New version of an old parable

The parable of the Three Rings that Boccaccio uses in this novella was not a new concept. During the Middle Ages, the story was actually quite popular and known among many people. There were two versions that circulated in Europe in this time period: the confessional versions and the non-confessional versions. The first category is common in exemplary literature and opts to express the supremacy of Christianity or one of the other religions. Examples of this are Etienne de Bourbon’s Tractatus de diversis materiis praedicabilibus, John of Bromyard's Summa praedicantium, a French poem called Dis dou vrai aniel and the Gesta Romanorum.Claudio Tugnoli “The Parable of the Three Rings.” In Philosophy Study, Vol. 5, No. 3, p. 146-154 In the confessional versions there is either one true ring, one true heir or the real ring has been given to the preferred child.

The category in which the non-confessional version falls are all from Italy, namely il Novellino and Bosone da Gubbio’s Avventuroso Siciliano. The Decameron is also a part of this group. These three versions are meant to show that it is impossible to prove with certainty which religion is the true one. They also have in common that the parable is narrated by a rich Jew. Like we have already seen, in Boccaccio’s case this is Melchisedech. In the Novellino the Jew does not have a specific name and in the Avventuroso Siciliano he is called Ansalon. The sultan is also present in these versions; he is named Saladin in both the Decameron and the Avventuroso Siciliano.

However, there are some differences. Firstly, in the Avventuroso Siciliano the father gives the authentic ring to his eldest son. Thus, it emphasizes that the other two rings, and the other two religions, are worthless and not the true ones. Even though in this story there is one true ring, and one true religion, the three sons are all convinced they have the true ring, as is the case with the three religions. In the end it is still not clear which is the true ring. Only in Boccaccio’s version it is mentioned that the three sons are equally loved by their father.

Besides, the comparison of the three rings after the father’s death proves that establishing which is the true ring, and thus the true religion, is impossible. The Novellino also does not mention which son has the original ring. It is possible that Boccaccio knew of the Novellino and took inspiration from this work. This is not as probable with the Avventuroso Siciliano, because the date of composition, which is uncertain, could be close to that of Boccaccio’s Decameron. Another difference between the three versions is the ending. In the case of the Novellino and the Avventuroso Siciliano they both end abruptly. After the telling of the parable, the Jew is freed and the sultan acknowledges his defeat. This is only indicated by a few sentences. Contrariwise, Boccaccio elaborates on these two endings and adds that a close relationship and friendship between the sultan and Melchisedech has been established.Pamela D. Steward “The Tale of the Three Rings (I.3).” In The Decameron First Day in Perspective, curated by Elissa Weaver, pp. 89-112. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division, 2002.

Other than the works already mentioned that used the parable of the Three Rings to tell their story, the writer Gotthold Ephraim Lessing took the same story and adapted it into a play. It is called Nathan the Wise, Nathan der Weise in German, and was published in 1779. One dialogueFrom https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3820/3820-h/3820-h.htm:

NATHAN.

It is ended, Sultan,
For all that follows may be guessed of course.
Scarce is the father dead, each with his ring.
Appears, and claims to be the lord o’ th’ house.
Comes question, strife, complaint—all to no end;
For the true ring could no more be distinguished.
Than now can—the true faith.

SALADIN.

How, how, is that.
To be the answer to my query?

We know for a fact that he read the novella by Boccaccio and was inspired by it because of the letter he wrote to his brother:

I would not at all appreciate having the actual content of my play [Nathan der Weise], that is about to appear, revealed prematurely; but if you and Moses [Mendelssohn] wish to know it, you have only to turn to the Decameron by Boccaccio, Giornata I, Nov. III. Melchisedech Giudeo. I believe I have been able to draw from it a most interesting episode, which will make good reading, and I will play a much worse trick on the theologians than with ten more fragments.

The key elements in Boccaccio’s novella can also be found in Lessing’s adaptation: The tradition of the passing of the ring, the equal love of a father for his sons, the comparison of the rings with the three religions, the Jew who eventually gives the money to the sultan and the new friendship that is formed because of it; they are all included in Nathan the Wise.

The first difference between Boccaccio’s version and the one Lessing wrote is the name of the protagonist. In the third novella of the first day he is named Melchisedech, while in Nathan the Wise, as we can already see from its title, it has been changed to Nathan. Additionally, in the latter one it is specified that the ring has in fact a stone, an opal, that has magic powers. He also introduces a judge to the story who suggests that all three rings are fake and thinks maybe the real one was lost. He advises the three brothers to consider each ring to be the real one. After this it is emphasized again that the father loved all his sons alike. Lessing further elaborates on the fable of the Three Rings by introducing more side characters, like the sultan’s sister, and a new added episode at the end. With this adaptation, Lessing pleads for tolerance and liberty when it comes to religion.