such conclusions with any certainty, and instead focus
on discursive aspects, such as the allegorical method
itself or the realistic natural description. This suggests
that in the Morall Fabillis, Henryson presents a compel-
ling mixture of traditional medieval doctrine with the
newly emerging humanism of the 15th century, and as
such, this collection of beast fables can be read as an
important transitional text between the Middle Ages
and the Renaissance.
See also ALLEGORY.
FURTHER READING
Fox, Denton, ed. The Poems of Robert Henryson. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1981.
Gopen, George, ed. Moral Fables of Aesop by Robert Hen-
ryson. South Bend, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press,
1987.
Kindrick, Robert L. Robert Henryson. Boston: Twayne Pub-
lishers, 1979.
———. Henryson and the Medieval Arts of Rhetoric. New
York: Garland, 1993.
Wheatley, Edward. Mastering Aesop: Medieval Education,
Chaucer, and His Followers. Gainesville: University Press of
Florida, 2000.
Christian Sheridan
Morall Fabillis: “The Cock and the Fox” ROBERT
HENRYSON (1485) The third tale of the Morall Fabil-
lis, “The Cock and the Fox,” is a condensed version of
the same BEAST FABLE presented in GEOFFREY CHAUCER’s
“The Nun’s Priest’s Tale” and recounts how a fox (iden-
tifi ed as Lowrence by ROBERT HENRYSON) beguiles a
cock (Chantecleir) by fl attering him into closing his
eyes, turning around three times, and crowing. The
fox, of course, uses that interlude to snatch the cock
and escape. This escape proves shortlived as the widow
and her dogs are quickly on his trail. Inspired by “some
good spirit” (l. 558) Chantecleir escapes by advising
the fox to tell the dogs that he and the fox have been
friends for a year so that they will cease their pursuit.
When the fox opens his mouth to do so, the cock fl ies
into a tree. The fox tries one last time to cajole the cock
into joining him on the ground by offering to be his
servant for a year, but the cock has learned his lesson
and fl ies home. The lesson the reader ought to learn,
according to the moral accompanying the poem, is to
fl ee the twin sins of fl attery (represented by the fox)
and pride (the cock).
The most interesting sections of the text are digres-
sions from the main narrative. Henryson devotes
seven STANZAs to a discussion between three hens,
Pertok, Sprutok, and Coppok, about the character of
their former lover. Pertok begins with a fairly conven-
tional show of mourning, remembering Chantecleir
as both a capable lover and as a provider. Sprutok
responds with a much less fl attering memorial, cast-
ing doubt on the cock’s lovemaking and noting that
he was affl icted with jealousy. Pertok, who the text
tells us was only feigning faith before, quickly agrees
and reveals her lustful nature. Coppok then delivers a
mini-sermon connecting Chantecleir’s fate to his pro-
miscuous lifestyle. One assumes that the humor of
this hen involved in a polygamous marriage con-
demning adultery would not have been lost on Hen-
ryson’s audience.
Critics have focused mostly on the relationship
between this FABLE and its Chaucerian source, noting
similarities and differences, and examining Henryson’s
concise writing style. Beyond the fable’s relation to
“The Nun’s Priest’s Tale” and its humor, “The Cock
and the Fox” deserves attention because of the light it
sheds on Henryson’s method in his collection of fables.
The beginning of the Morall emphasizes that in order
to interpret the fables correctly, the audience must
employ a allegorical method so that each character
represents a different vice. As with the other fables, an
edifying meaning can be found through diligent read-
ing. In another self-conscious moment, the opening
two stanzas of the text as a whole discuss the beast
fable as a genre and note that despite lacking judg-
ment, animals’ temperaments are so diverse that it
exceeds the poet’s ability to describe them. After this
cursory modest introduction, Henryson begins the
narrative proper by noting that the story he is about to
recount is a recent event (it happened “this other year,”
l. 409) and not something he has drawn out of an older
work. These two moments, one in which he asserts the
authenticity of his story and the other in which he
indicates that his story is merely chaff to be discarded
in favor of the moral, suggest the extent to which Hen-
ryson is a transitional fi gure invoking both the tradi-280 MORALL FABILLIS: “THE COCK AND THE FOX”