verse-with freedom and independence. The identity of the translator is as obscure as that of the author. Critics discriminate between these twain; but, after all, it is just conceivable that they were one and the same. The English "Maundeville" says (p. 5), “ And yee schule undirstonde, that I have put this boke out of Latyn into Frensch, and translated it agen out of Frensch into Englyssch that every man of my nacion may undirstonde it." The book purports to have been written in 1356. The first printed edition was, perhaps, that of Pietro de Cornero, of Milan, in 1480: "Tractato delle piu maravigliose Cosse e piu notabili che si trovano in le parte del mondo vedute . . . del Cavaler Johanne da Mandavilla." The first English edition was printed at Westminster, in 1499, by Winkyn de Worde, and was entitled: "A lytell Treatise or Booke, named John Mandevyll, Knyht, borne in Englande, in the towne of Saynt Abone, and speaketh of the wayes of the Holy Lande toward Jherusalem, and of the Marvyles of Ynde and other diverse Countries." The best English edition is that of London, 1725, The Voiage and Travaile of Sir John Maundeville, &c., reprinted by J. O. Halliwell, in 1839, and based on the Cotton MS. (Titus, C. xvi.) in the British Museum. This version is in the Midland dialect.1 Notwithstanding its brave introduction, which 1 Mr Warner's edition, undertaken for the Roxburghe Club, though difficult to obtain, should also be mentioned. Mr E. B. Nicholson, of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, is in great request as an authority on Maundeville. seems to have "honesty" inscribed on the face of Nature of the it, the question has been asked whether contents. as traveller, or only as author, Maundeville was an historical, or, contrariwise, a legendary, typical personage. Well, the doubt is excused by the circumstance that the book is certainly, in some measure, a compilation. Whereas Marco Polo is content to describe what he has himself heard and seen, Maundeville makes his work an olla podrida of medieval fancy and tradition, which help to supplement his own observation. Has he availed himself of the prerogative accorded to all travellers, and imposed on human credulity in those sections purporting to deal with facts? There are two reasons which would lead us to think otherwise. One is his simple, frank, unpretentious style, and the other an occasional proviso, as, for instance, when he tells us, though he describes its marvels, that he has himself never been to the Earthly Paradise. It is, moreover, quite possible that the more outrageous stories of giants, monsters, and devils may have been added by copyists. It is worthy of note that the English traveller covered the same ground as his Venetian predecessor, and one result of his writings was to familiarise his countrymen with the notion of the Far East, hitherto a land unknown. Philologically, his book is of great value, since the variety of the subject-matter entails a corresponding variety in the vocabulary. As regards intrinsic worth, it would be absurd to compare Maundeville's Voiage with the Commedia, A guide-book. but it has this quality in common with it, that it is the representative European work of its class. It is the culmination of a literature, the literature of pilgrimage. This circumstance, even more than the quaintness of the book itself, explains its wide diffusion, not only in England but in Continental countries. Marco Polo was popular; Maundeville was, if anything, more popular. Germany, for instance, had at least two translations, one by Michel Velser, the other by Otto von Diemeringen; and the influence of this precedent is seen further in original German Pilgerreisen.1 Holland could boast its Reysen van Jan van Mandeville; and Denmark also had a translation. In addition to these vernacular works there were many Latin renderings. In fact, "the book named Mandevyll" obtained every distinction the age could bestow. 1 See Röhricht and Meisner's Deutsche Pilgerreisen nach dem heiligen Lande, Berlin, 1880. THE FIORETTI' OF ST FRANCIS-ITALIAN PREACHERS-ST CATH- ALTHOUGH in the literature of this period allegory is to be found apart from mysticism, mysticism apart The World and from reform, and reform apart from allethe Church. gory, still there is a tendency on the part of each pair to coalesce; sometimes, indeed, all three characteristics are united. This circumstance renders it expedient, if not imperative, to study these developments in a single chapter, in order to show their interaction, notwithstanding a certain incongruity in associating the purest and most spiritual effusions with the leavings of Provençal animalism. Even this, however, is not quite so incongruous as might at first appear, seeing that, in this matter, the Church borrowed from the World, and the World from the Church. So far as allegory is concerned, in the Italian peninsula the preponderant fact is the influence of the Roman de la Rose. On this point I have already touched in relation to Brunetto Latini, whose position with regard to Dante made it desirable to introduce him earlier in the work than would otherwise have been the case. Strictly his place is here. Concerning him I shall only add the remark that his poem the Tesoretto, especially as viewed in connection with his French work the Trésors, illustrates the tendency of didactic verse to become allegorical in character and encyclopædic in range. It is very true, as M. Aubertin observes, "on est facilement enclin à tout embrasser quand on ne peut rien approfondir." The continuation of the Roman de la Rose itself, by Jehan de Meung, is, of course, an exemplification of this truth. One great fault of the Roman de la Rose, particularly of the later contribution, is its discursiveness. An Italian imitation, Il Fiore, which, in Il Fiore. form, is a garland of two hundred and thirty-two sonnets,1 avoids this defect, partly, no doubt, on account of the compendious nature of the sonnet, which precludes the admission of more than a limited amount of matter and does not easily transfer its surplus stock to its successor. The general term flore is kept throughout, there is no specific mention of the rose, and this is only one indication out of many that the work is not a translation, properly so 1 The employment of the sonnet as a stanza is a proof of the early date of the poem; it probably belongs to the last twenty years of the thirteenth century. |