tional medieval way of interpreting stories and a more
modern conception of authorship.
See also ALLEGORY, MORALL FABILLIS (OVERVIEW).
FURTHER READING
Macdonald, Donald. “Henryson and Chaucer: Cock and
Fox.” Texas Studies in Literature and Language 8, no. 4
(1967): 451–461.
Christian Sheridan
Morall Fabillis: “The Fox and the Wolf” ROBERT
HENRYSON (ca. 1485) This BEAST FABLE is internally
linked to the one that appears before it, “The Cock and
the Fox,” as it relates the further adventures of the fox
who missed his chance to devour Chantecleir.
As the tale opens, the fox (Lowrence) realizes he is a
sinner and needs to confess. Conveniently, he encoun-
ters Freir Volff Waitskaith [Friar Wolf Do-harm] (ll.
667–69). The fox falls on his knees and begs the wolf
to hear his confession. Dutifully, the wolf asks the fox
if he is sorry for his crimes and will no longer commit
them. The fox answers negatively to both questions,
claiming the taste of hens and lambs is too delicious
and that he has no other means of providing food for
himself. Though the wolf correctly points out that the
fox “wantis pointis twa / Belangand to perfyte confes-
sioun [lacks two points belonging to a perfect confes-
sion]” (ll. 712–23), this lack does not overly concern
him, and he proceeds to issue the fox penance: Low-
rence must refrain from eating meat until Easter. The
fox protests, and the wolf agrees to allow meat twice a
week, because “need has no law” (l. 731).
Soon afterward, Lowrence tries to fi sh but is fright-
ened by the tempestuous waves. Instead, he seizes a
goat from a nearby herd, drags it to the water, and
dunks it in, proclaiming, “ ‘Ga down, schir Kid, cum
up, schir Salmond, agane’ ” [‘go down sir Kid, come up
[as] sir Salmon’] (l. 751). After feasting on this newly
christened “salmon,” the fox curls up in the sun and
“recklessly” asserts that it would be appropriate for an
arrow to pierce his belly (ll. 758, 760). The goatherd
from whom the fox stole the kid sees him, shoots him
with his bow, and takes his pelt as recompense.
The morals that accompanies the FABLE interprets
it as a warning for the sinful to mend their ways lest
they be killed unshriven like the fox. Indeed, most
criticism on this fable has focused on the issue of
sacramental abuse. Also, the narrator is surprisingly
present in this text, a departure from traditional
fables and a technique that allows for slippages
between fantasy and reality, as well as an insistence
that its readers to be aware of their interpretive pro-
cesses.
See also ALLEGORY, MORALL FABILLIS (OVERVIEW), REY-
NARD LITERATURE.
Christian SheridanMorall Fabillis: “The Lion and the Mouse” ROB-
ERT HENRYSON (1483) “The Lion and the Mouse,”
the seventh BEAST FABLE in ROBERT HENRYSON’s Morall
Fabillis, has a number of unique features: It is the only
fable with a prologue, the only DREAM VISION, the only
tale that has a happy ending, and the only one in which
the characters follow suggested advice.
In the prologue, the narrator dreams about Aesop
and begs his master to tell a fable. So the tale begins. A
lion is basking in the sun when a group of mice appear
and dance across his body. The lion seizes the chief
mouse. She readily admits guilt but says that she acted
out of negligence, not spite. Nevertheless, the lion
accuses her of treason, as he is king of the beasts, for
which the punishment is death. The mouse begs for
mercy and appeals to his reason, arguing that he will
gain no glory by killing a harmless mouse and may,
instead, lose renown. Mercy and reason overcome
anger, and the lion releases the mouse. The lion then
goes on a rampage, killing tame and wild beasts alike,
and is captured by hunters. As the lion mourns his situ-
ation, the mouse hears his cries, calls on her kin, and
frees him. The moral then indicates that mercy, pity,
justice, and temperance are the qualities of a good king
and inspire loyalty.
The FABLE has clear connections to contemporary
Scottish politics. The lion moves from being a sloth-
ful, indolent king of the beasts to a just, merciful one,
and this benevolence inspires faithful service from his
subjects. James III’s subjects, clearly not inspired by
loyalty, censured him through Parliament on six dif-
ferent occasions for his failures. Similarly, the huntersMORALL FABILLIS: “THE LION AND THE MOUSE” 281