¹ The poem survives in ten manuscripts of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The versions vary in length from 72 to 516 lines; all are composed in four-stress verses (often irregular, variously seven-, eight-, or nine-syllabled), rhyming in couplets; all follow the same sequence of incidents; and except for relatively minor differences, all employ the same phraseology. A modern edition of the poem (Vernon MS) appears in W. H. French and C. B. Hale, Middle English Metrical Romances (New York, 1930), p. 937. For a complete bibliography see the forthcoming revised edition of my entry in Wells's Manual of the Writings in Middle English. See also L. H. Hornstein, “King Robert of Sicily: A New Manuscript,” PMLA, lxxviii (1963), 453–458.

² The Poems of John Audelay, ed. E. K. Whiting, EETS 184, “Psalm de Magnificat,” line 4746; Laura Hibbard, Mediaeval Romance in England (New York, 1924), pp. 60–61. Cf. G. Kane, Middle English Literature (London, 1951), p. 19 (and the review by A. I. Doyle, RES, n. s. iv, 70). Each scene forms a vignette, with the theme, character, and plot/conflict developing by direct discourse and physical action—a technique eminently and inherently dramatic; and it is not surprising to find records of medieval dramatic performances (although no early medieval play survives). See J. P. Collier, History of English Dramatic Poetry (London, 1831), i, 113; ii, 128, 415; A. F. Leach, An English Miscellany presented to Dr. Furnivall (1901), p. 233; E. K. Chambers, The Medieval Stage (Oxford, 1930), ii, 151, 356, 378, and English Literature at the Close of the Middle Ages (Oxford History of English Literature [Oxford, 1945]), ii, 65.

The story has enjoyed a renewed lease of life from Longfellow's “King Robert of Sicily,” Tales of a Wayside Inn (Boston, 1863), p. 55, and the many modernizations (including plays, and even a libretto for an opera by Massenet) inspired by the Longfellow version. A student of comparative literature may indeed be amused to learn that the Anglia Beiblatt bibliography refers to the tale in the section devoted to “American Literature—Longfellow.” See A. Andrae, “The Sicilian's Tale: King Robert of Sicily,” Anglia Beiblatt, iii (1893), 363; vi (1895-96), 146; ix (1898-99), 144; xiii (1902), 53, 302; xvii (1906), 76; xxvii (1916), 58. Longfellow's source was Leigh Hunt, A Jar of Honey from Mount Hybla (London, 1848), p. 68, and not the ME poem, as early scholars supposed. Leigh Hunt had used the abstract in George Ellis, Specimens of Early English Metrical Romances, revised by J. C. Halliwell [-Phillipps] (London, 1848), p. 474; see P. Morin, Les Sources de l'œuvre de Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (Paris, 1913), p. 199. William Morris, “The Proud King” (in The Earthly Paradise [London, 1868]), Collected Works (London, 1910), iii, 242, retold the type Der nackte König. See infra p. 14.

³ For folklore analogues to this theme, see Stith Thompson, Motif-Index of Folk-Literature, 2nd ed. (Bloomington, Ind., 1958): L 400 (Pride brought low); L 411 (Proud king displaced by Angel); cf. D 451.1 (Kings exchange forms . . .); Q 330 (Overweening punished); Q 331 (Pride punished), and cross-references; and see infra nn. 6, 8.

⁴ For folklore analogues to this theme, see Thompson, Motif-Index, P 672.2 (Cutting off hair as insult).

⁵ Ibid., Q 523.3 (Penance: eating food offered to dogs); Hibbard, p. 55, n. 8.

⁶ For folklore analogues to this theme, see A. Arne, The Types of the Folktale: A Classification and Bibliography, trans. and ed. by Stith Thompson, FFC., No. 74 (Helsinki, 1928), Type 757 (The King's Haughtiness Punished: Roderigo; Jovinian); Type 836 (Pride is Punished: The rich man boasts, etc.), and cross-references; Thompson, Motif-Index, D 2012.1 (King in the bath—moments thought years); Hibbard, p. 59.

⁷ Ed. by H. Oesterley (Berlin, 1872), p. 360, n. 29, trans. into English by C. Swan, rev. by W. Hooper (London, 1912), p. 100, n. 59, and p. 374 n.

⁸ See H. Varnhagen, Ein indisches Märchen auf seiner Wanderung durch die asiatischen und europäischen Litteraturen (Berlin, 1882), Stammtafel facing p. 122; H. Varnhagen, Longfellow's Tales of a Wayside Inn und ihre Quellen nebst Nachweisen und Untersuchungen über die vom Dichter bearbeiteten Stoffe (Berlin, 1884), Stammtafel facing p. 160. In these impressive studies, Varnhagen distinguished between the high/low, rich/poor types, though these are really much alike; but he apparently did not observe that the bath incident does not appear in the English version.

⁹ Numerous folktales recount “transformations” in magic waters, but the motif of magic water is not used in any version of King Robert or its analogues (cf., for example, the following references in Thompson, Motif-Index, none of which are relevant for our poem: D 562; D 1788; D 2161.4.14; J 2012.6; K 1911.1.8).

¹⁰ Herrand von Wildonie [fl. late 13th C?], Von dem blôzen keiser [Corneus], ed. by K. Kummer, in Die poetischen Erzählungen des Herrand von Wildonie (Wien, 1880), p. 148; references are to this edition. The King plans to hold a court of justice for the first time in ten years. The influx of visitors, particularly ladies of great elegance, inspires him to match their handsome appearance; hence the bath. After the “Angel” takes over (while the King works to earn his food),

the Angel dispenses justice with such graciousness and integrity that the King realizes how remiss he had been in his duties. See also Der Stricker [fl. 13C?], ed. by F. H. Von der Hagen, Gesammtabenteuer (Stuttgart and Tübingen, 1850), i, xxii, iii, 409, n. 71, which was derived from the same source as Wildonie's version.

¹¹ K. Kümmell, Drei italienische Prosalegenden: . . . König im Bade (Halle a. S., 1906), p. 5, n. 28; p. 20, n. 44; p. 46. In these versions the King is the victim of much horseplay when, to obtain food, he is forced to become a cook's assistant and carry the water, and is beaten for incompetence. Solomon's career as cook and fisherman (until he finds his ring of office) is related with high seriousness in the Biblical commentaries.

¹² A. Scheler, ed., Dits et contes de Baudouin de Condé et de son fils Jean de Condé (Bruxelles, 1866), ii, 355 and 455 n.; quotations in the text and references are to this edition. Varnhagen, supra n. 8, in the earlier publication, p. 65, argued that Jean's version was the source for the English; his subsequent change of opinion in the second work, p. 38, represents a more valid judgment.

¹³ There is a Boethian quality about his “complaint” (Li dis, 11. 184–211). Morin, supra n. 2, included Boethius' Philosophiae Consolatio among the influences upon the poem. The Consolatio may be ultimately responsible for the medieval plaints to Fortune, but Jean de Condé's comments are rather more like the general ideas circulating in the Middle Ages than a specific reference. See H. R. Patch, The Goddess Fortuna in Mediaeval Literature (Cambridge, Mass., 1927), p. 59 ff; p. 62, n. 5; p. 68, nn. 2, 3; p. 270, n. 2; p. 52, n. 4.

¹⁴ French and Hale, p. 942, 11. 310–332. Of Robert it had been said (11. 13–14): “þe Kyng þhouзte he hedde no peer In al þe world, fer no neer.” Now Robert thinks of “Nabugodonosore” in the same terms: “In al be world nas his peer, Forte accounte [according to record] fer ne neer.” For the apocryphal story of Nebuchadnezzar and Holofernes' statement: “What God is there except Nebuchadnezzar?”, see Edgar J. Goodspeed, trans., The Apocrypha (New York, 1959), p. 131, The Book of Judith iii.8; vi.3. Parallel language appears in Robert, 11. 313 f. The Old Testament Book of Daniel iv tells that Nebuchadnezzar's pride was humbled by having the King lose his reason for seven years. When he repented, his reason came back to him and his kingdom was restored.

The French King in Li dis also lives for seven years in great shame (1. 285); but there is no mention of Nebuchadnezzar. The English version tells the story of Nebuchadnezzar, but has him living in a “desert” for fifteen years, eating roots and grass. There is one analogue in which the king is named Nebuchadnezzar (J. M. Schottky, Jahrbücher der Literatur, Wien, 1819, v. 31). The Biblical exegetes comment that Nebuchadnezzar, for acting as if he were a god, was punished by being made to live for some time as a beast among beasts, eating grass like an ox. N.B. one legend makes him the son of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. See L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1913; Sixth Impression, 1954), iv, 300, 334; vi, 389, n. 21, 422, n. 99, 423, nn. 100, 104.

¹⁵ This is not to deny that the story assimilated closely related materials from its earliest stages: the Biblical accounts of Job and Nebuchadnezzar with their respective Talmudic and later expositions; the tale of the boastful French king Guisbert, who became a leper and lived with the beasts—a story itself affected by the Nebuchadnezzar legend of beast penance; the famous conversion legend of Robert the Devil, perhaps partly responsible for the king's name in the English and Spanish versions (though our hero has nothing demoniac or diabolic about his character, and is not a monster of iniquity like Robert the Devil, who deliberately and consciously undertakes a penance). See Hibbard, p. 55 f.; cf. K. Breul, Sir Gowther (Oppeln, 1886), pp. x, 132, who minimizes the influence of Robert the Devil on Robert of Sicily. See also infra, n. 31.

¹⁶ The imposing list of over fifty analogues was presented in two studies (supra n. 8) by Varnhagen, Ein indisches Märchen, pp. 16, 44, 65; Stammtafel facing p. 122; Longfellow's Tales of a Wayside Inn und ihre Quellen, pp. 16, 38, Stammtafel facing p. 160; but cf. R. Köhler, Archiv f. litt. geschickte., xi (1882), 582; F. Liebrecht, Englische Studien, vi (1883), 260; Morin, supra note 2, pp. 199 f., 204, 206. See, however, H. Günter, Budda in der abendländischen Legende (Leipzig, 1922), p. 158; R. Brotanek, Mittelenglische Dichtungen aus der Handschrift 432 des Trinity College in Dublin (Halle /Saale, 1940), p. 38.

¹⁷ Stith Thompson, The Folktale (New York, 1946), p. 258. The Motif-Index, K 1900-K 1999, treats Impostures (e.g., K 1911.1.8: False bride steals true bride's garments in bath); D 40 (Transformation to likeness of another); D 41 (Transformation to likeness of ruler); D 42 (God in guise of mortal); D 49 (Transformation to likeness of another person). The large number of tales and motifs noted in these sections (none of which is apposite for our poem) gives fair indication of the widespread character of the “substitution” motif and compels the inference that mere substitution / transformation is too general a theme to be signalled out as a “source.” Cf. also K 1810, K 1810.1, K 1810.1.3 (. . . putting on clothes of king), K 1811.4.2 (Angel takes form of certain person).

¹⁸ I thank my friend Professor Veré Rubel, who brought to my attention the authority for this statement in Massey H. Shepherd's The Oxford American Prayer Book Commentary (Oxford University Press, 1950; 4th printing, 1953), p.26. See also Proverbs xvi.5: “Everyone that is proud of heart is an abomination to the Lord”; Proverbs xvi.18, xxix.23; Psalms lxxv.7, cl.5, cxiii.7–9; Isaiah vi.3; Jeremiah ix.22. All Biblical quotations in this paper (except as otherwise noted) are from the King James Version; they have been checked against the Vulgate and a translation from the Hebrew version of The Holy Scriptures (Philadelphia, The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1927). See B. Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1952), p. 350.

¹⁹ The Jerusalem Talmud (Berlin and Leipzig, 1929), Ch. ii, § 6 (i.e., Sanhedrin ii.6, in Hebrew): while Solomon was on the throne “... an angel descended and took the form of Solomon, and sat in his place, . . . and Solomon said, ‘I am Koheleth [Preacher] and I was king over Israel in Jerusalem‘” [Eccles. i.12] (trans. M. Epstein); Midrash Rabbah, ed., H. Freedman and M. Simon (London, Soncino Press, 1939): Numbers ii.14.3, p. 570; Song of Songs i.1.10, p. 14; Ruth iii, p. 41, Ruth v.6, p. 62; Eccles. i.1-13, p. 38. The Babylonian Talmud makes the usurper the ubiquitous and ambivalent Ashmodai (Asmodeus), king of the genii or demons, who occupied Solomon's throne—and his harem. See The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nashim, trans. and ed. I. Epstein and M. Simon (London, Soncino Press, 1936), Gittin 68a–68b, p. 323; The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nashim, trans. by S. Daiches and I. W. Slotki (London, Soncino Press, 1936), Kethuboth § 68a, p. 416; See also S. P. Cassel, Kaiser- u. Königsthrone (Berlin, 1874), pp. 17, 19; A. H. Krappe, “Solomon and Ashmodai,” American Journal of Philology, liv (1933), 260; cf. M. Steinschneider, “Purin und Parodie, Bibliographische Notiz,” in Collected Papers, p. 181. See also M. Gaster, Ma'Aseh Book (Philadelphia, 1934), ii. 402, n. 186, and ii. 418, n. 189, citing two Mid rashim; Jewish Encyclopedia, xi, 443. See The Koran, translated by J. M. Rodwell, Everyman ed. (London, 1909), Sura 38.33, p. 127, Sura 34.12, p. 285. I express my deep appreciation to Professor Morris Epstein (Yeshivah University, Dept. of English), who generously verified the translations of my Hebrew references, and to Professor Irving Linn (Yeshivah University, Dept. of English), who translated for me two modern Yiddish versions.

²⁰ J. Levi, “L'Orgueil et presomption de Salomon,” Revue des études juives, xvii (1888), p. 58; see V. C. Chauvin, Bibliographie des ouvrages arabes ou relatifs aux Arabes (Liège, 1892–1922), pt. 2, p. 161, n. 51; R. Köhler, “Der nackte König,” Kleinere Schriften (Berlin, 1900), ii.108; M. Grünbaum, “Beiträge zur vergleichenden Mythologie aus der Hagada,” Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xxxi (1877), 183, esp. 197–224, rptd., in Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Sprache- und Sagenkunde, ed., F. Perles (Berlin, 1901), pp. 23, 28, 44, 55. See Jewish Encyclopedia (New York, 1901–06), v, 423, xi, 436; Encyclopædia Biblica, ed. T. K. Cheyne and J. S. Black (New York, 1903), p. 4690 § 11; G. Salzberger, Die Salomosage in der semitischen Literatur: ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Sagenkunde, 1. Teil: Salomo bis zur Höhe seines Ruhmes (Berlin, 1907), pp. 4, 30; Ginzberg, Legends, iv, 163, vi, 299, n. 86; G. H. Gerould, Saints Legends (Boston and New York, 1916), pp. 253, 369 n.; J. Bolte and G. Polívka, Anmerkungen zu den Kinder- und Hausmärchen der Brüder Grimm (Leipzig, 1918), iii.218 n. 3; Hibbard, Mediaeval Romance, p. 62 and notes; A. Wesselski, Märchen des Mittelalters (Berlin, 1925), p. 137, n. 49, p. 237 notes; R. Kapp, Heilige und Heiligenlegenden im Englischen (Halle, 1934), i.247; D. Noy [Neuman], Motif-Index to the Talmudic-Midrashic Literature (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1954), Microfilm Service, Publication No. 8792, F 402.2.1.

²¹ A. H. Krappe, “Solomon and Ashmodai,” American Journal of Philology, liv (1933), 260. By his second study (i.e., on Longfellow) Varnhagen had also acknowledged the relevance of the Solomonic tradition (see Stammtafel facing p. 160); but, lacking materials now made available by modern studies, he failed to appreciate its full significance.

²² E. Fleg, Salomon, 3rd ed. (Mayenne, 1930), p. 144.

²³ Ginzberg, Legends, I, 180; cf. v, 203–204. Midrash Aggada Gen 11.8; Sanhedrin 109b.

²⁴ H. W. Janson, Apes and Ape Lore in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, Studies of the Warburg Institute, xx (London, 1952), 109.

²⁵ Ibid., p. 65, n. 97; pp. 69, 199 ff., 211, 231, n. 59.

²⁶ Migne, Patrologiœ cursus computus . . . series Latina (Paris, 1879), vol. 182, col. 750, lib. v, cap. 7. This dictum is employed in a chapter dealing with the question, “What art thou?” (Janson, p. 200). This is the very question which the Angel repeatedly asks Robert.

²⁷ NED, s.v. “ape”; Janson, p. 211: “the ape as a domestic pet was the exact counterpart of the fool”; cf. S. Thompson, Motif-Index, B 29.9 (Man-ape). N.B. Q 470 (Humiliating punishments) and Q 523 (Humiliating penances) do not refer to the instant situation. Thompson should add entries and subnumbers Q 523.2.1; Q 523.2.2 for “The garb and companionship of ape or fool”: to wit, “Ape (fool) as companion,” “Clothed as ape (fool).” Cf. Q 551.3.2.4 (Punishment: transformation into monkey); D 118.1 (Transformation: man to ape).

²⁸ Janson, pp. 200, 211, 231, 238.

²⁹ Note also the references to St. John's Night, Holy Thursday, Nebuchadnezzar, and Holofernes; Hibbard, Mediaeval Romance, pp. 62–63. Note also that the second brother is the Pope, not a second King.

³⁰ F. J. Child, The English and Scottish Popular Ballads (Boston and New York, 1882–98), No. 45, i, 405–410, ii, 506; see Stith Thompson, The Folktale (New York, 1946), pp. 159, 161; Thompson, Motif-Index, H 561.2 (King and Abbot).

³¹ Walter Anderson, Kaiser und Abt, FFC xlii (Helsinki, 1923), [O], pp. 207, 211, 281. Midrash Rabbah (London, Soncino Press, 1939), Genesis ii, § 68, 4. p. 618: “The Holy One . . . sits and makes ladders, raising one and castin down another, . . . For God is judge; He putteth down one and lifteth up another.” For date, see i, xxvii. See J. Winter and A. Wünsche, Geschichte der Jüdisch-Hellenistischen und Talmudischen Litteratur (Trier, 1894), i, 427, Midrasch Jelammedenu, Jalkert ii, fol. 14^a. See Thompson, Folktale, p. 444, and pp. 161, 432, 441. Thompson, Motif-Index, H 797.1, H 810 (Riddle based on Bible or legend) should include cross-reference to H 797.1 and to H 561.2. Perhaps at this moment in the fourteenth century the legend, needing a local habitation and a name, attracted to itself the name of a historical personality, just as historical persons seem not averse to becoming legends. Sicilian-Mediterranean politics, dominant in the power struggle, involved the Angevins, Aragonese, English, Emperor, and Papacy, F. Giunta, Dal Regno al Viceregno in Sicilia, 1282–1416 (Palermo, 1953) [Vol. I], pp. 7, 21, 25, 37, 38; Aragonesi e Catalani nel Mediterraneo (Palermo, 1959) [Vol. II], pp. 155–159, 190; R. Caggese, Roberto d'Angio e i suoi tempi (Firenze, 2 vols., 1922–1930). Robert of Sicily (Robert of Anjou, Count of Provence, King of Naples) was one of the eminent figures of his generation (1275-1343) and the papal spokesman in southern Italy, i.e., Vicar-Imperial of the Papal States. He was a brother of the King of Hungary (who was a contender for the title of Emperor) and was also affiliated, by marriage, with the Spanish royal house, was distinguished for his grace, charm, courtesy, and wisdom, was famous for his learning, including a knowledge of Hebraic literature, and for his patronage of the learned during a period when Italy was the fulcrum of a remarkable renaissance of scholarship and literature. Even more interesting is Robert's patronage of two notable Jewish scholars of his day, both of whom compare him to Solomon: Kalonymos ben Kalonymos (1287-1337), learned in Hebrew,

Arabic, and Latin, a satirist and translator, sought in an emphasis on ethics to turn men from their “perversities, follies, and sins”; he also composed a witty treatise for the Jewish Purim (the very holiday-rite with which Professors Steinschneider and Krappe have associated the origin of the Solomon-Ashmodai substitution ritual). Sent to Rome by Robert so that he might continue his scholarly studies, he translated a work of Averroes for this patron, and in the Epilogue calls Robert “the second Solomon—‘qui licite et vere secundus Salomon dicitur’.” Another scholar, Shemarya Ikriti (the Cretan) (1290-1340) of Negroponte, wrote a commentary on the Bible at the instance of King Robert and forwarded it to him with a dedication: “To our noble King Robert, adorned like King Solomon with the crown of wisdom and the diadem of royalty, I send this exposition of the cosmogony and the Song of Songs.” (The manuscript is still extant in the Bibliothèque Nationale, MS. orientaux #897.) M. Steinscheider, “Robert von Anjou und sein Verhältnis zu einigen gelehrten Juden,” Monatsschrift für Geschichte u. Wissenschaft des Judenthums, n.f., xii (1904), 713–717; H. Graetz, History of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1949), iv, 59. It is plausible that these scholars, in coupling Robert with Solomon, told of the former some of the legends connected with his Biblical “prototype.” Even Boccaccio called him “a Solomon.” We know that Robert (like the King in the English poem) did act as a mediator (to help prevent the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in 1321), and was the “umpire,” judge, who examined Petrarch (in Naples, February 1341) and declared him worthy of the laurel crown (E. H. Wiikins, “The Coronation of Petrarch,” Speculum, xvii, 1943, 156–158, 180, ‘Petrarch and King Robert‘). Robert's connection with Spanish royalty may explain the presence of the name “Robert” in the Spanish version (the only version other than the English which uses this name). If the riddle tale and Solomonic legend were transmitted through Sicily, as Anderson believed, then Robert's title of King of Sicily, and the accolades to him, may have been additional circumstances which sparked the use of his name in the tale.

To Robert, Petrarch dedicated Africa, and he lamented and praised the King (Argus) in the Second Eclogue (E. H. Wiikins, Life of Petrarch, Chicago, 1961, pp. 26, 57, 119, 248). Petrarch described Robert as “that distinguished king and philosopher, Robert—as illustrious in literature as in station, the only king of our time who was a friend of learning and of virtue alike.” Petrarch'sLetter to Posterity, trans. by Theodor E. Mommsen, introd. A. M. Armi, Petrarch Sonnets and Songs (New York, 1946), p. xxi. Contemporaneous knowledge of this reputation is confirmed by a letter, c. 1317, to the Chancellor of Oxford praising Robert as one who honors and rewards men of learning (letter from Stephen de Kettelbergh to John Lutteral), in Snappe's Formulary, ed. H. E. Salter, Oxford Historical Society [Publications], lxxx (1924), 304, tr. W. A. Pantin, The English Church in the Fourteenth Century (Cambridge, 1955, rptd. Notre Dame Paperback, 1963, p. 17). See Froissart, Chronicles, Bk. i, §§ 85–88, The Chronicles of Froissart (Berners trans.), ed. G. C. Macauley (London, 1930), p. 54.

³² See K. Nyrop, Literaturblatt für germanische und romanische Philologie, iv (1883), Nr. 4, p. 146.

³³ Anderson, FFC xlii, 293 f., 441.