, oral and written poems, fables and songs which diverge sharply from the two main traditions of the time, that of fin amor, or courtly love, and that of “chevalerie”, or knightly heroism, as found in the well-known “cycle d’Artur”.

Although Renart is himself a nobleman, le baron de Maupertuis[8], his actions are generally contrary to the rules of chivalry.  Instead of bravely confronting his adversaries in open combat, he relies on guile and cunning to trick them or, when all else fails, he flees.  On the other hand, the reader cannot help but empathize with the clever fox and laugh at the way he outwits the strong and the powerful.  Though a marginal figure in terms of the social mores of the time, he is an appealing anti-hero, both admirable and despicable.  The driving force behind his actions is hunger – Renart must outwit his adversaries to survive – and his chief weapon is his clever use of language.  It is indeed hunger that leads him to the barnyard of Constans Desnois, the farmer in our tale, to try to capture a hen and bring her back to feed his pups.

The narrative structure of the tale is both simple and powerful.  Three characters, the fox, the cock and the farmer, confront each other in the confines of a barnyard and the surrounding fields.  Dramatic tension arises naturally from this confrontation: by entering the farmyard the fox puts the lives of the fowl in danger, as well as his own.

The same motifs as those found in Aesop and Marie de France are used here: the fox tricks the cock into closing his eyes through flattery, the cock then appeals to his pride to trick him into opening his mouth, and the final confrontation of the two gives rise to a proverb reflecting the symmetry of the tricks: « Confound the mouth that speaks when it should be silent. / May that eye go blind that closes when it ought to be awake!”

Two original features distinguish the R de R version from its predecessors: most importantly the dream sequence but also the presence of two female characters, Pinte the hen and the wife of Constans des Noës.  In each case, the female’s actions are superior to the male’s: Pinte’s common sense in interpreting the dream and protecting herself and the other hens from danger is opposed to the vanity and blindness of Chantecler, and it is the wife’s vigilance which alerts the men to the fox’s attack.  In each case, these qualities are mocked or repaid by insults from the male figures.

1. The Nonnes Prestes Tale: Chaucer’s anti-fable

“Chaucer seems to have found in the comedy of the Nun’s Priest’s Tale the perfect medium for the expression of his view of life: it is perhaps the best and certainly the most inimitably ‘Chaucerian’ of the Tales,” writes Derek Pearsal.[9]

In the Canterbury Tales, the Nonnes Prestes Tale follows the Monk’s Tale, in which a monk tells a monotonous series of moral stories intended to illustrate the notion that a poor man can overcome ill fortune and succeed in life.  He is interrupted by the Knight who begs him to stop.  The Host then calls on the Nun’s Priest to tell the pilgrims a tale that “might gladden our hearts” (swich thyung as may oure hertes glade).  The Nun’s Priest pursues the theme begun by the Monk – the opposition between fate and free will in determining the course of one’s life – by telling the story of a cock who is captured by a fox despite the fact that he was warned by a prophetic dream and could have avoided capture by acting correctly.

The NPT contains the same basic ingredients as the earlier versions, i.e.:

• A cock is perched high up on a beam.
• A fox sneaks into the farmyard and hides in a bed of cabbage,
• He flatters the cock by treating him as a cousin and comparing him to his father, who always sang with his eyes closed,
• When the cock closes his eyes, he grabs him by the neck and runs off to the woods,
• He is chased by the farmer and his men and dogs
• He is then tricked by the cock in turn and lets him escape.
• The story ends with a moral adage.

However, Chaucer’s version is infinitely richer than the preceding ones in many ways.  We will briefly discuss three of these here: a) his treatment of the three estates, b) his narrative technique and c) his philosophical position.

1. The three estates

The opening lines of the tale turn on its head the traditional treatment of rich and poor. The owners of the fowl are a povre wydwe…and her doghtren two… (a poor widow and her two daughtersà who In pacience ladde a ful symple lyf (who patiently led a simple life), with which they are nonetheless content.  Their “hall” is Ful sooty… (black as soot) and they eat ful many a sklendre meel… (many a skimpy meal). In fact, we are told, the Prioress’ dog (she is literally the Nun’s Priest’s “employer”) eats better than the widow and her daughters.

Contrary to his owners, Chantecleer is portrayed as a rich nobleman: His coomb was redder than the fyn coral, /And batailled as it were a castel wal…This gentil cok hadde in his governanunce/Sevene hennes for to doon al his plesaunce…  (His comb was redder than coral / and spiked like a castle’s wall…This gentle cock ruled over / Seven hens who served his pleasure). On the other hand, Chantecleer’s representation of the ruling class is tempered by the fact that he, like the other animals in the barnyard, belongs to the widow.

This inverted, somewhat romanticized vision of the poor is thought by some critics[10] to be an indirect reference to Jack Straw and the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381.  However, Chaucer’s treatment of the story is too complex to easily fit into this or any other framework.  For instance, the landowner here is a poor widow and the cock’s capture by the fox means her financial ruin.  So, is the fox a sort of Robin Hood figure, robbing the rich to feed the poor, or on the contrary, a thief who robs a poor old lady?  And is the final mob scene, where the peasants and the animals run, fly, shout and cry in pursuit of the fox, an allusion to the Peasant Revolt or an ironic criticism of that event?  Nothing is ever simple with Chaucer!

The clergy also come in for their share of subtle mockery, first of all by having the story of a cock who has a courtyard of hens in his governaunce told by the Nun’s Priest, that is, a priest who is the spiritual leader of a group of nuns.  Also, as we’ll see below, the presentation of the dream sequence and the subsequent philosophical discussion of freedom and free will depend for their comic effect on the fact that they are told by an earnest, pontificating cleric.

2. Narrative Technique

Each of the Canterbury Tales is told by one of the pilgrims, including one, The Tale of Thopas, told by the character “Chaucer” himself.  This technique allows the author in each case to send a two-layered message, one directly conveyed by the tale, the other indirectly conveyed by the teller, since in each case a member of a particular social group is placed at the center of the stage and subjected to public scrutiny.  By having the Nun’s Priest tell the tale of Chantecleer and Pertelote, Chaucer can implicitly mock the morals of clerics of the time, a theme which runs throughout the Canterbury Tales.

More importantly, by having a barnyard tale of a cock, a hen and a fox told in the mock-heroic mode by an earnest, pontificating cleric, Chaucer allows the comic effect to arise from the manner in which the teller tells his tale, rather than through the narrator’s description of him.  As opposed to the Roman de Renart, where the irony of the situation comes from the use of an animal tale to poke fun at the behavior of humans, the NPT adds a supplementary dimension by laughing at the cleric who does not see the irony in the situation.  For instance, the discussion of predestination and free will (lines 4027-4063) is, according to Derrick Pearsal (p. 232) “extremely clear and succinct, a model précis of current views on the theology of predestination. It could hardly have been better done.  What causes laughter is that it should be done at all, in relation to a cock and fox…The narrator does not realize how funny he appears, and must not, if the comedy is to remain buoyed up at the highest level.”

 Philosophy in the barnyard

As in the Roman de Renart there is also a dream sequence.  Again the cock dreams of a strange creature (a beest…lyk an hound/His colour was between yelow and reed…His snowte smal, with glowynge eyen tweye…) (A beast that looked like a hound / His color between yellow and red…His snout was small, with two glowing eyes).   But here ends the resemblance between the two versions.  Whereas in the Roman de Renart, Pinte takes the dream quite seriously and interprets it in a straightforward manner – « The thing you saw with the red fur is the Fox…The fox will catch you by the neck; that is what your dream means. And it will all happen before noon. The fox is hidden in the hedges ready to deceive you. » – in the NPT the dream is a pretext for a lengthy, erudite discussion of the importance of taking dreams seriously, which in turn serves as a basis for the Nun’s Priest’s discourse on free will.

Pertelote, full of common sense, ascribes the dream to indigestion and suggests a laxative.  But Chantecleer will have none of this.  Dremes been significaciouns (dreams are signs) he tells her.  To prove his point, he tells the story of a man who dreams of his own murder and then is actually killed, and then goes on to quote a whole slew of philosophers – Macrobeus, Scipio, Daniel, Cresus, etc. – to support his claim.  But then, forgetting his own long argumentation, he gives in to the temptation of the flesh – Womman is mannes joye and al his blis – and fethered Pertelote twenty tyme.

The philosophical discussion of the importance of dreams that takes place between Chantecler and Pertelote, as well as the Nun’s Priest’s comments on the problem of predestination and free will, as mentioned above, take on a comic dimension by being applied to barnyard animals. But their true importance cannot be appreciated until they are put into the context of the Canterbury Tales as a whole and more particularly until one examines the sequence Monk’s Tale – NPT.

The theme of Fortune and Freewill returns frequently in the CT.  Like Boethius before him, Chaucer firmly believes that man’s actions determine his fate.  It is only by clearing away the obstacles of ignorance and prejudice that man can act properly, that is, for the good.

In a number of other tales a character experiences a reversal of fortune due to his own folly or vice: the Miller, Absolon, old John the carpenter or the begging Friar. (Kean, 1972: 129)  Chantecler was warned of the danger that awaited him by his dream.  Though he himself argued about the importance of taking dreams seriously, he ignored his own words because he was tempted by the flesh and, like Adam, he falls through the influence of a woman.

 Conclusion

One last word about Chaucer’s debt to French literature.  According to Ardis Butterfield, “Chaucer not only drew deeply from French writing, he also participated in a broad literary culture across medieval Europe that was shaped and inspired by writers in French.  From a medieval point of view, Chaucer is part of the history of French culture, rather than French culture being part of the history of Chaucer.” (p. 21)  Not only did Chaucer draw in general on the Roman de la Rose, which he himself translated into English, and in particular for the NPT on the Roman de Renart and Marie de France, but he was also deeply indebted to the 14^th century French poets Guillaume de Machaut and Jean Froissart, to the long tradition of troubadours and the dit amoureux, as well as the fabliaux, and the vast amount of didactic writing in French: sermons, saints’ lives, treatises and translations of moral philosophy, science, medicine and alchemy.

So, as we have seen, the “Cock and Fox Tale” not only travels back and forth from France to Britain throughout the Middle Ages, but throughout history it has been a powerful metaphorical vehicle for examining European society and culture.

Bibliography

Ardis Butterfield, “Chaucer’s French Inheritance”, in Boitani, P. and Mann, J. (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Chaucer, C.U.P., 2003, p. 20-35.

A.C. Cawley (ed.), Chaucer, Canterbury Tales, London: Everyman, 1992.

E.P. Dargan, “Cock and Fox: a Critical Study of the History and sources of the Medieval Fable”, University of Chicago Press, 1906-7, p. 38-65.

Jean Dufournet, Le Roman de Renart, « Introduction », Paris : Flammarion, 1985, p. 5-35.

P.M. Kean, The Art of Narrative: Chaucer and the Making of English Poetry, London: Routledge, 1972.

Yao Lambert Konan, « Renart, personnage paradoxal des contes à rire de la France médiévale », Postures, Dossier « Discours et poétiques de l’amour », n°22, 2015.

Armelle Leclercq, « Renart ou le rire rebelle. » Études littéraires, 2007, p. 87–100.

I.C. Lecompte, “Chaucer’s Nonne Prestes Tale and the Roman de Renard”, Modern Philology, 1917, p.161-173.

Derek Pearsall, The Canterbury Tales, London, Routledge, 1985.

Rachel Pietka, “The Play of Opposites in the Nun’s Priest’s Tale”, The Sigma Tau Delta Review, vol. 7, 2010, p. 86-95

Raymond Sudre, Les sources du Roman de Renart, Paris: Bouillon, 1893.

Footnotes

[1] E.P. Dargan, “Cock and Fox: a Critical Study of the History and sources of the Medieval Fable”, University of Chicago Press, 1906-7, 38-65.

[2] See Lecompte (1917) and Pearsall (1985: 231).

[3] Les sources du Roman de Renart, Paris: Bouillon, 1893.

[4] See Emmanuel Cosquin, Etudes folkoriques : recherches sur les migrations des contes populaires et leur point de départ, Paris : Champion, 1922.

[5] Vladimir Ja. Propp, Les racines historiques du conte merveilleux, Paris : Gallimard, 1983.

[6] The motifs are numbered and bracketed, the additions are those segments not in brackets.

[7] Le Roman de Renart, Introduction, Jean Dufournet, Paris : Flammarion, 1985 : 5-35.

[8] The name maupertuis actually means « narrow opening », referring indirectly to the fox’s den in the ground.

[9]  Pearsal, 1985: 229-30.

[10] See Pietka (2010).