Notes.
Two other Philippine variants of the “Puss in Boots” cycle have been printed,—one Visayan, “Masoy and the Ape” (JAFL 20 : 311–314); and the other Tagalog, “Juan and the Monkey” (ibid., 108–109). It would thus appear, not only from the fact of its wide distribution, but also from the testimony of the recorders of the stories, that the tale is fairly well known and popular throughout the Archipelago.
The most complete bibliography of this cycle is Bolte-Polívka’s notes on Grimm, No. 33 (a), “Puss in Boots” (Anmerkungen, I : 325–334). See also Köhler’s notes to Gonzenbach, No. 65, “Vom Conte Piro” (2 : 242 f.); Macculloch, ch. VIII (p. 225 f.); W. R. S. Ralston in the “Nineteenth Century” (13 [1883] : 88–104). The oldest known version of the story is Straparola’s (XI, i), which is translated in full by Crane (pp. 348–350). The second oldest is also Italian, by Basile (2 : iv); the third, French, Perrault’s “Le Chat Botté.” In all three the helpful animal is a cat, as it is without exception in the German, Scandinavian, English, and French forms. In the Italian the animal is usually a cat, though the fox takes its place in a number of Sicilian tales. In the Greek, Roumanian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Russian, and in general all East European forms, the helpful animal is regularly the fox, as it is also in the examples collected from Siberia, Kurdestan, Daghestan, and Mongolia. In the four Indian variants known, the animal is a jackal; in the four from the Philippines, a monkey. In a Swahili tale (Steere, p. 13) it is a gazelle. It is not hard to see how, through a process of transmission, jackal, fox, and cat might become interchanged; but where the Philippine monkey, consistently used in all versions, came from, is more difficult to explain; so the Swahili gazelle. I have, however, attempted an explanation below.
An examination of the four members of the Philippine group reveals some striking family resemblances: (1) The motive of the monkey’s gratitude is the same in all the stories: the thieving animal is caught in some sort of trap, and promises to serve the hero for life if he will only spare it. The animal is true to its word. (2) In all the stories occurs the incident of the borrowed measure returned with coins sticking to it. (3) In all the versions occurs the marriage of the poor hero with the chief’s daughter, brought about by the ingenious monkey. (4) In three of the versions (all except the Pangasinan) we have as the final episode the destruction of a powerful witch or demon, and the winning of all its fortune by the monkey for the hero. In the Hindoo variants we find that the motive of the jackal’s gratitude agrees with the motive in our versions. In other respects they differ (with the exception of the marriage, which is found in nearly all members of the “Puss in Boots” cycle): the Hindoo tales lack the incidents of the borrowed measure and the destruction of the demon. So far as the opening is concerned, then, our variants and the Indian belong to the same family. The separation, however, must have taken place ages ago; for in India the animal is consistently a jackal, and in the Philippines a monkey. The only other form that I know of in which the animal is a monkey is the Arabian, in the “1001 Nights,” “Aboo Mohammed the Lazy;” but here the helpful ape later turns out to be a malicious demon, who treacherously abducts the hero’s beautiful wife. At last, through the aid of a friendly jinnee, the hero recovers her, captures the ape, and encloses it forever in a bottle of brass. He then gains possession of all the demon’s enormous wealth. It is difficult to see any immediate connection between the Arabian version and ours.
Our two Visayan forms are of particular interest in that they make use of the “Tar Baby” device to catch the monkey. If Joseph Jacobs is correct in tracing this incident to the Buddhist birth-story, the “Pancāvudha-jātaka,” No. 55 (see Indian Fairy Tales, pp. 305 ff.), the Philippines may easily have derived it directly from India along with other Buddhistic fables (e.g., “The Monkey and the Crocodile,” No. 56, below). Indeed, Batten’s ingenious explanation that the Brer Rabbit of Negro lore is a reminiscence of an incarnation of Buddha may be applied equally well to the monkey in our Visayan tales, for the monkey is a much more common form for the Bodhisatta than is the hare. In the five hundred and forty-seven Jātakas, Buddha is born as a hare only once; whereas in eleven separate stories he appears as a monkey,—oftener, indeed, than as any other animal (lion, ten times; stag, nine; elephant, seven). This same explanation (viz., that “Puss in Boots” is the Bodhisatta) would account for the gazelle (deer) in the Swahili tale. The extreme cleverness of the Bodhisatta in most of his animal manifestations might easily have suggested the “Puss in Boots” cycle. Another point worth noticing in connection with this theory is the consistent faithfulness of the animal. The ingratitude of the human hero, which is found even in some of the Occidental versions, and the gratitude of the animal, form a favorite Buddhistic contrast. Altogether it appears to me wholly reasonable to derive not only the “Tar Baby” incident, but also the whole “Puss in Boots” cycle, from Buddhistic lore. For the appearance of both in the Philippines we do not need to go to Europe as a source. The “Tar Baby” device to catch a thieving jackal is found in a Santal story, “The Jackal and the Chickens” (Bompas, No. CXII). See also two South African tales in Honeÿ,—“The Story of a Dam” (p. 73), and “Rabbit’s Triumph” (p. 79). For other references, see Dähnhardt, 4 : 26–43 (ch. 2).
There is a connection, however, between some of the Occidental versions and three of ours,—the incident of the destruction of the demon. This detail, as I have pointed out, is hinted at in the “1001 Nights” version.[1] In spite of the fact that it exists in a number of the oldest European literary forms of the story and is not found in modern Indian folk-tales, I believe that this incident is of Oriental origin. In Straparola it has been rationalized, so to speak. A significant version intermediary between the Orient and Occident in this respect, as well as geographically, is the Mongolian tale of “Boroltai Ku” (FLJ 4 : 32 f):—
This story has the Oriental opening: the animal is a fox, which the hero digs out of its hole and spares. Through its cleverness the fox brings about the marriage of Boroltai Ku, the man who spared its life, with the daughter of Gurbushtên Khan. After the wedding the khan sends the new couple back to their home, and with them an official attendant. On the return journey the fox runs on ahead, and requests every herdsman it meets to say, if he is asked whose cattle he is tending, “It is the cattle of Boroltai Ku, the rich khan.” At last the fox comes to the tent of Khan Manguis, and groans. “What’s the matter?” says the khan. “A storm is coming,” says the fox. “That is a misfortune for me too,” says the khan. “How so? You can order a hole ten fathoms deep to be dug, and can hide in it,” says the fox. So done. Boroltai Ku and his party now appear, and he occupies the khan’s tent as if it were his own. The fox assures the official attendant that the tent is Boroltai Ku’s, but that it has one defect. “What is that?”—“Under the tent lives a demon. Won’t you bring down lightning to slay him?” The attendant brings down lightning and slays Khan Manguis, who is sitting in the hole. Boroltai Ku becomes khan, and takes all the possessions, cattle, and people of Khan Manguis, and goes to live near his father-in-law.
In this story, it will be noticed, the animal’s ruse is the same as ours,—it persuades the rich khan (demons in ours) to hide himself in a pit. There he is subsequently killed.
The borrowed measure returned with coins sticking to it has already been met with in [No. 20 (c)]. The incident occurs elsewhere in Filipino drolls. It is curious to find it so consistently a part of the Filipino “Puss in Boots” stories.
In conclusion may be noted the fact that in “Andres the Trapper” the monkey’s solicitude over the appearance his master will make at the rich man’s house has a parallel in the jackal’s similar concern in the Santal story:—
Before the wedding-feast, the jackal gave Jogeswhar some hints as to his behavior. He warned him that three or four kinds of meats and vegetables would be handed round with the rice, and bade him to be sure to help himself from each dish; and when betel-nut was handed to him after the feast, he was not to take any until he had a handful of money given him; by such behavior he would lead every one to think he was really a prince.—BOMPAS, p. 175.
In Dracott’s story the human hero is a weaver also, as in the Santal. His last exploit has been borrowed from another Indian tale not connected with our group, “Valiant Vicky the Weaver” (Steel-Temple, p. 80; cf. Kingscote, No. IX).
[1] The Arabian story, I believe, is well worth study in connection with the theory of the Buddhistic origin of this cycle. The rôle of the ape; the conflict between the good and bad jinn, the ape belonging with the latter group; and the narrator’s statement, “All this I have received from the bounty of God, whose name be exalted!”—suggest at the base of this version the struggle between Buddhism and Mohammedanism; with Mohammedanism triumphant, of course.