Part 44

[6] Müller’s Saga Bibl., 3, 359.

[7] See the ballad in Percy’s Reliques.

[8] The following are translations from Saxo, the _Wilkina Saga_, and the _Malleus Maleficarum_. The question is completely set at rest by Grimm, _D. M._ p. 353 fol. and p. 1214. “Nor is the following story to be wrapped in silence. A certain Palnatoki, for some time among King Harold’s bodyguard, had made his bravery odious to very many of his fellow-soldiers by the zeal with which he surpassed them in the discharge of his duty. This man once, when talking tipsily over his cups, had boasted that he was so skilled an archer, that he could hit the smallest apple placed a long way off on a wand at the first shot; which talk, caught up at first by the ears of backbiters, soon came to the hearing of the king. Now, mark how the wickedness of the king turned the confidence of the sire to the peril of the son, by commanding that this dearest pledge of his life should be placed instead of the wand, with a threat that, unless the author of this promise could strike off the apple at the first flight of the arrow, he should pay the penalty of his empty boasting by the loss of his head. The king’s command forced the soldier to perform more than he had promised, and what he _had_ said, reported by the tongues of slanderers, bound him to accomplish what he had _not_ said”…“Nor did his sterling courage, though caught in the snare of slander, suffer him to lay aside his firmness of heart; nay, he accepted the trial the more readily because it was hard. So Palnatoki warned the boy urgently when he took his stand to await the coming of the hurtling arrow with calm ears and unbent head, lest by a slight turn of his body he should defeat the practised skill of the bowman; and, taking further counsel to prevent his fear, he turned away his face lest he should be scared at the sight of the weapon. Then taking three arrows from the quiver, he struck the mark given him with the first he fitted to the string. But, if chance had brought the head of the boy before the shaft, no doubt the penalty of the son would have recoiled to the peril of the father, and the swerving of the shaft that struck the boy would have linked them both in common ruin. I am in doubt, then, whether to admire most the courage of the father or the temper of the son, of whom the one by skill in his art avoided being the slayer of his child, while the other by patience of mind and quietness of body saved himself alive, and spared the natural affection of his father. Nay, the youthful frame strengthened the aged heart, and showed as much courage in awaiting the arrow as the father, skill in launching it. But Palnatoki, when asked by the king why he had taken more arrows from the quiver, when it had been settled that he should only try the fortune of the bow _once_, made answer ‘That I might avenge on thee the swerving of the first by the points of the rest, lest perchance my innocence might have been punished, while your violence escaped scot-free’”.— _Saxo Gram._, Book X, (p. 166, ed. Frankf.) “About that time the young Egill, Wayland’s brother, came to the court of King Nidung, because Wayland (Smith) had sent him word. Egill was the fairest of men and one thing he had before all other men—he shot better with the bow than any other man. The king took to him well, and Egill was there a long time. Now, the king wished to try whether Egill shot so well as was said or not, so he let Egill’s son, a boy of three years old, be taken, and made them put an apple on his head, and bade Egill shoot so that the shaft struck neither above the head nor to the left nor to the right; the apple only was he to split. But it was not forbidden him to shoot the boy, for the king thought it certain that he would do that on no account if he could at all help it. And he was to shoot one arrow only, no more. So Egill takes three, and strokes their feathers smooth, and fits one to his string, and shoots and hits the apple in the middle, so that the arrow took along with it half the apple, and then fell to the ground. This master-shot has long been talked about, and the king made much of him, and he was the most famous of men. Now, King Nidung asked Egill why he took out _three_ arrows, when it was settled that one only was to be shot with. Then Egill answered ‘Lord’, said he, ‘I will not lie to you; had I stricken the lad with that one arrow, then I had meant these two for you.’ But the king took that well from him, and all thought it was boldly spoken”.—_Wilkina Saga_, ch. 27 (ed. Pering). “It is related of him (Puncher) that a certain lord, who wished to obtain a sure trial of his skill, set up his little son as a butt, and for a mark a shilling on the boy’s cap, commanding him to carry off the shilling without the cap with his arrow. But when the wizard said he could do it, though he would rather abstain, lest the Devil should decoy him to destruction; still, being led on by the words of the chief, he thrust one arrow through his collar, and, fitting the other to his crossbow, struck off the coin from the boy’s cap without doing him any harm; seeing which, when the lord asked the wizard why he had placed the arrow in his collar? he answered ‘If by the Devil’s deceit I had slain the boy, when I needs must die, I would have transfixed you suddenly with the other arrow, that even so I might have avenged my death.’”—_Malleus Malef._, p. ii, ch. 16.

[9] See _Pantcha-Tantra_, v. ii of Wilson’s _Analysis_, quoted by Loiseleur Deslongchamps, _Essai sur les Fables Indiennes_ (Paris, Techener, 1838, p. 54), where the animal that protects the child is a mangouste (Viverra Mungo). See also _Hitopadesa_, (Max Müller’s Translation, Leipzig, Brockhaus, p. 178) where the guardian is an otter. In both the foe is a snake.

[10] Moe Introd. xxxii.-iii

[11] The account in the _Nibelungen_ respecting the _Tarnhut_ is confused, and the text probably corrupt; but so much is plain, that Siegfried got it from Elberich in the struggle which ensued with Schilbung and Niblung, after he had shared the Hoard.

[12] Thus we find it in the originals or the parallels of Grendel in _Beowulf_, of Rumpelstiltskin, of the recovery of the Bride by the ring dropped into the cup, as related in “Soria Moria Castle,” and other tales; of the “wishing ram”, which in the Indian story becomes a “wishing cow”, and thus reminds us of the bull in one of these Norse Tales, out of whose ear came a “wishing cloth”; of the lucky child, who finds a purse of gold under his pillow every morning; and of the red lappet sown on the sleeping lover, as on Siegfried in the _Nibelungen_. The devices of Upakosa, the faithful wife, remind us at once of “the Master-maid”, and the whole of the stories of Saktideva and the Golden City, and of Viduschaka, King Adityasena’s daughter, are the same in groundwork and in many of their incidents as “East o’ the Sun, and West o’ the Moon”, “the Three Princesses of Whiteland”, and “Soria Moria Castle”.

[13] J. Grimm, _Reinhart Fuchs_, cclxiii, Intr.

[14] _Kinder and Hausmärchen_, vol. 3, _3d_ edition (Göttingen, 1856) a volume worthy of the utmost attention.

[15] note Kölle, _Kanuri Proverbs and Fables_ (London Church Missionary House, 1854), a book of great philological interest, and one which reflects great credit on the religious society by which it was published.

[16] _Kanuri Proverbs_, p. 167.

[17] Notte Duodecima. Favola terza. “Pederigo da Pozzuolo che intendeva il linguaggio de gli animali, astretto dalla moglie dirle un segreto, quella stranamente battè.”

[18] The story of the Two Brothers Anesou and Satou, from the _D’Orbiney Papyrus_, by De Ronge, Paris, 1852.

[19] See the Ananzi Stories in the Appendix, which have been taken down from the mouth of a West Indian nurse.

[20] _The Deeds of Bogda Gesser Chan_, by I. J. Schmidt (Petersburg and Leipzig, 1839).

[21] _Oxford Essays for_ 1858: “The Norsemen in Iceland”.

[22] See _Anecd. and Trad._, Camd. Soc. 1839, pp. 92 fol. See also the passages from Anglo-Saxon laws against “well-waking”, which Grimm has collected: _D. M._, p. 550.

[23] D. M., p. 900: _Wütendes Heer_

[24] Heb., xiii, 1: “Let brotherly love continue. Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”

[25] One of Odin’s names, when on these adventures, was Gangradr, or Gangleri. Both mean “the _Ganger_, or way-farer”. We have the latter epithet in the “_Gangrel_ carle”, and “_Gangrel loon_”, of the early Scotch ballads.

[26] So also Orion’s Belt was called by the Norsemen, Frigga’s spindle or _rock, Friggjar rock_. In modern Swedish, _Friggerock_, where the old goddess holds her own; but in Danish, _Mariaerock_, Our Lady’s rock or spindle. Thus, too, _Karlavagn_, the “car of men”, or heroes, who rode with Odin, which we call “Charles’ Wain”, thus keeping something, at least, of the old name, though none of its meaning, became in Scotland “Peter’s-pleugh”, from the Christian saint, just as Orion’s sword became “Peter’s-staff”. But what do “Lady Landers” and “Lady Ellison” mean, as applied to the “Lady-Bird” in Scotland?

[27] D. M., p. 126 fol., where they are cited at length.

[28] Snorro’s _Edda_, Stockholm, 1842, translated by the writer.

[29] See the well-known story of “The Luck of Eden Hall”.

[30] Hist., ii, 16.

[31] Snor. _Ed. Skaldsk._, ch. 43.

[32] St Luke, x, 18.

[33] Snor. _Edda,_ ch. 34, Engl. Transl.

[34] Here are a few of these passages which might be much extended: Burchard of Worms, p. 194, a. “credidisti ut aliqua femina sit quae hoc facere possit quod quaedam a diabolo deceptae se affirmant necessario et ex praecepto facere debere; id est cum daemonum turba in similitudinem mulierum transformata, quam vulgaris stultitia _Holdam_ vocat, certis noctibus equitare debere super quasdam bestias, et in eorum se consortio annumeratam esse.” “Illud etiam non omittendum, quod quasdam sceleratae mulieres retro post Sathanam conversae, daemonum illusionibus et phantasmatibus seductae credunt se et profitentur nocturnis horis cum _Diana_ paganorum dea, vel cum _Herodiade_ et innumera multitudine mulierum equitare super quasdam bestias, et multa terrarum spatia intempestae noctis silentio pertransire, ejusque jussionibus velut _Dominae_ obedire et certis noctibus ad ejus servitium evocari.” —Burchard of Worms, 10, I. “Quale est, quod noctilucam quandam, vel _Herodiadem_, vel praesidem noctis Dominam concilia et conventus de nocte asserunt convocare, varia celebrari convivia, etc.”—Joh. Sarisberiensis Polycrat. 2, 17 (died 1182). “_Herodiam_ illam baptistae Christi interfectricem, quasi reginam, immo deam proponant, asserentes tertiam totius mundi partem illi traditam.”—Rather. Cambrens. (died 974). “Sic et daemon qui praetextu mulieris cum aliis de nocte, domos et cellaria dicitur frequentare, et vocant eam _Satiam_ a satietate, et _Dominam Abundiam_ pro abundantia, quam eam praestare dicunt domibus quas frequentaverit; hujusmodi etiam daemones quas _dominas vocant_, vetulae penes quas error iste remansit et a quibus solis creditur et somniatur.”—Guilielmus Alvernus, 1, 1036 (died 1248). So also the Roman de la Rose (Meon line 18, 622.)

Qui les cinc sens ainsinc deçoit Par les fantosmes, qu’il reçoit, Don maintes gens par lor folie Cuident estre par nuit estries, _Errans_ aveques _Dame Habonde;_ Et dient, que par tout le monde _Li tiers enfant_ de nacion _Sunt de ceste condicion._

And again, line 18,686:

Dautre part, _que li tiers du monde_ _Aille_ ainsinc _eavec Dame Habonde_.

[35] See the derivation of _pagan_ from paganus, one who lived in the country, as opposed to urbanus, a townsman.

[36] Snorro’s _Edda_, Dasent’s Translation, pp. 29 (Stockholm 1842).

[37] Keisersberg Omeiss, 46 b., quoted by Grimm, _D.M._ pp. 991, says: “Wen man ein man verbrent, so brent man wol zehen frauen.”

[38] See the passage from Vincent, _Bellov. Spec. Mor._, iii, 2, 27, quoted in Grimm, _D. M._ pp. 1,012-3.

[39] The following passage from _The Fortalice of Faith_ of Alphonso Spina, written about the year 1458, will suffice to show how disgustingly the Devil, in the form of a goat, had supplanted the “Good Lady”: Quia nimium abundant tales perversae mulieres ine Delphinatu et Guasconia, ubi se asserunt concurrere de nocte in quâdam planitie deserta ubi est _caper quidam in rupe_, qui vulgariter dicitur _el boch de Biterne_ et clued ibi _conveniunt cum candelis accensis et adorant illum caprum osculpntes eum in ano suo_. Ideo captae plures earum, ab inquisitoribus fidei et convictae comburuntur.” About the same time, too, began to spread the notion of formal written agreements between the Fiend and men who were to be his after a certain time, during which he was to help them to all earthly goods. This, too, came with Christianity from the East. The first instance was Theophilus, vicedominus of the Bishop of Adana, whose fall and conversion form the original of all the Faust Legends. See Grimm, D. M. 969, and “Theophilus in Icelandic, Low German, and other tongues, by G. W. Dasent, Stockholm, 1845.” There a complete account of the literature of the legend may be found. In almost all these early cases the Fiend is outwitted by the help of the Virgin or some other saint, and in this way the reader is reminded of the Norse Devil, the successor of the Giants, who always makes bad bargains. When the story was applied to Faust in the sixteenth century, the terrible Middle Age Devil was paramount, and knew how to exact his due.

[40] How strangely full of common sense sounds the following article from the Capitularies of Charlemagne, _De part. Sax._, 5: “Si quis a diabolo deceptus crediderit secundum morem. Paganorum, virum aliquem aut faeminam strigam esse et homines comedere, et propter hoc ipsum incenderit, vel carnem eius ad comedendum dederit, capitis sententia punietur.” And this of Rotharius, Lex. Roth., 379: “Nullus praesumat aldiam alienam aut ancillam quasi strigam occidere, quod Christianis mentibus nullatenus est credendum nec possible est, ut hominem mulier vivum intrinsecus possit comedere.” Here the law warns the common people from believing in witches, and from taking its functions into their own hands, and reasons with them against the absurdity of such delusions. So, too, that reasonable parish priest who thrashed the witch, though earlier in time, was far in advance of Gregory and his inquisitors, and even of our wise King James.

[41] The following is the title of this strange tract, _Newes from Scotland, declaring the damnable life of Doctor Fian, a notable Sorcerer, who was burned at Edenbrough, in Januarie last 1591, which Doctor was register to the devil, that sundrie times preached at North Baricke Kirke to a number of notorious Witches. With the true examinations of the said Doctor and witches, as they uttered them in the presence of the Scottish king. Discovering how they pretended to bewitch and drowne his Majestic in the sea, comming from Denmarke, with such other wonderfull matters as the like, hath not bin heard at anie time_. Published according to the Scottish copie. Printed for William Wright. It was reprinted in 1816 for the Roxburghe Club by Mr H. Freeling, and is very scarce even in the reprint, which, all things considered, is perhaps just as well.

[42] The following specimens of the tortures and confessions may suffice; but most of the crimes and confessions are unutterable. One Geillis Duncane was tortured by her master, David Seaton, dwelling within the town of Tranent, who, “with the help of others, did torment her with the torture of the Pilliwinkes (thumbscrews), upon her fingers, and binding and wrinching her head with a cord or roape, which is a most cruel torment also.” So also Agnes Sampson, “the eldest witch of them all, dwelling in Haddington, being brought to Haleriud House before the kinge’s majestie and sundry other of the nobilitie of Scotland, had her head thrawne with a rope according to the custom of that countrie, beeing a payne most greevous.” After the Devil’s mark is found on her she confesses that she went to sea with two hundred others in sieves to the kirk of North Berwick in East Lothian, and after they had landed they “took handes on the lande and daunted, this reill or short daunce, saying all with one voice:

Commer goe ye before, Commer goe ye, Gif ye will not goe before, Commer let me.

“At which time she confessed that this Geillis Duncane did goe before them playing this reill or daunce upon a small trumpe called a Jew’s trump, until they entered into the kirk of North Barrick.” “As touching the aforesaid Doctor Fian”, he “was taken and imprisoned, and used with the accustomed paine provided for these offences, inflicted upon the rest, as is aforesaid. First by thrawing of his head with a rope, whereat he would confesse nothing! Secondly, he was persuaded by faire means to confesse his follies, but that would prevaile as little. Lastly, he was put to the most severe and cruell paine in the world, called the Bootes, who, after he had received three strokes, being inquired if he would confesse his damnable actes and wicked life, his toong would not serve him to spaake.” This inability, produced no doubt by pain, the other witches explain by saying that the Devil’s mark had not been found, which, being found, “the charm” was “stinted”, and the Doctor, in dread probably of a fourth stroke, confessed unutterably shameful things. Having escaped from prison, of course by the aid of the Devil, he was pursued, and brought back and re-examined before the king. “But this Doctor, notwithstanding that his own confession appeareth remaining in recorde, under his owne handewriting, and the same thereunto fixed in the presence of the King’s majestie and sundrie of his councell, yet did he utterly deny the same, whereupon the King’s majestie, perceiving his stubborne wilfulness…he was commanded to have a most strange torment, which was done in this manner following: His nailes upon all his fingers were riven and pulled off with an instrument called in Scottish a Turkas, which in England wee call a payre of pincars, and under everie nayle there was thrust in two needels over even up to the heads. At all which torments, notwithstanding the Doctor never shronke anie whit; neither would he then confesse it the sooner for all the tortures inflicted upon him. “Then was he with all convenient speed, by commandement convaied againe to the torment of the Bootes, wherein hee continued a long time, and did abide so many blowes in them, that his legges were crusht and beaten together as small as might bee, and the bones and flesh so brused that the blond and marrow spouted forth in great abundance, wherby they were made unserviceable for ever. And notwithstanding all these grievous panes and cruel torments, he would not confesse aniething, so deepely had the Devil entered into his heart, that hee utterly denied all that which he had before avouched, and would saie nothing thereunto but this, that what he had done and sayde before, was onely done and saide for fear of paynes which he had endured.” Thereupon as “a due execution of justice” “and “for example sake”, he was tried, sentenced, put into a cart, strangled and immediately put into a great fire, being readie provided for that purpose, and there burned in the Castle Hill of Edenbrough on a saterdaie, in the ende of Januaire last past, 1591.” The tract ends significantly: “The rest of the witches which are not yet executed remayne in prison till further triall and knowledge of his majestie’s pleasure.”

[43] Od., iii, 372; and xxii, 239

[44] _Ecl._, viii, 97: His ego sæpe lupum fieri et se condere silvis Mærin—vidi.

[45] See Grimm’s _D.M._, 1,047 fol.; and for this translation from Petronius, a very interesting letter prefixed to Madden’s Ed. of the old English Romance of _William and the Werewolf_, 1832, one of the Roxburghe Club Publications. This letter, which was by the hand of Mr Herbert of Petworth, contains all that was known on this subject before Grimm; but when Grimm came he was, compared with all who had treated the subject, as a sober man amongst drunkards.

[46] _Bisclavaret_ in the _Lais_ of Marie de France, 1, 178 seems to be a corruption of Bleizgarou, as the Norman _garwal_ is of _garwolf_. See also Jamieson Dict., under _warwolf_.

[47] _Fornald Sög_, i, 130, 131.

[48] See Landnama in many places. _Egil’s Sag., Hrolf Krak. Sag._

[49] _Troldham, at kaste ham paa._ Comp. the old Norse _hamr, hamför, hammadr, hamrammr_, which occur repeatedly in the same sense.

[50] Reinhart Fuchs, Introduction

[51] Grimm, _Irisch. Elfenm._, 114-9, and _D. M._, 447.

[52] Comp. Vict. Hugo, _Nôtre-Dame de Paris_, where he tells us that the gipsies called the wolf _piedgris_. See also Grimm, _D. M._, 633 and _Reinhart_, lv, ccvii, and 446.

[53] Douce, _Illust. to Shakspeare_, ii, 33, 344, quoted in _Reinhart Fuchs_, ccxxi.

[54] _Germania_, 9, 10.

[55] Snorro’s _Edda_, ch. vi, English translation.

[56] Thus from the earliest times “dog”, “hound”, has been a term of reproach. Great instances of fidelity, such as “Gellert” or the “Dog of Montargis”, both of which are Eastern and primeval, have scarcely redeemed the cringing currish nature of the race in general from disgrace. M. Francisque Michel, in his _Histoire des Races Maudites de da France et de l’Espagne_, thinks it probable that _Cagot_, the nickname by which the heretical Goths who fled into Aquitaine in the time of Charles Martel, and received protection from that king and his successors, were called by the Franks, was derived from the term _Canis Gothicus_ or _Canes Gothi_. In modern French the word means hypocrite, and this would come from the notion of the outward conformity to the Catholic formularies imposed on the Arian Goths by their orthodox protectors. Etymologically, the derivation is good enough, according to Diez, _Romanisches Wörterbuch_ ; Provençal _ca_, dog; _Get_, Gothic. Before quitting _Cagot_, we may observe that the derivation of _bigot_, our bigot, another word of the same kind, is not so clear. Michel says it comes from _Vizigothus, Bizigothus_. Diez says this is too far-fetched, especially as “Bigot”, “Bigod”, was a term applied to the Normans, and not to the population of the South of France. There is, besides another derivation given by Ducange from a Latin chronicle of the twelfth century. In speaking of the homage done by Rollo, the first Duke of Normandy, to the King of France, he says: Hic non dignatus pedem Caroli osculari nisi ad os suum levaret, cumque sui comites illum admonerent ut pedem Regis in acceptione tanti muneris, Neustriae provinciae, oscularetur, Anglica lingua respondit “_ne se bi got_”, quod interpretatur “ne per deum”. Rex vero et sui illum deridentes, et sermonem ejus corrupte referentes, illum vocaverunt Bigottum; unde Normanni adhuc Bigothi vocantur. Wace, too, says, in the _Roman de Rou_, that the French had abused the Normans in many ways, calling them Bigos. It is also termed, in a French record of the year 1429, “_un mot très injurieux_”. Diez says it was not used in its present sense before the sixteenth century.