Guilleville + Renart le Contrefait ; theme -1377

I think, that the research text of Vienna 1861 was accepted.
The Vienna part of the 3 texts was calculated as "from 15th century". Perhaps this had the consequence, that also the 3rd part was recognized as "from 15th century".
All three parts are thought to have been owned by one person, Jehan Duboys. Maybe this person organized, that the text was multiplied. Or: perhaps it was suspected in 19th century, that this person multiplied the text.
The handwritten text (3rd and last text) was made in the manner, that it had some free places for the addition of pictures. Perhaps the Vienna version and the 3rd text were written by the same hand (?). Perhaps the 3rd text is written by a hand, that could be globally recognized as "from 15th century".


The chronological parts end in 1328 with the execution of Pierre de Remy.
French version: "Procès et exécution[modifier | modifier le code]
La mort de Charles IV le 1er février 1328 marque la chute de Rémi. Le nouveau dirigeant du royaume, Philippe de Valois (qui n'est encore que régent avant de prendre la couronne quelques semaines plus tard), le fait arrêter pour concussion, en fait sans doute pour offrir un bouc-émissaire à l'opinion publique mécontente. Après enquête, il est convaincu d'avoir détourné d'importantes sommes d'argent et donc d'avoir volé le roi. Torturé, il avoue finalement sa culpabilité. Il comparaît devant le Parlement de Paris et est condamné à mort.

Malgré les supplications de la reine Jeanne d'Évreux, veuve de Charles IV, Philippe de Valois, devenu entre temps Philippe VI, refuse sa grâce. Rémi est pendu au gibet de Montfaucon le 25 avril 13284.

Ses biens meubles sont alors répartis entre les membres de l'entourage de Philippe VI. Ses immeubles et ses domaines servent à éponger les dettes du roi et à gratifier son entourage, comme le prince Jean. En revanche sa famille peut hériter de ses droits et de quelques-unes de ses propriétés."


German version: "Nach dem Regierungsantritt Philipps VI. wurde Pierre de Rémy unter der Anklage, die Staatsfinanzen veruntreut zu haben, verhaftet. Ohne die Möglichkeit zu erhalten, sich zu verteidigen, wurde er am 25. April 1328 durch Beschluss des Parlements zum Tod durch Hängen verurteilt.

Als er zur Hinrichtung zum den einfachen Kriminellen vorbehaltenen „Gibet de Montigny“ geführt wurde, beschuldigte Pierre de Rémy sich selbst weiterer Taten, die ihm bislang niemand vorgehalten hatte, darunter Hochverrat gegen König und Staat. Die Schwere dieser Verbrechen machte es nun unmöglich, ihn in Montigny zu richten – man kehrte um und hängte ihn am nahegelegenen und den neu gestandenen Verbrechen vorbehaltenen Gibet de Montfaucon auf. Bereits Rémys Zeitgenossen gingen davon aus, dass diese Ehre das einzige Ziel seiner Geständnisse war."
The King Charles le Bel had died at 1st of February 1328 (probably 1327 in that time ?). The author speaks of the start of his work of 1328, occasionally of 1327. I think, it has to be suspected, that the death of the king triggered the decision for the new work. The death of the was connected to the fall of the treasurer Pierre de Remy, which led about 3 months later to his execution (25th of April 1328).
I think: Possibly it was intended by the author to draw a connection between the already popular bad hero Renard and the contemporary treasurer (generally the text is considered to be satirical). The German wiki text tells the story, that Remy after being accused and already condemned to death, accused himself of much more criminal actions, which caused, that he was not executed in Montigny (a place for usual criminals), but in Gibet de Montfaucon (a place for criminals against king and state). Contemporary witnesses already assumed, that these later confessions had the aim to reach this honor.

The texts contain autobiographical statements, which made it possible to have details about the development of the work (... .-) ... in the case, that these are true statements).

One shouldn't overlook, that there are many other works to the Renard topic.

I think, there is no chance to prove, that the "cartes" expression in the 3rd text is from 14th century. But naturally there is ALSO no way to prove, that the "cartes" expression is NOT from 14th century.


btw: I have changed the title

Re: William de Guilleville c. 1330 ; theme -1377

mikeh wrote:Thanks for all this work, Huck. What a maze! Now that we have the other text that Merlin cited, we don't know where to look to see if he was right, about that manuscript (7630-4), whenever it was, 1630 or whenever. He conveniently (for him, keeping others from checking his work) left off the folio number. Did you see it anywhere, for the passage in question?
1630 is only a number, not a year.
No, I didn't see a reference to the passage, as far I remember. I searched for the passage, but I didn't get something of value.

Re: Guilleville + Renart le Contrefait ; theme -1377

Yes, I figured out later that 1630 is the new number for the manuscript.

We know, or think we know, that "cartes" is in the "third" version, which is 15th century or later.

Merlin alleged that the earlier version, 7630-4 (now called 1630), does not have "cartes", and gave a manuscript number but not a folio number. It seems like it ought to be possible to verify whether the word "cartes" is in that manuscript, since we have a number for it, and all the pages seem to be online. If "cartes" isn't there, at the same place in the manuscript, then that is proof enough.

It seems to me that this case could be resolved much more satisfactorily than the ones that Franco discussed, because the allegedly earlier version is actually preserved and online. The BnF, at least, thinks it is at least 14th century (
Cote: Français 1630
Ancienne cote: Anc. 7630(4)
Ancienne cote: de La Mare 284
« Li Romans de Renart Contrefait ».
XIVe siècleVélin, miniatures.
Manuscrit en français
Bibliothèque nationale de France. Département des manuscrits
For our purposes, it doesn't matter when in the 14th century, because all we are trying to do is show that the "cartes", which appears in a later manuscript, is an interpolation.

All we need is a folio number. You would think that someone writing about this question, of whether "cartes" is an interpolation, would give a folio number. How absurd, for Merlin to go to the trouble of finding that needle in its haystack and then only tell us which haystack it is in.

Lacking a folio number, it might be possible to find the corresponding place in the text by other means, by reference to a standard modern edition. There is one, at ... it&f=false. The editors, in a footnote on the first page of the actual text, say that they are using all three texts, the two in Paris (including 1630, mentioned as such) and the one in Vienna, for their edition, giving variant readings at the bottom of the page. However I cannot find any part of the passage in question, either version, using the "search" function. The closest I find is on p. 155, "De jeux de dez, de jeux de tables"; but the other lines aren't right. Maybe you will have better luck.

Added a little later: I see there is talk of a new critical edition, restoring the "original" text, at ... R4651.html. But I can't find the book itself, only a conference about it, in Brussels 2011, ... gramme.pdf.

Re: Guilleville + Renart le Contrefait ; theme -1377

Renart le Contrefait est un roman composé entre les années 1319-1322 de 32000 octosyllabes. Le manuscrit BnF 1630 de la Bibliothèque Nationale qui le contient n’a encore jamais été édité .

The Vienna research text of 1861 analyses, that the material of version 1630 was split in that, what is known in the Vienna version and the old 6985-3. The author says (page 2) ...


... which should mean, that the Vienna edition (218 folii with 140-150 lines each, but with some free place for pictures) would have likely a little less lines (roughly 30.000). Together with the estimated 18.000 lines of 6985-3 this is much more than the version of 1319-1322 has.

Further the author says (page 13) ..

Image ... 1/mode/2up

... that text pieces were moved, changed and split in the redaction of 1328-1341. And new material was added. Things, which are left out in 6985-3 are often found in the Vienna version, and vice versa.

This makes it difficult to suggest, where these "cartes" of 6985-3 should be in the old version (if 6985-3 is really a correct version of 14th century and if "cartes" would be really in the old version).
And it might have been easily the case, that the author knew playing cartes in 1341, but not in 1322.

It seems plausible to me, that already somebody hunted for the "cartes" in the old version of 1319-22. If he would have found them, it's plausible, that we would know it.


Well we have ...


This was Duchesne 1837. The latter part is from 7630-4.


This was by Joseph van Praet (1822). This part is from 6985-3.

Essai sur l'origine de la gravure en bois et en taille-douce, et sur la connoissance des estampes des XVe et XVIe siècles, où il est parlé aussi de l'origine des cartes à jouer et des cartes géographiques, suivi de Recherches sur l'origine du papier de coton et de lin, sur la calligraphie depuis les plans anciens temps jusqu'à nos jours, sur les miniatures des anciens manuscrits, sur les filigranes des papiers des XIVe, XVe et XVIe siècles, ainsi que sur l'origine et le premier usage des signatures et des chiffres dans l'art de la typographie
Hendrik Jansen
F. Schoell, 1808 ... es&f=false


This is from 1808 and it praises Van Praet for the detection. The text of Van Praet (1822) should have an error (one line is missing).


larger text:
... there are 4 lines, not 3

What do we learn from this?
Van Praet detected the "cartes" note before 1808.
Duchesne in 1837 knew the reference text in the other text (7330-4). It should be rather similar, but without cards.

Merlin in 1859 refers only to Duchesne in 1837, not to any info about the year 1450. ... Fi40081714

Duchesne got a quick response in 1837 by Jean Rey, who also knew about Van Praet and Hansen ... ... -4&f=false


But I don't get, that Duchesne told anything about Folio numbers in this context. I get the original text by a Google version, which was printed in 1836 for the year 1837. ... &q&f=false
Annuaire historique, Band 1
Société de l'histoire de France, 1836
... but that's the same text.

Re: Guilleville + Renart le Contrefait ; theme -1377

Here is the part again from M. Duchesne aîné, Annuaire historique pour l'année ...
Vol. 1 (1837), pp. 172-213

The wording for the dating of 7630-4, "plus ancien de pres d'un siecle", is strikingly similar to that of Merlin in 1869:
autre interpolation du mot cartes....Le manuscrit cité du Renard le Contrefait (no. 6985, 3) de la Bibliothèque Impériale est tout au plus de 1450, et, dans le manuscrit 7630,4, plus ancien de plus d'un siècle, il n'y a trace de nom des cartes. Voice comme le vers déjà cité s'y trouve écrit:
Jouent à jeux de dez, ou de tables
"de pres de" is changed to "de plus de". The first is "by nearly"; the second is "by more than". Not a lot of difference in meaning, and the structure of the phrases in French is even closer. Added later: re-reading what you wrote, or what you added since I posted, I'm not sure, I see you agree that Merlin is wholly based on Duchesne.

It would appear to me that Merlin did not look for himself, but simply copied what Duchesne said. If Merlin had checked, he probably would have given the folio number.

Thus, it seems plausible to me that once Merlin endorsed Duchesne, everyone has taken Duchesne's word for it, not being inclined to look for the needle in the haystack themselves. If someone knows which haystack our needle is to be found, then he must have seen it there, after all. But these things need to be confirmed. The repeated vague reference, made to order for being a huge bother to find, is not good enough.

A similar case, in our own day, is Moakley's reference to a numerological analysis of the number 6 in Robert Graves' The Nazarene Gospel Restored. That work is 1045 dense pages long, in several (I think 3) different published versions. I just went through, page by page, the third "redaction" as it were, of the work, claiming to include all the material in both the other two versions. I believe it: the editor said that 40 pages in the British version were not in the American version, and the American editions of 1953-1959 had 1021 pp., per WorldCat. (Yes, I know that's only 24 pages more; the type seems reset. The 40 "omitted" pages would seem to be merely a repetition, in one piece, of what had been "reconstructed" piece by piece throughout the work.) I found nothing about the number 6. In a work about Jewish references in and Gnostic sources for the canonical gospels, a comment on numerology would stand out. There is no numerology at all, not even when such is obviously present in the gospel passages being considered (the 5000 being fed, the 5 wounds, etc.). Graves wasn't doing numerology in that work. I suspect that Moakley couldn't find the reference either, but thought it was there, so she gave the name of the work but not the page number. In every other case, she does give a page number. She is conscientious about that. She is not the first author where I have not been able to find what was supposed to be there. I suppose the post-2000 editor could have decided to leave out all the numerological passages, but I doubt it.

Something similar could have happened with Duchesne. He (or perhaps it was de la Marre before him) was sure the passage was there as he said, but couldn't find it again. But it may have been a similar passage elsewhere, such as the "de jeux de dez et de tables" that I quoted earlier. Meanwhile we don't know whether Duchesne couldn't find it because it wasn't there, or because he missed something and gave up too soon, or maybe just went by hearsay. (We also don't know that about my search for Moakley's quote, of course.) Well, perhaps someday there will be a critical edition.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests