the source of the last division preceding the Doxology. Yet, though from its peculiar position in the poem as such, as well as in the hymnic outline presented by the manuscript divisions, this portion of Christ I appears to be a later addition, the addition itself need not necessarily come from a later writer, because it is an addition and not, like the Passus, an insertion. If we regard the Passus as an interpolation by a later writer, and the last division as at least a later addition by Cynewulf himself, Christ I appears in a new beauty which reflects the beauty of the Divine Office itself with its Hymns and rhythmical Antiphons. But above all, the poem as a whole receives a better form of construction than scholars have been inclined to grant. The charge that Cynewulf neglects the architectonics of his poetry can then hardly be directed to the poem of Christ I in its larger construction. 2. THE SOURCES OF THE TWELVE DIVISIONS The divisions made in the poem of Christ I, as manifested in the manuscript, were seen to have retained their significance even after a more detailed division of the text, as demanded by a knowledge of the sources, was reached. The groups of smaller divisions thus formed lend symmetry and a certain unity of construction, which I have called the hymnic unity, to the poem of the Advent as a whole. Yet the relation of the smaller divisions as such to the larger outline of Christ I must still be ascertained. Wherefore it is necessary, in the following discussion, to disregard for the moment the possible influence of the manuscript divisions on the structural plan of Part I of the Christ, in order to avoid any confusion that may arise in connection with the successive order in which the individual paraphrases appear. The poet has been charged with having selected the sources and consequently the themes for his paraphrases with an absolute lack of the sense of coherence; he is said to have thrown them together at random. Thus, it will be said, even if Christ I presents the structural appearance of a Church hymn by the grouping together in the manuscript of the smaller divisions, the order in which these themselves stand in the poem is dependent upon nothing but chance.15 15 See the quotation from Smithson, page 13 above. The sources of the smaller divisions thus necessarily enter into our study of the unity of construction in Christ I, for they form the bases for the various sections of the poem, and it is upon their selection by the poet that the arrangement of material is dependent. Was their selection arbitrary? Or was the poet guided by an external influence in choosing the subjects for his successive paraphrases? The answer to these questions will determine whether or not Christ I presents a definite arrangement of material, and whence the poet derived the peculiar order in which this material appears in his poem. In order to ascertain Cynewulf's method of selecting his sources, a closer examination of these sources as forming the bases for the twelve divisions in Christ I must first be made, for these have not been satisfactorily determined in each particular. From the table given on page 16 above it will be seen that in a few instances the source for the respective division of the poem is either unknown or doubtful. This applies especially to the Passus and to Division X. In other divisions the accepted source might be more definitely established, or the unity of theme more clearly determined. Where the basis for the division admits of no doubt, and the poet follows closely his source, there is no need of further investigation, since the interpolated matter in Christ I does not come within the scope of our study, unless it bears a vital relation to the sources themselves. These divisions, however, will be indicated in their regular order, so that a complete account of the sources as they appear in the poem may be had. DIVISION I: Lines 1-17 16 is based on the Great Antiphon of Advent: O Rex Gentium et desideratus earum, lapisque angulatis qui facis utraque unum: veni, et salva hominem quem de limo formasti. DIVISION II: Lines 18-49 is based on the Great Antiphon of Advent: 16 The beginning of this division is lost, the manuscript of the Christ in the Exeter Book opening on folio 8a with the word Cyninge, "to the King." O Clavis David, et sceptrum domus Israel; qui aperis, et nemo claudit; claudis, et nemo aperit: veni, et educ vinctum de domo carceris, sedentem in tenebris et umbra mortis. The unity of this division might be questioned, since a great portion of it has no obvious relation to the Antiphon O Clavis. There are clearly two parts in this section of the poem: (a) lines 18-32; (b) lines 33-49. Of these only the first is based directly on the Clavis Antiphon (much of the text is scarcely legible in the manuscript), while the second part develops a thought apparently foreign to the thought conveyed by the Antiphon. Still, lines 33-49 are connected to the preceding portion by the conjunction forpon, which shows that what follows is narrated in consequence of the thought development carried out in lines 18-32, or at least in the lines immediately preceding. Smithson 17 makes the "mention of the saving power of the Lord" in the first part responsible for the thoughts developed in the second part, which is said to portray the manner of the saving. Yet, if we follow the reading proposed by Professor Bright in line 30,18 the thought-connection between the two parts becomes clearer and appears less strained. He interprets the words * * * þe hẽ tō wuldre forlēt (line 30o) as meaning "whom he hath (denied) shut out from glory." The particular glory implied here seems to be that of Paradise.19 Such an interpretation would agree with the lines immediately following, pā wē heanlice hweorfan sceoldan to pis enge lond, eole bescyrede. (lines 31, 32) The full import of the claudis, et nemo aperit is thus set forth in connection with the banishment of the human race from the Garden of Eden, which entailed the loss of the heavenly heritage and turned man as an exile into this narrow land of sufferings and trials. But upon this sentence of exile followed at once the 17 The Old English Christian Epic, 334 f. 18 See Cook, 78. 19 In the Germanic languages the word wuldor refers to the glory of "heaven." It is possible that Cynewulf, for the lack of a suitable word for "paradise," employed it here in this sense. If, however, this interpretation of the word wuldor cannot be accepted, the "shutting out from the glory of heaven" could be regarded as being typefied by the expulsion from the Garden of Eden. carried out that woman who was to crush the serpent's he and through whom the promised Redeemer was to come. Cons quently, the remaining portion of this division describes Man the mother of the Savior. Thus the two parts of Division II become one in the poetic completion of the theme suggested by the Antiphon, which glorifi the Key that closed eternal life to mankind after the transgressi in Paradise, and again opened it in the Incarnation and subs quent Redemption. DIVISION III: Lines 50-70 is based on the Great Antiphon : O Hierusalem, civitas Dei summi: leva in circuitu ocul tuos, et vide Dominum tuum, quia jam veniet solvere te vinculis. In his paraphrase of this Antiphon the poet intermingles re erences to the city of Jerusalem in Palestine and to the heaven Jerusalem. DIVISION IV: Lines 71-103 is based on the Great Antiphon : O Virgo virginum, quomodo fiet istud, quia nec prima similem visa es nec habere sequentem. Filiae Jerusalem, qu me admiramini? Divinum est mysterium hoc quod cernit 20 Gen. iii. 15. The interpretation of this verse as carrying a promise the Redeemer was universal in the ancient Church even as it is today. As suggested by the Antiphon, the passage forms a dialogue between the daughters of Jerusalem and the Virgin Mary.21 DIVISION V: Lines 104-129 is based on the Great Antiphon: O Oriens, splendor lucis æternae et sol justitiae: veni, et illumina sedentes in tenebris et umbra mortis. After the address and petition based on the Antiphon, there follows an expository portion, lines 119-129, not based on the text of the Antiphon, but connected with it in thought in the following manner: what we have asked for in the petition, we now believe to have been granted. DIVISION VI: Lines 130-163 is based on the Great Antiphon : O Emmanuel, Rex et Legifer noster, expectatio gentium et salvator earum : veni ad salvandum nos, Domine Deus noster. In the second half of this division, lines 148-163, the motive drawn from the Harrowing of Hell is introduced by placing the petition of the Antiphon into the mouths of the just souls in Limbo. The poet arrives at this motive when, in line 145, in adherence to the common interpretation of his time, he extends the thought of expectatio gentium to the grundas, that is, to those yearning for deliverance from the prison of the Limbo. For the possible influence of the hymn Veni, redemptor gentium in Christ I see page 12 above. 21 Cook remarks (p. 87) that line 90 "seems inappropriate to the context." Yet, upon closer examination this does not appear to be the case. Lines 78-85 paraphrase the quia nec primam similem, visa es, nec habere sequentem of the Antiphon. These words imply a comparison between the motherhood of Mary and that of the rest of womankind. Such a comparison is expressed in lines 85-87": * * * Swa eal manna bearn sorgum sawað (conceive), swa eft ripað (bear),— (lines 85-87) An example of the development of this thought can be found in the Fragmentum De Partu Virginis ascribed to St. Ildephonse; see Migne, P. L., 96, 230; cf. also Gen. iii. 16. In her answer, the Virgin Mary alludes to this comparison made by the daughters of Salem, asking not only Hwæt is peos wundrung Pe gē wāfiað, but also ond geomrende gehpum mænað, sunu Sōlimae somod his dohtor? (lines 90, 91) (line 89) The following lines then explain the mystery of the disparity in the motherhood of Mary and of those addressed. |