http://gorelka-kotel.ru/profiles/fyco-zithromax-antibiotikum-bestpreis-online.php Other editions. Enlarge cover. Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Details if other :. Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Friedrich Neumann Editor. Burkhard Kippenberg Translator. Hugo Kuhn Afterword. So empfiehlt er das Heil der Tochter dem Sohn V. Derweil begibt sich der Bruder auf einen Kreuzzug und stirbt V. Das weitere Heranwachsen des Kindes wird nun in Vers bzw. Die Verse berichten, wie der Jungritter eine Stadt von einem Belagerer befreit. Erst eine Magd V.
Nach dem Tod des Papstes in Rom V. Get A Copy. Paperback , pages. Published October 19th by Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun. Verlag GmbH first published More Details Original Title. Other Editions Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Community Reviews. Showing Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Feb 09, Bee rated it it was amazing.
Read in Middle High German at university. Was very fun to read :D. Jan 16, Fiona rated it liked it Shelves: university. I mean, you know, it's middle high German, it's kind of weird. But as my first medieval read for university it was actually better than I expected. Nulla sine suo iussu, nutu, consensuque fiunt, quoniam in dicione sua omnia porrecta sunt. Stans autem die quadam Pilatus ad palacium introspexit quoddam pomerium, uiditque fructus quorum tanto captus est desiderio ut pene exhalaret spiritum. Ruben tandem lapide quo ceruix collo connecti- tur a Iuda percussus oceidit.
Tunc Pilatus Iude recolligens merita omnem Ruben substantiam et uxorem ei contradidit in beneftcia. Ciborea ut dolores tot et tantos recolligit ingemuit, Iude causam suspirii querenti ait: infantulum marinis fluctibus inmersi, uirum meum morte preuentum inueni, nunc autem, quo super omnia moueor, quia uiro contra uoluntatem meam socior. Iudas autem hec omnia sibi euenisse probauit, flliumque suum esse, matrem quoque in uxorem duxisse coniecit.
Penitentia ergo ductus Ciborea suadente saluatoris domini nostri Iesu Christi, per quern fit remissio peccatorum, ut suorum ueniam mereretur delic- torum, fit discipulus. Habebat autem tunc semper loculos ubi sibi reseruabat furtiua pauperibus in elemosinas distribuenda. Hie autem a domino diligebatur pre ceteris donee consilium iniit cum Iudeis et eum triginta uendidit argenteis.
Videns autem quia inno- centem condampnauerat proiecto in templo sanguinis precio laqueo se suspendit et medius crepuit. After comparing all the variant readings I have pre- pared the following stemma for the seven manuscripts of this version: 12 "Lucan, Pharsalia, 7, Dei I, 12 M. Isidorus XVI, 26, 4. M 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. First: x" and x'" show a large number of glosses, whence it seems right to infer that in the early days of these two texts the little story of Judas was deemed worthy of what we should now term an ' edition ' ; certain versions of the legend were treated to a sort of textual criticism as the Middle Ages understood it.
Moreover, b was a special recension; and n, as is shown both by the unusually large number of glosses, and by its apparent collation of x' and x" and perhaps x"' , as well as by its completion of the Lucan quotation, would seem to represent an effort to provide descend directly from as" ; b is probably in its right place; and there appears to be sufficient ground for the position of n. 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 Univer- sity Library.
That is, m, our earliest manuscript of Type R, is not only not the original, it is a copy of a copy. Inasmuch as m was undoubtedly written sometime ca. This evidence enables us to say also, with tol- erable certainty, that Type R antedates the Type adopted by Jacopo da Voragine, since we have no ground for dating the latter earlier than sometime after the beginning of the thirteenth century.
The manuscripts of Type L may be roughly divided into early and late texts. As has been said, LI had generally been considered the earliest, and the prototype. Professor Rand, however, discovered in Lv " an immedi- ate precursor of the account in the Golden Legend," the source which Jacopo da Voragine incorporated in his work almost without change. This manuscript is in the Vatican, Palatinus , dated s. The writing of the Judas legend is " clearly before the date of Jacopo Nevertheless, while licet apocrypha is with him a not unusual safeguarding formula, and while he must have brought to bear a good deal of critical discrimination in preparing such a com- pendious legendary from such infinitely scattered and mul- tifarious materials as he had to work with, still he was not given, I think, to expressing his doubt in this manner.
The originality of this scepticism on the part of Jacopo is laid open to doubt by Lc. This manuscript, originally of Bury St. Edmunds, is now at Cambridge, St. John's College ; it is described by James 14 as " Cent, xii late, very finely [i. The script of these lives of Pilate and Judas is certainly not of the twelfth century, but it seems to me to be not very much later. James is unwilling to agree to call the writing " very early cent, xiii," and esti- mates the lapse of about a generation between the writing of these lives of Pilate and Judas and that of the remainder of the manuscript.
It is proper to add, however, that Dr. James has again examined this portion of the MS. Nevertheless, the script of this De ortu Jude scarioht seems to me to belong to the first half of the thirteenth century, and certainly is earlier than the composition of the Legenda Aurea; and so, along with Lv, Lc represents the source of Jacopo.
But Lc like Lg and Ld reads : " legitur enim in quadam his- toria licet apocrypha " ; and like Lg contains the huc- usque passage with which Jacopo apologizes for admitting the legend into his collection : " hucusque in apocripha historia sic legitur: utrum recitanda sit. 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, further- more, perhaps significant that in introducing the life of Pilate Cap.
Lin he writes: " de poena autem et origine Pylati in quadam his- toria 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 ilia hystoria continet veritatem, quia. Eusebius autem et Beda in suis chronicis non dicunt. It must be noted, moreover, that those two passages are the only examples of his elaborately warning the too credulous reader.
On other occa- sions, 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 con- science bound to warn the gentle reader.
Possi- bly, in the mind of this scribe at least, the story had received complete credence. Curiously, in Lj the ' spir- itus phitonicus ' became ' spiritus propheticus,' probably because the scribe was unfamiliar with the somewhat unusual word. 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.
John's Col- lege, Cambridge. If, however, the second statement of Dr. James is correct see p. But it is by no means demonstrable, nor even likely, that the Le- genda Aurea was compiled as early of ; 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 , it is on the other hand possible but not probable that a copy of it would have reached England immediately after its com- pletion, and that a scribe of Bury St. Edmunds would have made an extract of only the lives of Judas and Pilate. The earliest mss. 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 or , and that the monk of Bury St. Edmunds had a copy of it and Jacopo da Voragine had another copy. Kohler, Jahrb.
XI , p. Sehriften, n, p. After collating Graesse's text with the early manuscripts of the Judas legend -where it is not a portion of the Legenda Aurea, I find it impossible to infer anything certain with regard to the relationship of the various texts. Lc and Lv are doubtless the earliest; and it is probably safer to say that both are copies of an earlier text, now unknown, than that they are copies one of the other. LI probably derives from an early text of Lc, or from the assumed parent of Lc and Lv, or from a sister text to Lc and Lv; but the presence of the hucusque pas- sage in LI and in one of its known forerunners would render it reasonably safe to infer that LI is more closely related to the antecedent text which contains that test sen- tence i.
Still the evidence is far from conclusive, and in many important variants Lv is closer to LI and Lc than any of the other early texts. In view of the enormous and apparently immediate pop- ularity of the Legenda Aurea, most of the manuscripts of the Judas legend which resemble the version adopted by Jacopo and which postdate his work are a priori likely to be copies from the great legendary ; but this a priori proba- bility should not blind us to the fact that a separate ver- sion of the story, Type E , giving essentially the same mat- ter in different language, not only existed by the side of the Legenda Aurea version, but actually, as it seems from the number of manuscripts in which it is found, rivalled it in frequency of repetition.
That the legend should exist in these two so similar forms in such a large number of manu- scripts is important evidence of the hold it took on the mediaeval mind. Type H. Type H is the longest and most elaborate version of the Judas legend. It is represented by three manuscripts two of which Hr and Hb are of the thir- teenth century, and one Hd of the fourteenth. All three were written in the north-east of France. Hr was published in extenso by Professor Rand, who knew only the one manuscript. I am unable at present to give the variants of Hd except for the first two paragraphs; the general character of the text will appear, however, from this partial collation.
Pater Iude Scarioht de tribu Dan duxit uxorem generis sui secundum legis preceptum. Qui ingressus ad earn impregnavit earn. Ipsa autem nocte vidit mulier presagium malorum in sompno, videlicet presagium malorum suorum. Videbat igoem 1 Jude symonis seariothis talis ortus, talis uite prouectus, talis fuit exitus. Pater eius de tribu dan. Qua consumpta prodigiosum monstrum in eosdem ortus hoc est in utero suo, mater agnovit.
Ignis vero non totum se recondebat 10 sed interiecto longi temporis spacio inde iterum quasi modera- cius se subducebat et subito in altum excrescens primo Iudeam et Galileam deinde omnem circa regionem afflabat et penitus concre- mabat; ad ultimum urbem regiam David Iherusalem et arcem Syon una cum sancto et venerabili templo corripiebat et omnia 15 in cinerem et favillam redigens concremabat. Ita mulier in medio visu subito exterrita evigilavit et ingenti clamore et gemitu horrorem visionis sue testata maritum excitavit; que- renti quid esset, quid haberet, quid clamaret, quid fleret, visa sua exposuit.
Ille prodigioso sompno attonitus diluculo sur- 20 rexit et cum uxore in Iherusalem abiit erat enim in vico Scarioth qui est ante Iherusalem ad aquilonarem urbis plagam unus de sacerdotibus Domini magni vir meriti venitque ad eum cum uxore sua seorsumque abducens prodigialem illius visionem ei indicavit.
Qua ille audita visione permotus inge- 25 muit diuque stupens et quasi mutus tandem in hanc prophecie vocem ora resolvit. Sed 30 placate Deum precibus penitentia votis et muneribus ut avertat Dominus iram sue indignationis a vobis. Non] nee tamen 6. Se recondebat] terrendum dabat r. Se] sese 6. Inde iterum om d. David Iher. Arcem] archem 6. Quid fleret om. Urbis] urbem d. Venitque] conuenit 6. Ad eum cum] eumque 6. Abducens om. Mulier misera] mi- sera misera mulier 6. Filius] filium r. Prius] post d. Votis om. Sed non est possibilitatis humane convertere consilium ordinationis divine.
Me de quo postea passivus pro salute mundi dixit Filius Dei, " Melius illi erat si natus non fuisset homo ille," cum natus 40 statim debuit occidi, reservatus est in perdicionem sui, in tra- ditionem Domini Ihesu Christi, in nutrimentum ignis eterni, in memoriam patrum suorum, et in recordacionem peccati misere matris sue. Pugnaverunt diu affectus pietatis et timor patrie; et voluit diu pater pius esse.
Noluit ipse prius nocens esse 45 interficiendo eum quern nondum noverat aliquid quod morte puniri deberet commisisse. Porro autem pie sollicitabatur pro salute patrie mallens unum innocentem adhuc et filium suum suis maioribus interire quam per ilium succedenti tempore tocius patrie ruinam videre. Vicit tandem amor patrie utros- 50 que parentes clausumque in cistella lignea puerum superata pie- tate proiecerunt in mare.
Inhorruisse ferunt pelagus mox ut sensit prodigiale onus, totiusque fluctibus frementes torsisse vertices et futurum sui conditoris venditorem tortis impulisse fluctibus ut et futurum latronem dissecaret et collideret suis 55 molibus et oecultaret profundis gurgitibus priusquam venditor audax horrendum seclis omnibus perpetraret facinus. Miser Iuda et infelicissime, quo tuo vel tuorum parentum crimine contigit tibi tot tantisque malis natum esse? Cur misera ilia mater tua cum te concepit non statim abortivit? Cur autem 60 natus? Cur exceptus genibus? Cur lactatus uberibus?
Cur natus non statim es paternis et maternis manibus necatus? Esset certe modo tibi melius; parricidale autem crimen fuisset 32 hec om. Hec dixit om.
Divi- natione] divinationem r. Est om. In ante nutrim. Timor] timor? Futurum] auarum 6. Crimine contigit] contigitur crimine 6. Cur autem vel in mare proiectus non statim es mersus et a tanto abysso suf- 65 focatus? Esset tibi vel mare vel aliquis beluinus venter sepul- chrum nee postea celo terreque perosus tarn infelici morte peris- sea inter utrumque. Sed cum mori poteras adhuc sine crimine, pepercit tibi inter fluctus nescio quis deus, quamvis ether, venti et pelagus ut perires totis pugnabat viribus.
Incertum 70 est, inquam, quis deus hoc discrimine te eripuit; et elementa dum te laborant obruere, visa sunt pocius obsequium tibi pres- titisse. Actus enim tot fluctibus fertur unius diei et noctis spacio, ab Ioppe civitate Galilee transvectus per tot maria usque ad horam Illirici maris usque Bitradum et ad introitum 75 pervenit, ad hanc famosam alitricem Iude traditoris. Vbi mane piscator quidam egressus sagenam suam in mare misit, quam vacuam quidem piscibus sed oneratam cistella Iude ad littus adduxit. Quam acceptam mox ad uxorem suam attulit dicens- que magnum thesaurum invenisse qui inopiam sublevaret gratu- 80 labundus ostendit.
Sed effracta cistella et detecta spes expec- tati thesauri nulla fuit. Nihil enim in cistella aliud invener- unt nisi puerum vaginentem et membranam parvulam hec verba continentem: Hie infantulus est Iudas de vico Scarioth qui est ante Iherusalem. Qui postquam adolevit Grecorum rit autem r; parricidari; tantum Rand. Galilee] galylee 6. Cistella] cistellam r.
Invenisse] invenisset 6. Inopiam] eos inopia r. Expectati] expec- tata 6. Quern] qui 6. In filium] proprium r. Hec om. Et om. Erat acer corpore et ingenio animi. Factum est autem ut consuetudi- naria institutione decreto principum Bithordi quinquennalis 95 agon in honore Iovis Olimpiadi celebraretur, ubi cum urbibus, vicis, castellis, oppidis agrisque studium ostendende virtutis et cupido laudis et spes palme multos alliceret.
Iudasque af- fuit inter alios et super ceteros agonistas clarissimus victor emicuit. Quod aliqui invidentes et indigne ferentes cum cap- tivus et advena indigenis et nobilibus civibus se comparare auderet, cum gravi opprobrio ei obiciunt eumque de agonali ludo non sine iniuria expellunt. Ille gravi ira permotus ad matrem, quern adhuc credebat suam, furibundus venit, exer- toque in earn nimis ferociter gladio, quis ipse aut unde aut cuius Alius esset aut quomodo illuc venisset aut cur tanto tempore matrem eius se mentita fuisset, earn fateri coegit.
Ilia unde aut quando illus venisset aut quomodo a marito suo pis- catore inventus, quomodo ab ilia nutritus quod adoptivus filius esset ei indicavit. Oeterum quis aut cuius filius esset, quomodo etiam illuc venisset se nescire respondit, simul et cartulam cum illo in cistella inventam ei protulit. Inde navim conscendens in Syriam proficiscentem paucis post diebus in Ioppen portu expositus ad urbem Iherusalem per- venit.
Erat eo tempore in Iherusalem Poneius Pylatus procu- rator rerum publicarum a Romanis in Iudeam missus. Ei Bithordi] bithor r; bithroci b. Ostendende] ostend er e r. Affuit inter alios] in- ter alios affuit b. Tanto om. Quidem compressit] comp. In] Rand; eu m r; om. Virgil, Aen. Accidit autem quadam die ut Pylatus deambularet per solarium domus in qua manebat. Aspiciens vicum Scarioth vidit in orto unius pau- peris dactilos in palma pendere et desideravit ex eis comedere. Vocansque unum ex astantibus misit et de fructu sibi afferre iussit.
Ille abiit, sed prohibente domino pomerii carpere suos fructus, inanis ad presidem rediit. Ille ita commotus, " Et quis," ait, "adhuc ibit pro nobis? Irruens Iudas cum furore palmam excussit, deinde quos excusserat fructus collegit. Et conversus contumax turbatis oculis in patrem suum nesciebat autem quod pater suus esset , " Our non " inquit, " o decrepite senex et me repellis? Our non et mihi contradictis? Depone, inquam, quod meum est," ingeminavit et quod collegerat de palla illi excussit. Iudas ut leo frendens nil id tale promeri- tum senem patrem suum fuste percussit diminutoque eius cerebro morientem et suam ulcionem deo clamantem dimisit et recollectos fructus paterno sanguine respersus presidi attulit.
Audita morte innocentis fit de tota urbe concursus, oritur gra- vis sedicio et furentis populi confusa vociferacio illis clamanti- bus, " Homicida exhibeatur," aliis autem succinentibus eciam, " Et preses cum sua domo ignibus subiciatur. Accitaque muliere cuius erat maritus occisus, consilio seniorum et per- aspiciens] aspiciensque 6. Scarioth] scarioht. Carpere] capere r. Pro om. Iudas] Iudas ait 6. Turbatis oculis om. Cur] cui? Cur non. Deo] deum 6. Respersus] respersit 6. Autem om. Ne quod ergo nephas intactum, ne quod scelus illi esset inausum, fit impius parricida matris maritus; et ut omnino Veritas attestaretur sompnio, in suos ortus monstrum revolvitur.
Sed nichil tarn occultum quod non reveletur neque absconditum quod non sciatur. Cepit detestari sua tempora in que nimirum infeliciter vivendo pervenerat. Iudas tacito auscultans uxorem et eandem suam matrem cepit diligenter ab ea scrutari et querere textum huius tragedie. At vero postquam omnia audi- vit seque et ex visione matris et ex litteris secum in cistella inventis recognovit detestatus patris parricidium, obscenum matris adulterium, "Et que crudelis fortuna me miserum per- sequitur?
Si par- ricida patris, si adulter futurus eram matris, nonne melius fuerat adhuc latuisse sub undis? Nonne melius fuerat oppro- bria nobilis Grecie pertulisse quam tarn infami crimine me ipsum perdidisse? Sed mi- sera mater eadem obscena uxor librantis dextre ictum sustinuit. Correpta itaque temeraria ira filii mariti et amentia ut tandem persuasu om. Abhorrere] aborrere 6. Vero om. Itaque] atque b. Emit igitur ambo et fusis genibus omnia que sibi even- erant seriatim indicant. Quid faciant quomodo hec crimina expient orant cum lacrimis ut sibi consulat.
Ille attonitus rerum novitate et sui vaticinii veritate nullum super hac re consilium in se esse dixit. Tamen consulit ut Iesum magni iam nominis et meriti virum adeant et ut ei suarum miserarum tragedias narrent, eius super tantis malis et peccatis consilium et auxilium postulent, eius pietati et misericordie se commen- dent. Erat enim iam illo tempore Dominus Iesus miraculorum potentia clarus, tamque doctrina et predicatione divina quam signorum mirabilium attestatione credebatur a fidelibus plus quam homo inter homines esse.
Ilium Iudas cum matre ux- oreque adiit affususque pedibus eius criminis sui omnem his- toriam ei detexit, veri etiam penitentis habitum, luctum et lacrimas pretendit. Dominus autem Iesus intuitus hominem et quod noverat ab initio qui essent credentes, sciens quam longe esset a regno Dei, tamen ne desperatione salutis cogeretur amplius periclitari, " Potes," inquit, " adhuc salvus fieri si digne penitueris, sed et hec et cetera peccata deinceps vitaveris nee etiam ad maiora te inclinaveris, et ut omnis occasio pec- candi ulterius tibi tollatur, reiectis omnibus impedimentis et secularibus negociis sequere me meque imitando in veritate vitam eternam habere poteris.
The artistically effective if somewhat pious ending of Hr and Hd did not, it seems, satisfy the scribe of Hb. Being of those who wish to hear explic- itly the end of the story, he borrowed, practically word for word, the simple closing sentences of the Type K ver- sion: "Saluatoris igitur nostri Ihesu Christi per quern Divinaverat] eis div.
Fusis genibus] affusi genibus illius b. Evenerant] perven- erant 6. Eius om. Initio] inicio r. The variants of Hr and Hb throw some light on the history of this version.
The very different readings of the sentence beginning " qua consumpta " 1. The text of the original was probably : " Qua consumpta prodigiosum monstrum in eosdem ortus, hoc est in utero suo, mater agnovit; ignis uero non totum se recondebat, sed interiecto longi tem- poris spacio inde iterum quasi moderacius se subducebat " ; that is, " after it [the house] was consumed, the mother perceived the monstrum [had reentered] in that place, namely, her womb; and yet the fire had not altogether withdrawn, but after some time again retired, with rather less violence.
The writing of the original, or of the copy or copies which the scribes of Hr, Hb, and Hd may have used, was perhaps none too careful and distinct. For "se reconde- bat " r miswrote " terrendum dabat," which is meaning- less ; and b, omitting the three words " mater agnovit ; ignis," wrote " nee tamen " for " uero non. If r pre- serves the reading of the original and there is no reason a It is possible that the original read : " prod.
It is possible, to be sure, that the original had something illegible, which r emended successfully, and which b did not; but one would rather postulate between b and the original an intermediate text in which the pas- sage was somewhat corrupt. At all events, it is clear that b is not a copy of r, nor r a copy of b; that the manuscripts of Type H had a some- what complicated history ; and that this complexity points to the existence of more and earlier manuscripts than have so far been found.
There are two poetical, or metrical, versions of the legend, each found in two manuscripts. The oldest of the four versions, Pi, in a Munich codex of the thir- teenth century, was published by Mone in Py con- tains the same poem. While no earlier text than LI was known this might well have been considered as self-evident from a comparison "A.
Du Meril I. Professor Rand, overlooking the thirteenth-century manuscript, said of Pz which postdates even Py "finally the story was told in verse" p. It appears fairly clear that the author of Pi had some early manuscript of Type E under his eyes, and probably even of Type H.
Compare, for example, vv. But the idea of the last two verses surely appears to be taken from the opening of Type H — there is, at any rate, no parallel to it in Type L or Type E. Again, " praevalet inpietas pietati " v. Compare, finally, Tandem vimineae puer inmissus Cyboreae apte viscellae fluctus datur inde procellae, with " Cistella uimine contexitur," etc. Vis- cella agrees with Type L, which has fiscella, while Type E has cistella, but the two words could be easily confused in manuscript if not very carefully written; but, on the other hand, vimina and procella seem to be borrowed from Type E.
Verbal correspondences with the Type L ver- sion are frequent throughout, and the story is essentially the same. The similarity to Type H in vv. However that may he, the case for the familiarity of the author of Pi with some manuscript of Type R seems to me pretty strong. The other poetical version is found in two manuscripts of the fifteenth century, Pz and Px. The poet was a man of some individuality, and his proem is worth quoting: Cunctorum veterum placuere poemata multum, Nunc nova scribentem plebs irridet quasi stultum, Divicie modulis musarum prevaluere, Nemo placet populis, nisi quisquis habundat in ere.
Unde satis vereor, iam cum nova metra propino, Invidus irrisor me mordeat ore canino. Una tamen vires scripture res mihi prestat, Quod sanctos eciam reproborum lingua molestat: Jeronimus pater egregius triplex ydeoma Noverat et nobis doctrine misit aroma; Non timuit livor huic obvius ire magistro, Latratu lacerans illius seripta sinistro. Talibus exemplis nrmatus, carbasa ventis Exponam.
Faveat mihi virtus omnipotentis! Rem referam gestam, que non est cognita multis. Obsecro vos, socii, carmen qui discere vultis, Quod, si pars operis vobis non vera videtur, Non mea sed primi culpa scriptoris habetur. Non ego materiam nugaci pectore fingo, Sed mihi narratam puerili carmine pingo. Thus after a hrave beginning the poet proceeds with his tale in a language which some centuries later would he termed 'poetic diction,' adding a large gnomic element, and drawing freely for images from earlier literature.
In other words, a modern poet of the fifteenth century taking his matter from modern times will challenge the ancients in their own language — an Ovid say brought down to date. At line Judas is made one of Jesus's disciples, hut the poet goes on for more than a hundred lines, alternating Biblical and purely ' poetical ' materials. The poet's debt to the Legenda Aurea is put beyond question by his paraphrase in the same heavy, mannered fashion of the moral reflections on the death of Judas that close Jacopo's version.
Now this heroic endeavor to hoist the legend of Judas into the realm of poetry is a pretty sad failure. The poet had a great deal against him and very little on his side. But it is intensely interesting to see on the one hand how the legend made a considerable appeal to a man of poetic aspirations, and on the other that down to the very end of the mediaeval period, when Latin as a literary language had made almost its last stand, the feeling still maintained itself that a revival of the old tongue as a medium for the highest expression of the new life was possible and desirable.
This version is perhaps from the point of view of pure literature the apogee reached by the legend of Judas. Type M Miscellaneous. For various reasons the fol- lowing manuscripts cannot be included in any of the above categories. Mw contains a prose rendering of the legend which, while it is essentially the same story as Type RL, offers certain unimportant divergencies, and is textually quite different.
It begins " In ciuitate Iherusalem erat uir nomine ruben. He killed his father; the cognati entered a complaint; Pilate forced the woman to marry her husband's slayer; finally, in the same fashion as in Type RL, the incest was revealed and Judas sought Christ's mercy. Following the legend, however, which oc- cupies three columns, are four columns of Biblical mat- ter, a very much larger proportion than in any of the redactions hitherto mentioned. Perhaps the apocryphal part was meant to lure the reader on to something more devout and substantial, although there is apparently no explicit moral; or possibly this was intended as a com- plete comprehensive account of all that was known in connexion with Judas.
It begins : " Legitur de ortu Iude filii symeonis scariothis qui tradiderat Christum pro xxx" argenteos. Quod mater eius sompnium haberat de eo. I am indebted to notes kindly lent me by Professor Band. B; see Teschen- dorf, Evangelia Apocrypha, 2nd ed. It is still current in various parts of Europe. Erat enim pater eius astrologus qui eadem nocte in qua genitus fuerat Iudas respexit planetas et uidit et ita intimauit uxori sue quod siquis eadem hora noctis generaret filium quod ille Alius patrem proprium occideret et dominum suum detraheret et se ultimo laqueo suspenderet.
Quod factum est sicut prophetauit. Nam statim pater predicti infelieis Iude accessit ad uxorem suam nee se potuit abstinere et filium iniquitatis pro- creauit. Qui patrem proprium submersit dominum fefellit laqueo se suspendit et sic patet eius origo et eius ffinis. We may now briefly review and summarize the material thus far presented. We have at least one version of the legend, Type A, which is undoubtedly of the twelfth century. If, as we commonly suppose, the original purpose of the legend was to render as black and repulsive as possible the man who had been the immediate cause of the death of Jesus, then we must take for granted the passage of some time between the first appearance of the story and the composition of Type A.
The twelfth- century author of this version could hardly have been the originator of the legend, for it is neither natural nor prob- able that one would invent such a horrible ' life ' for Judas and then treat him with the longsuffering patience mani- fest in this narrative — " qui perseveraverit usque in finem in bonum, hie salvus erit.
The existence of two closely parallel versions in the thir- teenth century is significant. Moreover, three distinct versions of the legend existed side by side ; and four or more different forms of the story are distinguishable. Of Type A only one text has survived. The Type EL version lasted from somewhere in the twelfth century until well into the fifteenth. For Type H we have two thirteenth-century and one fourteenth-century texts. The first type stands in most regards quite alone; the second and third are intimately related; the fourth is a special rendering, in certain ways related to the first.
It is unnecessary to point out the verbal agreements between Type R and Type L: they are so frequent that a relationship between the two versions is undeniable. Whichever is the earlier, the other must have copied from it; — or perhaps, as Professor Rand thinks, both derived from the same antecedent version. From the slight evi- dence which we can piece together it is impossible to draw any demonstrable conclusion, but I incline to the opinion that Type L is a development from Type R.
The origin of the latter can safely be put in the twelfth century, that of the former we have no means of dating before the early thirteenth century; and while such an argument is not conclusive, it is the best available now. In view of the so-called canonization of Type L in the Legenda Awrea, it might be expected to throw Type R quite into shadow ; but Type R was thought worthy of reproduction two whole centuries after the compilation of the Legenda Awrea,, and in point of popularity was a formidable rival of Type L throughout the thirteenth century.
A reason for this might be the priority of Type R: the story of Judas was well known before its inclusion in the Legenda Awrea and known in another earlier form than that chosen by Jacopo, and the popularity of this earlier form persisted. And this earlier popu- larity of Type R slightly strengthens the hypothesis of its being the source of Type L ; for some good clerk, observing the faults of the old version — and they are obvious enough — may have undertaken to revise and improve it Like the majority of revisers, he brought with him as many imperfections as he took away.
The rather formal open- ing : " in diebus Herodis regis Pylato preside " gave way, on this hypothesis, to the simple " fuit quidam vir. The Type R version omitted to inform the reader at once that the garden into which Judas went for the apples belonged to his father. This rather unskilful omission was remedied by the author of Type L ; and then, in order to avoid any possible doubt, he added that father and son did not recognize each other.
Ciborea's lament he expanded, and elaborated the revela- tion of the sacrilege. In removing Pilate's dragged-in philosophical observation borrowed from Lucan when he could not overcome his passion for his neighbor's apples, the author of Type L effected a genuine improvement. The pedissequae, who figure rather prominently in Type R, were reduced to a prefix in precepit.
But the crowning achievement of the redactor was the introduction of the moralizing on Judas's death. This, splendidly mediaeval in spirit, he perhaps borrowed, or rather developed, from a passage of Candidus ca. Non enim dignus erat ut vel ccelum tangeret moriens, vel terram; sed inter utraque periit, qui utrorumque Domi- 28 M.
The importance of Type H as evidence not so much of the date as of the development of the legend is consider- able. The main difference between this version and the legend as it appears in Type KL Professor Rand believes M " Et suspensus crepuit medius. Non enim tam viliter debuit inquinari, quod tam gloriosum scilicet os Christi, contigerat. Dignum enim erat, ut viscera quae proditionem conceperant rupta caderent, guttur quoque quo vox proditionis exierat laqueo arctaretur. Saepe enim modum pcense ex- primit modus culpas. Unde absciditur homini caput corporis, quia ipse sibi abscidit caput mentis, id est rationem, sicut et Judas mor- tuus est in aere, tanquam aeris potestatibus sociandus.
Congruum enim erat, ut separaretur ab angelorum et hominum regione, qui offensus fuerat utrisque. Type L says: " 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. Dig- num enim erat ut viscera quae proditionem conceperant rupta cade- rent et guttur, a quo vox proditoris exierat, laqueo artaretur.
In aere etiam interiit, ut qui angelos in ccelo et homines in terra offen- derat, ab angelorum et hominum regione separaretur et in aere cum daemonibus sociaretur. These important coincidences between P [i. Type A relates : the father saw in a vision that his son would murder him; the son, soon after birth, was exposed in a wood, brought to Scar- ioth, and when grown put in the service of Herod; in compliance with the desire of his master, Judas went to fetch fruit from a neighbor's garden, and slew his father ; Herod, to quiet the enraged populace, married Judas to the slain man's widow; mother and son recognized each other by the scar of a wound inflicted when the child was exposed, and sought and obtained Christ's forgiveness.
The author of the Type H version, being a good classicist, expanded this story with material taken from the sources that he knew best. The father's vision he made into the mother's dream, and took his idea for this and the burn- ing fire-brand probably from the legend of Hecuba. The agonistic games, given the idea of a quarrel as the motive for his returning to Jerusalem, would come naturally from Virgil, since iEneas had already instituted them at Buthrotum.
After this point the story follows Type A with elaboration but with no change of incident until the recognition. Type H is further related to the Gregory legend by the expressed moral : " potes adhuc salvus fieri si digne penitueris. Such a scheme of development is admittedly too sim- ple to be certain;. I offer it merely as a tentative sugges- tion, — and indeed more than that, in view of the paucity of accessible data, is scarcely possible.
We have seen that the legend enjoyed two metrical redactions, one almost at the beginning of its popularity, the other at the close of the Middle Ages. The opening lines of the former, Pi, are of some interest. Dicta vetusta patrum iam deseruere teatrum Et nova succedunt, quae prisca poemata laedunt. Ergo novis quaedam placet ut nova versibus edam Quae discant multi novitatis stemmate culti, Et me, si quis amet, legat et per compita clamet. The fifth verse was taken by D'Ancona to mean that the author was making an effort to introduce the legend into the literature of the people.
From this single verse he generalizes thus: the legend of Judas did not penetrate into the " coscienza popolare " although it is found " in monumenti di letteratura popolare, o per dir meglio, des- tinata al popolo. 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 mis- leading. Constans, copying from D'Ancona, repeats this, but notes pp. M Professor Rand drew my attention to this Ovidianism ; cf.
Istrin published a short article on Die grie- chische Version der Judas-legende, at the end of which he printed two Greek texts of the legend. One of these was taken from a manuscript no. In the Catalogue of the Greek Man- uscripts on Mt. Athos Cambridge, by Spyr. Lampros, i, p. Istrin gave no indication of the date of the manuscript. The other Greek text Istrin took from a brochure published at Athens in by a Mt.
Athos monk. There are, moreover, two other manu- scripts at Mt. At present I can discuss only A and B. In most regards A represents the simpler and probably Nequitiam vinosa tuam convivia narrant, Narrant in multas conpita Becta vias. Inasmuch as the texts themselves are easily accessible in the Archiv I shall simply outline the version given by A and indicate the differences in B. His father's name was Robel; no name is given for his mother. Her husband reproached her for putting any faith in dreams.
Opposite Iskara — B, Iskaria — was an island, to which the child drifted; and there he was cared for by shepherds and named Judas because he came from the Jews — B omits the source of his name. When he was grown they took him to Iskara — B, the city of Iskaria — to be reared. Here he was adopted by his own father and mother, although they did not suspect it was their own son.
Another son was born to them soon after, and the two children grew up together. But Judas, being of an evil nature, often struck — B, con- tinually maltreated — his brother — because, as B explains, he was avaricious and eager for his share of the patrimony — ; so that his mother — B, his parents — upbraided him. Some time after that, owing to a disturbance at Iskara, Robel and his wife moved to Jerusalem and took a fine house with a garden near Herod's palace;— -B elaborates a picture of the garden. On account of the lapse of time father and son did not recognize each other; — B omits this statement.
As he was stealing the fruit he was met by his father, who demanded an expla- nation — in B Judas said he came from the king — but seeing no one near he killed his father with a stone, just as he had killed his brother, and carried the fruit to Herod. To the widow herself Herod sent word apologetically — in B gave command — and said: it is my royal wish that you should take a second husband or forfeit your wealth to the king. When she heard this she was persuaded — in B instantly obeyed — to marry Judas in order to retain her prop- erty.
Judas and his wife lived together some time, and she bore him several sons. One day, however, she withdrew from his company and pondering on the past wept bitterly. On being questioned by Judas she repeated her sad experiences, and he perceived finally that she was his own mother — the scene of recognition is somewhat briefer in B. When she learned that she had married her son she gave way to vehement expressions of grief; and Judas, as soon as he saw what evils his avarice had wrought, turned in repentance to Jesus, who was then in Jerusalem, was made a disciple and steward; but stole monies and sent them to his wife and children: — the whole conclu- sion, in A somewhat confused, is more fully and carefully expressed in B; B adds also briefly the betrayal and death of Christ.
This story of the life of Judas, though so different from the Latin versions in many details, is nevertheless patently of the same piece. In point of completeness, that is, in comparative development of the legend, it must occupy an intermediate place between the earliest Latin version, Type A, and the usual mediaeval version, Type RL, approaching much nearer the latter. The differences are obvious. The native land of Judas is Iskara, Iskaria, hut the island is without a name ; whereas in the Latin Iskara has been transferred to the island.
Judas is rescued in the Greek version not by a queen but by shepherds ; he is adopted by his own father, not by a stranger, and thus in killing his own brother he is guilty of a much blacker crime. The description of the fratricide especially in B is reminiscent of the murder of Abel in a much more definite way than in the Latin. The figure of Herod in the Greek points, I think, to an earlier form of the legend: as ruler of Judsea Herod would be the more natural personage to choose, especially as long as the name had no connotative value.
Later, in the West, when Pilate had become a hated figure, it would be more likely to place side by side those two ' wicked birds ' who had brought about the death of Jesus. The Greek versions, besides making Judas guilty of slaying his blood brother, add further to his wickedness by having him propose to Herod the theft of his neighbor's fruit. In both Latin and Greek versions the sudden marriage of the widow is ill managed, but the Greek B gains a certain kind of veri- similitude by offering her the alternative of marrying or losing her property. All these differences seem to indicate that the Greek versions are in some way or other redactions of a Western original.
Although we have no absolute evidence that they are older than the sixteenth century, still we may assume with considerable confidence that they go back to a much earlier time; for it would be unreasonable to sup- pose, if they are as late as the sixteenth century, that they PAULL FRANKLIN BATJM would be so different from the Western Latin and vernacu- lar versions which by the end of the thirteenth century had attained their full development.
Such a supposition would carry with it the assumption of a totally independ- ent origin ; and that is both unlikely and unnecessary. Vernacular Versions We do not find the legend of Judas in the vernacular until the end of the thirteenth or beginning of the four- teenth century.
Although the cast of characters was quite different — for the most part, young women from affluent Viennese families, who consulted Freud because of mysterious physical ailments that appeared to have no organic cause — they told strikingly similar tales of fathers or male family friends who had coerced them into covert sexual activity. It is the moralistic bourgeois society as a whole that restricts individual fulfillment. Jan van Herwaarden , Op weg naar Jacobus. Plebs leta- tur, primates congratulantur. Meyrink tells of meditating outside and wondering to himself how late it had become. Ehrhard Bahr presents in his contribution Art and Society in Thomas Manns Early Novellas close readings of novellas written from to , with special emphasis on Tonio Krger, and of the dramatic dialogue Fiorenza.
But from this time onward it appears in varying forms, scattered across the whole of Europe, in almost every language. In general it may be said that throughout the West the vernacular versions are taken more or less directly from the Legenda Aurea; but on account of the essential similarity between Type L and its frequently copied companion, Type R, it is never quite possible to determine which of these was the source. On the other hand, while there are Western versions which certainly do not derive from Type RL, or indeed from any known Latin source, the Russian and Bulgarian versions appear to be simply copies from the Legenda Aurea.
At present no precise scheme of the derivation and sources of the vernacular versions can be worked out ; and it is doubt- ful if such a stemma will ever be possible. The earliest English version of the legend is found in the South-English legendary, compiled in the last quarter of the thirteenth century. Our oldest manuscript, Laud. Egerton , Ashmole 43, Lambeth , and Vernon, which contain this same legendary with various omissions and additions, all four leave out the legend of Judas.
But on the other hand mss. Corpus Christi Col- lege, Cambridge, fol.
The text of Har- leian , the oldest complete version of the legendary, is very corrupt, and shows that even as early as the begin- ning of the fourteenth century the collection had had some- thing of a history. It is quite certain that this Mirrour of Saints' Lives 3 was compiled at about the same time as 1 Harleian was edited in full in the Transactions of the Philo- logical Society, Furnivall, Berlin, Judas is on pp.
According to Horstmann, MS. Philips at Chelten- ham is a later copy of Harleian I am indebted for many of the above statements to Horstmann's introduction to his Alteng- lische Legenden, Paderborn, , and Altenglische Legenden, Neue Folge, Heilbronn, A concise statement of- the results of his investigations of the relationship of the various mss.
Such a labor was undertaken simultaneously in England and in Italy. Jacopo da Voragine probably made some preliminary col- lections before he published so to say his finished work, and we know that the English legendary did not spring full-formed from the mind of any single monk; it was more or less of a gradual growth. There is nothing to prove, of course, that the Legenda Aurea did not later exercise a certain influence on the English collection, but similarities between it and the English collection as it stood at the end of the century are to be considered the result of a use of common sources rather than of inter- dependence.
The legend of Judas did not belong as has been said to the first English collection. When it was added later, but still probably in the thirteenth century, it was natur- ally placed at the end, not merely as an appendage, but also because Judas Iscariot was decidedly outside the pale of honored saints. Afterwards it was seen that, like the story of the destruction of Jerusalem, the legend of Judas would have a kind of dramatic value if placed immedi- ately after the Passion of Christ, — just as the Erench made it a part of the ' vengeance ' of our Lord. This manuscript I have been unable to trace.
Unless otherwise indicated, however, the quota- tions will be from Furnivall's text Harl. In all the manuscripts, moreover, the life of Pilate either fol- lows or precedes the life of Judas, and contains a reference to the Judas legend : Iudas was J? Thiborie was a shrew, and one night she dreamed she had borne a child which was a curse before the whole world.
She told her husband that if she found she had conceived she should believe the dream a true premonition. When her time came she explained the situation to her friends, but they knew not what to do, for all were loth either to murder the child or to bring it up. Finally they placed it in a barayl, cast it upon the sea, and it came to the isle of Cariot whence Judas received his name.
There, a child manlich and fair, it was picked up by the queen and made heir to the realm. One day Pilate and his steward went out to play ; vnder an orchard Pilate saw some fine apples and bade Judas climb over for them. It was his father's orchard, but Judas did not know it. From the complaints uttered by Thiborie Judas became aware of his crime, and at her instance joined himself to the company of Jesus. But a schrewe he was al his lyf: he stole from the purse to' recover his loss resulting from the waste of Magdalen's ointment, and then sold his Master for thirty pence. As a thief he deserved hanging, and since no one would do it for him he was obliged to hang himself.
His wombe to-berste amidde atuo: bo he schulde deye His gvttes fulle to grounde: menie men hit iseye ber wende out a liber gost: atte moub hit nemijte For he custe er oure louerd: bervib m i,i vnrijte Nou swete louerd bat burf Iudas: isold wer to be treo Schuld ous fram be libere stede: ber we weneb bat he beo: Amen. In incidents the English poem agrees closely with the Latin Type RL, — the mother's consulting with her friends with regard to what shotild be done with the infant is about the only variation.
Both the English and Type EL are further connected by the birds-of-a-feather idea of the union of Pilate and Judas, and especially Type L by the hint of the moralizing on Judas's death. Whether the English poet used Type B or Type L it is impossible and unimportant to determine; and, of course, he may have known them both. But from its close adherence to the Latin Type BL, from its association in the manuscripts with the life of Pilate, and from its inclusion in a collection of legends which was contemporary with and independent of the Legenda Aurea although we have no manuscript of this collection before ca.
A passing mention of the early life of Judas occurs in John Mirk's Festial of English sermons, 8 composed, 6 Such a ms. John's College, Cambridge, Lo ; see above, p.
lazirumamyde.cf: Der Geschwisterinzest im Gregorius von Hartmann von Aue ( German Edition) eBook: Morgana Perkow: Kindle Store. Studienarbeit aus dem Jahr im Fachbereich Germanistik - Ältere Deutsche Literatur, Mediävistik, Note: 3,0, Technische Universität Dresden (Institut für.
Horstmann, Heilbronn, , 1, pp. Legenden, N. Theodore Erbe E. In the chapter ' De Festo S. Mathie ' we read simply that Judas, before becoming a disciple, had " slayne his owne fadyr, and bylayn his owne modyr. Of the source there can be no question : it was the Legenda Aurea. The legend appears again in English verse in a poem entitled Suspendio Judce, a later addition to the Towneley Mysteries. My fathers name was ruben, right; Sibaria my moder hight; Als he her knew apon a nyght All fleshle early printed books; by the end of the fifteenth century it had sup- planted in popularity the South-English Legendary discussed above.
See also Horstmann, Altengl. Edited also by G. England and A. Pollard for E. Only a fragment of it is preserved. The poem appears to follow the usual tradition of Type EL, but it ends abruptly at the point where the Queen of Scariott bears a child of her own after having adopted Judas. Apart from this monologue appended to the Towneley mystery the legend of Judas is not found in any of the early English plays.
I know of but one French version of the legend earlier than the fifteenth century — the rather pre- tentious poem of lines, published by D'Ancona in from a manuscript in the Turin library which bears the date of June His elaborate invocation finished, the poet begins the story — Au tans que Herodes fu en vie Et qu'il resnoit la signourrie De le terre de Gallilee, Et de Pylate tint Judee Et Iheruaalem autressi, De le lingnie una horn isai De Judaa, qui Eubem ot non.
En Judee manoit cis horn. Une femme ot, ce dist l'istoire, Qui fu apelee Chiboire. M D'Ancona, Introd. For textual emenda- tions see G. Paris in Revue Critique, iv , art. Musaafia in Litterarisohes Centralblatt, no. D'An- cona'a work ia reviewed by E. KShler in Jahrb. S3 , pp. Schriften, Berlin , n, pp. When Ciborea awakes from her fright- ful dream Ruben says, in Type R : " Admiror, inquit, que tanta tristicie causa sic tua uiscera moueri compulerit. Trop m'esmervel, m'amie ciere: Pour coi tu fais ai mate ciere?
C'as tu au tresalir ettt? Pour coi pleures? Je m'en esmervel pour m'ame. In Type R Reuben is exceedingly grieved at the birth of the child and takes on himself the burden of disposing of it, whereas in Type L the parentes face the problem together. Or ne aet il que faire en doie, II ne aet nule bonne voie; Pense que c'est contre nature De maumetre s'engenreure: S'il l'ociat trop iert dealoiaus, Et ai 1' nourist mout fera maus: Ensi porroit bien avenir: Dont ne se set conment maintenir.
The pedisseque of Type R, unmentioned in Type L, are the chambrieres. And finally, the death of Judas is related simply, as in Type R, without any allegorical adornment. The material is purely and simply Biblical, and so open to all comers, but it is mentioned, though only by implication, in the Type L version and entirely omitted from the Type E version; so that it is fair to assume that although the poet was working chiefly with Type R, still he was acquainted with Type L; the more so since he made use of the Type L version's effort to explain away the apparent inconsistency of the and 30 denarii.
The legend is found in a fifteenth-century manuscript at Lille , fol. Cosquin mentions a life of Judas in a manuscript exe- cuted in for William of Terny, provost of Lille, now belonging to Prince Ozartoriski of Cracow. I have been unable to see it; but from the description given by Cos- quin it follows the usual tradition.
Et pour cest matiere declairer plus au long lentrenne par aucunes escriptures que Iudas disciple a nostre seigneur, lequel par sa mauuaise eonnoitise consent] a la mort de Ihesu crist son seigneur et maistre, fut natif de la cite de Iheru- salem, et fut filz de ung riche Juif nomme Rubem, qui eut a femme une noble matrosne nommee Ciboree. Et il aduint par temps con- uenable que Rubem eust de sa femme ung fils nomme depuis Iudas.
Et ainsi que Cyboree estoit enchamte de ce Iudas il aduint que une nuit elle songa que son filz seroit une tres mauuaise personne tout son temps, et que auant quil morust il seroit cause de la destruction de la loy et du poeuple des Iuifs entierement.