[44.1] Georgeakis, 256.
[44.2] G. Ragusa-Moleti, in x. Archivio, 420.
[45.1] Baring-Gould, Curious Myths, 301. The whole essay on Saint George ought to be read as an important contribution to the subject; though the sun-myth, by which the author explains the legend, is now as thoroughly exploded as Dr. Heylin’s identification, which he combats, of the saint with the Arian bishop of Alexandria. Mr. Budge, however, says: “The Coptic text shows us clearly that the dragon which George fought and overcame was none other than the impious Dadianus, and it proves, if further proof is needed, that George the martyr and George, the opponent of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, were two distinct persons; the fact being that Athanasius the Bishop has been confused with Athanasius the sorcerer, whom George the martyr overcame.” Budge, Saint George, xxxi. Mr. Baring-Gould, moreover, is certainly wrong in saying: “Hospinian, relating the sufferings of the martyr, affirms distinctly that his constancy was the occasion of the creation of the legend by Voragine.” Any affirmation by Hospinian on the subject would, of course, be of very little value; but all he says is that the saint’s fortitude and unshaken constancy gave occasion to the story, as it is to be read in Jacob à Voragine and Peter de Natalibus. His own interpretation is that the tale is a form under which the ancients figured the redemption of the human race. Thus, George is Christ, the Dragon is the Devil, the citizens of Silea (sic) are an image of the whole human race, a prey to the Devil, from whom the only power that can deliver them is Christ, for which we owe Him everlasting thanks and worship, etc., etc. De Festis Christianorum, sub die 23rd April. Some countenance is given to the theory of misunderstanding by a Russian song which enumerates the conquests of a fiery dragon among the saint’s trials during his prolonged martyrdom. Ralston, Songs, 232. I do not know whether this occurs elsewhere.
[46.1] Maury, Légendes Pieuses, 144, 145.
[46.2] i. Grässe, 460 (Story No. 502). There is a similar statue and tradition, but wanting the maiden, at Helmstedt. Voges, 194 (Story No. 165). A monument in the church at Brent Pelham is thus described by Weever in his Funerall Monuments: “In the wall of this church lieth a most ancient monument: a stone whereon is figured a man, and about him an Eagle, a Lion, and a Bull, all having wings, and a fourth of the shape of an Angell, as if they should represent the four Evangelists: under the feet of the man is a crosse fleurie, and under the crosse a serpent. He is thought to have been some time the lord of an ancient decaied house, well moated, not farre from this place, called O Piers Shoonkes. He flourished Ann. à conquestu vicesimo primo.” In effect there seems to have been a family named Shonke resident at Pelham during the Middle Ages; and there is said to be a traditional tale current concerning the person buried beneath the stone, “which represents him as having so offended the devil by killing a serpent, that his Highness threatened to secure him, whether buried within or without the walls of a church; to avoid which he was deposited in the wall itself.” Gent. Mag. Lib., v. Topography, 223, quoting Weever, Brayley, and others.
[47.1] i. Rivista, 748. Lilies of the valley which spring from the blood of Saint Leonard, another dragon-slayer, still reveal the scenes of the saint’s combats with the dragon of Saint Leonard’s Forest in Sussex. Henderson, 300.
[49.1] Henderson, 285, citing a communication from “Col. Johnson, whose family have long been owners of a portion of the Pollard lands.” A similar legend accounts for the armorial bearings of the town of Bradford. ii. Parkinson, 165. Compare, too, the tenure of the manor of Sockburn, also in the bishopric of Durham. Henderson, 284.
[50.1] Kuno Meyer, in i. Arch. Rev., 303, translating the saga; MacInnes, 477. See also Rhys, Hibbert Lectures, 595.
[51.1] Campbell, i. Circ. Notes, 326.
[53.1] Brauns, 112. This should be compared with Campbell’s version, which is more directly from oral tradition, though probably affected by literary influences; and with Mr. Pfoundes’ version referred to further on ([p. 91], note).