¹ Nowhere in mediaeval painting, moreover, is the legend of Judas treated; but that is more natural, since the painters devoted themselves less to legendary than to purely Biblical scenes.

² Notwithstanding the constantly repeated view, discussed at some length by Littré apropos of the Old French Grégoire (Histoire de la langue française, Paris, 1863, vol. ii, § viii), and elaborated with much learning by Graf (Miti, leggende e superstizioni del medio evo, Turin, 1892, i, pp. 273-310), I am unable to see in these legends, particularly in that of Judas, genuine evidence of a mediæval belief in fatalism. The purpose of the Judas, as has been said, was to make as repugnant as possible one who had participated in the death of Christ; and to accomplish this there may have been a clumsy adaptation of events from the story of Œdipus and other myths—(but this is as yet a ‘case not proven‘)—so that what appearance there is of fatalism may be the result of an insufficient amalgamation of Œdipodean traits; but the fundamental conception of the Judas legend is still the wickedness of Judas, a sort of Pauline belief in original damnation and inherent sinfulness, which is utterly distinct from the Greek idea of Destiny.

³ Anniversary Papers by Colleagues and Pupils of George Lyman Kittredge, Boston, 1913, pp. 305-16.

⁴ Jacobi a Voragine Legenda Aurea … rec. Dr. Th. Graesse, ed. tertia, Vratisl… . 1890, Cap. xlv, pp. 183-8. Nearly half of the chapter on Mathias is devoted to Judas.

⁵ Of these, Ap, Ll, Lv, Hr, Rm, Ra were discussed by Professor Rand; Pi, Lg, Lk, Mw, Pz, Px have been mentioned in other previous studies of the Judas legend. The remaining thirty are here brought together for the first time.

⁶ To this list may be added: ms. 2035. BB. xii 12, zr. 1383 of the Library of the University of Cracow, Varii versus Latini: str. 166. ‘explicit Judas Scarioht, da gracias’; and in the same library ms. 2610 Bbb i 58, zr. 1704, Adscriptiones minoris momenti, among which is a ‘Historia de origine Judae Iscariot.’ In the unpublished Mare Magnum of Francesco Marucelli (d. 1703) there is an article ‘De Juda Proditore,’ which probably contains the legend. Cf. Guido Biagi, Indice del Mare Magnum, Roma, 1885, p. 3. In the Acta SS., May 3, preface to ‘De Sancto Ursio’ (p. 426), the 'historia apocrypha“ of Judas is mentioned as appearing in the Legenda Aurea, and a brief summary is given, with the note: ”Hinc hominum noscitur inclinatio ad similes narratiunculas proclivis.“

⁷ Cf. “Nihil enim est opertum, quod non revelabitur: et occultum quod non scietur” (Matt. 10, 26). The same idea occurs also in Mark and Luke.

⁸ Professor Rand inclines to the opinion that Type L and Type R have a common earlier parent, and are not derived one from the other. This is quite possible.

⁹ Mone's Anzeiger, xxvii (1880), col. 114. Schepss calls it s. xiii-xiv.

¹⁰ Cf. “Fuit in diebus Herodis regis Iudaeae sacerdos quidam nomine Zacharias de vice Abia, et uxor illius de filiabus Aaron, et nometa eius Elisabeth.” Luc., i, 5-6.

¹¹ Lucan, Pharsalia, 7, 818-19. “Cælo … urnam” was quoted by Augustine, De Civ. Dei i, 12 (M. S. L. 41, 27). Cf. Isidorus xvi, 26, 4.

¹² The existence of x′ and x″ and the positions of m and o may be held quite certain. Of x′″ one cannot be so positive. The positions of a, q, l may be considered as fairly established (if x′″ be removed they descend directly from x″); b is probably in its right place; and there appears to be sufficient ground for the position of n.—Inasmuch as it would occupy too much space to print all the variants and the arguments from which I have deduced the stemma, I must ask the reader to accept my conclusions on faith. On this point, however, and on any other for which the evidence may seem insufficient, all the material may be found in my dissertation in the Harvard University Library.

¹³ Rand, p. 305.

¹⁴ Descriptive Catalogue, etc., p. 243.

¹⁵ In a private communication. It is proper to add, however, that Dr. James has again examined this portion of the ms. and pronounced his “deliberate opinion” that the life of Judas here “may quite possibly be after 1260; and not impossibly but less likely after 1280.”

¹⁶ The whole question of Jacopo's treatment of his sources remains still to be investigated. The above generalization is, I believe, sound. When he can, Jacopo evidently cites a well known name to vouch for the life or legend—Hieronymus, Anastasius, Augustinus, Gregorius—often expressing uncertainty as to the attribution. It is, furthermore, perhaps significant that in introducing the life of Pilate (Cap. liii) he writes: “de poena autem et origine Pylati in quadam historia licet apocrypha”; which is also his introduction to the legend of Judas. And later: “Hucusque in praedicta historia apocrypha leguntur. Quae utrum recitanda sint, lectoris judicio relinquatur. Nota tamen, quod in hystoria scholastica legitur… . Potuit esse, si tamen illa hystoria continet veritatem, quia… . Eusebius autem et Beda in suis chronicis non dicunt… .” Here he not only repeats essentially his apology for the Judas legend, but magnifies the uncertainty by means of additional conflicting sources. It must be noted, moreover, that those two passages are the only examples of his elaborately warning the too credulous reader. On other occasions, save for the qualifying phrases indicated above, tales quite as indigestible as those of Pilate and Judas are served warm to the reader with no hesitation. One cannot help imagining that these two legends Jacopo took from some collection or other which he had special grounds for suspecting. Other lives equally marvellous he had from more respectable sources, and consequently he took them to a certain extent on holy faith; against an unqualified belief in the lives of these two maledicti, Judas and Pilate, he felt in conscience bound to warn the gentle reader.

But, on the other hand, if, as appears extremely probable, the hucusque passage is found in a text which antedates the composition or compilation of the Legenda Aurea, then this apologetic warning is not Jacopo's own, but is transferred bodily from his source. And since almost the same words follow the legend of Pilate as that of Judas it would seem that the two legends kept company before the last quarter of the thirteenth century, precisely as we find them together throughout the remainder of the Middle Ages—and indeed as we find them in the early thirteenth-century ms. at 'St. John's College, Cambridge. If, however, the second statement of Dr. James is correct (see p. 497, n. 15) this hypothesis falls to the ground. But it is by no means demonstrable, nor even likely, that the Legenda Aurea was compiled as early of 1260; and even if Jacopo had made some preliminary collections by that date, it is not natural to suppose they would include Judas and Pilate. Moreover, while it is both possible and probable that the Legenda Aurea was finished by 1280, it is on the other hand possible but not probable that a copy of it would have reached England immediately after its completion, and that a scribe of Bury St. Edmunds would have made an extract of only the lives of Judas and Pilate. The earliest mss. of the Legenda Aurea now in England date from the very end of the thirteenth century. It appears to me far more probable prima facie that this version of the life of Judas (and that of Pilate) was known rather earlier than 1260 or 1280, and that the monk of Bury St. Edmunds had a copy of it and Jacopo da Voragine had another copy.

¹⁷ On this word cf. Rein. Köhler, Jahrb. f. rom. u. engl. Lit. xi (1870), p. 317, n. 3 (= Klein. Schriften, ii, p. 196, n. 1).

1 Jude symonis scariothis talis ortus, talis uite prouectus, talis fuit exitus. Pater eius de tribu dan… b.—2 legis om. b.—3 presagium … suorum] sompnium presag. mal. suorum b; sompuo presag. mal. suorum d.—6 consumens] consumpsit d.—7 domum] domum quoque 5.—8 prodigiosum] prodigioso b.—9 mater … vero] om. b. Non] nec tamen 6. Se recondebat] terrendum dabat r. Se] sese b.—10 sed] nec b. Inde iterum om d.—13 urbem regiam] reg. urb. b. David Iher. om. b. Arcem] archem 5.—15 redigens concremabat] concremans redigebat b, d.—17 maritum] maritum suum b.—18 quid haberet] quod hab. r. Quid fleret om. d.—20 in om. d.—21 Scarioth] Scarioht r. Urbis] urbem d.—22 unus] unum b. vir] Rand; uiri r; uirum b. Venitque] conuenit b. Ad eum cum] cumque b.—23 -que om. b. Abducens om. d.—24 visione om. b.—25 mutus] mutus herens b.—27 Ha] ahc b. Mulier misera] misera misera mulier b. Filius] filium r.—28 autem] autem suo b. Prius] post d.—30 penitentia] penitencia r et sic frequenter. Votis om. d.—31 Dom…. a vobis] a vobis deus ir. s. indig. b; a vobis ir. indig. s. d.—32 hec om. b. Hec dixit om. d.—33 quo] quod b.—34 quidem om. b. —35 pro visione] p(ro) visionem r; propter visionem Rand. Divinatione] divinationem r.—36 parricidas] p (er) ricidas r; parricide b.—38 passivus om. b.—40 statim debuit] deb. stat. b. Est om. b. —41 Ihesu om. b. In (ante nutrim.) om. r, b.—42 peccati] precati r; pcti b.—43 pietatis] pietasque b. Timor] timor (?) r; amor Rand. —44 et voluit] noluit r.—45 nondum] nudu b.—47 mallens] malu b.—48 succedenti] accedenti b.—49 tocius] pocius r.—50 parentes] paventes r.—52 onus] honus r. -que om. r.—54 ut et] Rand; et ut r; et om. b. Futurum] auarum b.—55 molibus] motibus b.—57 tuorum parentum] par. tuorum b. Crimine contigit] contigitur crimine b.—58 Tibi om. b.—59 concepit] cepit r.—60 cur … necatus om. r.—62 modo tibi] tibi modo b. Parricidale autem] parricida/rit autem r; parricidari; tantum Rand.—63 venialius] venalius r. —64 tanto] tanta b.—65 aliquis] aquis b.—69 et pelagus] pelagusque b.—71 tibi om. r.—73 ab Ioppe civitate] ad Ioppem civitatem b. Galilee] galylee b.—74 usque Bitradum et ad introitum pervenit] qua bytcum civitatem cepit aluit b.—75 ad hanc] Rand; adhuc r, b.—mane] mare r.—76 egressus] ingressus r.—77 oneratam] honeratam r. Cistella] cistellam r.—78 dicensque] quod b.—79 thesaurum] tessaurum r. Invenisse] invenisset b. Inopiam] eos inopia r.—80 cistella et detecta] et det. cis. b. Expectati] expectata b.—81 Nihil] nichil b.—82 verba om. r.—83 Scarioth] scarioht r.—85 ad mar. exp. nos.] exp. nos. ad mar. b.—86 dii] di(i)s? r. thesaurum] tesaurum r.—87 tam om. r. Quem] qui b.—88 Adoptivum] adotivum r. In filium] proprium r. Hec om. b. Et om. r.—90 magnum om. b.—91 Grecorum om. b.—92 erat om. b.—94 Bithordi] bithor r; bithroci b.—95 Olimpiadi] Olipiadi r; Olipiadis Rand. ubi cum] et ubique de Rand.—96 castel.] et castel. b. Ostendende] ostend (er) e r.—97 -que] quoque b. Affuit inter alios] inter alios affuit b.—98 et] et inter et b.—99 cum] Rand; cui(?) r; cur b.—101 opprobrio ei obviciunt] probro ei obiciunt b; opp. eiciu(n)t ei r; opp. conviciantur ei Rand.—103 Exertoque] exc(ri?) toque r; exsertoque Rand.—105 Cur] cui(?) r. Tanto om. b.—106 Mentita] mentitam r.—108 Quod] q(ui) r; quod Rand.—113 et genus] genusque b.—114 his] hiis r. Quidem compressit] comp. quidem b.—115 Bitrodum] bithrotum b.—116 conscendens … proficiscentem] syriam proficiscens conscende (re) n b. In] Rand; eu(m) r; om. b—118 eo tempore in Iher.] Iher. eo tempore b.—119 Iudeam] Iudea r.—124 aspiciens] aspiciensque b. Scarioth] searioht. r.—126 fructu] fructu illo b.—127 ille] ille servus r. Carpere] capere r.—129 adhuc] adhuc semel b. Pro om. b. Iudas] Iudas ait b.—130 irruens] irruensque b.—-131 quos] quod r.—132 contumax] minax b. Turbatis oculis om. b.—133 quod] qui (?) r; quia Rand. Cur] cui(?) r. Cur non … repellis] cur … non repellis r.—134 o om. b. —136 fuerat] fuit b.—138 palla] pallio b.—140 suam] in suam b. Deo] deum b.—141 sanguine] sanguitie (?) r. Respersus] respersit b.—144 exhibiatur] exibiatur r. Autem om. b.—145 sua] suis b. —145-148 Preces … compescuit] proces ratuus optimum in tali tempore sedicionem conponendam esse sapientes et discretos uiros ad populum mittit; habitaque per eos contione ad turbam temere ceptam seditionem facile compescuit b.—-148 Accitaque] acceptaque b.—149 persuasu om. r.—150 factum est] efficit b.—152 precipitante] preoccupata b.—153 quod (ante ergo)] q(ui) r; quid Rand. quod (ante scelus)] quam r; quid Rand.—154 impius] ipsius r.—155 monstrum] Rand; monstro r, b.—157 et] quam r.—159 aliquando … visionis] aliquam visionem b.—161 interfectum] interfectorem r. Abhorrere] aborrere b.—163 tacito] tacitus b.—165 tragedie] t(ra)-gredie b. Vero om. b.—166 in cistella inventis] inv. in cistella b.—167 obscenum om. b.—169 mei] miseri r.—170 melius] tucius b.—171 opprobria] obprobria b.—173 amens] mox b.—174 dixit] inquit b.—175 parricide] parricide et adultrius mariti b.—177 eadem] eademque b.—178 correpta] correcta r. Itaque] atque b. amentia] amencia b.—179 consulit] consuluit b.—181 ex magna parte quod] quod ex magna parte b. Divinaverat] eis div. b.—182 Ambo et] et ambo b. Fusis genibus] affusi genibus illius b. Evenerant] pervenerant b.—185 hac re] habere r.—187 et (ante ut) om. b.—188 tragedias] tragredias b. Eius om. r.—191 -que] quam r.—193 uxoreque] eadem uxore b.—194 historiam] hystoriam b.—197 quod] quia b. Initio]inicio r.—198 salutis om. r.—199 salvus] salvum r.—200 sed et] et si b.—202 reiectis] relictis b.

¹⁸ Rand, pp. 308-12.

¹⁹ Rand, p. 315.

²⁰ Cf. Virgil, Aen. ii, 10, “Sed si tantus amor casus cognoscere nostros,” etc., and note also the dactylic rhythm at the end of the sentence. Rand, p. 310, n. 10.

²¹ Cf. “Nihil autem opertum est quod non reveletur; neque absconditum quod non sciatur.” Lk. 12, 2. (Cf. also Mt. 10, 26; Mk. 4, 22; Lk. 8, 17).

²² It is possible that the original read: “prod. mon. in eosd. ortus, hoc est in ut. suo, nec tamen totum se recond… .” that is, “the monstrum returned to that place, her womb, and yet not entirely; but after some time withdrew thence with rather less violence.” In this case “mater agnovit; ignis” was an attempt on the part of r to emend a difficult text; and he did not wholly succeed.

²³ A. D'Ancona, La leggenda di Vergogna e la leggenda di Giuda, Bologna, 1869, Introd., p. 93, confused Pi and Py. Cf. also Du Méril, Poésies populaires latines du moyen-âge, Paris, 1847, pp. 326 ff., where the poem is reprinted. Creizenach, Judas Ischarioth in Legende und Sage des Mittelalters (Beitr. z. Gesch. d. deutschen Sprache u. Lit., ii, 2 (1875), pp. 177-207), p. 193, said of this poem: “in vielen handschriften erhalten, worüber cf. Du Méril l. c. p. 325”—which is hardly true. Constans (La légende d'Œdipe, Paris, 1881) copied, as regularly, from D'Ancona and Du Méril. Professor Rand, overlooking the thirteenth-century manuscript said of Pz (which postdates even Py) “finally the story was told in verse” (p. 316, and n. 4).

²⁴ For my knowledge of this ms. I am indebted to notes kindly lent me by Professor Rand.

²⁵ For my knowledge of this version I am indebted to a note from Professor von Dobschütz.

²⁶ James, Descriptive Catalogue etc., 1895, pp. 75 f.

²⁷ This story appears first in the Acta Pilati, rec. B; see Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1876, p. 290. It is still current in various parts of Europe.

²⁸ M. S. L. 106, 84.

²⁹ “Et suspensus crepuit medius. ‘Et diffusa sunt viscera ejus’ sed non per os ejus, ut sic parceretur ori, quo Salvatorem osculatus fuerat. Non enim tam viliter debuit inquinari, quod tam gloriosum scilicet os Christi, contigerat. Dignum enim erat, ut viscera quæ proditionem conceperant rupta caderent, guttur quoque quo vox proditionis exierat laqueo arctaretur. Sæpe enim modum pœenæ ex-primit modus culpæ. Unde absciditur homini caput corporis, quia ipse sibi abscidit caput mentis, id est rationem, sicut et Judas mortuus est in aere, tanquam aeris potestatibus sociandus. Congruum enim erat, ut separaretur ab angelorum et hominum regione, qui offensus fuerat utrisque.” In Actus Apost., cap. ix. (M. S. L. 198, 1650). Type L says: “… viscera ejus. In hoc autem delatum est ori, ne per os effunderetur, non enim dignus erat, ut os tam viliter inquinaretur, quod tam gloriosum os scilicet Christi contigerat. Dignum enim erat ut viscera quæ proditionem conceperant rupta caderent et guttur, a quo vox proditoris exierat, laqueo artaretur. In aere etiam interiit, ut qui angelos in cœlo et homines in terra offenderat, ab angelorum et hominum regione separaretur et in aere cum dæmonibus sociaretur.”

³⁰ For example, from Ovid, Her, 5.

³¹ See below, pp. 595 ff.

³² The tradition associating Judas with Corfù can be traced back to the twelfth century. Cf. my note on Roland 3220, 3220a in Romanic Review, vii (1916), pp. 211-20.

³³ Introd., p. 92. In a note he explains: “Questo intento di render popolare la leggenda trovasi anche sul bel principio della Leggenda latina in versi,” and quotes the first five lines. The anche is misleading. Constans, copying from D'Ancona, repeats this, but notes (pp. 97-98) that Du Méril recognizes that the legend does not belong to popular literature, properly so called.

³⁴ Professor Rand drew my attention to this Ovidianism; cf.

and

^{page 522 note 1} Lampros, i, p. 387; ii, p. 157.

^{page 527 note 1} Harleian 2277 was edited in full in the Transactions of the Philological Society, 1858. Part II: Early English Poems and Lives of Saints (with those of the Wicked Birds Pilate and Judas) copied and edited … by Frederick J. Furnivall, Berlin, 1862. Judas is on pp. 107-11.

^{page 527 note 2} British Museum Addit. 10301 contains the same collection as Harleian 2277, except that the end of the ms. is wanting, and therefore the Judas. According to Horstmann, ms. Philips 8253 (at Cheltenham) is a later copy of Harleian 2277. I am indebted for many of the above statements to Horstmann's introduction to his Altenglische Legenden, Paderborn, 1875, and Altenglische Legenden, Neue Folge, Heilbronn, 1881. A concise statement of the results of his investigations of the relationship of the various mss. of the English legendary is to be found in his introduction (pp. vii-xi) to the Early South-English Legendary, London, 1887 (E. E. T. S.).

^{page 527 note 3} A title suggested by Horstmann.

^{page 527 note 4} With these is probably to be placed codex 7669.50 of the Oxford folio catalogue of manuscripts (1697): ‘Vitae Sanctorum & Maledictorum Judae & Pilati, metris Anglicis vetustioribus,‘ from the library of Robert Burscough, A. M. This manuscript I have been unable to trace.

^{page 527 note 5} Furnivall, p. 114.

^{page 527 note 6} Such a ms., for example, as St. John's College, Cambridge, 214 (Lc); see above, p. 497.

^{page 527 note 7} Barbour's des schottischen Nationaldichters Legendensammlung, ed. C. Horstmann, Heilbronn, 1881, i, pp. 107 ff., Horstmann's general introduction to Barbour's legendary is in his Altengl. Legenden, N. F. pp. lxxxix-cix.

^{page 527 note 8} Ed. Theodore Erbe (E. E. T. S., Extra Series xcvi), London, 1905, Part i, p. 79. The Liber Festivalis was one of the most popular early printed books; by the end of the fifteenth century it had supplanted in popularity the South-English Legendary discussed above. See also Horstmann, Altengl. Leg., N. F., pp. cix ff.

^{page 527 note 9} Publication of the Surtees Society, 1836, pp. 328 ff. Edited also by G. England and A. W. Pollard for E. E. T. S., London, 1897, pp. 393 ff. “This poem is added,” says a footnote in the edition of the Surtees Society, “in a more modern hand, apparently about the commencement of the sixteenth century.” The poem is probably somewhat older. Only a fragment of it is preserved.

^{page 527 note 10} See below, p. 542.

^{page 527 note 11} Creizenach (op. cit., p. 194) suggests that perhaps this poem was a bänkelsängerballade.

^{page 527 note 12} D'Ancona, Introd., p. 9, and pp. 75-100. For textual emendations see G. Paris in Revue Critique, iv (1869), art. 123, pp. 414-15, and A. Mussafia in Litterarisches Centralblatt, no. 28 (1869). D'Ancona's work is reviewed by R. Köhler in Jahrb. f. roman. u. engl. Lit. xi (1870), pp. 313-24 (= Klein. Schriften, Berlin 1900, ii, pp. 190 ff.).

^{page 527 note 13} It is possible that the Old French poet had a copy of Rn: for “utinam falsus subrepens intimauit” of the Type R version Rn has the variant “utinam falsus subrepens ymaginauit” and the poem has:

^{page 527 note 14} Emanuel Cosquin, in Revue des questions historiques, Apr. 1, 1908, p. 389.

^{page 527 note 15} The writing and the illuminations of this ms. are unusually beautiful. See the enthusiastic praise of Paulin Paris, Les Manuscrits françois de la Bibliothèque du Roi, Paris, 1838, ii, p. 84.

^{page 527 note 16} Ms. iennencel.

^{page 527 note 17} Ms. aueuc.

^{page 527 note 18} Ms. iennencel.

^{page 527 note 19} Judas?

^{page 527 note 20} Plus?

^{page 527 note 21} Dijon et Paris [1903-4], pp. 284-5. On the Vie de Jesu Christ cf. pp. 327 ff. and 347. The Judas is fol. lxii-lxvii of the 1485 edition.

^{page 527 note 22} Roy, p. 124, vv. 6116 ff.

^{page 527 note 23} Ed. G. Paris et G. Raynaud, Paris, 1878, Second Day, p. 144, vv. 11021 ff. That Greban followed the Legenda Aurea version may be inferred from the words of Desesperance, that Judas's evil soul could not issue from his mouth “qui toucha a chose tant digne” (p. 288, vv. 22018 ff.).

^{page 527 note 24} We have an edition of it dating probably between 1486 and 1490. For the relation of the 1507 edition to the work of both Greban and Michel see Petit de Julleville, Mystères, II, pp. 398 and 439. I follow the analysis from the cyclic edition of 1507 in the Histoire générale du théâtre français by the Frères Parfaict, reprinted by de Douhet in Migne's Dictionnaire des mystères, col. 663 ff.

^{page 527 note 25} At Sotteville-lez-Rouen there was a famous jeu de paume where in 1530 a society of amateurs gave several plays called “jeux de Sotteville.” Among these plays was a vie de Judas, probably from the Passion. Cf. Gosselin, Recherches sur les origines et l'histoire du théâtre à Rouen, Rouen, 1868, p. 37. (Petit de Julleville, Mystères, ii, p. 117).

^{page 527 note 26} Ed. Piaget et Picot, Paris, 1896, i, p. 142, vv. 167-8; p. 153, vv. 165-6.

^{page 527 note 27} Mone, Anzeiger, vi, col. 143-56. Later ed. by K. A. Hahn, Frankfurt, 1857.

^{page 527 note 28} Ed. Alfred Heinrich, Germanistische Abhandlungen, 26. Heft, Breslau, 1906.

^{page 527 note 29} Cf. Du Méril, Poésies populaires, pp. 321-4; L. De Feis, Studi religiosi, ii, pp. 412-30, 506-21; G. F. Hill, Archœologia, lix (1905), p. 9; Budge, Book of the Bee, pp. 95-96; R. Duval, Littérature syriaque, 1900, pp. 116-7.

^{page 527 note 30} See below, pp. 595 ff.

^{page 527 note 31} Ed. R. v. Liliencron, Thüringische Gesehichtsquellen, iii, Jena, 1859. Cf. Aug. Witzschel, Die erste Bearbeitung der dürimgschen Chronik Rothe's, Germania, xvii (1872), pp. 129-69; and Heinrich, pp. 3, 92 ff.

^{page 527 note 32} Pfeiffer, Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Kölnischen Mundart im 15. Jahrhundert, no. 93, ‘Van Judas und van sinen alderen,‘ in Frommann's Die deutschen Mundarten, ii (1855), pp. 291-3. The Seelen Trost is found in a Low German ms. of the year 1407; it was printed in 1474. Cf. also Mone's Anzeiger xiii (1866), col. 307; and ZfdPh, vi, p. 424.

^{page 527 note 33} D'Ancona, op. cit., pp. 63-73. His text (reprinted in D'Ancona-Bacci, Manuale della Letteratura Italiana, i, pp. 567-70) is from Codex Riccardiano 1254, car. 78, collated with the Venetian Legendary of 1477 and Cod. Pal. E. 5. 1. 31. Cf., however, the Italian post-mediæval versions below.

^{page 527 note 34} De middelnederlandse Legenden over Pilatus, Veronica en Judas, in Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche Taal- en Letterkunde, xx (1901), pp. 125-65.

^{page 527 note 35} De Vooys perceived this from Du Méril's brief note on the ‘other’ Latin text (Poésies pop. lat., p. 326, n. 1).

^{page 527 note 36} About 20 Mss. of the Passionael are preserved, the earliest of which dates from 1400; it was printed in 1478 with the title Passionael winterende somerstuc.

^{page 527 note 37} “Het Passionael geeft een getrouwe vertaling van de Aurea Legenda.” De Vooys, p. 160.

^{page 527 note 38} “Die tekst uit het Haagse handschrift X 71, onleend aan Der Sielen Troest. In hoofdzaak wordt hier het Passionael gevolgd.” De Vooys, p. 160. The editor has collated the Sielen Troest with the Hague ms.

^{page 527 note 39} That such a variant should occur, however, is the more remarkable since the early printed edition of the Sielen Troest follows the usual tradition.

^{page 527 note 40} Historical Manuscripts Commission. Report on Manuscripts in the Welsh Language, vol. I, Part ii, Peniarth, p. 304.

^{page 527 note 41} Op. cit., p. 319.

^{page 527 note 42} Op. cit., p. 333.

^{page 527 note 43} Op. cit., p. 308. This version is printed in Selections from the Hengwrt mss. Preserved in the Peniarth Library, vol. n, ed. by Robert Williams, with translations (continued by G. Hartwell Jones), London, 1892; text pp. 271 ff., translation pp. 624 ff. A note, p. 751, says “The Historia Judas follows Royal 8 E xvii” (i. e., my Lg).

^{page 527 note 44} See above, p. 528.

^{page 527 note 45} Later Welsh versions of the legend appear in Llanstephan ms. 24 (= Shirburn C. 24), of the late sixteenth century, Historia Judas, fol. 93 (op. cit. ii, ii, p. 454); Llanstephan 117, Llyma ystoria Svddas vyradwr, p. 195, dated “xx awst 1548” (op. cit. ii, ii, p. 575); Peniarth 118 (= Hengwrt 518), of the last quarter of the sixteenth century, pp. 625-91 of which contain extracts, etc. (apparently designed for a Dictionary) including the story of Judas (op. cit., i, ii, p. 723); Cardiff ms. 11 (= Ph. 2161), of the late sixteenth century, a fragment of the end of Ystori Svddas, vol. II, p. 111 (op. cit., ii, i, p. 143).

^{page 527 note 46} I owe this reference to the kindness of Professor von Dobschütz.

^{page 527 note 47} The earliest ms. that we have, the Codex Burneanus, is dated 1350. The Fornsvensk Legendarium was edited by George Stephens, Stockholm, 1847. The legend of Judas is in the chapter on St. Mathias, i, p. 243. The same version occurs also in an Upsala ms., C 528, dated 1420-50. Cf. Robert Geete, Fornsvensk Bibliografi, Stockholm, 1903, no. 200.

^{page 527 note 48} Ed. by G. E. Klemming, Stockholm, 1871-73, ‘Aff iwdas skarioth,‘ pp. 86-90. A Danish translation, Siäla Trööst, is mentioned by Klemming, p. vii.

^{page 527 note 49} Ebert's Jahrbuch für roman, und engl. Lit., v (1864), p. 137, n. 2. The existence of this version was noted by Creizenach.

^{page 527 note 50} Now Bibliothèque Nationale, nouv. acq. fr. 4232. For a detailed description of the ms. cf. Paul Meyer, Appendix to Introduction of his edition of Daurel et Beton, pp. lxix-cxx. Further cf. Chabaneau in Revue des langues romanes, xxviii (1885), pp. 8-23, where a portion of the ms. is printed (Judas omitted), and pp. 53-65, a study of the language of the printed extracts; and xxxii (1888), pp. 343-5. A fragment of this Passion in the Catalan dialect was discovered some years ago at Palma; in this fragment only a portion of the speech which contains our legend is preserved. Cf. Revue des langues romanes, xvii (1880), p. 303, and Constans, Œdipe, pp. 101-2. Constans (p. 100) was the first to draw attention to the legend of Judas in the Gascon Passion. For a brief summary of the Passion see Petit de Julleville, Mystères, ii, p. 351.

^{page 527 note 51} That is, for example, word was passed on simply that the early life of Judas resembled that of Œdipus. This is rendered very unlikely, however, by the fact that the legend was told in Catalan from the Latin half a century earlier.

^{page 527 note 52} Cf. A. Jeanroy et H. Teulié, Mystères Provençaux du Quinzième Siècle, Toulouse, 1893.

^{page 527 note 53} Bulletin, l (1850), pp. 779 ff. Although the Provençal document postdates the year 1500 it is clearly a left-over of the Middle Ages, and so properly belongs here.

^{page 527 note 54} A rather garbled text of this poem was printed by G. Brunet in an additional note (col. 722) to the article on Judas in de Douhet's Dictionnaire des Légendes du Christianisme (Migne) 1855.

^{page 527 note 55} Cf. Julius Feifalik, Studien zur Geschichte der altböhmischen Literatur; vii, ‘über die Bruchstücke einer altčechischen Kaiserchronik und über die Benützung der Legenda aurea in der altčechischen Dichtung,‘ in Wiener Sitzungsberichte, Phil.-hist. Classe, xxxvii (1861), pp. 56 ff. I am indebted to this article for most of my knowledge of the Bohemian version.

^{page 527 note 56} Výbor, ii, p. 237, 19-22; Feifalik, n. 28.

^{page 527 note 57} First printed in Cas. česk. mus., 1829, iii, pp. 58-63; then Výbor, i, pp. 169-74. Cf. Nebeský, Cas. česk. mus., 1847, i, pp. 11-22.

^{page 527 note 58} Feifalik, p. 87. Cf. Výbor, i, p. 169, 16 ff.

^{page 527 note 59} Cf. Iatrin, op. cit., Diederichs, Russische Verwandte der Legende von Gregor auf dem Stein und der Sage von Judas Ischariot in Russische Revue, xvii (1880), pp. 119 ff., and Solovey, 1895, p. 177. No. (3) is printed by Solovev, pp. 187-90.

^{page 527 note 60} Istrin, p. 607. The same passage in a slightly different form occurs in the Kostomarov text, which Diederichs translates: ‘Nicht umsonst wird geschrieben in dem Buche Genesis: es soll sein Dan eine Schlange am Scheidewege. Dies bedeutet, dass aus dem Stamme Dan zu seiner Zeit der Antichrist geboren wird.‘ “Die letzten Worte,” adds Diederichs, “enthalten die seit der Schrift des Hippolytus über den Antichrist angenommene Deutung der Worte Jacobs in dem Segen, den er vor seinem Tode u. a. auch dem Dan ertheilte, hier machen sie übrigens, unvermittelt mit dem Zusammenhang, den Eindruck, als wären sie eine gegen das vorhergehende gerichtete Randbemerkung, die sich in den Text eingedrängt hat” (p. 122).

^{page 565 note 1} Dictionnaire des légendes du Christianisme, Migne, 1855, col. 714.

^{page 565 note 2} J. Collin de Plancy, Légendes du Nouveau Testament, Paris, 1863, pp. 232 ff., repeats the usual legend, without indicating his source, but introduces after Judas's flight from Scariot the biting incident told in the Evangelium Infantiœ Arabicum, cap. xxxv.

^{page 565 note 3} D'Ancona, Introd., p. 97, and n. 2.

^{page 565 note 4} La Scuola Cattolica, Anno 37, Serie iv, vol. xv (1909), pp. 292 ff. —Ms. It. V. 38 of the year 1560 (Catalogi dei Codici Marciani Italiani, ii, Modena, 1911) contains a collection of Vite di molti Heresiarchi, beginning with that of Judas: “gelano per l'horrere gl' inchiostri al nome abhoribile di Giuda.” This is probably the usual legend; I have been unable to see it. What is probably another version is mentioned in Inventari dei Manoscritti delle Biblioteche d'Italia, XVI, p. 184, no. 126: “Segni Cativi di Giuda Scariotto,” Stanza di endecasillabi in ottava rima. Sec. xvii.

^{page 565 note 5} Comedias de Don Antonio de Zamora, Gentilhombre, Madrid, 1744, i, pp. 277-327.

^{page 565 note 6} Each volume was reprinted several times, the first, e. g., Salzburg and Lucern, 1686, Bonn 1687, Zug 1687, Salzburg 1688, 1689, 1691, etc. The complete work was printed in Salzburg 1695-6 and 1709; Nürnberg 1718; abbreviated Vienna 1729, Nürnberg 1752; Celle 1831; an ‘adapted’ version Vienna 1833; and in the Works Vienna 1826-34, Passau 1835-46, Lindau 1850. Cf. the Auswahl edited by F. Bobertag in Kürschner's Deutsche National-Litteratur, p. iv.

^{page 565 note 7} For the story of Judas's elephantiasis cf. Œcumenius on Acts 1 (M. S. G. 118, 57-59), and Boissonade, Anecdota Grœca, ii, pp. 464-5.

^{page 565 note 8} The Boston Public Library has also a copy of a later edition, Boston, 1771.

^{page 565 note 9} Reprinted by Cheap in The Chapmans' Library: The Scottish Chap Literature of the Last Century Classified. Glasgow, 1877, vol. ii.

^{page 565 note 10} Folio Edition, iii, ii, p. 737. The estimated date in the British Museum catalogue is:? London, 1730.

^{page 565 note 11} It is probably this version which was referred to by Adin Williams, F. R. H. S. as ‘The Birth, Life, and Death of Judas and the Life and Miserable Death of Pilate’ in Notes and Queries, 6th Series, iii, p. 388.

^{page 565 note 12} Cf. Yorkshire Chap-books, ed. by C. A. Federer, London, 1889, pp. 10-23.

^{page 565 note 13} The Catalogue (1898) of the Cardiff Free Libraries mentions three other ‘editions’: Shrewsbury, ca. 1750, Merthyr, 1812, Aberdare, 1879.—In Notes and Queries, 2nd Series, vii, p. 455 another English version is mentioned ‘The Arch Knave, or the History of Judas from the Cradle to the Gallows. Compiled and translated from the High Dutch of S. Clare and the Spanish of Don H. de Mendoza. London: printed by J. Morphew.‘ Pp. 56. n. d. This “describes how Judas, when a boy, robbed hen roosts, and laid poison for his schoolmaster, &c.” There is no Judas legend in Mendoza. —In An Awakening Call to Great Britain a Judas Iscariot is advertized among the Penny Books printed and sold by Wm. Dicey in Bow Church-Yard.

^{page 565 note 14} Almindelig Morskaislœsning i Danmark og Norge igjennen Aarhundreder. Kj⊘benhavn, 1816, pp. 178-9.

^{page 565 note 15} Svenska Folkböcker, ii, p. 198, Stockholm, 1848.

^{page 565 note 16} A German translation by K. Tamms from an 1833 edition appeared in Germania, vi (1844), pp. 144 ff.

^{page 565 note 17} Cf. Istrin, op. cit.

^{page 586 note 1} Spicilegium Vaticanum, Prauenfeld, 1838, p. 154.

^{page 586 note 2} Edipo e la mitologia comparata, Pisa, 1867, pp. 87, 89.

^{page 586 note 3} Op. cit. Introd., pp. 8, 86, 89.

^{page 586 note 4} Ueber die Quelle des Gregorius Hartmanns von Aue, Leipzig, 1869, p. 54, note.

^{page 586 note 5} Op. cit., pp. 201-2.

^{page 586 note 6} Op. cit., p. 95.

^{page 586 note 7} Podanià o między naiblizszym rodzeństwem. Wisla, 1892, vi, str. 66 (Quoted by Solovev, p. 159).

^{page 586 note 8} Altdeutsche Textbibliothek. Gregorius von Hartman von Aue. 2nd ed., Halle, 1900, pp. vii-viii.

^{page 586 note 9} Les Saints Successeurs des Dieux, Paris, 1907, p. 269.

^{page 586 note 10} Les légendes hagiographiques, Bruxelles, 1905, pp. 71-2.

^{page 586 note 11} Poésies populaires latines du moyen âge, Paris, 1847, pp. 324-5.

^{page 586 note 12} Op. cit., p. 119.

^{page 586 note 13} Le lait de la mère, etc., Revue des questions historiques, Apr. 1, 1908, pp. 390-1.

^{page 586 note 14} Geschichte der deutschen Poesie nach ihren antiken Elementen, Leipzig, 1854, i, pp. 167-9.

^{page 586 note 15} Revue Critique, IV (1869), art. 123, pp. 412-5.

^{page 586 note 16} 4th ed., Paris, 1909, p. 223.

^{page 586 note 17} Die Gregoriuslegende, in Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie, xix (1886), pp. 419, 421.

^{page 586 note 18} Op. cit., i, pp. 273 ff.

^{page 586 note 19} Op. cit., pp. 151-2. I did not become acquainted with this work until after I had collected most of my material; I have, therefore, drawn on his chapter on ‘Judas and Œdipus’ only for information with regard to Russian versions of the legend, and for a few references to the work of Slavic scholars.

^{page 586 note 20} Op. cit., p. 611.

^{page 586 note 21} VI. Quoted by Solovev, p. 158.

^{page 586 note 22} L. c., p. 315.

^{page 586 note 23} Die Legenden und die Deutschordensdichtung (‘ Die geistliche Dichtung des Mittelalters,‘ liter Teil. Kürschners Nationalliteratur, iii, 2), p. 4.

^{page 586 note 24} Étude sur Hartmann d'Aue, Paris, 1898, p. 255.

^{page 586 note 25} Das Inzest-Motiv in Dichtung und Sage, Leipzig und Wien, 1912, p. 337.

^{page 586 note 26} Graf, Miti, etc., i, p. 281.

^{page 586 note 27} I, 34 ff.

^{page 586 note 28} Cf. Bernhardt Schmidt, Griech. Märchen, Sagen und Volkslieder, Leipzig, 1877, p. 143; and Laistner, Das Rätsel der Sphinx, ii, p. 373. The Bulgarian folksong of Urisnica (A. Strausz, Bulg. Volksdichtungen, Wien and Leipzig, 1895, p. 218) is a reworking of the Œdipodean material perhaps from literary sources.

^{page 586 note 29} Herodotus, i, 95.

^{page 586 note 30} Valerius Maximus, Facta et dicta memorabilia, i, vii, 7.

^{page 586 note 31} Plummer, Vitae Sanctorum Hiberniae, Oxford, 1910, i, p. 234.

^{page 586 note 32} Cf. Graf, Miti, i, pp. 296 and 309, n. 37.

^{page 586 note 33} De la Saussaye, Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, 3rd ed., Tübingen, 1905, i, p. 348.

^{page 586 note 34} Cf. S. Grudzinski in Ztsch. f. roman. Philol., xxxvi (1912), pp. 546 ff.

^{page 586 note 35} Cosquin (op. cit.) gives other Javanese and Indian legends related to this. Additional material in J. Hertel, Ztsch. d. Vereins f. Volkskunde, xix (1909), pp. 83 f.

^{page 586 note 36} Revue des Études Juives, lix (1910), pp. 1-13.

^{page 586 note 37} “Que si les traits essentiels du thème, et qui ne dérivent pas du texte de l'Exode, se retrouvent chez les Juifs vivant dans un milieu juif, il faudra bien en conclure que ce thème était entré ou était né dans le folk-lore juif” (p. 4).

^{page 586 note 38} Cf. G. Weil, Biblische Legenden, Frankfurt a. M., 1845, p. 68.

^{page 586 note 39} Cf. Seelisch, pp. 388-9. It would easily be possible to multiply examples of these various motifs in the general field of folk-lore. The illustrations that I give are meant to be merely suggestive, not by any means exhaustive. For example, Otto, Einfluss des Roman de Thèbes, Gött., 1909, p. 17, points out the motif of the exposure of the child in Lohengrin, in the lais of Marie de France, in Galerant, in Richars li Bliaus, in Jourdain de Blavies, in Parise la Duchesse, and in Berte (where, as in Œdipus, the servants are ordered to kill the queen in a forest, but feel compassion and spare her life). Other illustrations of the exposure and incest motifs may be found in Karl Schmeing, Flucht- und Werbungssagen in der Legende, Münster i. Westf., 1911. An impressive view of the frequency of all these motifs in early mythology may be gained from the ‘Tafel’ in von Hahn's Sagwissenschaftliche Studien, Jena, 1876. Practically the whole of Judas's story can be related by means of the ‘formulas’ to which Hahn has reduced a large mass of myth and Heldensage: “4. Warnende Zeichen an einen Ascendenten. 5. Daher Hauptheld ausgesetzt. 7. Erzogen bei kinderlosem Ehepaar. 8. Uebermuth des Zöglings. 9. Dienstbarkeit in der Fremde. 13. Ausserordentliche Todesart. 14. Verleumdung wegen Blutschande und früher Tod. [The early death is of course impossible for Judas.] 16. Ermordung des jüngeren Bruders.” (Tafel, p. 340.)—In the Irish saints' lives, where we find a remarkable intermingling and crossing of popular and ecclesiastic traditions, incest is no uncommon thing; see, for example, Plummer, Vitae Sanctorum Hiberniae, i, p. cxxxv, n. 2.

^{page 586 note 40} This is the story of Shakspere's Pericles. It is found in Latin mss. as early as the ninth or tenth century, and is supposed to be much earlier.

^{page 586 note 41} Simrock, Deutsche Volksbücher, 12, 108. (Seelisch)

^{page 586 note 42} This is probably the safest date. It is that of M. Roques (which I have from a private communication), who is preparing a new edition of the Old French poem. Littré, Histoire de la langue française, vol. n, argues from the language for an earlier date, some time in the eleventh century. For the more recent discussions see the work of F. Piquet, already cited.

^{page 586 note 43} For the various versions and translations see Seelisch, and Paul's edition of Hartmann's Gregorius.

^{page 586 note 44} Op. cit., p. 387.

^{page 586 note 45} Cf. Diederichs, pp. 131 ff., where the variants are discussed.

^{page 586 note 46} For a probable origin of the Andreas legend see Seelisch, p. 417.

^{page 586 note 47} Köhler, Germania, xiv, pp. 300 ff. It was first mentioned by Greith, who saw it in a Vatican ms.

^{page 586 note 48} Lachmann, Kleinere Schriften, Berlin, 1876, i, pp. 521, 523 ff.

^{page 586 note 49} Oesterley, no. 244, pp. 641 ff.; Oesterley, however, does not refer it to Albanus.

^{page 586 note 50} Cf. Diederichs, p. 124, n. 7. Köhler published (Germania, xv, pp. 288 ff.), a translation which Diederichs says is “nicht ganz korrekt.”

^{page 586 note 51} D'Ancona, pp. 1-60, and Introd., passim.

^{page 586 note 52} Child, no. 57.

^{page 586 note 53} Gesta Rom., 13 (Oesterley, p. 291); Speculum Hist., vii, 93.

^{page 586 note 54} Spec. Hist., vii, 94.

^{page 586 note 55} St. Novaković, Archiv. f. Slav. Philol., xi (1888), pp. 321 ff.

^{page 586 note 56} Graesse, Märchenwelt, 1868, p. 208.

^{page 586 note 57} The unconscious incest of brother and sister is the subject of a number of ballads. Cf. Child, No. 50, The Bonny Hind. Professor Child compares the Scandinavian ballad of Margaret (preserved in Färöe and in Icelandic) and the story of Kullervo in the Kalewala (rune 35).

^{page 586 note 58} Hugo Gering, Islendzk Æventyri, Halle, 1882-4, ii, pp. 105-8.

^{page 586 note 59} Aug. v. Löwis, Ztsch. d. Vereins f. Volkskunde, xx (1910), pp. 45 ff.

^{page 586 note 60} Köhler, Germania, xxxvi (1891), p. 198.

^{page 586 note 61} N. Slouschz, Les Hébreo-phéniciens. Introduction à l'histoire des origines de la colonisation hébraïque dans les pays méditerranéens. Paris, 1909, pp. 168-9. Israel Lévi, Le lait de la mère et le coffre flottant, in Revue des Études Juives, lix (1910), pp. 1-13.

^{page 586 note 62} Cf. Revue des Midrashim de r. Abraham, Varsovie, 1894, p. 23.

^{page 586 note 63} Lévi, Rev. des Études Juives, xliii, p. 283, refers the Hibbour to the eleventh century.

^{page 586 note 64} We have seen that he is wrong in this regard.

^{page 586 note 65} Petri Damiani humilis monachi de parentelae gradibus. In his complete works, ed. of 1642, iii, 8, 77-83 (Seelisch). Cf. Greith, pp. 158-9.

^{page 586 note 66} Annales Ecclesiastici auctore Cæsare Baronio. Vol. xvi, sub anno 1065.

^{page 586 note 67} Quoted by Fleury, Histoire ecclésiastique, Paris, 1713, vol. xiii, book lxi, chap. 14.

^{page 586 note 68} Constantini vita Adaiberonis, ii, 15-17. Mon. Ger., iv, pp. 663-4 (Seelisch).

^{page 586 note 69} Earlier in the century there had been several incestuous marriages in high circles: Henry III and Agnes of Poictou, Konrad II and Gisela, Otto v. Hammerstein and Irmingard (“martyrs of true love”). Cf. Giesebrecht, Gesch. der deut. Kaiserzeit, 4th ed., Braunschweig, 1875, ii, pp. 366, 162, 168, etc.

^{page 586 note 70} A note may be added here on the incest-chronicling epitaphs which have been collected by D'Ancona and Seelisch. From Hamburg comes the following lapidary epigram:

From Alincourt, near St. Quentin (and the same is reported from Clermont):

From the Bourbonnais (sixteenth century):

On the tomb of the Count of Écouis and his daughter by his mother, Cecilia (seventeenth century):

And on the tomb of Vergogna (according to the legend): “Qui giacciono due corpi morti, madre e figliuolo, e fratello e sirochia, e moglie e marito, nati di gran baronaggio dello reame di Faragona, e son in paradiso.”

Finally:

With the foregoing may be compared:

These epitaphs represent, for the most part, actual cases of incest. They show that even since the Middle Ages the crime has not become extinct. In earlier times it must have been, like murder and plunder, a comparatively familiar, not infrequent, though none the less heinous crime. Not until recent times has the State considered incest a penal offense.

^{page 586 note 71} Many other legends were of popular or semi-popular origin, no doubt, and were fully accepted by the church. The fact, nevertheless, remains that the legend of Judas was always a little outside the pale.

^{page 586 note 72} Such a redaction would be analogous to the prose compilations in which the Middle Ages knew the story of Troy, or to one of the Universal Histories that gratuitously adopted the name of Orosius.

^{page 586 note 73} Scriptores Rerum Mythicarum Latini Tres, ed. G. H. Bode, 1834. Cf. Mythographus ii, Fab. 230, pp. 150-51. On the date of Mythographus ii see Ferd. Keseling, De Mythographi Vaticani Secundi Fontibus, Halle a. S., 1908, p. 146.

^{page 586 note 74} Keseling, p. 62.

^{page 586 note 75} Published by Ozanam, Les écoles et l'instruction publique en Italie aux temps barbares, Oeuvres, Paris, 1855-9, ii, pp. 377 ff.; and from a thirteenth-century ms. by Du Méril (1854); later by Morell, M. Schmidt, and Dümmler. It begins:

There are twenty-one stanzas, some of them on two rimes (a, a, b, b), and some, as the above, on one rime.

^{page 586 note 76} Constans, La légende d‘Œdipe, Paris, 1881; Constans, ed. Roman de Thèbes (Soc. des anc. textes franç.), Paris, 1890, two vols. (vol. i, the text, vol ii, the introduction). “Nous pouvons donc admettre,” says Constans (ii, p. cxviii), “jusqu‘à preuve du contraire, que notre poème à été composé vers 1150, plutôt avant qu'après.”

^{page 586 note 77} This composition, which Comparetti stigmatized as the work of a basso letterato, is only a portion of the fourteenth-century prose redaction of the Roman de Thèbes, made when the romances were read preferably in prose compilations. It doubtless existed separately before it was incorporated in the pseudo-Orosian Universal Histories. In the fifteenth century the Roman d'Edipus was printed from ms. fr. 301 of the Bibliothèque Nationale (late fourteenth or early fifteenth century) and again by Silvestre in his collection (1858). The story of CEdipus occupies the first four folios of this ms. From the fourteenth-century prose version of the Roman de Thèbes Lydgate probably wrote in 1421-2 his Story of Thebes. This Old French prose redaction is found in more ms. than the poem, and probably enjoyed a greater vogue. On the Roman d'Edipus cf. Constans, Œdipe, pp. 338 ff.

^{page 586 note 78} In one version this prologue contains more than 900 verses.

^{page 586 note 79} Œdipe, pp. 349 ff.

^{page 586 note 80} Cf. W. Keller, Das Sirventes “Fadet joglar” des Guiraut von Calanso, Romanische Forschungen, xxii (1906), pp. 99-238, esp. pp. 129 and 218-19. I am indebted to this article and to R. Zenker's Weiteres zur Mabinogionfrage (Ztsch. f. fran. Sprache u. Litt., xli (1913), p. 147) for this suggestion of an independent version of the CEdipus story.

^{page 586 note 81} In view of the facts that one of the simplest surviving versions of the Judas legend is from Provence; that the earliest mediaeval allusions we possess to the Œdipodean material are by Provençal poets; and that the Roman de Thèbes was composed probably by a southern poet of the langue d'oïl; one may be tempted to suggest that the legend of Judas, if based on the story of Œdipus, originated in the South of France. Such a mere hypothesis, however, without more support than it has, can not, of course, be deemed of real significance.

^{page 586 note 82} For these versions see Hahn, Griechische und Albanesische Märchen, ii, pp. 114, 310; Graesse, Märchenwelt, p. 208; Sakellarios, , iii, p. 147 (translated by Comparetti in Appendix to D'Ancona, p. 115).

^{page 586 note 83} Ps. cix.

^{page 586 note 84} Origen Contra Celsum, ii, 20 (M. S. G., 11, 836-7).

^{page 586 note 85} This was the theory of Grabovski (and also of Gaston Paris). It became utterly untenable after Istrin published the Greek versions of the legend.

^{page 586 note 86} Weyman remarks that this vita “scheint—nach der Formel ‘tu autem Dominae miserere nostri’ … zur erbaulichen Lesung in einer klösterlichen Kommunität, vielleicht bei Tisch, verwendet worden zu sein” (Wochensch. f. klass. Philol., 25. Mai, 1914, p. 580).

^{page 586 note 87} Here it is important to note that Herod is “et ipse turbatus”; he does not play the part of Judas's companion or coadjutor in sin.

^{page 586 note 88} On the other hand, the argument in favor of a popular origin is more intricate, and may perhaps have received a false emphasis on account of the greater amount of space devoted to it.

^{page 586 note 89} So much, at least, we are justified now in saying. But it is quite likely that the matter is still more complicated, and that there were more Greek versions of the legend than the two which we possess. The other mss. on Mt. Athos (see above, p. 522) probably contain different texts from those that we have.

^{page 586 note 90} Exod., 2, 3.

^{page 586 note 91} That is, earliest ex hypothesi.

^{page 586 note 92} It is quite in accord, for example, with Professor Rand's stemma (p. 316); it would correspond to his γ.

^{page 586 note 93} Rand, p. 312. Cf. Gen. 35, 22 and 49, 4. Krauss, Das Leben Jesu nach Jüdischen Quellen, p. 219, makes the same point.

^{page 586 note 94} Professor Rand compares the name of one of the midwives, Shiphrah, Gen. 1, 15 (he spells it Sephora and intimates that it is the same name as Moses's wife's), and makes the rather subtle point that since the name Ciborea “is connected with Moses' birth as well as his marriage” it “thus suggests as nearly as anything Biblical can, the mother-wife” (p. 312, n. 3). The connection is somewhat tenuous. Gaston Paris was the first to suggest the relation of Ciborea to Zipporah or Sepphorah. Krauss makes the same observation (p. 219).

^{page 586 note 95} Rand, p. 312. Allegoriae quaedam scripturae sacrae, 42 (M. S. L., 83, 107.)

^{page 586 note 96} Commentar zu den Evangelien, ii, p. 458.

^{page 586 note 97} ii, pp. 26, 241.

^{page 586 note 98} Leben Jesu, 3rd ed., ii, p. 406.

^{page 586 note 99} Ephream Syriacus, i, 192 D, tells us that “coluber antichristus Danitica matre nascetur.” I am indebted to Krauss, pp. 215 ff. for several of these references.

^{page 586 note 100} Jn. 6, 70.

^{page 586 note 101} Krauss, p. 219. On incest attributed to Antichrist cf. Krauss, 215 ff., and W. Bousset, Der Antichrist, Göttingen, 1895. (Translation by A. H. Keane, London, 1896, p. 157 n.)

^{page 586 note 102} In the Sammelhand von Materialien zur Besehreibung der Länder und Völker des Kaukasus, vol. xxxii (Tiflis, 1903), there is a Cossack legend of Judas which probably belongs here. Cf. Zeitschrift des Vereins für Volkskunde, xiv (1904), p. 347. See also iii, p. 70; and R. Foulché-Delbosc, La légende de Judas Iscariote in Revue hispanique, xxxvi (1916), pp. 135-149. These references came to my attention after the above article was already in print, and I have been unable to examine them.