The narrative of the Patient Griselda is one of the most wide-spread of the stories which have come down to us from the Middle Ages. It has been annexed to the highest literature by such poets as Boccaccio, Petrarch and Chaucer, and has been brought within reach of the meanest capacities by the ballad-mongers and the writers of penny histories.

We cannot trace the story back farther than the middle of the fourteenth century, when Boccaccio incorporated it into his Decameron (day 10, novel 10); but it must have had a previous existence in Italy, for Petrarch says in his letter to Boccaccio that when he read it in the Decameron he remembered how pleased he had been with it when he heard it many years before. When his memory was thus revived in the story that charmed him so much he set to work to learn it by heart, so that he might repeat it to his friends. He then translated it into Latin for the benefit of those who did not know Italian.^[1] That he did repeat the story to his friend we learn from the Clerk of Oxenford’s Prologue to his tale in the Canterbury Tales, where he says:—

There has been much controversy over these words. We must all wish to believe that Chaucer met Petrarch at Padua and was friendly with him; but although it is highly probable that he did so we have no actual evidence other than this passage. Some say that Chaucer is not speaking here in his own name but in that of a fictitious character, and therefore the statement goes for nothing. Another objection is that here Chaucer’s indebtedness to Boccaccio is overlooked and all the credit is given to Petrarch. It is highly probable however that Chaucer was interested in the story from Petrarch’s talk, and that when he decided to make it one of his Canterbury Tales he adapted it from Petrarch’s translation of Boccaccio, which is referred to farther on in the Prologue:—

That this is the true origin of the Clerk’s tale is confirmed by the fact that Petrarch varied somewhat from Boccaccio’s original, and in these variations Chaucer follows Petrarch. An impossible tale such as this requires all the art of the true poet to make it delightful to us, and this of course we have in Chaucer. It is far different when we come to read the common-place prose of the chap-book or the equally common-place verse of the ballad-monger.

The picture of patience carried to the extreme in the wife and of brutal violence in the husband is so out of harmony with our present views that it is somewhat difficult to read the story with patience. We are wrong, however, in taking it in this spirit, and Professor Hales has so beautifully expressed the true motive of this mediÆval picture that I feel I cannot do better than transfer to these pages his remarks in the publication of the Chaucer Society containing Originals and Analogues of some of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales:^[2]—“Now, it is the characteristic of the unsophisticated mediÆval litterateur that he deals with one idea at a time. It would often lead to a highly injurious conclusion to attach at all equal a moral importance or rather any moral importance to the subordinate parts of what he sets forth. The central lesson is kept well in view; the others must look to themselves. The principal figure is brought into relief with enthusiasm; on the mere surroundings and background little or no care is spent.... And so in the story of Griselda: if we would read it in the spirit of the day when it became current we should not vex ourselves into any righteous indignation against the immediate author of her most touching distresses. The old story does not make the marquis a monster in human shape; indeed, it represents him as a man of a noble and lovable nature; if he is not so, then even in the end Griselda reaps no earthly reward in permanently securing his admiration and love. And yet this marquis perpetrates inexpressible cruelties; he is a very wolf, ruthlessly teasing and tearing the gentlest of lambs. The explanation is in accordance with what has just been said: the patience of Griselda is the one theme of the tale, and nothing else is to be regarded. In relation to her the marquis has no moral being; he is a mere means of showing forth her supreme excellence; a mere mechanical expedient. He is no more morally than a thorn in the saint’s footpath, or a wheel, or a cross. Surely it is vain to be wroth with him. Who rages against the mere fire that enfolds the martyr, or the nails that pierce the hands of a crucified Believer? Indeed, nothing in the tale is of any ethical moment but the carriage of the heroine herself. The eyes and the heart of the old century when she first appeared were fastened devoutly on that single form, and let all else go by. She is wifely obedience itself, nothing else. Before that virtue all other virtues bow. It enjoys a complete monopoly, an absolute sway. Other moral life is suspended in this representation of it. She has but one function; for her there is but one sin possible, and that is to murmur. She is all meekness, all yielding, all resignation.

“Such a figure has comparatively few charms for us of these latter days. But it pleased the world once—even down to Shakespeare’s time, who himself portrayed it in one of his earliest plays: Catherine in the Taming of the Shrew is a phase of Griselda. Perhaps in ages when much most ignorant abuse of women prevailed in literature—abuse springing mainly out of the vile prejudices and superstitions of the mediÆval Church—some such figure might have been expected to arise. It is the figure of a reaction. The hearts of men refused to accept the dishonouring pictures so often drawn of their fellow mortals. They rose in a loyal insurrection against lying fables of essential wantonness and of shameful obstinacy. To such chivalrous rebels the pale, sad, constant face of Griselda showed itself as the image of far other experiences and histories; and they gazed on it as on the face of their saint. With an infinite reverence they saw her still calm and quiet in the midst of anguishes, with heart breaking but lips uttering no ill word, with eyes that through the tears with which kindly nature of herself would relieve the terrible drought of sorrow still looked nothing but inalienable tenderness and love.”

The French have claimed for their country the origination of the story of Griselda; but their claim cannot be allowed. The AbbÉ de Sade in his Life of Petrarch asserts that the story is to be found in a manuscript called Le Parement des Dames; but it appears that this manuscript was the work of Olivier de la Marche, who was not born until long after the death of Boccaccio. Boccaccio’s novel was translated into French and published at Paris about the year 1510 as La Patience de Grisilidis; it was published also at Troyes about 1562. Apparently, however, the French were the first to bring Griselda upon the stage; for, according to Warton, the Comedians of Paris represented a mystery in French verse entitled Le Mystere de Griseildis, Marquis de Saluces, mis en rime franÇoise et par personnaiges in 1393. This was not printed until about 1550, when Jehan Bonfons published it at Paris. His edition was reprinted in 1832.

Ralph Radcliffe, a somewhat voluminous play-writer, who flourished towards the close of the reign of Henry VIII., is said by John Bale to have written an English comedy entitled “Patient Griselde,” and Hans Sachs in Germany converted the story into a drama as early as 1550; but in Italy, the land of its birth, it was not dramatised until 1620.

It was not possible for a story which had early taken such a strong hold upon the popular imagination to remain long without becoming the property of the ballad-writer, but we cannot tell if he forestalled the writer of popular histories. In the Stationers’ Registers we find three entries of Griselda as early as the year 1565–6; the following two relate to the ballad:—

Rd. of Owyn Rogers, for his lycense for pryntinge of a ballett intituled the sounge of pacyente Gressell unto hyr make [mate]

iiij d.

Rd. of Wylliam greffeth, for his lycense for pryntinge of ij ballettes to the tune of pacyente gressell

iiij d.

Now the second of these entries seems to point to an earlier ballad, as it must have taken some time for the tune of Patient Grissell to become so popular; and therefore there is great probability in Mr. Chappell’s conjecture that the original ballad was published before 1557, in which year the Registers commence.

All the ballads of Griselda now in existence are essentially the same as that printed in The Garland of Goodwill by Thomas Deloney; and, as the same ballad, divided into chapters with prose chapters at the beginning and end, is printed in The Pleasant and Sweet History of Patient Grissell (reprinted by Mr. Collier for the Percy Society), it has been suggested that this tract was also written by Deloney. This famous ballad-monger is supposed to have commenced writing about the year 1586, so that it is probable that the ballad of 1565–6, and the even earlier one suggested above, have ceased to exist. The following is a list of the different titles of Deloney’s ballad:—

A most pleasant Ballad of patient Grissell, to the tune of “The Bride’s Good-morrow.”

The earliest known edition, printed in Collection of Seventy-nine Black-Letter Ballads and Broadsides, 1870. P. 17. (Roxburghe Ballads, ed. W. Chappell, vol. ii. p. 268.)

Of Patient Grissel and a Noble Marquess. To the tune of “The Bride’s Good-morrow.”

T. Deloney’s Garland of Good-Will. 1678. Part 2. (Percy Society. No. 112. 1851.)

The earliest edition of the Garland must have been published before 1600, as Deloney died in that year.

A most excellent and vertuous Ballad of the Patient Grissell. To the tune of “The Bride’s Good-morrow.” London. Printed by John Wright. [1640?] (Roxburghe Ballads, vol. i. pp. 302–3.)

The first part ends—

And the second begins—

There is a copy of the ballad (in one, not two parts) in the Percy Folio Manuscript. See Hales and Furnivall’s edition, 1868, vol. iii. p. 421.

An excellent Ballad of a Noble Marquiss and Patient Grissel. (Collection of Old Ballads, 1723, vol. i. p. 252.)

The following entries in the Stationers’ Registers would appear to refer to the Ancient, True, and Admirable History printed in this volume. It is stated to be translated from the French, but this statement is of no value, and it is evidently of pure English manufacture. The edition of 1619 is the earliest known to exist:—

1565–6. Rd. of Thomas Colwell, for his lycense for prynting of an history of meke and pacyent Gresell

iiij d.

1568–9. Rd. of Thomas Colwell, for his lycense for pryntinge of the hystory of pacyent gresell, &c.

viij d.

The History of the Noble Marquis of Salus, or Patient Grissel. Printed and sold in London. [1780?] 12mo. Pp. 24. Another edition. Aldermary Churchyard, n. d.

A reduced chap-book edition of the History printed in this volume. It seems to have been published in this form as early as 1703.

When Mr. J. Payne Collier edited for the Percy Society “The History of Patient Grisel, two early Tracts in Black-Letter, with an Introduction and Notes,” 1842, he printed after the Ancient, True, and Admirable History “The Pleasant and Sweet History of Patient Grissell, shewing how she from a poore man’s daughter came to be a great lady of France, being a Patterne to all vertuous women. Translated out of Italian. London. Printed by E. P. for John Wright, dwelling in Giltspur Street at the Signe of the Bible.”

This is divided into eleven chapters, of which 1, 2, 10, and 11, are in prose; chapters 3 to 9 contain the ballad referred to previously, and it is most probable that the whole tract was the production of Deloney. The date is cut off, but the pamphlet was probably printed about 1630, and it is doubtless a late edition of a popular chap-book. The copy in the British Museum is apparently the same as that used by Mr. Collier. It is handsomely bound in morocco, and in the inside is written in pencil, “Cost me eight pounds unbound.” There are two titles: the first is “The History of the Noble Marques,” with a woodcut of Griselda at the spinning-wheel. On the back of this is the woodcut of Elizabeth, reproduced on the title of the Percy Society reprint.

The play of Ralph Radcliffe is now lost, so that the comedy published in 1603 and reprinted in 1841 is the only one known to exist. We have here a curious instance of the danger of asserting of any particular book that it is unique. When Mr. Collier reprinted the play for the Shakespeare Society he said that there was no copy in the British Museum, and that the only copies he knew of were one in the Bodleian and another in the possession of the Duke of Devonshire, who also had an imperfect copy which he presented to Collier. There is now a copy in the British Museum, and in it is this note in ink: “The only copy extant.—J. B. 1788.” Under this is a pencil note: “I have seen another copy, but it was imperfect—G. N.” On the title-page is written “William Shakespeare,” apparently one of the Ireland forgeries.

The following entry occurs in Henslowe’s Diary:—

“Received in earnest of Patient Grissell by us Tho. Dekker, Hen. Chettle and Willm. Hawton the sume of 3 li. of good and lawfull money by a note sent from Mr. Robt. Shaa’s the 19th of December, 1599. By me,

Henry Chettle.

W. Haughton.

Thomas Dekker.”

The Robert Shaa or Shaw here mentioned was, Mr. Collier tells us, one of the temporary managers of the company of the Earl of Nottingham’s players. The comedy was entered at Stationers’ Hall for publication on the 28th March, 1600, as “the Plaie of Patient Grissell,” but it did not appear until three years afterwards.

The Pleasant Comodie of Patient Grissill. As it hath beene sundrie times lately plaid by the right honorable the Earle of Nottingham (Lord high Admirall) his servants. London. Imprinted for Henry Rocket, and are to be solde at the long shop under S. Mildred’s Church in the Poultry. 1603. 4to. 42 leaves.

The play is anonymous, but the entry in Henslowe’s Diary informs us who the authors were.

Patient Grissil: a Comedy by Thomas Dekker, Henry Chettle, and William Haughton. Reprinted from the Black-Letter edition of 1603, with an Introduction and Notes [by J. Payne Collier]. London. Printed for the Shakespeare Society. 1841. The introduction contains an interesting account of the history of Griselda.

On August 30th, 1667, Pepys saw at Bartholomew Fair the puppet play of “Patient Grizill,” and Warton in a note to his History of English Poetry writes: “I need not mention that it is to this day represented in England on a stage of the lowest species and of the highest antiquity: I mean a puppet show.”

“The Patient Countess,” in Percy’s Reliques from Warner’s Albions England, is a totally different story from that of the patient wife of the Marquis Walter.

Warton mentions a MS. poem by William Forrest, and, as it has lately been printed, I give the title here, although it contains no notice of the original Grisild.

The History of Grisild the Second: a Narrative in Verse of the Divorce of Queen Katharine of Arragon. Written by William Forrest, sometime Chaplain to Queen Mary I., and now edited for the first time from the Author’s MS. in the Bodleian Library by the Rev. W. D. Macray, M.A., F.S.A. London. Printed by Whittingham and Wilkins at the Chiswick Press, 1875. 4to. Roxburghe Club.

The Griselda literature is a tolerably large one, and it is therefore scarcely necessary in this place to give more than the above general indication of an interesting subject. It may be noted that the titles of the works on the subject in the library of the British Museum occupy nine pages of the manuscript catalogue.

The patience of Griselda is almost as much a common-place of literature as that of Job, and writers are full of references to her cruel fate. In a Balade translated by Lydgate from the Latin “Grisilde’s humble patience” is recorded.

In Thomas Feylde’s “Contraversye bytwene a Lover and a Jaye,” printed without date by Wynkyn de Worde, we read:—

We are told in Harry White his Humour, printed in 1660, that, “having lately read the rare history of Patient Grizell, out of it he hath drawne this phylosophicall position, that if all women were of that woman’s condition we should have no imployment for cuckin-stooles.”

The editor of the Collection of Old Ballads, 1723, slily remarks:—“It may naturally be supposed that he [the poet] had unfortunately married a shrew, and was willing to preach up the doctrine of patience to wives, by shewing them the blessings that attend this great uncommon virtue; and I have inserted it, thinking that amongst my readers I might have some husbands who would be glad of carrying such an excellent song to their wives” (vol. i. p. 252).

Much of the popularity of the story must be due to Chaucer, who first introduced it to English readers and endued it with so much poetic beauty and grace.