¹ See W. Meyer, Fragmenta Burana, Berlin, 1901, pp. 131–138; E. K. Chambers, The Mediæval Stage, vol. ii, Oxford, 1903, pp. 36–39. See also W. Creizenach, Geschichte des neueren Dramas, vol. i, Halle, 1911, p. 52; and the bibliography given by H. Omont in Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes, vol. lxxiv (1913), pp. 257–258.

² The validity of this designation of the play is explained below, p. 124.

³ Luke xxiv, 13–32. See Mark xvi, 12.

⁴ I refer especially to the accounts of Meyer and Chambers mentioned above.

⁵ Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, ms. 289 (C. 153), Troparium—Prosarium Siciliense (?) saec. xii, fol. 117r-118^v, published by the present writer in Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, vol. xxiv (1909), pp. 329–331.

⁶ Vich, Museum, ms. cxi, Troparium-Prosarium Ripollense saec. xii, fol. 60r-61v, published by the present writer in Publications of the Modern Language Association, vol. xxiv (1909), pp. 306–308.

^6a This version is found in Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, ms. C. 132, Graduale-Prosarium Siciliense(?) saec. xii, vol. 105v-108r. This manuscript was first brought to my attention by my friend Dom G. M. Beyssac, O. S. B., who placed at my disposal the complete photographic reproduction of it at Quarr Abbey. He subsequently collated my text of the Peregrinus with the photographs, and he has made invaluable suggestions in regard to the present article. It is clear, then, that whatever merit my paper may possess is due to Dom Beyssac, from whose generous instruction and collaboration I have been profiting for more than ten years. Had it been possible, in the present instance, to publish the music that accompanies the text of the Peregrinus in the manuscript under consideration, Dom Beyssac's name would have preceded, or supplanted, mine at the end of this article. I am glad to announce that, in an appropriate place, he will eventually publish the complete musical text.

⁷ I omit from consideration the two following fragmentary texts: (1) Vich, MS. cxi, fol. 60r-61v, mentioned above; and (2) Tours, Bibliothèque de la Ville, ms. 927, Miscellanea saec. xii-xiii, fol. 1r-8r, published by E. de Coussemaker, Drames Liturgiques du Moyen Age, Rennes, 1860, pp. 21–48, and by A. de Montaiglon, Le Drame paschal de la Résurrection, Tours, 1895. It is by no means certain that the text in Tours ms. 927 is to be considered as a Peregrinus.

⁸ Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, ms. latin 16309, Breviarium Santonense saec. xiv, fol. 604r-605r, edited anonymously in Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes, vol. xxxiv (1873), pp. 314–315.

⁹ The text does not indicate the presence of other disciples; that is to say, there is no indication that this scene represents the later appearance of Christ to the eleven disciples (See Luke xxiv, 36; Mark xvi, 14; John xx, 19).

¹⁰ Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, ms. 289 (C. 153), Troparium-Prosarium Siciliense (?) saec. xii, fol. 117r-118v, published by the present writer, as indicated above.

¹¹ The Rouen version is found in several manuscripts: (1) Rouen, Bibliothèque de la Ville, ms. 384 (Y. 110), Ordinarium Rothomagense saec. xiv, fol. 86r-86v, published by A. Gasté, Les Drames Liturgiques de la Cathédrale de Rouen, Evreux, 1893, pp. 65–68. Upon E. Du Méril's text (Origines Latines du Théâtre Moderne, Paris, 1897, pp. 117–120), purporting to come from this manuscript, Gasté (pp. 2–3) has cast substantial doubt. (2) Rouen, ibid., ms. 382 (Y. 108), Ordinarium Rothomagense saec. xv, fol. 73r-73v, published only in the form of incomplete variants to Gasté's text fom Rouen ms. 384 (Y. 110). In assuming that ms. 382 (Y. 108) is a copy of ms. 384 (Y. 110) Gasté (p. 2) may be right; in which case the copyist departed, at times, rather widely from his original. See Modern Philology, vol. vi, p. 224. (3) Rouen, ibid., ms. 222 (A. 551), Processionale Rothomagense saec. xiii, fol. 43r-45r, published by the present writer in Modern Philology, vol. vi, pp. 212–214. (4) Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, ms. latin 1213, Ordinarium Rothomagense saec. xv, pp. 90–91, published by the present writer in Modern Philology, vol. vi, pp. 222–223. The texts from these four manuscripts are substantially identical in content. Concerning the Rouen manuscripts mentioned above see a bibliographical note, by the present writer, in Modern Philology, vol. vi, pp. 224–227.

¹² Munich, Hofbibliothek, Fragmenta Burana saec. xiii, published in photograph and transcription by W. Meyer, Fragmenta Burana, Berlin, 1901, pp. 136–137, and Plates 12 and 13.

¹³ Luke xxiv, 36–39; John xx, 19–24.

¹⁴ John xx, 25–29.

¹⁵ See Meyer, p. 138.

¹⁶ Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Nouvelles Acquisitions, ms. latin 1064, Hymnarium Bellovacense saec. xii, fol. 8r-11v, published definitively, in photograph and transcription, by H. Omont in Bbiliothèque le l'Éoole des Chartes, vol. lxxiv (1913), pp. 257–266. The edition of Monsieur Omont completely supersedes that of G. Desjardins, Histoire de la Cathédrale de Beauvais, Beauvais, 1865, pp. 269–275.

¹⁷ The text gives no evidence of the presence of more than two disciples.

¹⁸ The actual presence in this scene of a considerable number of the disciples seems to be implied in the rubric dicant ei [i. e. Thomæ] duo pro aliis. See Omont, p. 266.

¹⁹ Orleans, Bibliothèque de la Ville, ms. 201 (olim 178), Miscellanea Floriacensia saec. xii, pp. 225–230, published by E. de Coussemaker, Drames Liturgiques du Moyen Age, Rennes, 1860, pp. 195–209. The earlier and less accurate editions of Monmerqué, Thomas Wright, and DuMéril are mentioned by Coussemaker, p. 327.

²⁰ The text does not explicitly mention the presence of more than two disciples.

²¹ Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, ms. C. 132, Graduale-Prosarium Siciliense (?) saec. xii, fol. 105v-108r. Certain aspects of the manuscript are described by L. Delisle, Un Livre de Chæur Normano-Sicilien conservé en Espagne, in Journal des Savants, 1908, pp. 42–49. Delisle holds that the manuscript represents an adaptation of the liturgy of Normandy to the use of Sicily, and that it was written between the years 1130 and 1139. Delisle does not mention the Peregrinus now before us, nor the Visitatio Sepulchri (fol. 102v). My indebtednes to Dom G. M. Beyssac, in connection with this manuscript, I have already acknowledged above. I may mention here also my indebtedness to the Librarian of the Biblioteca Nacional in Madrid, who courteously arranged for the collation of a short passage in the manuscript that is defectively reproduced in the photograph at Quarr Abbey.

²² ms. uesperas.

²³ In the ms. the words Corus incipit immediately precede the words Tertia dies … sunt below.

²⁴ ms. Qui.

²⁵ See the text from Madrid ms. 289, Publications of the Modern Language Association, vol. xxiv, p. 330.

²⁶ quod hec] ms. quod e hec.

^26a procedat] ms. precedat.

²⁷ The passage in brackets is suggested by the text in Madrid ms. 289. See Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc., xxiv, p. 331.

²⁸ ms. panem.

²⁹ ms. fragat.

³⁰ ms. seems to read eiusque.

³¹ ms. oculi.

³² ms. unum.

³³ ms. ille.

³⁴ paschali laudes] ms. paschalis laude.

³⁵ ms. dixit.

³⁶ I adopt a designation supported by the Vulgate (Luke xxiv, 18) and by a fair proportion of the manuscripts. The new version before us is introduced by the rubric Versus ad faciendum Peregrinum. The Fleury play opens with the rubric Ad faciendum similitudinem dominice apparitionis in specie peregrini, and in subsequent rubrics Christ is referred to as Peregrinus or Dominus. (See Coussemaker, pp. 195–209). The version from Beauvais is headed Ordo ad Peregrinum (see Omont, p. 263). The play from Benedictbeuern is introduced by the words Incipit exemplum apparicionis Domini … ubi illis apparuit in more peregrini (see Meyer, p. 136). The play in Madrid ms. 289 begins De Peregrino in die lune Pasche (see Publications of the Modern Language Association, vol. xxiv, p. 329). In the version from Saintes the disciples at Emmaus are called Peregrini and Christ is referred to as Dominus (see Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes, vol. xxxiv, pp. 314–315). In three of the Rouen manuscripts the play is designated Officium Peregrinorum (see Gasté, p. 65; Modern Philology, p. 223; Rouen ms. 382 (Y. 108), fol. 73r). In the fourth Rouen manuscript (ms. 222) the disciples are called Peregrini (see Modern Philology, vol. vi, p. 213). Clearly, then, Peregrinus, Peregrini, Officium Peregrini (see DuMéril, p. 118, note), and Officium Peregrinorum are all acceptable designations.

³⁷ Rubric: De peregrino qui uult in die Pasche faciat.

³⁸ All the positive evidence points to the liturgical association of the Peregrinus with Vespers. The Rouen and Beauvais plays were performed at Vespers on Easter-Monday (see Gasté, 68; Omont, p. 263), the Fleury play, at Vespers on the Tuesday after Easter (see Coussemaker, p. 195), and the play from Saintes, at Vespers on a day not indicated (see Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes, vol. xxxiv, pp. 314–315). The play in Madrid ms. 289 was presented on Easter-Monday, at an undetermined point in the cursus (see Publications of the Modern Language Association, vol. xxiv, pp. 329–331). The manuscript of the play from Benedictbeuern gives no evidence as to the day or the hour of the performance (see Meyer, Plates 12 and 13).

³⁹ Rubric: Si non die Pasce, fiat in Feria secunda ad Vesperas.

⁴⁰ Sung, presumably, by the choir. Concerning this hymn see Chevalier, Repertorium Hymnologicum, No. 9582, and for a complete text of it see Analecta Hymnica Medii Ævi, vol. ii, Leipzig, 1888, p. 49.

⁴¹ Sung, presumably, by the Discipuli. Cf. the version in Madrid ms. 289 (Publications of the Modern Language Association, vol. xxiv, p. 330).

⁴² The rubric is specific: et his duobus discipulis appareat.

⁴³ Rubric: Ex altera autem parte erit paratum sepulchrum.

⁴⁴ In any case, the rubrics mention no other disciples.

⁴⁵ Rubric: in medio choro.

⁴⁶ There is no indication that these ten disciples have been present in any of the earlier scenes.

⁴⁷ Luke xxiv, 13–32.

⁴⁸ See Meyer's comments (Fragmenta Burana, pp. 131–138) upon the versions from Fleury, Beauvais, and Rouen.

⁴⁹ For Scene two, Luke xxiv, 35–49; for Scene five, John xx, 26–29.

⁵⁰ See Meyer, pp. 135–136, 138.

⁵¹ An adequate exposition of the Visitatio Sepulchri is given by Chambers, vol. ii, pp. 11–36, and an ample collection of texts is given by C. Lange, Die lateinischen Osterfeiern, Munich, 1887. For additional texts see the references in Chambers, vol. ii, p. 26, note 2, and in Publications of the Modern Language Association, vol. xxix (1914), p. 3, note 8.

⁵² John xx, 12–17.

⁵³ See, for example, Lange, Nos. 206–223, pp. 136–165. Cf. Meyer, p. 81.

⁵⁴ Concerning the Victimæ paschali see Chevalier, Repertorium Hymnologicum, No. 21505. The definitive text of the sequence, together with important annotations, is found in Analecta Hymnica Medii Ævi, vol. 54, Leipzig, 1915, pp. 12–14.

⁵⁵ See Lange, pp. 59 ff., and Chambers, vol. ii, pp. 29–30.

⁵⁶ See, for example, Lange, Nos. 207–209, 211–215, 222, pp. 136–154, 157–160.

⁵⁷ Possibly the concluding versus,

is to be regarded as metrical. In any case this composition is the product not of the dramatist, but of the remote authors of the Gregorian Liber Responsalis. See Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. lxxviii, col. 776.

⁵⁸ One may mention here also the play, of uncertain provenience, from Madrid ms. 289. See above, p. 116.