[324] Montaiglon-Raynaud, ii. 243. Cf. Hist. Litt. xxiii. 103; Jusserand, Lit. Hist. i. 442. A shorter prose form of the story is found in La Riote du Monde (ed. Fr. Michel, 1834), a popular facétie of which both French and Anglo-Norman versions exist; cf. Paris, Litt. fr. 153. And a Latin form, De Mimo et Rege Francorum is in Wright, Latin Stories, No. 137. The point consists in the quibbling replies with which the jougleur meets the king’s questions. Thus, in La Riote du Monde: ‘Dont ies tu?—Je suis de no vile.—U est te vile?—Entor le moustier.—U est li moustiers?—En l’atre.—U est li atres?—Sor terre.—U siet cele terre?—Sor l’iaue.—Comment apiel-on l’iaue?—On ne l’apiele nient; ele vient bien sans apieler.’
[325] Cf. Appendix V.
[326] Cf. ch. viii.
[327] Ed. P. Meyer, in Jahrbuch für romanische und englische Literatur, vi. 163. The piece was probably written in Flanders, between 1266 and 1290. Cf. Creizenach, i. 398.
[328] See Appendix U. References for the earlier non-dramatic versions in Latin, French, and English of the story are given by Jusserand, Lit. Hist. i. 447. A Cornish dramatic fragment of the fourteenth century is printed in the Athenæum for Dec. 1, 1877, and Revue celtique, iv. 259; cf. Creizenach, i. 401.
[329] Stephens-Hunt, ii. 301; F. S. Stevenson, Robert Grosseteste, 126. The disciplinary attack seems to have begun with Grosseteste’s predecessor, Hugh de Wells, in 1230 (Wilkins, i. 627), but he, like Roger Weseham, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, in 1252 (Annales Monastici, R. S. i. 296), merely condemns ludi, a term which may mean folk-festivals or minstrelsy, or both. A similar ambiguity attaches to the obligation of the anchoresses of Tarrant Keyneston not to look on at a ludus (pleouwe) in the church-yard (Ancren Riwle, C. S. 318).
[330] In 1236 Grosseteste wrote to his archdeacons forbidding ‘arietum super ligna et rotas elevationes, caeterosque ludos consimiles, in quo decertatur pro bravio; cum huiusmodi ludorum tam actores quam spectatores, sicut evidenter demonstrat Isidorus, immolant daemonibus, ... et cum etiam huiusmodi ludi frequenter dant occasiones irae, odii, pugnae, et homicidii.’ His Constitutiones of 1238 say ‘Praecipimus etiam ut in singulis ecclesiis denuncietur solenniter ne quisquam levet arietes super rotas, vel alios ludos statuat, in quibus decertatur pro bravio: nec huiusmodi ludis quisquam intersit, &c.’ About 1244 he wrote again to the archdeacons: ‘Faciunt etiam, ut audivimus, clerici ludos quos vocant miracula: et alios ludos quos vocant Inductionem Maii sive Autumni; et laici scotales ... miracula etiam et ludos supra nominatos et scotales, quod est in vestra potestate facili, omnino exterminetis’ (Luard, Letters of Robert Grosseteste (R. S.) Epp. xxii, lii, cvii, pp. 74, 162, 317). For his condemnations of the Feast of Fools cf. ch. xiv.
[331] Const. Walt. de Cantilupo (Wilkins, i. 673) ‘prohibemus clericis ... nec sustineant ludos fieri de Rege et Regina, nec arietas levari, nec palaestras publicas fieri, nec gildales inhonestas.’ The clergy must also abstain and dissuade the laity from ‘compotationibus quae vocantur scottales’ (Wilkins, i. 672). On ‘ram-raisings,’ &c., cf. ch. vii; on ‘gildales’ and ‘scotales’ ch. viii.
[332] Surely the reference is to the mock kings and queens of the village festivals, and not, as Guy, 521; Jusserand, Litt. Hist. i. 444, suggest, to the question-and-answer game of Le Roi qui ne ment described in Jean de Condé’s Sentier Batu (Montaiglon-Raynaud, iii. 248), although this is called playing ‘as rois et as reines’ in Adan de la Hale’s Robin et Marion (ed. Monmerqué-Michel, 121) and elsewhere (cf. Guy, 222), and possibly grew out of the festival custom. Yet another game of King and Queen, of the practical joke order, is described as played at Golspie by Nicholson, 119.
[333] Wilkins, i. 666.