^{Note 1 in page 951} In Annuntiatione B. Mariae, Migne, Patr. Lat. clxxxiii, 383–390; see especially cols. 385–390.

^{Note 2 in page 951} For previous literary studies see R. Heinzel, “Vier Geistliche Gedichte,” ZfdA, xvii (1874), 43–56, especially p. 49; W. Scherer, “Die Vier Töchter Gottes,” ZfdA, xxi (1877), 414–416; L. Bourgain, La Chaire Française au Deuxième Siècle, Paris, 1879, pp. 214 ff.; Hope Traver, The Four Daughters of God (Bryn Mawr, 1907), and Miss Traver's later study, “The Four Daughters of God: A Mirror of Changing Doctrine,” PMLA, xl (1925), 44–92; C. F. Bühler, Sources of the Court of Sapience (Leipzig, 1932); A. Långfors, “Notice des Manuscrits 535 et 10047,” Notices et Extraits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, xlii (1933), 172–182. G. R. Owst mentions the version in a note, Literature and Pulpit in Medieval England (Cambridge, 1933), p. 91, but evidently confuses Peter of Saint Victor with Peter of Poitiers, the Chancellor of Paris, since it is the Chancellor who wrote the Summa or Sentencebook; cf. P. S. Moore, The Works of Peter of Poitiers (Washington, 1936), pp. 26–27. Jean Rivière in his theological analysis in Le Dogme de la Rédemption au Début du Moyen-Age (Paris, 1934), pp. 342–346, discusses the Rex et Famulus as a poetic treatment of doctrine, giving only casual attention to one or two of the literary aspects. This list is selective.

^{Note 3 in page 951} B. Hauréau, “Notice sur le Numéro 8299 des Manuscrits Latins de la Bibliothèque Nationale,” Not. et Ext., xxxi (1884), 303–304. Despite the ascription, the authorship is obviously uncertain.

^{Note 4 in page 951} The first Peter of Poitiers was the Prior of Cluny, and is not known to have written any prose; the second was the Chancellor of Paris, and, as a secular, would not have been called Brother; the third, because he was a monk at Saint-Victor, would have been given this title, and for this reason Hauréau favors his identification with the writer of the Rex et Famulus. To appreciate the possibilities of confusion, see L. Deslisle, Le Cabinet des Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris, 1874), ii, 221, and F. Bonnard, Histoire de l'Abbaye Royale de Saint-Victor de Paris (Paris, 1907), i, 122–123. For the best discussion of identity, see P. S. Moore, The Works of Peter of Poitiers (Washington, 1936), pp. 21–24.

^{Note 5 in page 951} Not. et Ext. xxxi, 301–303. The exact foliation is not given. Hauréau does not discuss the sources nor the influence of this work.

^{Note 6 in page 952} Notices et Extraits de Quelques Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, iii, 260–263.

^{Note 7 in page 952} It is not significant that the third daughter is Peace and the fourth Justice, the reverse of the order in the other allegories. This seems to have been inadvertent, for later when the daughters plead, Justice is called “tertia soror,” and Peace speaks last; cf. Manuscrits Latins, iii, 262.

^{Note 8 in page 952} Literally decoriare would mean “to skin” or “to peel.” Later, when the servant is in prison, the Son “vidit enim eum excoriatum,” thus, either “skinned or ”stripped.“ Some medieval translators therefore interpret decoriare ”to flay“ while others interpret it ”to deprive or rob of everything.“ Because of the connotations of vivum, I interpret the phrase ”to flay alive,“ although it might also mean ”to strip of everything“ or ”to skin“ in the figurative sense.

^{Note 9 in page 952} The broader meaning “to slaughter” for jugulare is preferable to the restricted meaning “to cut the throat” because in some versions the Son takes on himself the same torments inflicted on the prisoner.

Variant readings from MS. 14886: ^a una ^b quem sublimaverat, om. ^c bene, om. ^d honoraberis ^e pessima, om. ^f Demum transgressant non tantum affectu, sed causam transgressionis quaesivit. ^g uni illorum prœcipiens ut eum incarcerarci alteri ut vivum decollarct.

^{Note 10 in page 953} Ovid, Metamorphosis, lib. i, v. 149.

Variant readings from MS. 14886: ^a Postquam autem occasio se obtulit hos quatuor tortores propriis nominibus vobis designat, eorumdem effrœnatam insaniam in caput famuli enucleabo. ^b nominibus et, om. ^c domino piacere, om. ^d incarceratum, om. ^e expansisque ^f in me ^g arguente ^h ego, om. ⁱ que, om. ^j et filia ^k debeat ¹ et Justitia, inflato vultu, ^m scilicet Pax fugit de regione longinqua ⁿ audiret ^o vero, om.

^{Note 11 in page 954} P. L. clxxxiii, 383–390, especially cols. 385–390.

Variant readings from MS. 14886: ^a suum, om. ^b cui, om. ^c mihi, om. ^d carcer exilii ^e decollavit ^f et ^g habuit ^h incarcerem mortis ⁱ honore reversum, stola immortalitalis indutum ^j jam

^{Note 12 in page 955} The hostile interpretation of this verb was not uncommon. Although Miss Traver says that Bernard did not interpret the word in this sense, the text proves that he even emphasized the vehemence of the debate by exclaiming, “Grandis controversia, fratres.” Cf. P. L., clxxxiii, 388.

^{Note 13 in page 955} Le Dogme de la Redemption au Debut du Moyen-Age (Paris, 1934), pp. 324–329.

^{Note 14 in page 955} Miss Jessie Murray, Le Chateau d'Amour (Paris, 1918), p. 72, says, “En parlant des quatre vertus, ni Hugues, ni Saint Bernard ne les appelle directement les Filles de Dieu, bien que cette relation soit suffisament mise en évidence par le contexte.” I find nothing in Hugo to establish this relationship. In Bernard's allegory one reads, “Ait Misericordia, utquid me genuisti pater citius perituram?” P. L., cxxxxiii, 388.

^{Note 15 in page 955} For a list of the MSS of this allegory see L. Bourgain, La Chaire Française su XII ^e Siècle (Paris, 1879), pp. 51–52. Rivière makes an analysis from MS. Latin 14935 Bibliothèque Nationale, fol. 6 ^r–8^r, in Le Dogme de la Redemption au Debut du Moyen-Age, pp. 354–358. A summary in translation is given in Miss Traver's later study, PMLA, xl, 73–74. Rivière dates this work in the last quarter of the twelfth century, op. cit., p. 354, note 3.

^{Note 16 in page 956} P. L., ccvii, cols. 750–755. While this allegory touches on vicarious redemption, it does not properly belong to the type we have been considering.

^{Note 17 in page 956} Sermo I, Dominica I Adventus Domini, P. L., ccxvii, 318–320.

^{Note 18 in page 956} For a convenient summary of these conclusions, see the graph at the end of Miss Hope Traver's monograph The Four Daughters of God, C. F. Bühler's Sources of the Court of Sapience, pp. 22–25; A. Långfors, “Notice des Manuscrits 535 et 10047,” Not. et Ext., xlii (1933), 196–205.

^{Note 19 in page 956} Ed. H. Oesterley, Gesta Romanorum (Berlin, 1872), from the Vulgärtext containing 181 chapters first printed by Ulrich Zell at Cologne between 1472 and 1475. For the allegory of the Four Daughters, see pp. 350–355.

^{Note 20 in page 956} Ed. S. J. H. Herrtage, Gesta Romanorum, E.E.T.S. 33 (1879), 132–136. This work will be referred to hereafter as English Gesta. See also The Old English Versions of the Gesta Romanorum, ed. F. Madden (London, 1838), pp. 112–115.

^{Note 21 in page 956} Four Daughters, pp. 114–115. See also Miss Traver's later study, “The Four Daughters of God: A Mirror of Changing Doctrine,” PMLA, xl (1925), 83–90.

^{Note 22 in page 957} Sources of the Court of Sapience, pp. 22–25.

^{Note 23 in page 957} For detailed discussions of this problem, see Oesterley, pp. 257, 266–269; Herrtage, pp. xvii–xix. More recent studies add nothing new to these conclusions; cf. Miss Ella Bourne, “Classical Elements in the Gesta Romanorum,” in Vassar Medieval Studies, 1923, pp. 345–376.

^{Note 24 in page 957} One hundred and fifty or one hundred and fifty-one tales were printed at Utrecht by Ketelaer and De Leempt; a second edition appeared at Cologne. A third edition of one hundred and eighty-one chapters was printed at Cologne by Ulrich Zell; cf. Oesterley, Gesta, p. 267. A copy of the Cologne edition in the Quadragesimale type of Robert de Licio (1473) is in the Rare Book Room of the Yale Library. See especially cap. 55, fol. 39–41.

^{Note 25 in page 957} It was Oesterley's opinion that the early printed text of the two enlarged compilations not only supplanted the manuscripts, but usurped the place of the original collection in Anglo-Latin, so that the versions altered and printed on the Continent came to be considered the original Gesta Romanorum. It is thus that he explained the fact that none of the manuscripts of the original Anglo-Latin Gesta were ever printed, and are extant in manuscript only, while no manuscript exactly corresponding to the printed Vulgärtext has survived; cf. Gesta, pp. 266–269.

^{Note 26 in page 957} Madden (p. 513) notes only two departures in the translation: “to helde him qwyke,” for which the Anglo-Latin has ut vivum excoriaret, and “iugylithe” for the Anglo-Latin jugulavit. Cf. Herrtage, English Gesta, p. 470. These forms both occur in the Rex et Famulus. If these are the only deviations in the English version, it may be assumed that the translator followed his copy faithfully and that any departures from the Rex et Famulus were made by the author of the Anglo-Latin version and not by the English translator. Where the translator follows literally the Latin of the Rex et Famulus, therefore, the author of the Anglo-Latin Gesta must have copied it word for word from this version.

^{Note 27 in page 958} Herrtage, English Gesta, p. 133.

^{Note 28 in page 958} Hauréau, Manuscrits Latins, iii, 261.

^{Note 29 in page 958} It seems that the Vulgärtext was based on the copy in the Anglo-Latin Gesta rather than directly on the Rex et Famulus because the explanation at the end resembles the style of the “moralitee” more than the explanation in the Rex et Famulus.

^{Note 30 in page 959} Cf. Traver, Four Daughters, pp. 114–115; cf. p. 123.

^{Note 31 in page 959} Hauréau, Manuscrits Latins, iii, 262. The italics are mine.

^{Note 32 in page 960} Cant. cant, ii: 8–10.

^{Note 33 in page 960} Sermones in Cantica, P. L., cxxxxiii, 791.

^{Note 34 in page 960} Oesterley, Gesta, p. 351.

^{Note 35 in page 960} This play has not been edited. Miss Travers gives a detailed summary from MS. fr 9306, Bibliothèque Nationale; cf. Four Daughters, pp. 116–119.

^{Note 36 in page 960} Ed. F. Michel in Recueil de Farces. Moralités et Sermons Joyeux (Paris, 1837), iii, no. 3. Miss Traver, Four Daughters, p. 120, points out the resemblance to the Gesta.

^{Note 37 in page 960} Miss Traver gives Grosseteste as the ultimate source. Ibid., pp. 113, 123.

^{Note 38 in page 961} This play was “nouvellement imprimé” by Thomas Laisnec in 1500. I have not seen this work, and have been obliged to depend on Miss Traver's summary; cf. Four Daughters, pp. 120–123.

^{Note 39 in page 961} I suggest an influence conditionally only, because as Miss Traver points out, ibid., pp. 122–123, the play is only slightly suggestive of the Gesta Romanorum.

^{Note 40 in page 961} The Court of Sapience, ed. R. Spindler (Leipzig, 1927).

^{Note 41 in page 961} H. N. MacCracken, The Minor Poems of John Lydgate, Part i, E.E.T.S. Extra Series 107 (1911), xxxiv–xxxv.

^{Note 42 in page 961} Court, pp. 46–88.

^{Note 43 in page 961} Ibid., pp. 80–83.

^{Note 44 in page 961} Four Daughters, pp. 152–158; Court of Sapience, pp. 38–15.

^{Note 45 in page 961} Sources of the Court of Sapience (Leipzig, 1932), p. 18.

^{Note 46 in page 961} Ibid., p. 19.

^{Note 47 in page 962} Hauréau, Manuscrits Latins, iii, 261.

^{Note 48 in page 962} Ibid.

^{Note 49 in page 962} Ibid., pp. 262–263.

^{Note 50 in page 963} Bühler, following Miss Traver, does not question the authorship of Bonaventure of Padua; cf. Sources of the Court, p. 19, and Four Daughters, p. 41. According to Miss Traver, Molanus in his Bibliotheca Sacra (1618) first assigned the Meditationes to Bonaventure of Padua rather than to the Seraphic Doctor among whose works it had been included. The Quaracchi editors, however, questioned the attribution to either Bonaventure, the Seraphic Doctor or Bonaventure of Padua, and suggested that Joannes de Caulibus was the author; cf. Doctoris Seraphici S. Bonaventurae Opera Omnia, ed. Studio et Cura P. P. Collegii A. S. Bonaventura, Quaracchi, viii (1898), cxii, and x (1902), 25. L. Oliger acted upon this suggestion of the Quaracchi editors and concluded from internal evidence that the author was Joannes de Caulibus of Santo Geminiano, a Franciscan who lived at the beginning of the fourteenth century; cf. “Le ‘Meditationes Vitae Christi del Pseudo-Bonaventura’,” Studi Francescani, N.S. vii (1921), 143–183; viii (1922), 18–47. Dom Wilmart considers Oliger's conclusions probable; cf. A. Wilmart, Auteurs Spirituels et Textes Dévots du Moyen-Age Latin (Paris, 1932), p. 509, note 2. Miss Deansley shows that the work was known in England before the time of Caulibus, and had been translated in a metrical version usually attributed to Robert Mannyng of Brunne; cf. “The Gospel Harmony of Joannes de Caulibus or St. Bonaventura,” British Society for Franciscan Studies, x (1922), 12–18. Mrs. Carleton Brown, influenced perhaps by the desirability of dating precisely the Southern Passion, reverts to Bonaventure, the Seraphic Doctor; cf. Southern Passion, ed. Beatrice Daw Brown, E.E.T.S., clxix (1927), pp. liv and xci. Finally, on the evidence of the manucripts, C. Fischer refutes all previous opinions and concludes that the author was an unknown Friar Minor who lived at the beginning of the fourteenth century and who drew upon the Meditationes de Passione of Bonaventure the Seraphic Doctor; cf. “Die Meditations Vitae Christi': ihre Handschriftliche Ueberlieferung und die Verfasserfrage,” Archivum Franciscanum Historicum, xxv (1932), 3–35, 175–209, 305–348, 449–483. Although Fischer's evidence seems the best advanced thus far, I prefer to await the final judgment of other competent scholars.

^{Note 51 in page 963} In the Rex et Famulus the same arguments are presented by the Father to the Son.

^{Note 52 in page 963} These desires summarize the situation in the Rex et Famulus.

^{Note 53 in page 964} Hauréau, Manuscrits Latins, iii, 263.

^{Note 54 in page 964} Professor S. Harrison Thomson, who has examined all the known MSS of Grosseteste's work, agrees with me in this conclusion.

^{Note 55 in page 964} “De Principio Creationis Mundi,” ed. Horstmann, Altenglische Legenden, pp. 349–354; see lines 261–270.

^{Note 56 in page 964} Bühler thinks that two different versions of Grosseteste's poem may have existed, one containing the episode of the torturers, and the other omitting it; cf. Sources of the Court, pp. 22–23. The episode does not occur in the eleven complete MSS which Miss Murray uses in her edition, nor in the two fragments which she mentions and classifies with a previously analyzed group; cf. Le Chateau, p. 33, note 1. MS. Hatton 99, which Miss Murray had seen but does not use, contains no evidence of the episode, as I have found from an examination of the photostat. Miss Murray had also seen a MS at Brussels for which she does not give the signature, but which Professor Thomson identifies as MS Brussels Bibl. Royale 2306 ff. 255^r–269^v. Thus far, we can safely say that fifteen MSS do not contain the episode. Because of a happy error the sixteenth can be added, for Långfors in correcting Miss Murray's description of MS. Brussels 2306 was not aware that he was examining another MS (Brussels 3357 ff. 228^v–240^r) the only one which Miss Murray had not seen; cf. S. H. Thomson, The Writings of Robert Grosseteste (Cambridge, 1940), p. 153, note 3. Långfors is extremely skeptical of the work of his predecessors (see for example Not. et Ext. xlii, 205) yet he points out that the incident of the torturers is not found until its occurrence in Dit des Quatre Sereurs, a poem generally considered later than Le Chasteau d'Amour; cf. ibid., p. 182. In a separate study I shall discuss the relation of the Dit to the Rex et Famulus.

^{Note 57 in page 965} Rivière, Le Dogme de la Rédemption au Début du Moyen-Age, p. 479.