MEDIEVAL LIVES OF JUDAS ISCARIOT EDWARD KENNARD RAND The imaginary career of Judas Iscariot proved a fascinating subject in the Middle Ages, and received something like canonization in the Legenda Aurea of Jacopo da Voragine, which presents the earliest Latin form of the legend hitherto discovered. But the familiar story there told presupposes, as Gaston Paris declared,1 an earlier and simpler account. The versions treated in the present paper, while still leaving many questions unanswered, may bring the investigation of this subject somewhat nearer to the goal. An immediate precursor of the account in the Golden Legend may be found in a Vatican manuscript, Palatinus 619 (=V), dated s. XII/XIII in the catalogue of Stevenson-De Rossi. The manuscript contains sermons, legends, and other ecclesiastical matter. On fol. 18 there begins an Hystoria de Iuda Proditore thus: "Mathias apostolus in locum Iude substitutus est. Sed primo ortum 2 et originem ipsius Iude proditoris breviter videamus. Legitur enim in quadam historia quod fuit quidam vir in Ierusalem nomine Ruben, qui alio nomine dictus est Symon de tribu Iuda, qui habuit uxorem quae Ciborea nuncupata est." These are almost the words of Jacopo, except that the latter cautiously adds licet apocrypha after historia, and makes Ruben of the tribe of Dan. The text of the Vatican manuscript agrees thereafter with that of Jacopo word for word, saving a few scribal vagaries, until the strictly Biblical part begins. Just there Jacopo adds: "Hucusque in praedicta historia apocrypha legitur, quae utrum recitanda sit lectoris arbitrio relinquatur, licet sit potius relinquenda quam asserenda." These words are not in V, which has, however, all of the remainder, including the moralizations at the end. Since the script of Vis clearly before the date of Jacopo (1230-1298), we have here the source which he incorporated, almost without change, in his Golden Legend. It is precisely the text the existence of which Gaston Paris had prophetically surmised and the date of which he had assigned to the twelfth century.5 1 Revue Critique, IV (1869), 1, 412 ff., in a review of D'Ancona, La Leggenda di Vergogna e la Leggenda di Giuda. Another important review is that by R. Köhler in Jahrb. für romanische u. englische Lit., XI (1870), 313 ff. In these articles and in L. Constans, La Légende d'Edipe, 1881, references to earlier treatments of the subject will be found. There has been no recent examination, so far as I am aware, of the sources of the Latin story of Judas. 2 ortu V. In the different texts here published I have cited only the most important errors or variants. 3 Legenda Aurea, ed. Graesse, sec. ed., p. 184. I will refer to the version given in Jacopo as L. * See below, p. 312. L adds vel secundum Hieronymum de tribu Ysachar. 5 Revue Critique, IV, 413. Another important document is represented by two copies, one in a Munich manuscript, Latinus 21259 (= M), written in a beautifully clear script of the very end of the twelfth or the beginning of the thirteenth century,1 the other in Paris, Arsenal 387 (= A), s. XIII, formerly of St. Victor. The text of A, though in general less perfect than that of M, is an independent and therefore indispensable source. In MA (= μ), after the story of Pilate, there follows (fol. 231) De Ortu Iude Scariothis, which begins: "Fuit in diebus Herodis regis Pylato preside vir in Iudea Ruben nomine3 ex tribu Iuda,1 qui noctis in tempestate legalibus uxoris sue Cyboree alligabatur amplexibus." The subsequent account is virtually identical in its details and in many of its phrases with V, though there are numerous variations and amplifications. Thus V says of the birth of Judas: "Procedente igitur tempore cum filium peperisset, parentes plurimum timuerunt et quid de eo vellent 5 facere cogitare ceperunt. Cumque filium abhorrerent occidere nec vellent destructorem sui generis enutrire, ipsum in fiscella positum mari exponunt, quem marini fluctus ad insulam quae Scharioth dicitur propulerunt." μ works out this idea with a touch of an Ovidian suasoria, in which, naturally, the feelings of only one of the parents are described: "Ruben vero multis modis et inexplicabilibus involvitur curis. Nefarium enim filium ducit occidi, scelerosum totius gentis destructorem enutriri. Tandem seponitur pietas, preponderat impietas. Cistella vimine contexitur, in qua maris fluctibus iniectus ad insulam Scarioth propellitur." 8 The casket is found, according to V, by the Queen of Scarioth: "Regina autem loci illius carens liberis ad litus maris causa spaciandi processit et fiscellam a marinis fluctibus iactari videns, ipsam aperiri precepit. Inveniensque ibi puerum elegantis forme suspirans ait: 'O si solatiis tante sublevarer 9 sobolis, ne regni mei successore privarer!' 10 Puerum igitur secreto nutriri fecit et se gravidam simulavit. Tandem se filium peperisse mentitur et per totum regnum fama haec celebris divulgatur." The word precepit implies that the queen was not alone when she made the discovery. This suggestion is developed by μ, in which the queen's attendants are given an important part in the action: "Tunc regina huius comitata pedissequis fortuitu ad litus maris processit spatiari, viditque infantulum procellosis maris fluctibus fluctuari. Pedisseque dum accurrunt et vultum pueri diligentius intuentes regieque pulchritudini conparantes domine disserunt 11 et 1 The Munich catalogue of Schmeller-Halm, etc., gives "s. XIII et XIV (mixtus)" as the date, but s. XIV surely does not apply to the part containing Godfrey of Viterbo and the life of Judas. Waitz, in his edition of Godfrey (M. G. H. XXII, 14), calls the manuscript s. XIII. So M fol. 231". A begins without title, fol. 70o. 3 Ruben nomine om. A. 4 rubem A. 5 nollent V. 6 seponitur pietas preponderat A; se p(re)ponit(ur) p(re)pond(er)at (pietas om.) M. The complicated error of M shows that the text of that manuscript has already had something of a history. 8 solacie V. 9 sublevaret V. 7 id' V. 10 These words suggest Dido's appeal in Aen. IV, 327 ff. de longinquis partibus in illas profluxisse asserunt.1 Regina itaque liniamenta corporis pueri preconsiderans et diligenti oculorum intuitu prenotans ait: 'O si solatiis tante subolis sublevarer, ne regni mei successione2 privarer!' Pedisseque infantulum nutriri suggerunt ut vidua sterili permanente habeantur heredes. Regina obsequitur hancque regiam peperisse prolem terram promulgatur in omnem." In certain details, it will be noticed, μ is a bit briefer than V. This feature is especially prominent at the end of the narrative, where, without the lengthy comment on the thirty denarii or the moralizing on the manner of Judas's death, μ has simply: "Hic autem a Domino diligebatur pre ceteris donec consilium iniit cum Iudeis et XXX Dominum vendidit argenteis. Videns autem quia innocentem condempnaverat, proiecto in templo sanguinis precio laqueo se suspendit et medius crepuit. Explicit iste liber." Without denying that μ may be directly based on the version of V, with now an expansion and now a contraction of the original, I incline to the opinion that both μ and follow a source (I will call it y) which, though simpler than either, presented the same essential features of the narrative. These I define as the names of Judas's parents, Ruben and Ciborea; the dream of Ciborea; the exposure of the child in the casket; his discovery by the queen of Scarioth; his quarrel with the real prince, born shortly after Judas's arrival; his detection of his real origin and his flight after slaying the prince; his kindly reception by Pilate; his murder of his own father, a deed wrought by Judas while stealing fruit from the latter's orchard for Pilate; his espousal of his own mother, a favor granted by Pilate in recompense for the stealing of the fruit; the lamentation of the woman over the unhappy fates that had overtaken her child, her husband, and now herself; Judas's immediate recognition of his two-fold sacrilege; his repentance; his entry into the service of Jesus; his betrayal of his Master; his death. A terminus post quem is fixed for the script of M, though not necessarily for the composition of the narrative, by the fact that it is immediately preceded, in the same hand, by the Pantheon of Godfrey of Viterbo, a work finished certainly before 1191, the year of the author's death. A terminus ante quem is offered by the script of M, which, if not still in the twelfth century, should be dated, I am convinced, very early in the thirteenth. To this same period should likewise be assigned. Whatever the exact genealogy of our versions may be, it is safe to assume that a life of Judas comprising the elements given above was known and amplified at least as early as the end of the twelfth century. This evidence does not solve the fundamental query raised by investigators of our subject; it pushes farther back the date of the version adopted by Jacopo da Voragine, but does not account for the growth of the material of profluxisse om.) A. 1 pedisseque aute (m) accessera (n)t (dum accurrunt . . . 2 successione A, m. 1 M; successore m. 2 M. which the story is itself composed. We may next examine a curious modification of the legend, to be found in a manuscript at Reims, 1275 (= R), s. XIII. As often, a Vita Pylati immediately precedes. I give the Vita Iude Scarioht in full (fol. 2 ff.): Pater Iude Scarioht de tribu Dan duxit uxorem generis sui secundum legis preceptum.1 Qui ingressus ad eam impregnavit eam. Ipsa autem nocte vidit mulier presagium malorum in sompno, videlicet presagium malorum suorum. Videbat ignem de utero suo egredientem qui paulatim crescens primo maritum suum corripuit eumque penitus consumens donec in favillam deficeret post paululum domum eius in qua iacebat conflagrabat. Qua consumpta prodigiosum monstrum in eosdem ortus 2 hoc est in utero suo mater agnovit. Ignis vero non totum terrendum dabat sed3 interiecto longi temporis spacio inde iterum quasi moderacius se subducebat et subito in altum excrescens primo Iudeam et Galileam deinde omnem circa regionem afflabat et penitus concremabat; ad ultimum urbem regiam David Iherusalem et arcem Syon una cum sancto et venerabili templo corripiebat et omnia 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 ; querenti quid esset, quod haberet, quid clamaret, quid fleret, visa sua exposuit. Ille prodigioso sompno attonitus diluculo surrexit et cum uxore in Iherusalem. abiit (erat enim in vico Scarioht qui est ante Iherusalem ad aquilonarem urbis plagam unus de sacerdotibus Domini, magni vir1 meriti) venitque ad eum cum uxore sua seorsumque abducens prodigialem illius visionem ei indicavit. Qua ille audita visione permotus ingemuit diuque stupens et quasi mutus tandem in hanc prophecie vocem ora resolvit. "Ha! mulier misera, filius 5 quem concepisti magni doloris causa erit tibi, patri autem prius, deinde omni Iudeorum genti et regioni et sancte urbi et templo sempiternus interitus. Sed placate Deum precibus penitencia votis et muneribus ut avertat Dominus iram sue indignationis a vobis." Hec dixit et tristes ac metu magno consternatos eos dimisit. Evoluto autem tempore quo conceperat mulier peperit puerum satis quidem scitum sed in suam et multorum perniciem natum. Vnde anxii propter visionem et sui vatis divinationem decreverunt eum statim necare et parricidas se sui sanguinis. esse. Sed non est possibilitatis humane convertere consilium ordinationis 1 p(re)ceptum R. Ae is nowhere found in the present text. I omit reference to other compendia, save in cases of especial importance. As ci for ti occurs in certain words, I have followed this spelling in resolving several abbreviations as in that for Eciam. 2 The sense seems to require something like regredi. 3 Sed is generally written 3 in this text, and perhaps should be spelled set. The phrase suggests Terence, And. 486: Per ecastor scitus puer est natus Pamphilo. 1 divine. Ille de quo postea passivus pro salute mundi dixit Filius Dei, "Melius illi erat si natus non fuisset homo ille," cum natus statim debuit occidi, reservatus est in perdicionem sui, in traditionem Domini Iesu Christi, in 2 nutrimentum ignis eterni, in memoriam patrum suorum, et in recordacionem precati misere matris sue. Pugnaverunt diu affectus pietatis et amor 3 patrie. Noluit diu pater pius esse, noluit ipse prius nocens esse interficiendo eum quem 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 illum succedenti tempore pocius patrie ruinam videre. Vicit tandem amor patrie utrosque paventes clausumque in cistella lignea puerum superata pietate proiecerunt in mare. Inhorruisse ferunt pelagus mox ut sensit prodigiale honus, totis fluctibus frementes torsisse vertices et futurum sui conditoris venditorem tortis impulisse fluctibus ut et futurum latronem dissecaret et collideret suis molibus et occultaret 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 5 misera illa mater tua cum te concepit non statim abortivit? Cur autem natus? Cur 5 exceptus genibus? Cur lactatus uberibus? Esset certe modo tibi melius parricidari; tantum 7 crimen fuisset tuis miseris parentibus tuo crimine venalius. Cur autem vel in mare proiectus non statim es mersus et a tanto abysso suffocatus? Esset tibi vel mare vel aliquis beluinus venter sepulchrum nec postea celo terreque perosus tam infelici morte perisses inter utrumque. Sed cum mori poteras adhuc sine crimine, pepercit tibi inter fluctus nescio quis deus, quamvis ether, venti et pelagus ut perires totis pugnabant viribus. Incertum est, inquam, quis deus hoc discrimine te eripuit; et elementa dum te laborant obruere, visa sunt pocius obsequium prestitisse. 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 pervenit, ad hanc famosam alitricem Iude traditoris. Vbi mare piscator quidam ingressus sagenam suam in mare misit, quam vacuam quidem piscibus sed honeratam cistella Iude ad littus adduxit. Quam acceptam mox ad uxorem suam attulit dicensque 10 magnum tessaurum invenisse qui eos inopia sublevaret gratulabundus ostendit. Sed effracta cistella et detecta spes expectati tesauri nulla fuit. Nihil enim in cistella aliud invenerunt nisi puerum vagientem et membranam parvulam hec continentem: Hic infantulus est Iudas natus de vico Scarioht qui est ante Therusalem. Mulier, mota visceribus humanitatis, "Maiorem," inquit ad maritum, “expectato nostro dii 11 nobis dederunt tesaurum, hunc elegantis formae puerum, |