Excerpts from "A Study of the Miracle of Our Lady"
[From: A Study of the Miracle of Our Lady Told by Chaucer's Prioress by Carleton Brown, 1910 in a Chaucer Society publication, Series 2 No. 4b. His 141 page paper compares twenty-five versions (including Chaucer's) and summarizes the story:
"By comparing, now, the versions before us and noting the features which they have in common it is possible to define with some precision the kernel of the story: A boy who loves the Virgin devotedly sings often in her praise a certain response (or anthem). The Jews (or an individual Jew) on hearing the song are moved to anger, and determine to kill the singer. Watching their opportunity, they put him to death, and carefully conceal the body. The Virgin restores the boy to life and bids him sing as before (or causes the lifeless body to sing). By this miracle the crime is exposed and the murderers apprehended. Thereupon the Jews are (1) converted and baptized, or (2) punished by death or banishment. Such, at least, is the outline of the miracle as it is told in more than twenty versions. Three early versions (A IV, VI and VIII), which possibly in this respect may preserve the more primitive form of the story, lack the account of the boy's singing after his murder."
According to Brown, "This common original, now, in all probability was in existence even before the year 1200. Of the versions before us, no less than ten (A I-VII and B I—III) are found in manuscripts of the thirteenth century." This predates the 1255 murder of Sir Hugh of Lincoln and also, most likely, the murder of William of Norwich circa 1137.
Following is the excerpt from Chapter V.
R. Matteson 2015]
CHAPTER V.
THE VERSIONS OF GROUP C.
In Group C, which we come now to consider in detail, we are dealing with a special form of the story, which, as we have already noted, appears to have circulated chiefly in England. Not only do the only two versions in English—that in the Vernon MS. and the Prioresses Tale—belong to this group, but all the versions of this group, except one, are found in MSS. written in England. Moreover, in the only C version written outside of England—C VII—this miracle is located at Lincoln, and is introduced in an account of the banishment of the Jews from English soil: it appears, therefore, to be based on a tradition emanating from England.
Though the parent version of Group C has not been recovered, we may by fair inference assign it to the later decades of the thirteenth century. It could not have been written later because two of the extant versions (C I and II) occur in MSS. of the beginning of the fourteenth century. The extremely condensed form of the story in these versions affords unmistakable evidence that they are abridgments of some longer narrative. The repeated use of "qualiter" in C II is in itself sufficient to assure us on this point. The version on which these abridgments were based clearly must have been in existence before the close of the thirteenth century. On the other hand, the terminus a quo of the parent version of Group C is fixed by the Hugh of Lincoln story, from which, in my opinion, certain details peculiar to the C versions have been borrowed.
All accounts agree in fixing the date of the murder of young Hugh in the year 1255. As this story of Jewish atrocity was at once widely published throughout England, there is no difficulty in supposing that in the course of fifteen years, that is as early as the year 1270, the legend of the boy killed for singing anthems should have taken on some of the details which originally belonged to the young martyr of Lincoln. Assuming, then, that the special form of the legend which meets us in Group C was the result of contamination from the Hugh of Lincoln story, we may conclude that the parent version of this group came into existence between 1270 and 1290—I do not say "was written," for the reason that I do not wish to ignore the. possibility of oral transmission.
Section I.—The Hugh of Lincoln Story.
The crucifixion of the child Hugh at Lincoln is recorded in numerous contemporary documents. In the first place we have a series of letters and patents issued by the King, Henry III, in connection with this case. As these documents possess the highest authority as "original sources" it will be convenient to have a list of them before us.
1. On Nov. 26, 1255, the King,"then at Windsor, appointed John de Winde and Simon Passelewe to appraise "all the houses of the Jews of Lincoln who fled or were hanged or taken and are detained in prison for the death of a boy lately crucified at Lincoln." They are empowered also to seize into the King's hand the chattels of Jews under indictment for this crime and to examine the chirographers' chests[1] at Lincoln in order to determine' what debts were owing to these Jews. It is stated further that the chattels of these Jews have been granted to Richard, Earl of Cornwall, in part payment of the King's debts to him.[2]
2. Between Dec. 9 and 11, 1255,[3] the King, at Windsor, granted a pardon to Benedict son of Mosseus [4] of London, Jew, ''for the death of Hugh, the boy lately crucified by the Jews at Lincoln, as it appears by the inquisition made by John de Lessinton touching the said death that he was not indicted of the perpetration of the crime, but only with consent to the death afterwards and that he put himself upon the country in court before the justices at Westminster, and the mother of the boy confesses that he is not guilty thereof."[5]
3. On Jan. 7, 1256, the King, then at Westminster, sent a letter
----------------------
1 On these chirographers' chests, see S. E. Scargill-Bird, A Guide to the Various Classes of Documents preserved in the Public Record Office, third ed., London, 1908, p. 146.
2Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1247-88, Pub. Eec. Office, London, 1908, p. 451.
3 This pardon is recorded at the head of membrane 19 of the 40th Henry III. Though the exact date is not stated this pardon is preceded and followed respectively by documents dated Dec. 9 and Dec. 11.
4 For an earlier mention of Benedict son of Moses see a document dated Dec. 25, 1252, in Charter Rolls A.D. 1226-57, Pub. Rec. Office, p. 413.
5 Calendar of Pat. Rolls, 1816, 1247-58, p. 453. This document is printed in full in Rymer's Foedera, Pub. Rec. Office, Lond., 1816, I, p. 335.
______________________________________________88
to the sheriff of Lincoln commanding him to bring before the King's justices at Westminster on the morrow of the Purification of the Virgin [i. e. on Feb. 3,] "Viginti quatuor de legalioribus et discretioribus militibus de comitatu tuo, et viciuioribus Lincolnise, et similiter viginti quatuor de legalioribus et discretioribus burgensibus civitatis vestrse Lincolnise, ad certificandum pnefatos justiciaries nostros de morte Hugonis Filii Beatricis, quem Judsei crucifixerunt et morti tradidorunt, ut dicitur; quia Judsei, quos in prisona nostra apnd Turrim Londoniee detinemus pro felonia prsedicta, unde rectati sunt, posuenint se inde super veredictum prsedictorum militum et burgensium."[1]
4. On Jan. 10, 1256, the King, at Westminster, granted pardon at the instance of John de Derlinton to a converted Jew named John " for the death of a boy crucified at Lincoln, when he was a Jew of that city."[2]
5. On March 27, 1256, the King, then at Norwich, commissioned Roger de Thirkelby and Nicholas de Turri "to inquire into the horrible crime lately perpetrated in the city of Lincoln, of a Christian boy crucified. They are to inquire who were of the synagogue ('scola') of Peytevin the Great, who fled for the said death, and touching certain articles concerning the deed. The King commands them therefore to meet on Tuesday before Palm Sunday at Lincoln, as the King lately enjoined on them by word of mouth. The sheriff of Lincoln has also been commanded to provide 12 knights and other good men of the vicinage of that city, and 12 citizens of that city to inquire herein with the mayor, bailiffs and coroners of that city; and to see that all Jews and Jewesses who have been attendant on any Jews in the said city during the last two years are present there to make the said inquisition."[3]
6. On Aug. 20, 1256, the King, then at Woodstock, commissioned Simon Passelewe and William de Lergton, sheriff of Lincoln, to sell " the houses late of the Jews of Lincoln, who were hanged for the boy crucified there; and to inquire what became of the chattels of the Jews, who have them and of what value they are."[4]
By these official documents the excitement at Lincoln in the early
----------------------
1 The full text of the letter will be found in Shirley's Royal and other Historical Letters Mutt, of the Reign of Henry III, Rolls Series, Vol. II, p. 110.
2 Calendar of Fat. Hulls, p. 457. This document also is printed in Rymer's FoecUra, I, p. 335.
3 Calendar of Pat. Rolls, p. 510.
4 Calendar of Pat. Ralls, p. 493. This document is printed iu Rymer's Foedera, Tub. Rec. Office, I, 344.
_____________________________________________________89
autumn of 1255 over the crucifixion of Hugh becomes an established fact. The mention by name of Hugh's mother, Beatrice, and of aeveral of the Jews under indictment for the crime gives to the whole affair an historical tangibility quite unlike anything in the legends we have been examining. Moreover, though these documents do not tell the story of the murder of Hugh, they serve to confirm the accounts of the crime, as we shall see, by their agreement in a number of details—especially the account by Matthew of Paris.
For the story of the murder of Hugh we must turn from the Patent Rolls to the chroniclers. And fortunately several contemporary accounts have been preserved in which the affair is related with full detail. Of these the most authentic appears to be that given, under the year 1255, by Matthew of Paris,[1] who died in 1259. The story is told also in the Annals of Waverley,[2] as to the date of which the editor, Dr. Luard, remarks: "From 1219 to 1266 the MS. was written contemporaneously with the events described, from year to year."[3] It also forms the subject of an Anglo-French ballad,[4] which must have been composed before 1272 since it mentions Henry as the reigning king.[5] The author of this ballad, moreover, was plainly in close touch with local tradition. He designates the quarter (or suburb) of Lincoln in which Hugh was born—" Dernestal," and names the Jew who murdered him—" Peiteven."[6] Finally, a long and most circumstantial account of the murder of Hugh appears in the Annals of Burton,[7] which, though recorded here by a fourteenthcentury scribe, seems to have been copied into the chronicle from an earlier document.[8]
In his edition of the Anglo-French ballad, M. Michel (p. i) gives a list of some thirty later chronicles which record the crucifixion of Hugh, but these, so far as I have examined them, add no further informa
------------------------
1 Chronica Majora, Rolls Series, Vol. V, pp. 516-9.
2 Annates Monastici, Rolls Series, Vol. II, 346 ff.
3 p. xxxvi.
4 Ed. F. Michel, Hugucsde Lincoln, Paris, 1834.
5 Thus in stanzas 13 and 75 notice the author's expression, "Qui Deu gard et tenge sa vie," in speaking of King Henry.
6 See above, the Patent Roll of March 27, 1256.
7 Annalcs Monastici, Rolls Series, Vol. I, pp. 340-8.
8 This appears to be the opinion of Dr. Luard, the editor. "One chief feature in many of these chronicles," he remarks, "consists in the number of valuable documents sent down to the monasteries to be copied and preserved in each, and which in many cases appeal* inserted in the history. ... In none is this more remarkable than in the Burton Annalcs" (p. xi). Elsewhere he refers expressly to the story of Hugh: "There are, however, occasionally full and interesting details of events ot the highest importance: for instance . . . the very lengthy and circumstantial account of the supposed crucifixion of the boy Hugh, afterwards canonized, by the Jews at Lincoln in 1255 " (p. xxx).
________________________________________________90
tion; and they restrict themselves for the most part to brief mention of the affair. To Michel's list I may add the more detailed account given by John of Tynemouth in his Sanctilorium Anglice Seotiae et Hiberuiae[1] written shortly before 1350. Tynemouth's account, however, is copied word for word, with some abridgment, from Matthew of Paris, and therefore possesses no independent authority. With the English ballad, "Sir Hugh, or the Jew's Daughter," we have here nothing to do, as it is, comparatively speaking, a late outgrowth from the Hugh of Lincoln tradition.[2] Our present concern is with the form of the tradition in the thirteenth century, and of this the three Latin chronicles mentioned above and the Anglo-French poem supply contemporary records.
The story of the murder of little Hugh, as we find it in these four narratives, is plainly distinct in origin from the legend of the boy killed for singing anthems, as is shown by the following essential differences:
1. The story of the boy killed for singing anthems belongs to the cycle of miracles of Our Lady. In Hugh of Lincoln, however, the Virgin plays no part.
2. Hugh of Lincoln is not represented as ever singing anthems. The motive for his murder is therefore wholly unlike that in the other story.
3. Hugh of Lincoln, after being tortured, was crucified in mockery of the passion of Christ.[3] In the method of his death, therefore, as well as in the motive for it this story differs from the other.
At the same time, the two stories, as I have already said, present similarities of situation which made it easy for a fusion of elements to take place. In the first place, both are stories of the murder of a Christian child by the Jews. Furthermore, according to the Burton Annals, Hugh—like the hero of our legend—was a school-boy and
---------------------------------
1 Tynemouth's Sanctilogium has been preserved for us in Capgrave's Nova Legenda Anglix, in which it was afterwards incorporated. The story of Hugh will be found in Horstmann's edition, Vol. II, p. 39.
2 For complete bibliography concerning the English ballad, as well as numerous references to similar stories of Christian children put to death by Jews, the reader is referred to Professor Child's English and Scottish Popular Ballads, Vol. Ill, pp. 233-43. On the legend of William of Norwich see The Life and Miracles of St. William of Norwich by Thomas of Monmouth, ed. A. Jessopp and M. R. James, Cambridge, 1896—especially the chapter, "The Legend," by Dr. James (pp. lxii-lxxix).
3 In the Burton Annals there appears to be an effort to carry the parallel to the Crucifixion still further in the statement that Hugh was put to death on a, Friday (p. 348). In this case there was no resurrection, yet it is noted that the body was recovered on Sunday.
__________________________________________91
the son of a poor woman. Again, both stories contain the identical situation of a distracted mother searching for her child who has disappeared. In both the mother learns that her son was last seen entering the house of a Jew. In both she appeals to the authorities to recover her child from the Jews.
For convenience it will be well to have before us in parallel column summaries of the Hugh slory as it appears in the Burton Annals and in the Anglo-French ballad. With these it is necessary to compare in some points the account of Matthew of Paris. The Waverley Annals, on the other hand, supply no additional details that are important for our purpose.
[The two accounts are told in full instead of sided by side (as in Brown's paper). The footnotes follow the accounts which end on the top of page 94].
Annals de Burton.
There was in Lincoln a school-boy named Hugh, nine years of age, the only son of a poor woman, whom a Jew, Jopin [1] by name on the 31st of July about sundown secretly entrapped while he was playing with his companions. He was carried into a secret chamber of the Jew's house and there concealed for 26 days until he was almost starved.
At length all the Jews of Lincoln, as well as many from other parts of England, being assembled, "collegerunt consilium pontifices et saeerdotum principes, ut morti traderent innocentem. Adducto ergo illo et in eorum medio constituto, tanquam agno in luporum medio." . . .
[Here follows the account of his crucifixion.]
The boy's mother, when she saw he did not return home as usual, wras greatly alarmed and quickly sought him among her acquaintances and friends. She did not find him, but the children with whom he had been playing told when and where they ad last seen him, and from their statement the Christians conceived a strong suspicion that the child had been stolen and killed by the Jews.
The truth of this suspicion becoming clear after some days, the mother weeping and groaning set out for Scotland, whither the king at that time had gone, and falling at his feet made her complaint.
[Matt. Paris states that after the boy's death, "eviscerarunt corpusculum."]
The Jews meanwhile, knowing that the matter would be investigated, took the body at dead of night and threw it into a well.
Here it was afterwards found through an inquisition into the affair ordered by the King.
''Nam ipso sic reperto, et cum suis indumentis e puteo jam extracto, concursus populorum factus est undique voce magna clamantium et dicentium, 'Gratias tibi, Domine Jesu Christe, qui etiam modernis temporibus tenellos pneros per palmammartyrii dignatuses ad regna cselestia evocare.' Cumque piis fletibus omnes qui aderant pectora irrigarent, et utriusque sexus tarn majores quam minores ad hoc speclaculum properarent, ecce mulier per annos quindecim utrorumque oculorum orbata lumine, qua prius infantem plurimum dilexerat, ibidem adducta accessit propius, et corpus cum fide tetigit sic exclamans 'Heu, hen, Hugeline puer mi dulcissime, quod sic contigit!' . et retraliens manum quam
supra corpus posuerat, ex Imniore corporis cruentati caecos linivit ocalos, et confestim visum integerrime recuperavit."
"Repleta est ergo civitas immenso gaudio, et in ore omnium ejus dulcissima passio resonabat. Catervatim quidem ruunt populi, cernere cupientes quae per eum miracula Deus omnipotens operatur. [Many others are healed of infirmities.]
Auditis igitur tantis miraculis, et clamore populi vel fama circumquaque divulgatis, ecclesiae cathedralis decanus et canonici ejusdem civitatis una cum vicariis suis, associato sibi clero et populo, ordinata processione solemniter ad sancti martyris corpus perrexerunt. Illud etiam elevantes, praecedentibus cereis, crucibus, et thuribulis, revestitis etiam quibusque, loco debito dispositis et ordinatis, ad majus monasterium beatse Virginia psallentes et flenies, t-t in cordis organo voce dulcisona Denm collaudantes, portaverant." [Objection is made by a certain canon to the removal of the body from that parish.]
Praenominati vero decanus et canonici hujusmodi appellationi non deferentes, triumphantis martyris solemniter celebrantes exequias, omnibus rite peractis, sancti corporis glebam juxta tumulum sanctissimi patris Roberti ejusdem loci episcopi sepulturae decentissmae tradiderunt."
About Michaelmas the king came to Lincoln on his return from Scotland, and made inquisition into the affair. The Jews bolted their doors, thinking in that way to resist the king's officers. But the officers broke open the doors and rushing in seized them and bound them with chains and carried them to court. The king's seneschal, John of Lexington, "vir providus et discretus," promised Jopin he should not be put to death if he would confess the truth. But he was speedily condemned to be bound alive to a horse's tail and dragged through the streets. After being lacerated in this way he was hanged on a gallows. The other Jews who had been captured were taken to London. Eighteen of them were afterwards was dragged by horses through London and then hanged.[2]
--------------
1 Matt, of Paris gives the correct form of this name—" Copin." In a document dated June 27, 1257, "Oopinus son of Milkan " is mentioned and the name of his widow is given as "Antera" (Calendar of Charter Bolls, 1226-57, p. 471). The context makes it clear that he is the same person.
1 Matthew of Paris adds further details as to the vengeance taken upon the Jews. It was found by inquisition of the king's justices, he says, that the boy had been condemned to death by a general assembly of the Jews of England. Afterwards the king, moved by the zealous appeals of the boy's mother, executed at Lincoln on St. Clement's Day [Nov. 23] eighteen of the wealthiest Jews of Lincoln, and committed to the Tower of London more than sixty others (p. 519). On later pages he records the interposition of the Franciscans early in 1256 in behalf of the Jews still imprisoned for this crime in the Tower (p. 546)—an interposition which provoked popular indignation,—and finally the release of 91 imprisoned Jews from the Tower on May 1, 1256 (p. 552).
Hugues de Lincoln.
In Lincoln a child named Huchon was stolen by Peitevin the Jew, on the first of August (a la gule de aust), at eventide.
No sooner had he been captured than his mother perceived that her child was lost. She went seeking him in many places. All the evening until curfew she went about crying, "I have lost my dear child whom I always loved so much." Little she slept that night, but she prayed much to God. After her prayers the suspicion soon entered her mind that her child had been stolen by the Jews.
As soon as day dawned she went weeping through Jewry asking at the Jews' doors: "Where is my child?" But the door where the child had entered was firmly closed so that no Christian might learn their secrets.
The report of the disappearance of the child soon spread through all the city, but no one knew the truth about it.
The mother at length went to King Henry and falling at his feet appealed for justice.
As soon as the boy had been captured the Jews of Lincoln gathered a great assembly of the wealthy Jews throughout England. The child was brought before them, bound with a cord, by Jopin the Jew.
[The story of the torture and crucifixion follows.]
They plunged a knife in his side, and split his heart in two and ate it.
The body was buried in the ground, but next morning the Jews found it lying above ground. A council was called and it was decided to throw the body intoajakes. But next morning they found it "eur la sele de ehambre forain."
The third time the body was thrown into a well behind the castle of the city.
Next day a woman going to draw water from the well found the body lying, so covered with filth that she scarcely dared touch it. The woman, remembering the story of the disappearance of Hugh, went to the house of his step-father and told of her discovery of the body.
She also went through the city publishing the news. All who heard her went to the well. They found there the child's body and prayed for his soul.
Word was sent to the coroners of the city, who came and inspected the body.
The body was earned to "Desternal" where Hugh had been born. It was so soiled with filth that no priest could visit it.
A woman who had lost her sight many years before came to the spot and grieved over Hugh. Laying her hand on the corpse she afterwards touched her eyes, which forthwith recovered their sight.
A convert advised that the body be washed with warm water in order that the method of the child's death might be discovered. On washing it the very wounds of Jesus were found upon it.
Report of these wonders came to the clergy of the cathedral at Lincoln. They all came in a body and carried the corpse to the cathedral where it was buried with great joy among the other saints.
"En tote la cite n'i aveit chanoin
Qui i ne vint en procession
Encontre le cors de Huchon.
En tombe fu mis od grant devocion."
Soon after the mother returned from her journey to the king, sad at heart because she could not see the body of her child.
The Jews of Lincoln were arrested and imprisoned.
On the morrow King Henry came to Lincoln. The Jews were brought bound before the king. A wise man said that mercy would be shown to the Jew who would confess truth to the king. Thereupon Jopin made a full confession. The child had been stolen by Parteuin and concealed in Jopin's house. After hearing the confession the Justices quickly sentenced Jopin to death and delivered him to the officers.
It was done as the justices commanded. The body of Jopin dragged by wild horses and was then hanged outside the city.
[The second account ends here.]
_______________________________________________93
What grounds, now, are there for suspecting that the story of Hugh of Lincoln has exerted an influence upon the legend of the boy slain for singing praises of Mary—a tale which was of quite independent origin, and which may have been in existence perhaps a century earlier 1 Does not the Prioress, who mentions "yonge Hugh of Lincoln, sleyn also with cursed Iewes," expressly distinguish, the two stories? This no one will deny. But does not the Prioress herself, in thus concluding her own narrative by a reference to the young martyr at Lincoln, afford significant testimony to the similarity of the situation in the two stories? And this similarity of situation, as we shall see, was close enough in many points to make it possible for incidents to be transferred from one to the other.
That the story of little Hugh actually did exert an influence upon the legend of the boy killed for singing in praise of Mary is attested by comparing it in detail with' the versions of Group C, which, as belonging peculiarly to England, we should expect to be most directly influenced by the Lincoln tradition. In fact, nearly all the variations which distinguish this Group from Groups A and B will at once be recognized as borrowings from this source. Let us note the following details in the Hugh story which re-appear in the versions of Group C, but which are absent from the A and B versions—
1. A council of Jews is held to condemn Hugh to death (Burton Annals). Compare especially C IV, VI, and VII.
2. After death Hugh's body is eviscerated (Matt, of Paris). Compare especially C VI, VII, and VIII.
3. The body is afterwards thrown into a "jakes" (Hugues de Lincoln). Compare C II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII.
4. On the discovery of the body great lamentation is made by the boy's mother and the crowd which had gathered. (So in Matt, of Paris; according to Burton Annals the mother was not present, having gone to lay her case hefore the king.) Compare especially C IV and VI.
5. The body is placed on a bier and borne in solemn procession to the cathedral. Compare CI, III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII.
6. After the funeral rites the remains are laid, with honours appropriate to a martyr, in a tomb in the cathedral (Matt, of Paris, Burton Annals). Compare especially C IV, VI, and VII.
7. A Jew is induced, through promise of immunity from punishment, to confess the crime which has been committed. Compare C VIII: "Confessus ymmo magis conuiotus ex scelere Archipresulis iudicio se subiecit, misericordiam amplius expetens quam censuram."
8. The king holds an inquisition in the case and punishes the Jews. Compare C VII.
This series of agreements shows the extent to which the story of Hugh of Lincoln has modified in Group C the legend of the boy killed for singing anthems. Practically the whole scene after the recovery of the child's body has been transformed through the influence of the legend of the young martyr of Lincoln. At the same time, it is to be observed that the C versions do not follow any one of the narratives of Hugh to the exclusion of the others. In the matter of the "jakes" they agree with the Anglo-French ballad, in the evisceration of the body and the lamentations of the mother, with Matthew of Paris, in several other particulars they show special similarity to the Burton Annals. It would seem, therefore, that none of the extant accounts of Hugh of Lincoln can be identified as the actual version which influenced Group C. Indeed, the author of the parent version of Group C may perhaps have known the Hugh story only in the form of oral tradition. That oral tradition was active in shaping and circulating this story is to be inferred from a comparison of the variations which appear in the four extant narratives.
Section II.—The Tragical Ending.
The story of little Hugh, according to all the accounts, ends tragically. His body was buried in the cathedral next the tomb of Kobert Grosteste; and at that spot, it is said, notable miracles were afterwards performed. Likewise, several of the C versions of our legend conclude the story with an account of the young singer's interment. la C IV, VI, and VII he is buried, as was Hugh, in the
______________________________________________95
[footnotes at bottom of each page again]
church with special honours. In C V, though the place of his interment is not mentioned, the fact is explicitly stated. In C III, though no account of the actual interment is given, the statement that Our Lady " brouhte his soule to blisse all cler " leaves us in no doubt as to the child's death. C I breaks off abruptly with the miracle of the corpse interrupting the priest when he begins the Requiem, and leaves us to finish the story as we choose.
From this tragic ending of the story, however, two of the C versions (II and VIII) expressly dissent.1 According to these two, the boy at the close of the funeral scene is suddenly restored to life. That this divergence from the tragic ending of the other C versions should appear in both C II and VIII might perhaps be regarded as mere coincidence were it not for the additional circumstance that these two alone, among all the versions known to us, locate the miracle at Toledo. The agreement between II and VIII in these two respects forcibly suggests some special connection between them. At the same time it places before us a most perplexing problem as to the relations of the versions of Group C.
In the first place, a moment's consideration, I think, will make it clear that the long and rhetorical version in the Trinity MS. (C VIII) cannot have been derived in direct line from C II, which offers the briefest possible resume of the story within the limits of a single sentence.[2] For, quite aside from this disparity in length, C VIII, except in these two points, shows agreements with C III, IV, VI, and VII in contradiction to C II.[3] It is clear, then, that whatever special similarities exist between C VIII and C II are to be explained on the basis of the lost version which served as the immediate source for the condensed summary in C II. This hypothetical version, moreover, must have been written before the close of the thirteenth century, inasmuch as C II itself is found in a manuscript of the beginning of the fourteenth century.
Having come thus to recognize the existence of a C version,
---------------------
1 The reader may perhaps be disposed to inquire whether these two versions have been properly elassilied in Group C. Of this, however, there appears to me to be no question. Notice that in C II and VIII we find the "jakes" and the funeral scene; also, in C II there is the miracle of the corpse interrupting the priest as he begins the Requiem—an incident which is peculiar to Group C. C VIII, moreover, gives us the Alma redemptoris and the magical object placed in the boy's mouth.
2 See further the supplementary note below on p. 141.
3 Thus in C VIII, as in III, IV, and-VII, we find the "magical object "; also in C VIII, as in III, IV, VI and VII, the song is the Alma redemptoris.
_______________________________________96
written before 1300, in which the story concludes with the restoration of the boy's life, we are brought face to face with a most important question in regard to the form of the story in the parent version of Gr up C. Did this version, in which the influence of Hugh of Lincoln first made its appearance, represent the young singer as finally restored to life, or did it follow the Hugh story by taking over also the tragic ending? Before answering this question let us see what is involved in these two alternatives.
In the first place, if we take the ground, relying upon the evidence of C II and VIII, that in the parent version of Group C the boy's life was finally restored, we find ourselves involved in serious difficulties. For, obviously those versions which end the story tragically and give accounts of the interment of the young martyr in the church, run much more closely parallel to the legend of Hugh of Lincoln than do C II and VIII. These additional parallels would then have to be regarded as supplementary borrowings from the Hugh story. In other words, it would be necessary on this hypothesis to ^ suppose that there were two distinct borrowings from the Hugh story: (1) the funeral scene and the "jakes," taken over in the parent version of Group C; (2) the tragic ending and the interment, which appear in several of the later versions. Such a double borrowing from the Hugh of Lincoln tradition appears to me excessively improbable. 2STor is the other alternative—that the tragic ending stood in the parent version of Group C—wholly free from difficulty. For, according to this view, the restoration of the boy to life in C II must be explained as a curious instance of reversion, in which the tragic ending and the account of the young martyr's burial were set aside in favour of the happy ending which belongs to the story outside of Group C. This reversion, moreover, must have operated speedily, since the parent version of Group C, for the reasons given above, can hardly be earlier than 1270, and the source of C II (which ex hypothesi contained the restoration of the boy to life) must have been written before 1300.
Nevertheless, these chronological limits do not, it seems to me, exclude the possibility of such reversion to the happy ending. And as for the process itself, there appears to be nothing improbable in it. A narrator of the story would have felt no hesitancy in restoring the boy to life if he felt that this ending better suited his purpose. Or suppose that the narrator who re-introduced the happy ending had before him an incomplete version, such, for example, as C I. In this case he would have been free to complete the story as he pleased, and
_________________________________________97
he could easily have found precedent in miracle literature for the restoration of the boy to life.