VIII Lines 214-274: Based on O Rex Pacifice IX Lines 275-347: Based on O mundi Domina X Lines 348-377: Based on O Radix Jesse (perhaps?) XI Lines 378-415: Based on two Trinity Antiphons XII Lines 416-439: Based on O admirabile commercium The knowledge of these sources necessarily gave a new aspect to the divisions in Christ I, for now it was evident that the twelve sections of the poem constituted so many separate portions treating a separate and definite theme. There was, moreover, a reason for making the divisions which, save one, Grein and Wülker had already recognized. After a full knowledge of the proper divisions in the text of Christ I had been thus obtained, scholars apparently no longer paid any attention to the divisions marked in the manuscript itself. In this they were, I believe, quite unfortunate, for a comparison of the sections indicated in the Exeter Book with the divisions demanded by the sources will reveal to us a new beauty of the Christ, which at the same time points to a definite plan in the construction of the poem. The one-line spaces in the manuscript form the following groups of smaller divisions or paraphrases: It will be observed that the division marks in the manuscript do not interfere with the smaller divisions demanded by the sources, but, on the contrary, they give them a new and beautiful meaning. For, in the grouping of the O-paraphrases thus 'No account is here taken of the slight division mark, consisting of about a third-line space, at line 275. obtained, we behold a symmetry of construction which strangely contradicts the theory of scholars that Cynewulf neglects the "architectonics," the "perspective" of his poem. If it can be safely assumed that the West-Saxon transcriber of the Christ followed the textual divisions originally contained in the poem, Cynewulf can be credited with a well-defined plan or outline in the composition of Christ I. For by discounting the Passus, which holds a unique position in the poem and is not based on a Greater Antiphon of Advent like the other divisions, and by dropping the last section based on the O admirabile commercium which is clearly a later appendage, the symmetry in Christ I is seen to be a perfect one. Each of the three groups contains but three O-paraphrases, followed at the end by an elaborate Doxology. It will also be observed that, of the three O's in each group, two are invariably addressed to Christ, while the third is directed either to the Blessed Virgin Mary, as in the case of groups II and III, or to the city of Jerusalem, as in the case of group I. The appearance which Christ I thus presents suggests the structure of a Church hymn, especially since the poet has added to the O-stanzas a separate paraphrase in praise of the Holy Trinity not unlike the customary Doxology which terminates all hymns of the Church. Wherefore, though it would appear rash to attribute to the poem as such a strictly hymnic form in the details of its structure, the larger outline of Christ I, as seen here, seems to betray an intention on Cynewulf's part of following at least the broader structural plan of the usual Church hymn in the organization of the smaller members of his poetical composition. The theory which would credit the poet with a hymnic plan of this kind when arranging the paraphrases within the poem, receives additional color from the very nature of the paraphrases themselves. For it is well known that the earliest impression which Part I had left upon the students of the Christ was that of its general hymnic character. Thus Wanley called Christ I, Poema sive Hymnus de Nativitate D. N. I. C. et de B. V. Maria. and designated the smaller divisions which he recognized as Poema sive Hymnus. In like manner was the poem labeled by Conybeare and Ettmüller. In his brief characterization of Part Cf. Cook, 67 f. I of the Christ Alois Brandl says: Christ I besteht aus Hymnen, Gebeten, und einem Dialog. Stopford Brooke 10 speaks of all the hymnic poems in this section, and adds: Though I have used the word "epic" in regard to this poem, it is not an epic in any true sense of the word. It is more a series of hymns, at least at the beginning, closed by choric outbursts of praise. These and similar accounts of the general character and content of Christ I have found their way into almost all handbooks of English Literature, and in the light of modern investigations dealing with the Christ of Cynewulf, the impression thus created cannot be entirely suppressed. It is true, in its original and restricted meaning of laus Dei cum cantu, the term "hymn" may not find a ready application to the poem of Christ I, for it is doubtful if the element of actual singing had ever entered the aim and purpose of its composition.11 Yet, the later expansion of the term conforms more closely to the actual character and content of the poem. In characterizing the sacred Hymns of the Church, Clemens Blume 12 writes: 9 10 11 We have long understood by "hymnus" a song whose sequence of words is ruled by metre and rhythm, with or without rhyme, or, at least, by a symmetrical arrangement of the stanzas. * * * Hymn in the broader meaning of the word is a "spiritual song" or a "lyrical religious poem," consequently, hymnody is "religious lyric" in distinction from epic and didactic poetry and in contradistinction to profane lyric poetry. Englische Literatur, in Paul's Grundriss, II', 1035. History of Early English Literature, 390. Wülker, in his Dramatische Bestrebungen der Angelsachsen (Grundriss, 385), remarks that one might easily assume that these hymns, constituting Part I, were sung in church on certain festival occasions. The Passus or dialogue between Mary and Joseph, in particular, has been looked upon as being of a dramatic character with possible representation on the stage. This led scholars to view Division VII of our poem as the beginning of the English mystery play or drama. Yet, in our discussion below it will be noted to what extent just this Passus mars the hymnic outline which the poet may have had in mind in grouping the smaller divisions of the poem. For the opinions held by Conybeare, Wülker, Ebert, Gollancz, and Brooke concerning the dramatic character of the Passus see Cook, 96 f. Brooke (History of Early English Literature, 393) is even now disinclined to "give up the idea that these hymns were sung in parts in the church." It can hardly be denied that Christ I as a whole partakes of these characteristics of sacred hymnody. It will be readily granted that it is a “lyrical religious poem," that it is neither epic nor, to any great extent, didactic poetry. Furthermore, as seen in the present discussion, the manuscript divisions mark off the smaller portions of the poem into what appears "a symmetrical arrangement of the stanzas," each "stanza" in this case consisting of three O-paraphrases. In its broader application, therefore, the term hymn aptly characterizes the poem of Christ I. The general hymnic character of the poem as a whole and of the individual paraphrases in it (for they are songs of praise, though not necessarily "cum cantu") lends support to the theory that Cynewulf had the structural plan of a Church hymn in mind when grouping the smaller divisions in Christ I. It may be possible that, even in his own day, Cynewulf found a precedent for such a poetical hymn in the "rhythmical offices" of the Church. In this connection it might be observed that the Antiphonary of Hartker, the earliest known codex containing all the O-Antiphons employed by Cynewulf, has such rhythmical offices. These are offices in which not only the hymns but all that is sung, with the exception of the psalms and lessons, are composed in measured language. An office of this kind in the Antiphonary of Hartker is that for the feast De VI milibus Virginum,13 in which all Antiphons and Responses are in metre and often in rime. Perhaps Cynewulf had in mind these metrical Antiphons of the "rhythmical offices" when he himself paraphrased in poetry the Greater Antiphons of Advent. Examples of Church hymns, in the stricter sense of the term, which are built upon the three-line stanza, are not wanting. Such, for instance, is the hymn Pange lingua gloriosi praelium certaminis of Venantius Fortunatus, or the seventh century hymn Factor orbis angelorum.14 Whatever the intentions of the poet may have been, Christ I, in its symmetrical grouping of the smaller divisions according to the manuscript evidence, does give the appearance of a hymnic composition. The structure of the poem, in this larger arrange 13 It is Antiphonaire du Hartker, in Paléographie Musicale, ser. II. i. 209-215. The editor, Dom Mocquereau, assigns it to the late tenth century. the St. Gall MS. 390-391, and is there reproduced in facsimile. 14 Mone, Lateinische Hymnen des Mittelalters, i. 131, 438. ment of the paraphrases, gains thereby a closer unity which might appropriately be termed the "hymnic unity" of Christ I. If the larger construction of Christ I is taken as presenting the appearance of a Church hymn, or, in other words, if the "hymnic unity" of the poem is accepted, a new light is thrown upon the Passus and upon the closing section of the poem. For, in this hymnic structure, neither the one nor the other can find a natural place. As regards the Passus in particular, it will be seen to differ from the other divisions in the poem in the nature of its material as well as in the treatment thereof. The material is not taken from the Greater Antiphons of Advent, and the construction of the whole division is unlike that of the other paraphrases. It is true, a different treatment is required by the very material which the Passus offers, yet this very fact of such an unaccustomed theme in the midst of the O-paraphrases would seem to confirm the theory that the whole division constituting the dialogue is by a later hand. Professor J. J. Conybeare, who was the first to note the dramatic character of the Passus, remarked in his Anglo-Saxon lectures at Oxford : 14a It will be readily agreed that this subject, from its sacred and mysterious nature, is ill adapted to the purposes of poetry. The general absence of taste and refinement which characterized the age in which the poem was originally written, may fairly be pleaded in defense of its author. * * * If the subject matter of the Passus is really ill adapted to the purposes of poetry, the theory that Cynewulf did not include it in the original draft of his poetical expansions of the Advent O's is again confirmed. As it stands in the poem transmitted to us in the West-Saxon eleventh century manuscript, the Passus certainly mars the symmetrical proportions otherwise maintained in the grouping of the smaller divisions of Christ I. The last portion of the poem, lines 416-439, can be accepted as a later addition to the original plan of the poet even more easily than the Passus. It comes after the Doxology which should naturally form the conclusion of Christ I. It will furthermore be seen in the next chapter of this study that the source of this concluding division, the Antiphon O admirible commercium, is removed in the Divine Office of the Church by one week from 14a Illustrations of Anglo-Saxon Poetry (1826), 201.-edited by his brother, W. D. Conybeare, and quoted in Cook, 96. |