In the number of diseases, I rank the death of Judas, the wicked betrayer of Christ; of which I shall treat the more willingly, because very learned interpreters of the holy scriptures have run into different opinions concerning it. And about fifty years ago, two famous professors of history in the university of Leyden, Jacobus Gronovius and Jacobus Perizonius, handled this controversy in print with too much passion. For polite literature does not always polish its admirers.

The origin of the dispute was this. Perizonius had published Ælian’s variÆ historiÆ, with his own notes and those of others; where taking occasion from what Ælian says of Poliager,[141] he diligently examines the signification of the verb ?p???es?a?, which saint Matthew[142] employs in relating the death of Judas; and insists that that word does not only mean strangling with a halter, but also sometimes excessive grief, by which a person is brought to the brink of death, and frequently even destroys himself. This criticism was taken amiss by Gronovius, who had already published a book de morte JudÆ, wherein he had said that the wretch had voluntarily put an end to his life by a halter; wherefore he drew his pen, in order to refute his adversary’s reasonings, and corroborate his own. Moreover he quarrels with Perizonius about the phrase p????? ?e??e???, which he positively affirms ought to be understood not of a dying man, but solely of one actually dead, or of a dead body cast or tumbled down. For St. Matthew simply says ?p???at?,[143] but St. Luke more fully, p????? ?e??e??? ?????se ?s??, ?a? ??e???? p??ta t? sp?????a ??t?,[144] that is, falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. Wherefore, if the verb ?p???es?a? can bear no other signification than that strangling, which is performed by a halter, it is plain that the two evangelists do not agree together; unless we say with the learned Casaubon, that Judas hanged himself, but the rope broke, and he tumbled headlong down. But this does not explain the manner of his death; which saint Luke manifestly seems to have intended; but barely adds a circumstance of little moment, which happen’d after it, or at the very instant of it. Upon the whole it is certain, that by this word is not only meant suffocation by hanging, but also excessive grief, with which those who are violently overpowered, frequently compass their own death. For, as Ovid says: strangulat inclusus dolor. And indeed Perizonius has clearly proved this point by a number of examples, drawn from ancient authors.[145] Nor is it less to be doubted, but that the expression p????? ?e??e???, may be used for one, who voluntarily throws himself headlong down, as well as for one, who falls headlong by some accident: which he has amply demonstrated.

This controversy cost more than one dissertation. But after seriously considering the strength of the arguments produced by both parties; I am of opinion, that the words of saint Matthew may be reconciled with the account given by saint Luke from saint Peter’s speech, in this manner. When that most unhappy traitor saw that Christ was condemned to death, he began to repent of his deed; and being thereupon wreck’d with grief and despair, or seized with the swimming in the head (which often happens in such cases) he fell headlong down some precipice; or, which is more probable, he designedly threw himself down, and his body chancing to pitch on some large stone or stump of a tree, his bowels burst forth, and he was killed. Wherefore Matthew declared his tortures of mind, which made him destroy himself; but Luke has clearly and properly determined the manner of his death. Thus this kind of death ought, with good reason, to find a place in the list of diseases, upon account of the real disorder of the mind.

[141] Lib. v. Cap. 8.